Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-03 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: August 3, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-00147]: Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Junior Museum and Zoo Building and Construction of a New 15,033 Square Foot, One-Story Museum and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo with Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots including Fire Access, Accessible Parking Stalls, Multi-Modal Circulation, Storm Drainage Infrastructure, and Site Lighting. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2747 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00122]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow a Master Sign Program. The Master Sign Program is for a Previously Approved 33,323 Square Foot Office Building Currently Under Construction. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Draft Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board Meeting Minutes for July 13, 2017 Joint meeting and July 13, 2017 Architectural Review Board Meeting. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Alex Lew Vice Chair Kyu Kim Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember Wynne Furth Boardmember Robert Gooyer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8155) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/3/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1451 Middlefield: Junior Museum and Zoo (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-00147]: Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Junior Museum and Zoo Building and Construction of a New 15,033 Square Foot, One-Story Museum and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo with Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots including Fire Access, Accessible Parking Stalls, Multi-Modal Circulation, Storm Drainage Infrastructure, and Site Lighting. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) project and continue the public hearing to a date certain, to allow publication and circulation of a Draft Initial Study (IS/MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for public comments prior to a second formal ARB meeting. Architectural Review (AR) findings and conditions will be presented in the following report, when the ARB may provide comments on the Draft IS/MND and make a recommendation on the project application based on AR findings. Report Summary 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 This is the first formal ARB review; the applicant revised the project design following ARB and HRB preliminary reviews of concept plans in early 2017. Staff is seeking the ARB’s comments on the JMZ project design. The project scope was developed in coordination with the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (RPLRP), which will also be reviewed in the Draft IS/MND at a ‘programmatic’ level. The RPLRP concept site plan is provided with the JMZ plan set but no formal application has been submitted for ARB review and recommendation of that project. Implementation of the RPLRP is anticipated to take place over a period of 25 years. Public comments on the Draft IS/MND prepared for the JMZ project and the RPLRP program will be considered during the JMZ project review process. The City Council will make the final decision on the JMZ project AR application, together with action on the IS/MND. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Sarah Vaccaro, Cody Anderson Wasney Representative: John Aiken, Community Services Sr. Program Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: 1451 Middlefield Road (JMZ) Neighborhood: Community Center Lot Dimensions & Area: JMZ/ Stern Center site has 800’ frontage on Middlefield Rd (JMZ key frontage), 245’ on Melville Av, 215’ on Harriett St, and 245’ of shared property line with Walter Hayes School; parcel:795,841 sf (18.3 acres) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Lucie Stern Community Center is a Category 1 Resource (includes CSD Administrative offices, Community Center, Children’s Theatre, Stern Theatre, Boy Scout facility, Children’s Library); JMZ is not on National or California historic register; city parcel includes Rinconada Park, Pool, Fire Station, Substation, and the Lou Henry Hoover House aka Girl Scout House (GSH) Existing Improvement(s): JMZ: 9,000 sf, 2-stories, built in 1941 Existing Land Use: Community Center Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North of parcel: Residential (R-1 zone) West of parcel: Residential (R-1) East of parcel: Public Elementary School (Walter Hays, PAUSD) adjacent, and Art Center and Rinconada Library across Newell Road South of parcel: Residential (R-1) 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Aerial View of Property: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institutions/Special Facilities Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, across from single family residences Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Special Setback 24 feet on Middlefield Road Utility Easement/Corridor Water, sewer and storm drain main lines Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Study session conducted on 11/21/16; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54681 PTC: None HRB: Study session conducted on January 26, 2017; Historic Resources Board (HRB) report noted a link to the January 19th ARB report that contained the JMZ-specific HRE (Attachment D); Verbatim minutes @ http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56819 June 22, 2017, HRB conducted a formal review; HRB report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58347 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-39/ 6/22/17 meeting minutes are attached to this report (Attachment F) ARB: Preliminary reviews conducted on January 19 and March 16, 2017 Verbatim Minutes are available, respectively, at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55690 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56819 PRC: Two Study Sessions in 2015; One session April 26, 2016; Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52063 The PRC supports reconfigured relationship with Park; Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52999 HRB Review Because the project site is part of an 18.3-acre parcel that contains an identified historic resource (Lucie Stern Center, Inventory Category 2) and an eligible historic resource (Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House), the HRB was tasked to review the project. HRB concerns of June 22, 2017 are briefly discussed in this report. In summary, the HRB found: (1) the project is in substantial compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards, (2) the project meets Architectural Review Finding 2b, in that the project preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively the site and historic character/resources, with the provision that the applicant work with an HRB subcommittee to find a solution to the roofing issue the HRB raised prior to ARB review, and (3) the HRB members are supportive of a listing the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House as a historic resource. Project Description The JMZ project includes: x Removal of the 1941 JMZ building and construction of a new JMZ building with gabled roofs of varying heights, and an outdoor zoo with netted enclosures, and x Significant improvements to the site: multi-modal circulation, access, storm drainage facilities, and parking lots designed to meet City standards to better serve users of the current and new facilities on the city’s 18.26-acre parcel (with the City’s bicycle master plan improvements as context). A location map is Attachment A. Project plans may be viewed as directed in Attachment G. The applicant’s updated project description (Attachment C) includes: x Description of the architect’s design approaches to site organization, promenade experience, building and zoo program, massing and materiality, landscape materials and planting, and surrounding site improvements; x Background as to the process and goals; x Description of a future phase 2 project: construction of a two-story classroom and exhibit building in the location of the proposed outdoor classroom, and addition of a tree fort to the zoo; and notes phase 2 is unfunded and only shown on plans for reference (it is not part of the project under evaluation at this time); and 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 x Criteria, developed during a 2012 Master Plan process, for (a) Visitor Experience, (b) Collections and (c) Operations goals. The revised plans for the JMZ project, submitted July 25, 2017, are viewable online at the project address; https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. 1. Project Type and Review Process The project application type is Architectural Review (AR). No other planning entitlement applications are required. The process for evaluating an AR application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB, as well as by the HRB in the case of development on designated historic sites. Typically, the HRB’s and ARB’s recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action which is appealable to the City Council. In this case, the PCE Director intends to forward the HRB and ARB recommendations to City Council. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. 2. Historic Resource Evaluations (HRE) and Site History The HRE prepared for the JMZ was included in staff reports for the January 2017 ARB and HRB study sessions. A second HRE, the draft Rinconada HRE (Attachment E), was presented to the HRB in June for consideration related to the JMZ project scope. As noted earlier, the long range park improvements are not part of the JMZ project scope. A. JMZ The zoo was established in 1934 (before the construction of the building) and belongs to a nation-wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The HRE determined that the 1941 JMZ building, remodeled and expanded in 1969, is ineligible for listing under any criteria as a historic resource on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources, due to significant alterations resulting in a loss of historic integrity. B. Lou Henry Hoover House The Rinconada HRE provides information regarding the National Register Eligible Girl Scout House (GSH) aka Lou Henry Hoover House, which is the closest historic building to the JMZ site on the City’s parcel; it is located approximately 45 feet to the north. The GSH was built in 1925 by local craftsman and laborers who donated their skills. Designed by Birge Clark, this structure is the oldest active scout meeting house. The building predates Clark’s Lucie Stern Community Center (comprised of the main theater, Boy Scout facility, children’s theater, and children’s library and listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 Historic Resource). The GSH, relocated from elsewhere on site in 1936 to the current site (to make way for the Children’s Theater), then modified by an addition in 1945, is eligible for listing on both the California and National Historic Registers. The Rinconada HRE also provides information about Lou Henry Hoover, including the below image of the GSH is from 1939. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The Rinconada HRE provides historical information about these existing landscaped areas: (1) picnic/landscaped area west of the JMZ parking lot (circa 1940s, designer unknown), (2) landscaped area southwest of JMZ parking lot (circa 1940s, designer unknown), (3) the open lawn area west of Lucie Stern Center (circa 1936 – 1940, Clark), and (4) paved area and garden west of GSH (circa 1936, designer unknown). 3. Parking Lot Reconfiguration/Features The existing parking lot at Lucie Stern/JMZ is similar to the original design (by an unknown designer) as shown on a 1941 Public Works drawing shown below (an image from the Rinconada HRE). The reconfiguration of the existing shared parking lots will improve fire access, provide accessible parking stalls and pathways, necessary drainage improvements, and site lighting. Key components are as follows: x Elimination of the vehicular driveway opposite Kellogg Avenue and creation of a bicycle and pedestrian path within a park-like setting with protection of existing oak trees, to provide multi-modal circulation through a forested ‘street side yard’ of the Stern center, 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 x Westward adjustment of the driveway entrance to the JMZ, as the only Middlefield Road entrance to the parking lot serving the complex of facilities (Lucie Stern/GSH/JMZ/Rinconada Park), x Creation of standard 90 degree parking spaces replacing the inefficient diagonal parking spaces in the existing lots. Some of the existing parking spaces are not striped; there would be no loss of striped parking spaces within the project site; 98 stalls would be provided in the reconfigured parking lot, plus loading spaces, whereas there are only 95 striped spaces currently; the number of accessible spaces would be increased by one space (from 7 to 8), x Provision of a landscaped buffer area between the GSH and parking spaces, and landscaped pathway at the rear of the Stern theater shop, x Creation of two-way vehicle circulation throughout the parking lot, with restrictive gates at one of two Hopkins Avenue driveways to allow only emergency egress, x Establishment of a new raised pedestrian and bicycle crosswalk connecting the new Kellogg Avenue access path to the Rinconada Park pathway, x Installation of new parking lot trees and stormwater drainage infrastructure (storm water treatment areas are proposed within both lots shown on plan sheet C2.1), x Provision of parking lot and pathway site lighting, and lower, pedestrian-level lighting, x Creation of concrete seat walls provided near the GSH (semi-circular) and along the JMZ entry and in the Jurassic Garden courtyard (straight-line benches), and x An increase in the number of bicycle parking spaces (25 short term bike parking spaces representing an increase of five spaces, located both at the JMZ entry and next to the outdoor classroom, and 10 long term parking spaces, located near Middlefield (there are no long-term bicycle spaces currently). 4. Proposed JMZ Building and Fences The main building is a modified ‘U’ shaped building designed to preserve existing, mature Pecan and Dawn Redwood trees. The new, one-story building would house the museum as well as zoo support functions. Museum components include exhibit rooms, multi-use room, entry/lobby, offices, collection hub and storage rooms, shop, conference rooms, classroom, restrooms, animal care and supply rooms, and zoo work room, and other building support areas (trash, plumbing, data, electrical, and bike storage; the last three rooms are joined, separated from the main building by a ‘tunnel’.) The zoo uses would include animal control/program and storage rooms. Plan sheets A4.0 through A4.7 provide building renderings, elevations, and sections. Sheet A5 shows colored images of the exterior materials and colors. A. Building Height, Site Coverage, Floor Area, and Heights An 18-foot ridge height is proposed near Middlefield Road. The height of the attached, vaulted one story building (the JMZ entrance) would be 27 feet. The height of the central supportive column for the netting over the zoo would be 36 feet. The existing buildings cover approximately 81,400 square feet (sf) of the 18.3 Acre site; of this coverage, 72,900 sf of coverage is from buildings other than the JMZ building, which covers 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 8,500 sf. The proposed JMZ buildings would cover an additional 6,533 sf, for a JMZ coverage of 15,033 sf (a total coverage of 87,933 sf on the site). The lot coverage after construction would be 11% of the site where 30% maximum lot coverage is allowed. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the 18.3 acre site would be 0.11:1 (given current Fire Station #3 building footprint of 3,469 sf), where a 1.0:1 FAR is allowed for PF zoned sites. The Fire Station #3 footprint will be reduced by 79 sf, to 3,390 sf. B. Fence Types/Heights: Two types of fences or wall enclosures are proposed: x Horizontal Wood Plank: With hidden posts and artistic pattern, this fence would be eight feet tall and located: o around the zoo management area that begins near the raccoon exhibit, o along the common property line with the Addison School, and o enclosing the service yard, facing Middlefield Road, eight feet in height. x Vertical Wood Plank: Though this fence type is listed, it is not indicated in the plan. x CMU Walls with integral color plaster skim coat: This wall type would be either eight feet or ten feet tall and located at the outdoor classroom area, facing the parking lot and Rinconada Park. 5. Outdoor Zoo Design The proposed outdoor zoo area includes an outdoor classroom, separated from the building by the ‘pecan tree plaza’. Several ‘bridges’ would lead pedestrians from Middlefield Road sidewalk to the tunnel, and connect to the other entry plazas (promenade entry plaza, pecan tree plaza, and park arrival plaza). The ‘Jurassic Garden Courtyard’ would be sheltered in the ‘U’ of the building. The netted enclosure area, “Loose in the Zoo”, would contain various zoo exhibits. The outdoor area east of zoo would provide an animal management area, and would also be covered with netting, at a lower level. 6. Site Lighting, Landscaping, and Trees A. Lighting Design The two “E” sheets of the project plan set show proposed site lighting, proposed as follows: x LED Parking lot lights manufactured by Bega (shown on plan sheet E1.00, with photometrics shown on plan sheet E1.0P), with the following specifications: o 14-foot tall, single-head pole lights (type B1, flush-base mounted, lower-wattage (14 Watts)) next to Middlefield Road (3), lining the JMZ sidewalk (3), and the raised walkway marking the ‘two’ parking lots (3); o 14-foot tall, double-head pole lights (type A1, flush-base mounted, lower- wattage (14 Watts)) near Lucie Stern (2), and GSH (3); o 17-foot tall, double-head pole lights (type A, mounted on 36-inch base, higher wattage (39Watts)) in the center aisles of the parking lot (7); o 11-foot tall, single-head pole lights (type B, mounted on 36-inch base, higher wattage (26 Watts)) alongside the edge of Stern ‘park side yard’ and back of Stern (6), and 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 x LED pedestrian-level lighting (by an as-yet unknown manufacturer) in the JMZ garden and sidewalk under benches and lattice, on the low fence, and up-lighting (of trees, signage, and the flagpole). B. Landscape Design Plan sheet A1.1, the proposed site plan, provides an overview of the landscape plan for the reconfigured parking lot and JMZ site. Plan sheet L1.1 shows a landscape plan around the proposed JMZ building perimeter and images of the proposed landscape character. Plan sheets L1.2 – L1.4 show landscape sections, and sheet L1.5 provides a planting plan. The applicant has worked with the City’s Landscape Architect to ensure the selected plant materials will meet the Architectural Review approval finding that requires regionally indigenous and drought tolerant plant materials. C. Tree Protection and Plantings A tree protection plan is provided as Plan sheet T-2. The applicant’s proposal is to retain most of the trees on the site. The below bulleted list provides specifics about tree retention and plantings: x The heritage Pecan and Dawn Redwood near the new JMZ building would be retained. x All trees in the Lucie Stern ‘side yard’ would be retained. x Only two street trees on Middlefield would be removed; one to make way for the new driveway and another to allow free passage and visibility of the JMZ tunnel gateway. x The Arborist Report indicates that 23 of the 49 assessed trees would be removed, and all protected trees (oaks) would be retained. The Tree Protection Plan (Attachment D) and Draft Arborist Report provide more detailed information regarding the condition of existing trees and proposed tree removals. The Arborist Report is being finalized and will be included as a source document with the Draft IS/MND. The planting plan indicates planting of 51 new 24” box sized trees, for a net increase of 28 trees on the JMZ and parking lot site. Bullets below provide specifics: o Many of the new trees would be located within the parking lot (most of the 27 Texas Redbuds and six of nine new Gingkos, meeting the shade requirements. o Three Gingkos and two Texas Redbuds would line the Middlefield Road elevation. o Three additional Redbuds would be placed on PAUSD property, and likely screen the southwesterly corner of the new building. o Two London Planes would be planted at the Hopkins parking lot entrance. o Two Coast Live Oaks would be planted in the ‘front yard’ of the GSH. o Seven Vine Maples would be planted along the parking lot edge of the JMZ walkway. o Two of four Persian Ironwoods are proposed as accent trees in the parking lot and the other two Ironwoods would be located elsewhere (to be clarified). The new trees list from the planting plan is excerpted below. 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Analysis1 1. Post HRB Review Changes A. Roof color At the June 22, 2017 HRB meeting, the HRB noted concern regarding the roof material color. At the writing of this report, staff was working toward having a three-member HRB subcommittee review of alternative roof colors prior to the August 3rd ARB meeting. The HRB had reviewed project plans showing the bird’s eye image of roof colors, and formed the subcommittee to see alternative colors before the ARB review. The applicant will present the alternative colors and renderings to the ARB; the colors have been forwarded to the HRB subcommittee. Staff anticipates hearing back from HRB subcommittee members about three options: x a dark bronze anodized color metal roof and walls of exhibit gallery mass; x a taupe/pewter color metal roof and walls of exhibit gallery mass; and x a taupe/pewter color metal roof and feature red metal walls/roof of exhibit gallery mass. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 B. Site Revisions The applicant also modified the plans after the June 22nd HRB review to address cost issues: x Reduced site concrete, removed seat walls/benches, and removed metal deck/bridges along the entrance promenade and Dawn Redwood courtyard and replaced with concrete pathways. x Changed material and design of fences around zoo (facing the park), service corridor (facing Walter Hays) and the fence at the corner of Middlefield and Walter Hays. New fencing materials are horizontal wood and CMU with plaster finish. Though chain-link fence with vertical wood privacy slats is listed as a fence type, the plans don’t indicate where such fencing would be used. x Reduced the amount of fencing around the Phase 1 outdoor classroom and removed low toddler fence around entrance promenade. C. Plan Revisions x Removed the building SF for stroller parking between the Exhibit Gallery and Zoo. x Removed the mechanical loft (above restrooms). Moved mechanical rooftop equipment to service yard, or on top of roof, or into reduced mechanical well open to above. D. Elevation/Facade Revisions x Changed skylight monitors to be flat curb mounted skylights. x Changed all extruded picture windows (window seats) to be regular in-plane windows. x Modified/simplified the rainbow tunnel materials. x Changed the exterior facade material along Walter Hays and Zoo elevations to be cement plaster. x Removed the awning/pop-out between the Exhibit Gallery and the Zoo. x Removed the louvers at the mechanical loft. 2. AR Findings 2 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 This project is subject to meeting the AR approval findings. AR finding 2b is likely of particular interest to the HRB. The project is not subject to Context Based Design Criteria, nor to any interim ordinances or moratoriums. The project was evaluated to ensure adequate infrastructure provisions such as meters and transformers, backflow prevention devices, and trash and recycling facilities, to meet other AR findings. The project plans indicate conformance with lot coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks and height development standards within the Public Facilities Zone District. The additional 6,033 sf of floor area proposed for the JMZ is not intended to increase the need for parking spaces on the site. Community Center use has an open-ended parking requirement – the Planning and Community Environment Director can determine how many spaces are required to meet the need. No Director’s Parking Adjustment is required associated with the increased building area, given the proposed parking lot reconfiguration and accompanying transportation and parking alternatives (Transportation Demand Management Plan). 3. Zoning Compliance2 and Consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. The proposed project complies with all applicable zoning codes. With 150,000 annual visits, JMZ provides a strong start for children; JMZ is integral to Rinconada Park and the park is integral to the JMZ. The Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) works closely with researchers and professionals to provide a rich environment that stimulates children’s natural curiosity and creativity. The proposed project is consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C-22 that encourages new community facilities to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. 4. New Building Design Character and Neighborhood Setting/Character The preliminary review staff reports described the context, proximity to the one-story Walter Hayes School and public facilities, and one- and two-story residential neighborhood. These reports noted the significance of the Birge Clark designed Lucie Stern Community Center, circa 1932- 1940, with its Spanish Colonial Revival style and status as a historic category 1 building, as well as the likely significance of the Lou Henry Hoover House. The report noted the historic buildings on the site as primarily one-story with some two story components. The HRB viewed a two-story project at that time, and the ARB then viewed a conceptual one-story project and provided input. The proposed gabled, one-story JMZ building appears to have greater compatibility with the existing older buildings on the site. On June 22, 2017, the HRB found that the project met Architectural Review Finding 2b, with a caveat that the roof color options would be reviewed by the HRB members, who had raised concerns about the roof color. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 5. Rinconada HRE The Rinconada HRE dated June 8, 2017, includes an analysis of the proposed JMZ project with respect to the Secretary of Interiors’ Standards for Rehabilitation. The HRE concludes, “the JMZ project does not cause a significant impact to historic resources at Rinconada Park”. Staff is in agreement with this finding. Additionally, staff supports the relocation of the bird bath (circa 1925) to the Boy Scout Building as appropriate, and the enhancement of the picnic area. The Rinconada HRE notes that the Girl Scout House (GSH) is eligible for California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 for its early role in Scouting and Criterion 2 for association with Lou Henry Hoover. Staff intends to work with members of the HRB and Girl Scouts organization to prepare a nomination form for the HRB to review and recommend that Council place the GSH on the City’s Historic Inventory. 6. Modifications to the Lucie Stern Center Site The existing parking lot design from 1941 (when the JMZ was built) was not part of Birge Clark’s Lucie Stern Center and the designer is unknown, according to the Rinconada HRE. The proposed project would not adversely impact the significant features at the Lucie Stern Center. The modifications will provide organized, efficient circulation for automobiles and safe, continuous circulation for bicycles and pedestrians. The proposed pavement removal to establish a forested “street side yard” of Lucie Stern Center would result in an appearance more closely resembling the original design of the Center. A. Stormwater Design The site plan indicates storm water system connections and treatment infrastructure. The lot reconfiguration is designed to meet storm-water discharge requirements of the provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). C.3 regulations apply to the project, since the project would replace 10,000 sf or more of impervious surface, and the parking lot would create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. Permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls to protect storm water quality are subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Landscape-based treatment controls (bio-swales, filter strips, and permeable pavement) are proposed to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Public Works requires applicants to contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the planning review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The applicant is working toward obtaining this certification. B. Parking Lot Shade and Tree Planting Requirement The revised project appears to meet the City’s requirement for 50% shading of parking lots and a requirement for one parking lot tree for every ten parking spaces in a row. The project architect has worked with the City’s landscape architect to balance the requirements for shade and tree numbers with pedestrian wayfinding and storm water drainage needs. 2 Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 C. Compliance Review and Logistics The parking lot design has been evaluated to ensure it meets standards for driveways, curbs and sidewalks. Building permit applications would involve further disclosures, including submittal of a logistics plan(s). Logistics plans include pedestrian and vehicle traffic controls, truck routes and deliveries, contractor parking, on site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, noise and dust control. Conditions of approval and other measures can be designed to minimize adverse, temporary impacts of construction on residential neighborhoods. 7. Multi-Modal Access, Parking and TDM The City’s Transportation staff reviewed and guided development of the revised plans with respect to addressing the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and Safe Routes to School. The traffic study and TDM plan are being reviewed by the City’s CEQA consultant, and included as source documents for the CEQA document. The Parks and Recreation Commission will review the TDM plan as well as the Initial Study following publication of those documents. Staff has confirmed the revised plan is likely to result in efficient and safe circulation and minimization of conflicts. The project would improve facilities for bicycle and pedestrian routes, including bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding and accessibility enhancements on and off-site. The revised project features a passenger drop off area at the new JMZ entry, and other improvements for safety related to the longer-term Rinconada Plan. Transportation Division staff had provided comments during the preliminary review phase of the project, regarding the need for coverage over bike parking, secured parking provisions, and the disadvantages of wall-mounted bike parking. The revised plans address these comments. The applicant has prepared a transportation demand management (TDM) plan, which is a source document for the CEQA document currently being prepared. The TDM plan is intended to not only reduce parking demand, but also to provide clear transportation options to residents and visitors. 8. Green Building Earlier this year, City Council adopted the new Green Building and Energy Reach so that compliance with the 2016 building code requirements will satisfy the City’s LEED Silver equivalent alternative for City buildings. Environmental Review The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is anticipated to be published August 4, 2017. The City’s consultant (Powers) is preparing the Initial Study. The Initial Study covers both the JMZ project and the Rinconada Park Long Range Master Plan. Technical reports that were prepared for this project cover several subjects. The Initial Study is supported by these documents: Air Quality Report, Arborist Assessment, Noise Assessment, Traffic Assessment, and Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE). The ARB members will be invited to comment on the IS/MND, particularly on the Aesthetics and Cultural Resources sections of the CEQA document. 2 Packet Pg. 21 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 14, 2017, which is at least 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 14, 2017, which is 10 days in advance of the ARB meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Public comments have been provided in public hearings of the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission. Public comments related to the IS/MND are due within 30 days of the anticipated August 3, 2017 publication. Next Steps The project will be scheduled for a future ARB hearing. Following ARB recommendation at that hearing, the Director will review the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board and forward the application to Council for action on the CEQA document and project application. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-xxxx Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX) x Attachment C: Revised Project Description (PDF) x Attachment D: Tree Assessment Plan - JMZ June 2017 (PDF) x Attachment F: Excerpt JMZ HRB June 22 2017 (DOCX) x Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) x Attachment E: June 8 Rinconada HRE Draft (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 22 003-46-006 003-45-014 120-08-037 124-02-010 003-58-033 120-08-012 120-08-011 20-08-009 120-08-036 124-01-011 003-45-013 120-08-031 120-08-030 120-08-029 120-08-027 120-08-015 120-08-014 120-08-013 120-08-010 120-08-038 120-08-039 120-08-040 120-08-042 124-02-011 120-08-025 120-08-019 120-08-018 120-08-017 120-08-023 003-58-051 0 003-58-032 003-45-010 003-45-009 003-45-056 003-45-057 003-45-046 120-08-028 003-45- Girl Scout House Children'sLibrary JuniorMuseumandZoo 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 00' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 89.1' 132.5' 19.0' 112.5' 119.0' 132.5'48.9' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' .0' 203.3' 20.7' 22.5' 1.8' 209.9' 1494.6' 370.8' 560.5' 241.2' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 150.0' 80.0' 15 58.0'100.0' 173.2' 108.0' 204.1' 108.0' 00' 139.2' 58.9' 139.2'22.5' 20.7' 55.9' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 95.4' 132.5' 25.3' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 90.3' 132.5' 20.2' 112.5' 461.9' 510.8' 241.2' 560.5' 370.8' 75.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 60.7' 125.0' 60.8' 125.0' 78.7' 93.0'109.7' 31.9' 82.6' 123.4' 87.4' 26.5' 60.7'32.0' 78.7' 68.2' 78.4' 3.5' 148.4' 30.6' 26.5' 87.4' 130.7' 68.4' 151.9' 71.7' 80 110.9' 51.1' 16.2' 112.0' 112.0' 82.9' 70.0' 90.0' 125.0' 90.0' 125.0' 125.0' 60.4' 125.0' 60.0' 130.7' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 67.4' 23.1'102.6' 41.5' 170.0'18.4' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 67.4' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 149.0' 50.0' 149.1' 50.0' 149.1'3.5' 6.5' 46.5' 155.7' 50.0' 155.7' 50.0' 155.8' 50.0' 108.9' 53.5' 109.0' 53.5' 108.8' 46.5' 108.9' 46.5' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 51.5' 150.0' 51.5' 156.5' 53.5' 156.5' 53.5' 10 50.0' 1010 50.0' 11 56.5' 1 52.5' 135.0' 52.5' 135.0' 70.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5'40.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5' 50.0' 60.0' 50.0' 60.0'40.0' 50.0 147.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100 50.0' 100100 50.0' 100 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 75.0' 60.0' 75.0' 60.0' 200.1' 1 57.3'42.2'50.0' E MB A RC AD E R O ROA D HOPKINSAVENUEHOPKINSAVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD E M B AR C A DE RO R O A D ONSTREET CEDARSTREET WILSONSTREET COMMUNITYLANE COMMUNITYLANE HARRIETSTREET This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) Curb Edge Tree (TR) abc Known Structures abc Lot Dimensions Water Feature Railroad City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary 0' 165' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto afrench, 2016-07-26 00:10:42Parcel Report (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) APPROVAL NO. 2017-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO [FILE NO.17PLN-00147] On _______, 2017, the City Council approved the Architectural Review application for the replacement Junior Museum and Zoo, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On April 27, 2017, the architect representing the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo submitted an Architectural Review application for the replacement Junior Museum and Zoo at 1451 Middlefield Road (zoned PF) and associated site improvements; B. On June 22, 2017, the Historic Resources Board reviewed the formal application and recommended approval of the project as compliant with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Architectural Review Finding 2B, with subcommittee review on July 27, 2017 of roof solution; C. On July 25, 2017, the architect submitted revised plans for review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the ARB provided comments regarding the plans on August 3, 2017. D. Following staff review and preparation of a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, on September ___, 2017, the ARB reviewed and provided comments on the Draft IS/MND application and recommended _______ of the project on September __, 2017. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for public comment. SECTION 3. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS (PLACEHOLDER, GENERIC) 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, 2.b Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) c. is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be appropriately maintained. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval. 1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 2. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. APPROVAL CONDITIONS TO BE INSERTED PRIOR TO SECOND ARB HEARING OF PROJECT. SECTION 5. Term of Approval. PASSED: AYES: 2.b Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney 2.b Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) )  PROJECT DESCRIPTION  455 Lambert Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ARCHITECTS www.cawarchitects.com 650 328 1818  DATE July 24, 2017 PROJECT NAME Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo SUBJECT Formal Planning and ARB Review Submittal: Project Description Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Background As the Bay Area’s only children’s science center and zoo, the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) is a place where children and families explore, wonder and make discoveries about the natural world. Our mission is to engage a child’s curiosity for science and nature. For visiting children, especially toddlers and preschoolers, we provide multi-sensorial, kinesthetic and play-based exhibits, authentic artifacts, hands-on programs, and live animal encounters designed to connect children to early science concepts. Our exhibit messaging is designed to cultivate empathy for the natural world and introduce conservation issues and solutions. For school-aged children, the museum offers annually 1,100 in-depth and hands-on science classes to 4,000 students in local elementary schools, at the museum, and in local open space preserves where students gain concrete experience and practice with scientific methods and theory, and conservation practice. The JMZ is a unique and highly valued resource for children. Child development research shows that the physical experiences offered here foster the development of abstract reasoning skills and improve learning. Research also shows that engagement with zoo animals helps children cultivate empathy for the natural world and to support conservation of wildlife and wild places. The JMZ’s intimate and approachable scale and consistent staffing has helped us forge rich and long-term relationships with our community—relationships that have allowed us to broaden and deepen the impact of our work. As the Junior Museum and Zoo approaches its 80th year, the museum and zoo are constrained by a facility that no longer reflects the needs of its visitors, collections, and operations. Due to inadequate storage and support spaces, accreditation options for both the Museum and Zoo are unobtainable. While the Educators continue to deliver outstanding educational programs, they are severely limited by lack of office, preparation and storage spaces. In addition, there are many accessibility and safety concerns in the existing facility and the surrounding site. The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum engaged the architectural firm of Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects, Inc. to work with a broad array of stakeholders to complete a facilities master plan in 2011 and 2012 evaluating program and operational needs, inadequacies of the existing facility, and options for renovation or new construction. During the master plan process, the following criteria was developed: Visitor Experience •Tailor spaces for experiences to specific audience segments, including early childhood audiences and children with special needs. •Develop safe and effective ways to connect children with live animals. •Develop classrooms that improve student engagement and learning impact. •Improve access, safety, restrooms and way finding. •Create opportunities for outdoor “play in nature” experiences. •Improve access from the JMZ to Rinconada Park amenities: playground; Children’s Library; Children’s Theatre; Stern Community Center; Art Center; Walter Hays Elementary. Collections •Provide facilities for animal health and quarantine to meet the standards of the American Zoological Association (AZA). •Improve the care and storage areas for the non-living collections--held in public trust by the Museum—to meet the standards of the American Museum Association (AMA) standards. Operations •Improve storage, access, and work areas to ensure staff safety, efficiency and effectiveness of operations. •Implement green building practices. The overarching goal of the master plan is to “right size” the JMZ facilities to properly support the progressive and innovative educational and science based programs they provide to the community. Due to the limitations of the existing facilities and infrastructure, the facility master plan culminated in a recommendation to demolish the existing museum and zoo buildings and replace with a new facility sized to adequately support the educational mission, outreach, and public programs for Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. 2.c Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R e v i s e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 2 of 6  Project Description and Scope The proposed design for the Junior Museum & Zoo Project includes constructing a new museum and education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosure, and perimeter site improvements on the site of the current facilities. The project scope also includes the reconfiguration of the existing shared parking lot, fire access and coverage, accessible parking stalls and pathways, storm drainage and site lighting. The proposed project scope has been and will continue to be developed in coordination with the Rinconada Master Plan for the surrounding park improvements, parking lot reconfiguration and adjacent public facilities. The Junior Museum & Zoo is located on one contiguous city-owned parcel of land which includes the historic Lucie Stern Community Center, Children’s Library and Theater, Girls Scout Building, Rinconada Park, Rinconada Pool, Fire Station, Power Substation, shared-use parking lot and the JMZ. The existing JMZ building is located directly on the shared property line with Walter Hays Elementary School. The existing JMZ exterior zoo is located within the Rinconada Park boundary. The buildable area of the site is further constrained by the parking lot, multiple heritage and mature specimen trees and an existing utility corridor running underneath the existing exterior zoo. The challenge of this project is to design a museum, education center and zoo adequately sized to accommodate the program while working within the multiple layers of site goals and constraints. Goals and constraints include minimizing the impact and improving the interface with Rinconada Park, reconfiguring the parking lot to clarify circulation and increase safety, protecting heritage and mature feature trees, improving visibility and way finding along Middlefield, and integrating a new public building within the adjacent residential neighborhood context. Design Approach: Site Organization Our design approach strives to clarify site circulation and connections within the 18-acre public site, establish a civic presence for the Junior Museum & Zoo by referencing the adjacent history Lucie Stern complex and Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout building, and create a pedestrian scaled approach from Middlefield Road. In referencing the formal procession and organization of the Lucie Stern complex around central courtyards, the main entrance to the JMZ is centered within a gracious entry courtyard fronting the main approach from the parking lot. Perpendicular to this formal approach is a promenade connecting Middlefield Road to the JMZ entry plaza to the Park Arrival Plaza. This promenade defines the more intimate courtyards encircling the existing feature Dawn Redwood and Pecan trees. The site design approach is to create a layered effect of the formal approach and promenade, clean and orthogonal plan, and variety of scaled courtyards and establish a civic presence for the JMZ facilities that reflects the importance of its programs and experiences to the Palo Alto community. Design Approach: Promenade Experience The JMZ mission is to engage a child’s curiosity for science and nature. This mission statement is the organizing design principle for the site, building and zoo design. The promenade connecting Middlefield Road to the JMZ entry plaza to the Park Arrival Plaza is a journey through interactive exhibits, installations, and landscapes with science and nature. These experiences are tied to the principles of physical, life, earth and space, and applied sciences and allow children to play, explore, self-direct, and use all their senses. Starting on Middlefield, a tunnel through the building allows children to play with rainbows and light created by skylight prisms. The tunnel opens as a larger portal on Middlefield signifying entrance for pedestrians and facets into a smaller child-scaled portal leading into the Jurassic Garden courtyard. There are multiple experiences in the Jurassic Garden courtyard for both the public and JMZ visitors. The public experience is bridging over a bio-swale highlighting earth science concepts of storm water treatment and ecological systems of native planting and animals. Children will have the opportunity to branch off from the bridge and hop along a boulder path through the bio-swale. The public experience is mirrored by the JMZ visitor experience (entered from the exhibit gallery and classrooms) of Jurassic themed plants, rocks, fossils and dinosaurs encircling the Jurassic-era Dawn Redwood tree. Children will also be able to climb down into the bio-swale from the JMZ visitor side. The entry plaza is the intersection of the main approach from the parking lot and the promenade and is themed around concepts of physical science. Children can stand at the center of the sundial, cast their shadow onto markings in the pavement, to learn about time, movement of the sun and shadows. The structure of the building extrudes out into the plaza creating an entry portico. This structure creates a framework for a public art installation, designed to showcase the natural features of the site such as wind patterns or physical science concepts of gravity. The portico also creates a flexible area for JMZ exhibits to spill out of the exhibit gallery into the public plaza. The Pecan Tree courtyard creates a sheltered play area for children to hop, jump, crawl, climb like animals over a stump maze and obstacle course. Animal footprints in the paving and resilient surfacing will lead children to kid-scaled view portals into the 2.c Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R e v i s e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 3 of 6  “loose-in-the zoo” beyond. During the first phase of this project, the walled outdoor classroom will open to both the Pecan Tree plaza and loose-in-the zoo allowing for public events and zoo themed programs. The Park Arrival Plaza is the intersections of four main pathways of the site calling for a radial configuration. At the center of this plaza will be the sun and the rest of the scaled solar system will radiate into Rinconada park extending the themes of science and nature into the park. The concepts of scale and mathematical patterns are integrated into the zoo wall along the park, paving along the promenade and fence along Middlefield Road and Walter Hays. The experience of science and nature in these exterior spaces directly links with the experiences of science, nature and animals as visitors move into the exhibit hall, classrooms and loose-in-the zoo. Design Approach: Building and Zoo Program The JMZ main entrance centered on the exterior entry plaza ushers visitors into an intimate lobby that opens into the higher volume space of the exhibits gallery. Three skylight monitors and a north-facing curtain wall allow natural daylight to fill the exhibits gallery. Clear circulation and lines of site will allow visitors to proceed into the exhibit gallery, out to the loose in the zoo or out to the Jurassic Garden courtyard. The higher volume of the exhibit gallery steps down to lower volume spaces for more intimate baby spaces, temporary exhibits, views into the back-of house spaces and connections to the multi-use room. The exhibit gallery, multi-use room, classroom, staff office area and collections storage spaces encircle and are connected by the Jurassic Garden courtyard. The multi-use classroom has direct access to the exhibit gallery and Jurassic Garden courtyard, creating a flexible space for classes, evening events, birthday parties, board meetings and more. The JMZ educators will be able to leverage the exterior courtyard space to enrich and expand the indoor classroom experiences. The concept for the zoo is a completely netted enclosure where birds, small mammals and children can roam about freely - loose in the zoo! Within the larger netted enclosure, there will be enclosed exhibits for larger animals - bobcats, raccoons, tortoises, meerkats along with a flamingo and waterfowl pond and raised turtle pool with “crawl-thru” opportunities. The central feature of the loose in the zoo will be the large artificial tree, where children will be able to crawl around the root zone. In a future phase, children will be able to climb up to a tree-fort experience in the canopy (see more about phase two below). The loose in the zoo netted enclosure forms a spider-like web overhead. The loose-in-the zoo enclosure will have a wall around it’s perimeter to meet zoo accreditation requirements. This wall creates opportunities for educational and interactive exhibits, gathering spaces, and play areas for visitors in the park beyond the zoo enclosure as well. The exterior zoo support area located beyond loose in the zoo houses the zoo animals when they are not in loose in the zoo as well as space to store zoo maintenance materials. The area will have a wall around it’s perimeter and netting over the top. An exterior service corridor accessed from Middlefield will connect the exhibits workshop, program animal support spaces, trash enclosure and zoo service spaces. Design Approach: Massing and Materiality The architectural massing, organization and form create the setting, the stage, the framework for the child’s engagement with interactive science and nature exhibits while also referencing the historic and residential context of the site. The architectural materials, systems and details reflect the contemporary language of today while taking cues from the site and historical context. The building is a simple gabled roof form with tight eaves referencing the form of the historic Lucie Stern Complex and Lou Henry Hoover House as well as many residential neighbors. The building is organized into long bars that break, wrap and step to create tunnels, courtyards, shorter and taller volumes. These forms create the stage for the JMZ experience based on site specific and program needs. The architecture then circles back to further reinforce the concepts of science and nature through material, structure, systems and details. The taller mass house the exhibit gallery and expresses a simple structural system of rigid steel frames on the interior of space as well as the exterior entry plaza portico. Exposing the structure allows the building to be used as an educational example of physical and applied scientific concepts. The standing metal seam roof and exterior wall material wraps the building and creates a continuous exterior shell with no roof eave. The shell material peels back to reveal the building structure at the entry plaza portico. The portico steel frames are wrapped with warm wood slats forming a protective lath house porch. The wood material continues into the building, covering the interior walls and ceiling of the exhibit gallery. The alignment and continuation of exterior to interior materials is visible through the large curtain wall entry façade. The lower masses along Middlefield and property line with Walter Hays step down to respect the residential neighborhood scale. The exterior walls are clad in vertical cedar planks and the roof is the same standing metal seam material serving to further break down the scale of these masses. A taught eave line on the lower mass further references the tight eaves and transition from plaster walls to clay tile roofs on the Lucie Stern buildings. The building eave, skin and structure extends three feet beyond the exterior wall along a portion of the Middlefield facade to provide shade protection for the storefront windows facing south east. 2.c Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R e v i s e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 4 of 6  The accent color and material (as shown in red standing metal seam in renderings and elevations) used on awning serves as a wayfinding to highlight the main building entrance and rainbow tunnel portals. The sloped curbed skylights into the exhibit gallery and along the Middlefield façade are clad in the same accent color and material allowing natural daylight to fill the interior spaces and creating a visual feature on the exterior of the gabled roofs. The architectural details of the building and site invoke whimsy and child-like scale into the simple massing contemporary materials. Square punched windows of various sizes and sill heights create fun places for children and parents to look into or out of the exhibit and classroom spaces. The variation and rhythm of the standing metal seam ribs and vertical wood slats on the entry portico and fencing articulate mathematical and colorful patterns for children to discover. Sconces have uplights and downlights to illuminate the wood slats of the entry portico to create a playful pattern of light above the entrance. A concrete seat wall along the promenade is topped with wood planks referencing the exterior building material and creating warmer benches. Corten steel raised planters in the Jurassic Garden courtyard will naturally rust and weather similar to the weathering of clay tile roofs and brick walkways. In-ground up lighting will softly feature the JMZ sign, Dawn Redwood and Pecan Trees. The concrete pathways and resilient surfacing will have animal tracks and human footprint paths allowing children to discover and explore. The Jurassic Garden courtyard will be layered with fossils and dinosaur prints cast into various geological rock specimens. Design Approach: Landscape Materials and Planting Existing Tree Protection Plan: existing trees along Middlefield, in the adjacent parking lot, and in the JMZ landscape areas are to be protected during construction and pruned to improve health and form. High profile and sensitive trees such as the Dawn Redwood and the Pecan tree will receive pre-construction mitigation measures in addition to protection during construction. Bridge over Bio-swale along Middlefield Road: the bridge is made of colored and textured concrete paving and it crosses a planted storm water swale that includes sedge grasses and other appropriate water loving plants. The existing JMZ sign is to be relocated to a planted area adjacent to the bridge. Edge of Promenade Along New Parking Lot: adjacent to the parallel vehicle parking and drop-off zone there will be a 4’ wide access sidewalk behind curb. A planted berm with small trees and ground cover shrubs separates these areas from JMZ promenade. Jurassic Garden (Dawn Redwood) Courtyard: the bridge over bio-swale continues from Middlefield to the edge of this courtyard, continuing the public promenade. A low concrete bench seat wall defines one side of the bridge. A planted storm water swale similar to along Middlefield is accessible for children by means of large stepping stones that provide an adventurous path and protect sedge grasses and other sensitive hysdrophylic plants in the swale. A decorative barrier screen meanders through this area separating the public promenade from the JMZ visitor experience. The JMZ visitors have access by means of a sloped walkway down into a geology play area within the planted storm water swale. The feature Dawn Redwood tree is encircled by raised wood decking with a wood curb edge. The decking is supported on wood framing and concrete micropiles to limit impact on the Dawn Redwood Tree roots. The edges of the decking are defined by raised planters made of corten steel. The raised planters will allow for a lush and interesting collection of Jurassic era plants with minimal disturbance in the Dawn Redwood root zone. The surface grade at Dawn Redwood remains unchanged with only shallow rooted planting in this area. Foot traffic discouraged by elevated perimeter walkway and curbs. Additional geology exhibits and dinosaur sculpture are possible in this area. Entry Plaza: includes a stand-on sundial partially enclosed with a circular bench similar in design to other bench walls on site. Paving includes a variety of concrete colors and textures and dinosaur and animal footprint impressions. Bike parking is provided at the primary entry from the parking lot and is located outside metal fabric barrier fence and gate. Pecan Tree Courtyard: the public promenade is defined by a concrete walkway that slopes gently toward the Rinconada Park arrival plaza and Girl Scout Building. Walkway paving is embellished with color and texture and walkway is flanked by bench walls. This courtyard is an active play area that includes resilient surface play with “How far can a jack rabbit, a deer, a child, a ___ jump?” graphics. Engineered wood fiber is used on surface under existing Pecan tree. This area includes an adventure play area with stumps and large wood pieces and blocks salvaged from Cedar trees removed for construction. A “Fallen Tree” and “Stick Hut” are landscape features that allow views and visual connections into the loose-in-the zoo area beyond. Park Arrival Plaza: the paving for this area is embellished with color and texture. The plaza includes astronomy themed inserts, a large circular bench wall, and a new park entry sign. The plaza edges are defined by raised planters to manage grade change and storm water drainage. Additional bike parking will be provided as well. Future Phase 2: Program and Experience The JMZ Staff, City of Palo Alto and Friends are considering a future phase 2 addition to the JMZ to further enrich children’s experiences with animals, nature and science. In the location and footprint of the outdoor classroom, a future two story 2.c Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R e v i s e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 5 of 6  building is proposed with a classroom on the first floor and butterfly/insect exhibit on the second floor. The building will have one interior staircase and elevator, second floor walkways overlooking the zoo and Pecan tree canopy, and an exterior stair within loose in the zoo. Possibly the most exciting part of phase 2 is the addition of a tree-fort to the central artificial feature tree in loose in the zoo with play opportunities, small animal exhibits, and the experience of being in the trees! The massing and material of the future phase 2 building echoes the simple gabled roof form and height of the main exhibit gallery building. Portions of the west, south and east facades will be curtain wall to allow daylight to create a greenhouse experience in the Butterfly exhibit. Standing metal standing seam roofing and exterior cladding will wrap the core spaces on the northern side of the building. The accent color metal standing seam zoo wall will wrap the lower story of the building similar to the wall enclosing the outdoor classroom in phase 1. The design for phase 2 is currently conceptual as this scope is not funded at this time. The conceptual floor plan, renderings, elevations, zoo site plan, and zoo sections are included at the end of the drawing package for reference and to build excitement for the future build out of phase 2. Design Approach: Surrounding Site Improvements In addition to the proposed JMZ Building and Zoo, the proposed design includes reconfiguring the shared-use parking lot and improving the pathways connecting site facilities and the park to the surrounding neighborhoods. The JMZ design team, the Rinconada Park long range master plan team, and Palo Alto City Staff are working together to reconfigure the parking lot to create safe pedestrian and bicycle pathways through the site, clarify vehicular circulation, provide fire access and maintain the existing parking stall count. The reconfigured shared-use parking lot includes the following improvements: •Dedicated bike and pedestrian entrance at intersection of Kellogg and Middlefield (separated from vehicular entrance), raised pathway through the parking lot and direct connection to pathways in the park •Safe pedestrian pathway through parking lot leading to JMZ entry plaza defined by colored concrete •New, single vehicular entrance mid-block on Middlefield Road and new vehicular entrance onto Hopkins •Fire truck and bus access through the parking lot with dedicated driveway onto Hopkins (no standard vehicular use) •Two-way circulation through the parking lot with dedicated drop-off and loading zone near JMZ entrance and park arrival plaza •Efficient stormwater treatment system: pervious paving, shallow treatment area, and connection to storm drainage line in utility corridor •50% shading requirement met by existing and new trees •No net increase or decrease of parking stall count; Increase number of accessible parking stalls •Increase in bicycle parking (including racks at the entrance to JMZ and the park); Increase in long-term bicycle storage for staff We are requesting careful review and collaboration with the City’s Transportation department to ensure the intersection of Kellogg, Middlefield and improved vehicular entrance to the parking lot is safe and effective. The landscape area in front of the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout Building will be reconfigured with the new parking lot edge. The design approach will be to maintain existing mature trees and add new oak trees to further encourage the ‘cottage in the park’ like setting. An organic concrete path will meander through a native planting landscape connecting the park arrival plaza to the building entrance to the accessible parking stalls. Vehicular access to the existing garage will be maintained along with storm water diversion improvements. While not included in the scope of the JMZ project, we are collaborating with the Rinconada Park long range master plan team to coordinate the connection of the JMZ promenade experience and park arrival plaza into the rest of Rinconada park – specifically focusing on the integrated concepts of the new play area and the edge of the park along the zoo. Project Process Update CAW Architects and the Friends presented to the ARB in January of this year with an earlier design of this project. Based on the thoughtful comments from the board, we revised the design to clarify the site organization, establish a civic presence for the Junior Museum & Zoo, reference the context of the site and create a pedestrian scaled approach from Middlefield Road. We presented this design concept at an ARB study session in March of 2017. The Board was very positive of the revised direction. This submittal package is a further development of the concept presented in March. The footprint of the proposed zoo design within the Rinconada park boundary has not changed since last presented to the Parks and Recreations Commission in April 2016. At that meeting, the commissioners unanimously provided a vote of support for the project and relationship with the park. The JMZ design team are continuing to work with the Rinconada Park long range plan team to ensure compatibility between the two design efforts. The environmental review through the CEQA process for both the JMZ project and Rinconada Park long 2.c Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R e v i s e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 6 of 6  range plan is underway with the following technical studies nearing completion: air quality, cultural resources, transportation and traffic elements, arborist reports, and historic review. The findings of the historic review were that the existing JMZ building does not contribute to the significance of the adjacent Lucie Stern Cultural Center, nor is it eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, nor the National Register of Historic Places. There is currently a historic review of the site context surrounding Lucie Stern and of the Lou Henry Hoover House underway. The findings of this review will be available prior to the presentation of this project at a Formal ARB hearing. The CEQA document is scheduled to be released to the public in summer of 2017 and go before council for approval by fall of 2017. This formal submittal will go before the Historic Review Board in June 2017 and Architectural Review Board in August 2017. We are seeking formal review and approval at this time. 2.c Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R e v i s e d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) FF = 2 9 . 0 FF = 2 9 . 0 FF = 2 9 . 0 FF= 2 9 . 0 TO S = 2 7 . 1 8 AD A R A M P FF= 2 8 . 3 FF = 2 8 . 2 EX I T D O O R = 2 7 . 6 5 PHA S E 2 FF= 2 9 . 0 FF 2 7 . 5 PH A S E 2 FF 2 8 . 5 FF= 2 9 . 0 FH (E ) F H (E ) B F P (N ) F H FIRERIS E R UT I L I T Y C O R R I D O R RE C O N F I G U R E D PA R K I N G L O T HO P K I N S A V E N U E UT I L I T Y C O O R I D O R EXT E R I O R N E T T E D ENC L O S U R E REL O C A T E ( E ) JM Z S I G N (N ) C U R B C U T F O R TRA S H D U M P S T E R S TRAS H ENCL O S U R E (N ) T R A N S F O R M E R (E) T R A S H E N C L O S U R E (E) B R I C K P A T H LP LP (N ) C R O S S W A L K (B Y C I T Y ) (E) B R I C K P A T H (N ) B F P (E ) B O B C A T E X H I B I T (E ) B F P (E ) F H (N) F H HAY STOR A G E PR O J E C T S C O P E BO U N D A R Y A PR O J E C T S C O P E BO U N D A R Y A SC H O O L PA R K I N G L O T LU C I E S T E R N CO M M U N I T Y CE N T E R GI R L S C O U T BU I L D I N G CH I L D R E N PL A Y A R E A MIDD L E F I E L D R O A D KE L L O G G A V E N U E OU T D O O R A N I M A L MA N A G E M E N T A R E A PA R K A R R I V A L DA W N R E D W O O D CO U R T Y A R D PR O P O S E D MU S E U M & ED U C A T I O N BU I L D I N G PH A S E 2 RIN C O N A D A PA R K WA L T E R H A Y S EL E M E N T A R Y SC H O O L SE C O N D A R Y EN T R Y EXT E R I O R N E T T E D ENC L O S U R E PR O P O S E D LO O S E I N T H E ZO O NET T E D V E S T I B U L E SER V I C E L O A D I N G + (27 . 3 9 ) + FFE 2 9 . 1 + FF E 2 9 . 1 + FF E 2 9 . 0 FS 2 9 . 0 + FS (2 7 . 1 8 ) + FS 29 . 0 + FS 27 . 0 + FS 2 8 . 5 + + FS 2 8 . 0 FS 2 6 . 6 + + F F E 2 8 . 5 FUT U R E B U I L D I N G (N ) T R A N S F O R M E R 42" T A L L R A I L I N G + TC 2 8 . 5 BIK E P A R K I N G LOWER C E I L I N G A B O V E CLIMA T E C O N T R O L L E D STOR A G E COLL E C T I O N H U B DATA LONG T E R M BIKE S T O R A G E BIKE CLAS S R O O M FS ( 2 7 . 7 5 ) + FS 2 9 . 0 + FS (2 7 . 1 ) + FS ( 2 5 . 0 5 ) + 3,6 5 3 S . F . NON P E R M E A B L E + FFE 2 8 . 0 FS 2 7 . 7 5 + + FF E 2 8 . 2 5 + FF E 2 8 . 2 5 6,24 5 S . F . NO N P E R M E A B L E 6,00 2 S . F . NO N P E R M E A B L E 6,00 2 S . F . NO N P E R M E A B L E 7,21 2 S . F . NO N P E R M E A B L E 2,7 0 1 S . F . NON P E R M E A B L E #2 5 3 #2 5 5 #2 6 0 #2 6 1 #2 6 2 #2 6 3 #2 8 0 #2 8 1 #2 7 9 #2 8 3 #2 8 2 #2 8 6 #2 8 7 #2 8 8 #2 8 9 #3 0 4 #3 0 5 #3 0 6 #3 0 7 #3 0 8 #3 0 9 #3 1 0 #3 1 1 #3 3 9 #3 1 2 #3 1 3 #3 1 4 #3 1 7 #3 4 1 #3 4 2 #3 4 3 #3 4 0 #3 1 5 #3 1 6 #3 2 7 #3 2 8 #3 2 6 #3 2 5 #3 2 2 #3 2 3 #3 2 4 #3 1 8#3 2 9 #3 3 0 #3 3 1 #3 3 2 #3 3 3 #3 3 4 #3 3 5 #3 3 6 #3 2 1 #3 2 0 #3 4 8 #3 4 4 #3 4 5 #3 4 6 #3 4 7 #3 4 9 #3 5 0 #3 5 1 #3 5 2 #3 5 4 #3 5 3 #3 6 4 #3 6 2 #3 6 3 #3 6 1 #3 5 5 #3 5 6 #3 5 7 #3 5 8 #3 5 9 #3 6 0 #3 6 4 #3 6 5 #3 6 6#3 6 7 #3 6 8 #3 6 9 #3 7 0 #2 7 8 #2 7 7 #2 8 5 #2 8 4 #3 7 1 Tr e e L e g e n d #X X X #X X X #X X X TR E E S T O R E M A I N TO T A L : 2 9 TR E E S T O B E R E M O V E D TO T A L : 3 9 PR O T E C T E D T R E E S R E M O V E D : 0 TO T A L C A N O P Y : 2 3 , 9 6 3 S Q . F T . TR E E S T O T R A S N P L A N T E D TO T A L : 2 - ( 1 ) O A K # 2 8 4 A N D ( 1 ) R E D W O O D # 2 8 5 Tr e e A s s e s s m e n t P l a n - J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R e n o v a t i o n P r o j e c t Sc a l e : 1 " = 3 0 ' #X X X NA T I V E O A K T R E E T O R E M A I N TO T A L : 1 2 2.d Pac k e t P g . 3 3 Attachment: Attachment D: Tree Assessment Plan - JMZ June 2017 (8155 : 1451 Middlefield: Junior Museum and Zoo (1st Formal)) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Beth Bunnenberg, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen, Margaret Wimmer, Council Member Holman Absent: Brandon Corey Action Items 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASIǦJUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLNǦ00147]: Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to allow the Replacement of the Junior Museum and Zoo Building With a New 15,033 Square Foot, OneǦStory Museum and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo with Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots including Fire Access, Accessible Parking Stalls, MultiǦModal Circulation, Storm Drainage Infrastructure, and Site Lighting. An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.or approval of Minutes Chair Bernstein: Alright, next on our agenda is an action item and I’ll read it. Public hearing/quasiǦjudicial, 1451 Middlefield Road. Consideration of an application for Architectural Review to allow the replacement of the Junior Museum and Zoo building with a new 15,033-square foot, oneǦstory museum and education building, outdoor zoo and netted enclosure, and reconfiguration of and improvements to the existing parking lots including fire access, accessible parking stalls, multiǦmodal circulation, storm drainage infrastructure, and site lighting. An initial study is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone district is public facilities. Shall Staff have an introductory report of us? Ms. French: Thank you, yes, Amy French here. I was here with you in January, January 26th to be precise, with a preliminary study session on this project. Prior to that, it had been to the ARB the week before and to the ARB after some significant modifications to the concept in March of 2017. I have a brief presentation. Some of the images you saw last time – I think – we have a historic resource evaluation now that looked at the Lucie Stern Center and some of the historic courtyards etc. One of the things that I like about this image is that it shows the circular drive here, that was original and a kind of a what looks like a lawn area out here. Then over here it shows in Birge Clark original center, there is no parking lot. That parking lot came later in 1941 with the Junior Museum and Zoo. This is just the overview of the campus or complex with the Lucie Stern, the parking that is there today and the Junior Museum and Zoo. Of course, the Girl Scout House, otherwise known as the Lou Henry Hoover House. The characteristics of the site, one-story buildings; and we have issues in the parking lot including circulation and parking and storm drainage. This is what we see from Middlefield. The last session with the ARB – HRB, there were comments asking can you consider a gable and so you will see the architect has prepared a presentation showing the proposal. Again, these are just some images of the existing site. This is -- I look over here at this Boy Scout facility and think that is a perfect spot for the bird bath. There is a bird bath that is on the City property that is related to a Boy Scout leader; it’s in front of the Girl Scout house. Here we have our children’s library that was also a Clark design. Then this – again, this image from last time shows the Girl HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING EXCERPT MINUTES: June 22,2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. 2.e Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : E x c e r p t J M Z H R B J u n e 2 2 2 0 1 7 ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 2 Scout House, which has been analyzed in the most recent historic resources evaluation called the Rinconada. You have both historic evaluations in your packet. The most recent one, the Rinconada does talk about the Girl Scout House and its significance and of modifications to the area. The – what’s interesting is the Girl Scout House -- actually, the Girl Scouts of Northern California own the building, kind of like the Stanford situation and the City owns the land and the City leases the land to the Girl Scouts. These are some other images that I had last time. This is the scene shop at the back here, some very significant oak trees on the site that are to be retained. Again, just kind of summarizing the Architectural Review Board’s comments from January and the architect and applicant team took these to heart, came back in March, the ARB supported the approaches and they came back with a formal application. The applicant is going to summarize the HRB’s comments in their presentation. Here we have our Historic Resources Evaluations, I made reference to these. The one that is just recent talks about the parking lot, the Girl Scout House and some of the features of the Lucie Stern Community Center. It should be noted that the Rinconada long range plan is not yet a project application. That’s a longer time frame on it so – but the analysis, the Rinconada HRE, does look at other parts of the park. So, we are not going to focus on those other parts today because that’s not an application before us. Let’s see, we will be back to the HRB, at least in the sense that we are going to provide the draft environmental review document; the initial study, along with a modified historic evaluation. We’re tweaking it a little bit because there were some references there that got a little confusing. So, we are going to come back to the ARB in July to September time frame and then this is going to go onto Council. There was a change to the code that suggested the Director forwards this type of project to the Council so that’s what’s going to happen for final action on the CEQA document and the project. I am going to hand this over to Emily who is our Historic Planner expert here on staff and let her speak to the nomination process and eligibility of the Girl Scout House. Ms. Emily Vance, Historic Planner: Ok, good morning Board Members. I just want to start off by saying that ultimately, this project does not cause any significant impact to historic resources, even if the project only partially meets some of the standards. We are in agreement with those findings but would like some of the follow – oh, can you not hear me? Can you hear me? I’ll just scooch over. Can – is this better? Ok. We would like some of these following concerns to be addressed and the report to include the following. So, these are some of the issues that Staff brought up that we would like some clarification on. In no specific order, there’s the rewording of the passage that mentions further analysis for clarity. We would like that passage removed or to state very clearly that the analysis is presented in the following paragraph. We would like clear language used to state whether the front yard of the Girl Scout House is considered a character defining feature of the historic landscape and why it is appropriate for the front yard buffer to be reduced but not eliminated. Just again, a little bit more clarifying language to call out that specific area since that will be impacted and ultimately, we would like to include National Register language in the final analysis as there is a high likelihood that the building will be listed in the future. I think there is interest in getting it listed on a few local registers, including the California one, the National and obviously the local. So, we want that kind of National Register language to be included in the final report. Ms. French: Then I have just on the screen here what is the nomination process should the HRB wish to pursue nomination of the Girl Scout House. Again, the Girl Scouts of Northern California own the property – the building sorry - and they would need to be involved with giving consent for us to move forward with that. Excuse me, then, of course, the Council approves local inventory listings. Ms. Vance: Yeah, just to point out that both for the California and National Register, I am sure that you are guys are all aware that consent of the owner is not required necessarily but it cannot be listed over the owner’s objection. I don’t think that is going to be an issue in this case. Ms. French: Given that, the Girl Scout House is looked at as eligible under Criterion One and Two; therefore, it’s eligible for the City inventory and so if the HRB would like to comment on that eligibility piece of this, that’s not entirely what we are after today. We are after a look at the new formal application but certainly, we welcome your comments on that. With that, I am going to load the 2.e Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : E x c e r p t J M Z H R B J u n e 2 2 2 0 1 7 ( 8 1 5 5 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8288) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/3/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2747 Park Blvd: Master Sign Program (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2747 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00122]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow a Master Sign Program. The Master Sign Program is for a Previously Approved 33,323 Square Foot Office Building Currently Under Construction. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The proposed project is for a master sign program for a new R&D building currently under construction on the site. The master sign program provides a framework for future tenants of the building to follow, with sign design provisions describing the number, location, materials, and lighting of future tenant signs. Individual signs are typically considered minor projects requiring staff review only, however, pursuant to Section 18.76.020 of the Municipal Code, master sign programs are considered major projects and are subject to review by the ARB. With the approval of a master sign program, subsequent individual signs that conform to the program do not require additional architectural review. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: 2747-85 Park Boulevard LLC Architect: Not applicable Representative: Shawn Reese – Kate Keating Associates Inc. Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 2747 Park Boulevard Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 1.53 acres Housing Inventory Site: Yes Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, Live Oaks will be planted on the site as a component of the landscaping plan Historic Resource(s): Not a historic resource Existing Improvement(s): 33,323 square foot, 3-story R&D building currently under construction Existing Land Use(s): Vacant; R&D building currently under construction Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PF Zone (Caltrain ROW) West: Zoning (land uses) East: Zoning (land uses) South: Zoning (land uses) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: GM General Manufacturing Comp. Plan Designation: LI Light Industrial Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, across Page Mill Road from the site Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 HRB: None ARB: The ARB reviewed the application (14PLN-00388) for the 3-story building currently under construction on the site at study sessions on November 19, 2015 and December 17, 2015 and recommended approval of the project at a hearing on March 17, 2016. A link to the staff report for the hearing on March 17, 2016 is provided here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51515 Project Description The applicant proposes a master sign program for the R&D building currently under construction at the site. The program consists of a site plan, sign elevations, and material boards. Tenants have not yet been identified for the building project, and the purpose of the master sign program is to provide future tenants with a framework that guides future site signage. The following signs are requested with the master sign program:  Two (2) freestanding monument signs at the vehicle entrances to the site along Sheridan Avenue and Page Mill Road. Signs are proposed to be constructed of aluminum and clear plastic, with a total height of 9 feet. The signs would be 54 square feet and would be illuminated by upward-facing site lighting.  Two (2) freestanding signs at the entrances to the building along Park Boulevard and the main entrance to the surface parking lot. Signs are proposed to be constructed of aluminum and clear plastic, with a height of 5 feet. The signs would be 12.5 square feet. These signs would not feature any illumination.  Two (2) “skyline” wall signs at the apex of the building fronting Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue and on the east elevation facing the Caltrain right-of-way. Signs are proposed to be a maximum of 120 square feet (sf) of surface area, with individual letters no more than 2.5 feet in height and logos no more than 4 feet in height. The bottom of the letters would be located 40 feet above grade. The individual letters of the sign would be internally illuminated.  One (1) pedestrian scale wall sign at the southern corner of the building facing Park Boulevard. The sign would be located between 5 feet and 14 feet above grade and have a maximum size of 15 sf. No illumination is proposed for this sign.  Three (3) address numbers facing Sheridan Avenue, Park Boulevard, and the Caltrain right-of-way. Address letters and numbers are not considered signs for the purposes of compliance with the Sign Code. The address numbers would have no illumination and would be one foot in height. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Master Sign Program: In accordance with PAMC Section 16.20.030 "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. The master sign program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the master sign program, subsequent individual signs may be erected without further design review. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve this application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Light Industrial (LI), a Zoning designation of General Manufacturing (GM), and is located on the northwest side of Park Boulevard. The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of medium sized research/office buildings, light industrial, transit-oriented residential, and single-family homes. Two overpasses link the site to the California Avenue commercial area and the California Avenue Caltrain Station. Future plans for the area envision a similar mix of transit-oriented uses. Existing signage in the area include small freestanding monument signs, as well as illuminated wall signs (approximately 2 feet in height) mounted near roof level. The scale of the existing signage in the area is appropriate given the mix of uses in the area. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 the requested permits, permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The standards for freestanding signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.20.120, are listed below:  Area and Height. Freestanding signs over five feet in height shall be permitted only on nonresidential properties in the Hospital zone, GM zones and on El Camino Real in the CN and CS zones and for service stations, restaurants and shopping centers elsewhere. The maximum area and height of such signs is set forth in Table 2.* Complies; the site is located in the GM zone where signs in excess of 5 feet are permitted. See below for discussion of permitted sign area. While the freestanding signs do not exceed the maximum limits established in Table 2, they would be the largest along Park Boulevard.  Location. Every sign shall be wholly on the owner's property, except that for any site that encompasses a minimum of ten acres in size and contains a minimum of 50,000 square feet of retail square footage, but does not have its primary frontage on a freeway, expressway, or major arterial, a freestanding sign may be located offsite on private property with frontage on the nearest major arterial roadway. The sign size and height shall be governed by the criteria set forth in Table 2*, using the average site length dimension as the lot frontage for calculation purposes, but in no case shall the sign size exceed fifty square feet. The sign shall comply with all other regulations of this chapter, the total site signage (including the offsite sign) shall not exceed the total allowed for the site, and all other signs on the offsite property must comply with sign regulations for that site. Would Not Comply Outside of an Approved Master Sign Program; As proposed the nine foot tall freestanding signs would exceed the maximum 50 sf.  Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be one such sign for each frontage and one additional sign for any portion of frontage in excess of two hundred fifty feet. The size of any additional sign shall be determined from Table 2* by counting as frontage that portion thereof which is in excess of two hundred fifty feet. In the case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies having a common frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be that of the shopping center or commonly used parcel and not the frontages of the individual businesses or occupancies. Complies; the project includes one freestanding sign per frontage, which includes a sign at the rear door.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; the signs are constructed of aluminum and clear plastic. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  Lighting of Freestanding signs. No freestanding sign shall be constructed in such a way that any light bulb or filament is visible from the front of the sign or from beyond the property line. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit signs of neon tubing or similar self-illuminating material of equivalent or less intensity. Complies; external illumination will be minimal and focused on the two signs. The standards for wall signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.20.130, are listed below:  Area. The maximum wall sign area for each building face shall be as indicated on Table 3. Complies; the total proposed wall sign area for each elevation is 120 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted by Table 3. For comparison, the nearby “Groupon” signs are approximately 2 foot 3 inches in height and 32 square feet in total area.  Height. No part of any wall sign shall extend above the top level of the wall or in front of which is situated. Any such sign which is suspended or projects over any public or private walkway or walk area shall have an overhead clearance at least seven feet. Complies; signage does not extend above the wall nor project over the walkway.  Thickness or Projection. No such sign, including any light box or other structural part, shall exceed a thickness of ten inches. In any sign consisting of cutout or raised characters, said characters shall project no more than six inches from the mounting surface, except that when the average area of the individual characters exceeds six square feet, the projection may be increased by one-half inch for each additional square foot of average area over six feet, in no case exceed fifteen inches. Will be compliant with adherence to the draft Conditions of Approval; wall signage will not project more than six inches from the mounting surface.  Number. Subject to provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be any number of such signs for each building face, but in no case shall the total wall sign for each face exceed that shown in Table 3. No building shall have more than four building faces. Complies; wall signage does not exceed Table 3 requirements. As noted above, "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. Overall, this Master Sign Program is only asking for one variation from the Code, which is an increase in size for two freestanding signs while minimizing the size of signs in other areas. However, all of the proposed signs would be the largest in the area and possibly set a precedent for new signs at other sites. See further discussion below. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 Policy L-50 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”. The location of the wall signs has been designed to provide visibility corridors at the apex of the building at the corner of Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue, as well as from the Caltrain right-of-way. The location of these two signs is consistent with existing signage in the area, and would be uncluttered while still providing visibility from several angles. The materials are proposed to consist of painted aluminum, and the chosen color palette of silver, tan, and cream is understated and would easily blend into the surroundings given the surrounding office park environment. The height of the proposed freestanding signs is taller than similar signs in the area, and staff believes a lower overall height is needed in order to maintain an appropriate scale. Draft Conditions of Approval limit the height of all proposed freestanding signs on the site to 6 feet. The Board is encouraged to comment on the appropriateness of a height limit of 6 feet relative to the applicant’s request for 9 feet for these signs. Additionally, the total requested area for the “skyline” wall signs is 120 square feet, which staff believes greatly exceeds the size of similarly-positioned wall signs for other buildings in the area and would potentially detract from the architecture of the building. While staff believes that a lesser total wall sign area would better fit the character of the surrounding area, it is acknowledged that longer business names would inherently result in greater sign areas. Given this, staff has recommended conditions limiting the height of the wall sign letters to 2.5 feet, and wall sign logos to 4 feet. Consistency with Application Findings Draft findings for the approval are contained in Attachment B of this report. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15311 (Accessory Structures), item (a) “On-Premise Signs” of the CEQA Guidelines. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 21, 2017, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 17, 2017, which is 17 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 132-32-034 132-17-080 132-17-075 132-25-006 132-18-095 132-18-076 132-25-050 132-17-077 132-36-131 132-32-036 124-29-025 124-29-027 124-29-026 1 2 3 house North County Mental Health Center Gas Station #2 A PARKING GARAGE K A 567.5' 755.8' 55.3'60.3' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6'32.0' 17.5'34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 163.0' 138.8' 20.3' 19.0'17.0'17.0' 101.7' 113.0' 100.0' 12.5' 80.9' 123.0'90.0'100.0' 90.0' 100.0' 90.0' 127.4' 191.0' 12.0' 223.2' 142.5' 191.0' 127.4' 29.3' 65.2' 285.8' 257.2' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.8' 134.5' 105.8' 140.3' 59.0' 102.8' 59.0' 102.8' 51.0' 102.8' 51.0' 102.8' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 52.8' 114.8' 85.5'110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0'104.3' 114.7' 71.7' 110.0' 52.0' 110.0' 52.0' 110.0' 75.0' 110.0' 75.0' 110.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 22.7' 46.8' 142.5' 68.6' 136.0' 65.7' 142.5' 65.7' 142.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0 60.0' 1 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 45 50.0' 134.5' 98.0 48.0' 134.5' 88.0' 140.3' 110.0' 77.8' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 52.8' 110.0' 52.8' 110.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 110.0' 60.0' 11 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 78.9' 114.7' 46.3' 110.0' 60.0' 114.7'86.7' 114.7' 30.0' 3.9' 30.0' 117.5' 30.0' 117.5'117.5' 60.0' 117.5' 60.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 75.0' 110.0' 75.0' 110.0' 117.5' 60.0' 117.5' 60.0' 285.0' 132.4' 285.0' 100.0' 285.0' 141.0'92.0' 12.0' 26.7' 92.6' 15.2' 76.4' 235.0' 100.0' 142.6' 99.3' 132.5' 142.7'92.8' 23.6' 73.7' 53.2' 83.7' 150.0' 10.0'0.0' 118.6' 15.7' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 130.0' 351.6' 160.0' 351.6' 351.6' 100.0' 30.0' 15.7' 59.1'13.4'44.4' 28.8' 36.8' 105.7' 136.6' 22.8' 51.3' 64.0' 15.7' 283.0' 12.5' 145.0' 181.6' 142.5' 92.6' 2.5' 89.0' 95.3' 29.3' 95.0' 37.2' 95.0' 54.0'95.0' 54.0' 165.8' 69.6' 165.3' 83.3' 261.2' 99.4' 261.2' 100.4' 63.3' 168.2' 48.7' 167.5' 170.0' 170.0' 351.6'89.0' 263.0' 170.4' 160.0' 142.5' 14.0' 133.0' 140.3' 134.5' 45.8' 85.8' 118.0' 18.0' 79.0' 79.0' 50.6' 44.5' 18.6' 70.0' 24.0' 18.0'35.5' 72.0' 147.0' 88.1' 76.1' 143.0' 31.0' 149.0 450.4' 263.1' 452.' 223.8'223.8'292.1' 291.2' 185.0' 75.0' EET SHERMAN AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD CO L O RA DO A V E NUE C O L O R A D O A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIGH STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET OREGON EXPRESSWAY OR E SHERIDAN AVENUE BIRCH STREET GRANT AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT PO WERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT PO WERS BOARD M-40 CC(2)(R) PC-2224 PC-4268 0 PC-4 3 PC-3 028 R M -30 RM-15 R M -30 RM-40 ROLM GM GM (AD) RMD PTOD CC(2) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 200' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto jgerhar, 2017-03-13 15:18:25Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2747 Park Boulevard / 17PLN-00212 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: As discussed in the staff report, the project as conditioned is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the project conforms to Policy L-50: “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The master sign program presents a framework for future tenant signage for the purposes of wayfinding and site visibility. The proposed signage uses consistent materials and colors that is unified and coherent, and will assist in creating a sense of order on the site. As conditioned, the site signage is appropriately scaled for the site and reflects the character of the surrounding R&D park context. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The master sign program makes use of aluminum and clear plastic materials that are durable while also being simple, clean, and aesthetically pleasing. The color palette of tan, cream, and silver proposed for the metal sign material complements the earth tones used on the building currently under construction on the site. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: Signage has been placed to assist in wayfinding for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists entering the building and site from a number of locations. The signage conforms to the City’s requirements regarding visibility triangles at intersections, and would not impair the function and safety of the drive aisles serving the site. As conditioned the size and amount of signage is under the maximum permitted for each sign type and/or building face, and the signs would be appropriately scaled for an R&D park context. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. A landscaping plan was prepared and approved in conjunction with the approved building on this site and will continue to be implemented. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed signs include LED lighting which is energy efficient and long lasting. ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2747 Park Boulevard 17PLN-00122 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2747 Park Blvd Exterior Wayfinding Signage,” stamped as received by the City on July 25, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. The plans submitted for building permit shall incorporate the following changes: a. The two freestanding tenant monument signs on the site shall be limited to 6 feet in height above grade. b. The two “skyline” wall signs on the site shall consist of letters no greater than to 2.5 feet in height and logos no greater than 4 feet in height. c. All wall signs shall not protrude more than 6 inches from the mounting surface. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION 7. A building permit is required for the monument signs. Environmental Graphic Design 415.773.1000 Fax 773.1008 city@kkainc.com 1045 Sansome Street, Suite 202 San Francisco, CA 94111 Kate Keating Associates, Inc. 25 July 2017 Project Summary – 2747 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA The 1.5-acre project site at 2747 Park Boulevard in Palo Alto, CA includes a 33,323 sq. ft. office building spanning three levels, with both enclosed underground and surface parking. In collaboration with Jay Paul Company and DES Architects, Kate Keating Associates has developed an exterior sign program to address signage and wayfinding at the project site. Per DES Project Description, dated 9 April 2016: “This project is designed as a Research and Development building with a focus on technology, software and innovation companies...The total building area is 33,323 sq. ft. at 0.5 FAR. Taking advantage of it’s proximity to the California Ave Caltrain station, this project will have a robust TDM program in addition to the 133 on-site parking stalls to satisfy the parking requirement (133 cars). A parking garage will be constructed under the Research and Development building. A new building entry plaza, paved walkways, outdoor patio and landscaping will be part of the site improvements.” The Project Team is requesting Master Sign Program (MSP) approval via City of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) process. The MSP approved by Palo Alto’s ARB will serve as a Tenant Signage Guidelines package and streamline the approval process for future tenants. The package itself will include illustrations and descriptions detailing the tenant signage opportunities in terms of aesthetic, size, and sign type limitations for single and multi-tenant leases. ■ Sign type and location of installation: SEE “Exterior Wayfinding Signage, Submittal for Master Sign Program” dated 25 July 2017, SHEET 1.01 ■ Sign number: QUANTITY 10 ■ Materials and construction methods: SEE “Exterior Wayfinding Signage, Submittal for Master Sign Program” dated 25 July 2017, SHEETS 2.02 - 2.05 and 3.02 ■ Colors: SEE “Exterior Wayfinding Signage, Submittal for Master Sign Program” dated 25 July 2017, SHEET 2.01 Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “2747 Park Boulevard ” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2747 Park Boulevard – Master Sign Program”. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kim, Board Member Wynne Furth, Robert Gooyer, Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Wimmer, Board Member Kolher, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Bunnenberg Absent: Chair Bernstein, Board Member Baltay, Board Member Corey Chair Lew: Great. Board Member Kolher: I have to notice that I’m – I have a little ongoing project within the range of 500- feet so I have to sit down. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great and just for the record, that’s the item number two, which is 400 Channing. Thank you, Rodger. Oral Communications Chair Lew: Now is the time for oral communications. I do have one speaker which is David Carnahan from the City’s Clerk’s office. Mr. David Carnahan, City Clerk: Good Chairs, Vice Chairs and Commission – I guess all Board Members. Thank you for having me today. I am here to speak with you about the newly forming Storm Water Management Oversight Committee. As many of you recall in April, the City held a property owner election to marginally increase the fee charged to property owners to help with storm water management item. This seven-member body is going to be set up as a citizen oversight group to ensure that the funds collected as part of that fee are used for the best possible projects to reutilize storm water and protect the properties located within Palo Alto. The application deadline is August 1st at 4:30 PM and we’re going to be recruiting for seven folks. Four of them will have a full 4-year term, three will start with a 2-year term to provide that staggering that most of you are custom to on our Boards and Commissions. I going to give each of you a flyer and encourage you to reach out to at least one if not two or three members of the community to potentially apply. It’s a great opportunity, they are going to meet a couple times a year so not as frequently as most of our Boards and Commissions. So, it’s a good way – if you have a community member you know who you think would be – peak their interest in community service. So, I will pass these out, thank you very much. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, David. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Lew: For Staff, do we have any agenda changes today? No, great. City Official Reports ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: July 13, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Action Items 9:30 AM JOINT MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD TO HEAR: 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-00380]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit (SOFA I) to Allow the Demolition of an Existing One-Story Medical Office Building and Construction of Two (2) Two-Story Homes, Each With a Full Basement and Secondary Dwelling Unit Above a Detached Two-Car Garage. A Preliminary Parcel Map Application (16PLN-00381) Requesting Subdivision of the Existing Parcel Into Two Parcels Will be Reviewed Through a Separate Process. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Certified SOFA Phase 1 EIR has Been Prepared to Clarify Minor Site-Specific Issues That Where Addressed in the Certified EIR. Zoning District: DHS District in the SOFA I CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Lew: So, let’s – we can move onto the first item which is number two. So, a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter on 400 Channing Avenue. Recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of a Coordinated Development Permit in SOFA I to allow the demolition of an existing one-story medical office building and construction of 2, two-story homes. Each with a full basement and secondary dwelling unit above a detached two-car garage. A Preliminary Parcel Map Application requesting subdivision of the existing parcel into two parcels will be reviewed through a separate process. The Environmental Assessment is an addendum to the certified SOFA Phase 1 EIR has been prepared to clarify minor site- specific issues that were addressed in the certified EIR and the zone district is DHS in the SOFA I CAP. We have our project planner which is Phillip. Welcome. Mr. Phillip Brennan, Project Planner: Thank you. Good morning to the Members of both the Joint Boards. Again, my name is Phillip Brennan and I am the project planner for this application. As it was noted, this project was first heard before the joint Board in early April. At that time, the Board motioned to continue the item to a later date and provided the applicant comments regarding specific aspects of the project design. I summarized those primary issues and I feel that these were the primary take a ways that stemmed from that meeting. I shared those with the applicant and the applicant has responded to those comments. I will go through these very briefly and these are listed in no specific order. The Joint Board identified the protection of the large oak as a primary issue. That – those oaks are located on or located adjacent to Lot One; specifically, in proximity to the garage and ADU unit. The applicant has responded by stepping back the second floor of the ADU to 5-feet 4-inches from 3 1/2- feet previously. To provide further clearance and he’s also reduced the plate heights of both the garage and the ADU. The second story structure to reduce the overall height of the structure itself to provide additional clearance under the canopy of that oak. I believe Jodie passed out a project arborist memo that was just supplied to me this morning. The memo from the project arborist basically concludes that the trees are not in any immediate risk from the proposed construction and details the reasons why there. Moving onto the garage placement, there were concerns whether the vehicles, specifically on Lot Two I believe, had enough clearance to maneuver and utilize the garage facility. Based on those comments, the applicant met with myself, as well as Staff member of the Transportation Division and reviewed the plans. Based on the guidance provided by the Staff member from transportation, they feel that the clearance is more than adequate to provide parking on the – the parking layout is more than adequate to park the vehicles – the required vehicles on the lot. Dewatering was brought up due to the fact that there are two proposed full basements on each lot. A Geo-Technical Report was requested, the applicant has supplied a geotechnical report. Exploratory boring was performed down to 20-feet and the maximum extent of the proposed basement is only to 13-feet. No water was found and it’s determined that the – by the consultant that the proposed basements can be built. The landscape detail – additional detail was City of Palo Alto Page 3 requested to sort of highlight the relationship between the built structures and the open space, as well as with the neighbors. The applicant has provided a preliminary landscape plan indicating quantities and species types on sheet L-1. The design of the ADUs was requested to be further refined by the applicant to enhance compatibility and consistency with the main units. The applicant has off-set the second floors to provide more articulation, change the porch entries and added minor architectural features for further refinement. Privacy was a concern, specifically on Lot One. The applicant has removed the rear facing balcony at the second floor on the main residences on unit one, as well as reduce the window sizes of the windows facing 915 Waverly and has also opaque all the windows facing that neighbor. ADU size, there were concerns whether the ADU sizes were adequate enough. The floor areas of both ADUs have been increased, unit one has been increased modestly to additional 30-sqaure feet. Unit two has been increased additional 100-sqaure feet. Finally, the relocation of the palm, I know there wasn’t really a consensus here with the – whether the existing palm on Lot One needed to be maintained. The applicant – the preference is to remove that palm tree and that’s to fulfill the request of the neighbor. The palm tree is uplifting the shared cement fence along the property line and removing this would resolve that issue. One other additional consideration for the joint Board is the applicant is seeking to increase or excuse me, reduce the front yard setback modestly to 20-feet for Lot Two I believe and 19-feet 6-inches for Lot One. To better reflect the setbacks at the intersection at Waverly and Channing with the neighboring developments. I believe the – excuse me, Staff is recommending approval or recommending the joint Board approve recommended approval to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. I believe the applicant has a brief presentation to provide the Board. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. So, the applicant, you have about 10-minutes and you can come up to the microphone. If there are any members of the public who want to speak to this item, please fill out a speaker card. Then for Staff, I think there might be some speaker cards. Ms. Jing Quan: Good morning everyone. My name is Jing Quan, I am the architect for this project. On April 6th, I presented this project for both the ARB and HRB and it has been 3-months so I want to quickly –yeah, ok -- quickly present this project to the Members again. This project is located at the corner of Channing and Waverly and this slide is showing the zoning of the neighborhoods. The color – the yellow color is showing the DHS zoning and so across the street of Chan – 400 Channing are all DHS and surrounded by R2. This slide is showing the existing site plan, so the existing parking lot is at the corner of Waverly and Channing. Then we have two entrances that – two driveways to this property; one on Channing and one on Waverly. The brown color is showing the existing building here and this is the revised site plan. Just like Phillip mentioned, we provide a 5-feet rear setback for the cottage per comments – last meetings comments and also, we eliminate the balcony under the second floor for Lot One. Also, there is a setback for Lot One is 20-feet, for Lot Two its 19-feet 6-inches and also, I checked the existing setback of the street corner building along Waverly and Channing is 19-feet, 11-feet 8- inches, and 5-foot 8-inches. So, I believe the reduced setback to 19-feet 6-inches and 20-feet should be compatible with the neighborhood. Also, I think the Boards had comments about the parking and about the turnaround space. I tried to find a computer software to test how the car can back out but I can’t, so I drove around Palo Alto and tried to measure the parking size at all the parking lot. I found out along – close to California Avenue there is a big parking space behind the Starbucks and the parking size is pretty similar to what we have. Their parking size, I think for each stall is only 7 ½-feet wide by 17-feet and the driveway is only 21-feet. I went there and I backed and forth several times and it was easy to get in and out, so I was thinking our parking design should be – should work for both of the lots. This is a landscape plan and also, we believe that we provide enough open space and the landscape area for both lots. Also, we almost the same pattern, one parking – one drive way from Channing and one driveway from Waverly. This is the existing photo to show the existing condition and also, we revised the color rendering per Board comments. We showed the existing building of 1915 Waverly and one of the comments that I think the Board Members had is to eliminate the window trim for Lot One. We also eliminated the deco trim and you can see that from this rendering here. This is another existing photo along Waverly Street. This one we also show a little bit of the corner of the existing 915 Waverly and also you can see the Lot Two façade changing a little bit. This is – also I think one of the major issues per last meeting is the designing of the ADU and we designed – we totally redesigned the ADU to simplify the roof line and also lowered down the building a little bit and also increased the size. We also provided a color rendering for City of Palo Alto Page 4 this ADU. Basically, the Lot One – the ADU for Lot One can be visible from Channing Avenue but for lot two, it sits quite behind from the street and also, it’s an interior lot. Long both Channing and Waverly it is not visible. It can be easily – it can be seen but not as clear as Lot One and also for Lot One’s ADU, they have a big redwood tree in front and that can screen a little bit of the ADU. We tried to use architecture feature of the main house. I think one of the comments of Phillip or I mean planning has is the roof pitch of Lot One. The reason we keep up an (inaudible) for Lot One’s ADU, we tried to counter the height of their ADU since they have a big oak tree there. We don’t want to trim the tree too much and also the owner for 915 Waverly, they want us to keep a little bit lower building for the ADU. So, that’s why the ADU for Lot One is (inaudible) instead of the main house have the (inaudible) roof pitch. This is a material board we showed to the Committee – I mean Board Members last time so this is Lot One material board. Lot Two material board, there is no change here. Also, a couple of the – several of the existing photos of the site. So, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to present the project. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you very much. I don’t have any speaker cards for this item so we can move onto Board Member comments and questions. Why don’t we start down at the end with Beth and then we will work our way down the row. Board Member Bunnenberg: It appears to me that a number of our questions and concerns have been answered. I realize that this is construction that is very near some historic structures that are Professorville and I really would be looking to my cohorts that are architects to know whether the fact that simply the width of modern pieces of board and so forth will be enough difference to help differential this. So that 35-years from now, people won’t be scratching their heads and saying are these new houses or older houses? I think those are my comments right now. Chair Lew: Great. Thank you, Beth. Wynne? Board Member Furth: Thank you and thank you for the presentation and thank you to Staff for the research that you did, I appreciate it. It was good to know that these second units are comparable to the second units in the DHS developments so that that’s care of that concern for me. I will differ to our Planning Staff on the adequacy of the parking and I am pleased that there’s less encroachment into the canopy area of the oak tree, which is important. I am sorry about the palm removal. Did Staff conclude that there’s no place to relocate it on site? Mr. Brennan: There is potential spots but there’s no requirement to keep – there is no consensus that the palm needs to be kept. Board Member Furth: Well, it’s not – here’s what I am getting at, what makes this – this is a terrific project. We’re going to get four housing units where we had a non-conforming medical office. We’re not going to have a parking lot on that corner and I think it will finish off that corner. It’s a very diverse small neighborhood. We’ve got very large old structures, we’ve got all kinds of things going on but what’s key about it is that it’s got a lot of big trees and the buildings tend to get obscured by the trees. I’m not in favor of relocating trees, just to keep the tree count up but I am concerned about still having this pattern of significantly sized vegetation screening the buildings. There’s one large tree over there on Lot One, is that right? Both Lot One – I can’t tell – I can’t quite read this. That’s… Mr. Brennan: There is a… Board Member Furth: That’s a palm, right? Mr. Brennan: Yeah, there’s an existing palm on Lot One in the front yard. Board Member Furth: Right, and there’s a whole series of them along Channing, right? Mr. Brennan: Right. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Furth: The removed tree is where? Mr. Brennan: There is a tree removed (inaudible) or that’s the tree being proposed for removal on Lot One in the rear yard. Board Member Furth: Lot One, rear yard, ok. Then I think my only comments are that when I review the conditions of approval – you want to hear about that later or you want to hear about it now? Chair Lew: Let’s just do it – we can do it now. Board Member Furth: Ok, conditions fourteen and fifteen pertain to dewatering and I understand you have established that there won’t be any? Mr. Brennan: None necessary according to the… Board Member Furth: Then I think we should take those conditions out and indicate that there will not be any dewatering permitted on the site since we’re addressing… Mr. Brennan: Well, those are standard conditions that we include… Board Member Furth: I understand but I think in case where you have determined after public inquiry that there won’t be any dewatering; we should stand by that. Ms. Jodie Gerhardt: We can discuss that with Public Works Engineering and make sure if those conditions are needed but as you say, likely not needed. Board Member Furth: My point being that we address the public’s concern by saying there won’t be any and it should not be a Staff level determination that there will be without further public discussion or notification. In other words, we’re misrepresenting to the public what we’re doing; inadvertently to be sure. Ms. Gerhardt: We don’t believe the water table is up this level, however, things occur in the field that are unexpected and so we can’t predict everything. So, that’s why many times some of those types of conditions are left in. Board Member Furth: I understand. Perhaps you could add a sentence at the beginning of condition fourteen saying that Staff has determined based on a – what was it, a geotechnical study? Mr. Brennan: Yes. Board Member Furth: That dewatering will not be necessary, should conditions change etc. That would make me happy. Also on eleven on street trees, it talks about a study to be done about street work. Isn’t that work completed already and we have conditions dealing with that or is that wrong? I am looking at condition number eleven. Ms. Gerhardt: This is again, sort of standard condition and we are looking – on a lot of these standard conditions, we’re looking to pull these off and sort of put them on a separate sheet because they are so standard. Board Member Furth: Yeah, I am fine with boiler plate except when it looks like it’s conflicting with what we’ve already said in another set of findings and I am concerned that looking at the standard conditions, you inadvertently set a condition for ignoring the site-specific ones that you have here. Ms. Gerhardt: Your concern is just that trees would be pulled out that weren’t supposed to be? City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Furth: I think you have already done this work. You have a set – we’re relying on the preservation of a number of trees. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Board Member Furth: I just want to be sure that is not going to change because somebody is trying to implement that condition. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, no, we have our very first condition that talks about conformance to the plans and on the plans, it says that the trees would remain. Board Member Furth: Right. I appreciate anything you can do to illuminate misleading boiler plate. Then on the finding and this is a bit [nigaly], on a couple of occasions you describe the process that – for example, that the applicant worked with the City’s architect and made things better. That isn’t – that’s about process, that isn’t about whether or not we got to the required point. I used such dark high lighting that I can’t even read it. So, for example in finding number three, we say the City’s architect – consulting architect and applicant worked together throughout the process to improve the scale and composition etc. I think that sentence should come out because that’s interesting for a Staff report but it’s not appropriate for a finding. Ms. Gerhardt: We can change that. I mean they’re working together to bring the project more into conformance with the SOFA regulations. Board Member Furth: Right but – well, it’s -- that’s process and what we need to find is that it meets the standards, not that we tried hard. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, that it meets the standards of SOFA. Board Member Furth: Then looking at the last paragraph on finding number four. It says visual sight lines when leaving unit one’s driveway may be obstructed due to a 4-foot fence and proposed landscaping (inaudible) along the fence towards the private public right of way. I am sorry, towards the public right of way. The obstruction may be mitigated by utilizing low profile landscaping or bushes in the planter strip. Shouldn’t that be resolved by now? If there’s a 4-foot fence that’s going to block sight lines, we should be removing that from the plan. Mr. Brennan: Yeah, that’s something we’ll – that should be resolved prior to – including this in the findings. Board Member Furth: So, is it your recommendation that we remove the 4-foot fence or that it be modified to say that it will be reduced as necessary to provide adequate sight lines? Mr. Brennan: Well, this plan was reviewed by transportation and they approved the plan as far as providing those sight lines. I guess I – when I wrote this language it was just to identify some potential issues as far as vegetation growing above the 4-feet and obscuring views. Board Member Furth: Well, if we change that to say something like landscaping and fencing along the – which is that direction? I can’t see the (inaudible). Western edge of Lot One shall be kept low enough to permit adequate sight lines? I think that will take care of it. Mr. Brennan: Sure. Board Member Furth: Same comment on finding number five, which I think I agree with that it was well designed to work around the trees. I think the first paragraph – it says further enhancements using zero City of Palo Alto Page 7 scaping techniques in indigenous drought tolerant plant material can be included to – in more developed landscape plans. Does that – I thought we were looking at the landscaping plans today? Mr. Brennan: I am sorry, I am not… Board Member Furth: I am looking at finding number five. Mr. Brennan: Right, the last sentence? Board Member Furth: Further enhancements using zero scaping techniques and indigenous drought tolerant plant material can be included in more developed landscaping plans. Does that mean what we have here is not adequate or it could be made better? We’ve got a list of – we’ve got a landscape plan, we’ve got a plant list. When is this process going to happen or is this just a suggestion? Mr. Brennan: It’s a preliminary landscape plan. It’s being presented to the Joint Board for review and if there are modifications to that, that can include zero scaping and drought tolerant vegetation. Board Member Furth: Well, we require that uses – to make that finding if we are using ARB findings. We have to find that we have used the extent practical regional indigenous drought resistant plant material, which would be zero scaping, capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. I am asking if Staff thinks the plans are there yet? Mr. Brennan: I believe they are. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you, Wynne. Maybe we will skip over the Chairs and you go last of the HRB. Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: The only – I just have a clarification questions. For one, thank you for these renderings but as I am looking at the rendering from Channing Avenue, it appears that it’s almost like a metal fence and on the site plan, it actually calls out for a 4-foot high wood fence. I just wanted to see if this is supposed to represent wood or if it’s going to be more transparent and open like what’s shown in the rendering? What’s the plan there? Ms. Quan: We propose to have a wood fence. Vice Chair Kim: So, would it be a solid wood fence or more of a picketed wood fence as shown? Ms. Quan: Picketed wood fence, yes. Vice Chair Kim: I think in this case if the real construction were to represent the rendering, I think there is a level of transparency that would suffice and be ok in my book. The other question that I have looking at the rendering is that it almost appears that on Lot Two you have a soffited eave detail. The eave detail that you are showing in the plans does not reflect that so what is the intent there? Ms. Quan: Are you talking about Lot One, right? Vice Chair Kim: Lot Two is the one that’s actually on Channing, right? Ms. Quan: Lot Two is along Channing. Vice Chair Kim: Right, so it’s the Lot Two detail. Ms. Quan: Right, Lot Two eave detail we have there are exposed rafter tail. Vice Chair Kim: So, it’s an exposed rafter tail without a soffited eave. Ms. Quan: Yes, without a soffit. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Vice Chair Kim: Ok, maybe it’s just the rendering… Ms. Quan: I think in the rendering… yeah. Vice Chair Kim: (Inaudible)(crosstalk). Ms. Quan: Yeah, the rendering – I didn’t pay attention to the… Vice Chair Kim: Not (inaudible), I just wanted to see what it was going to be. Are we doing comments also or just questions for now? The whole thing. I think overall, I am quite pleased with the latest revisions. I think you’ve addressed my major concerns. I think adding the eave overhangs to the ADU cottage units makes a big difference to me. I am ok with the revised setbacks. I think they are still within the character of the neighborhood. The only last lingering thing would be the parking, it still seems like it’s tight. I understand that you’ve done a study and I think it can work. It’s ok, it’s just kind of a thing where – I’m just thinking is there at least something a little bit more than we could do. In addition to that comment about the parking, I think the Hollywood strips on Lot One are fine but the Hollywood strips that you are proposing on lot two, it’s almost the inverse of what’s going to happen. You’re going to be driving on the grass when the gate is open as opposed to driving on the pavers so I might suggest that you reconsider the layout of the Hollywood strips on lot two. Do you understand what I mean by driving on the grass? Yeah, ok. Other than that, I’m ok with removing the palm, especially if it’s kind of neighbors request. I would prefer not to relocate it. The obscuring of the windows for privacy, I think is good. Just kind of a small minor comment is for those smaller bathroom windows, I am wondering if you have to obscure all four panes or if just the lower two could have been opaque but it’s just a very minor detail. I think it’s a good-looking project. Despite the similar floor plans, the two homes are distinct. I like the fact that the roof pitches are different and I think I would have no problem recommending approval of the project today. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great and Michael. Board Member Makinen: I think it looks like a very attractive plan. I don’t find any major comments that I would have that would be negative on it. I think it’s been improved greatly since we saw it last and I think the – I guess you are convinced that you can make the turn into the garages right there. You’ve done some studies on it but it still looks pretty tight to me but don’t go out and buy a 59 Cadillac and expect to get it into the garage there. Chair Lew: Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: Yes, overall, I compliment the architect like I did last time. I think the detailing is nice, the historic references are nice. The only thing that still, I feel like, seems a little bit incompatible is the secondary dwelling unit on the lot two on the Channing side. It just seems like when you look at the streetscape with the adjacent house at 426 Channing, I just think because the footprint of the secondary dwelling unit above the garage is small and then when it’s a two-story it’s – to me, it just seems kind of out of scale. I know that you have tried to bring the ceiling heights down. I know it’s -- I guess the zoning -- it’s not R1 zoning, it’s the different zoning that would allow that to occur that close to the street. I was wondering if you could clarify, I think there’s a new revision to the ADU code about parking because I am also working on a project where we were converting – I know this is not a conversion but if you convert a garage to an ADU, you don’t have to have covered parking anymore. I was just wondering if that – would that new revision to the ADU code impact this project? Where maybe she doesn’t have to have the parking or maybe she could reduce – could she reduce the parking in that one unit to one parking space and she could enter the parking space to the left of the redwood tree and go directly into the garage? Then – you’ve already explored that, ok. I was just trying to think of how you could bring the mass down. That’s the only thing that kind of bugs me about this project is that secondary dwelling unit in the back but it’s not really in the back because it’s also in the front on Channing; it’s very visible. It’s ok if it’s in the back yard in a traditional lot in the middle of the block but because it’s on the corner, it’s just very visible to me. It’s just like boop, just pops up too much. I also City of Palo Alto Page 9 thought that maybe you could flip it and have the stairway in the back because I don’t think the stairways an attractive look on that elevation. I think if you can make that elevation a little bit more attractive and make it look less like an apartment above a garage; just because of the stair. I don’t know, just throwing that out there. Chair Lew: Robert? Board Member Gooyer: I have to agree with everyone that it’s a big improvement over what we saw last time. I don’t really have a problem with removing the palm tree. I’ve never been a real fan of this neck of the woods to have palm trees but the one thing that I do still have a problem with is the fact that the secondary dwelling on Lot One has different roof slopes than the main house. As you can see in the elevation that you have on the drawings, it’s easily seen from Channing so it – that’s the biggest problem I have. I don’t know if it’s a deal breaker but that really bothers me. I think it’s not as bad as having two different roof slopes on one house but it’s still – they should work as a unit and they don’t. Chair Lew: Thank you and David. Vice Chair Bower: I had a couple of questions that I think were answered. In your presentation – the owner’s presentation I think you had reversed the lot numbers. I mean you were talking about Lot One on the corner of Waverly and Channing but Lot One is actually the inboard unit so you got that. I wanted to say that I was traveling in April so I missed the first presentation so I’ll have to accept that this is a better project and actually, I think in a large part, is better but a couple of problems. Number one, the – when I look on A-17, the elevations from the Waverly Street side, I am wondering why on a street that has five and four and twelve pitched roofs, suddenly there is this new eight and twelve pitched roofs. Which, of course, I think negatively impacts the house to the right, the existing house and there are housing across the street that are more conventional eight, twelve. It’s an unnecessary height as far as I can see from the interior elevations or sections. I think Robert’s point about not having the same elevation on the garage and the house is a legitimate one. I mean, I just don’t understand why eight and twelve is necessary in that – in this kind of residential seating and of course, our focus is on the historic properties and what – unless there were other steeply pitched roofs, I think this is a distraction. I think it creates more mass and thus becomes less compatible. Also, I'm troubled as Margaret is about the size of the ADU – the garage unit on lot two. I – from a plan standpoint -- and I realize that perspective is different when you’re standing in the street but if I draw a line from the high point of Lot One, the roof – the highest roof pitch down to the house at 426 Channing. The garage roof still projects above what would just be a straight line. Now I realize there’s a giant redwood tree there and so there’s going to be screening. Of course, I will also grant you that the house at 426 Channing might become one of these houses soon. (Inaudible) someday because that seems to be the trend but in terms of compatibility, as much as you’ve worked really hard to make that building smaller, I still think it’s – it overwhelms the 460 in – not overwhelms but it’s still like the next-door neighbor on steroids. Finally, if I could make a single comment about dewatering since I’ve done this project -- it’s not my area – it’s not the HRB’s area of concern but at 20-feet with no water, I assume that the cut for the basement would be 14-feet before they start working it back. That’s 6-feet above where maybe there is water and that’s pretty safe. So, I think that while it’s very unlikely there would ever be any dewatering, I don’t think you can preclude the possibility and so there ought to be some comment about it. Anyway, those are my comments. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, David. Vice Chair Bower: Oh, I am sorry. Can I make one more comment? Chair Lew: Absolutely. Vice Chair Bower: Excuse me, Chair Lew. The comment about the turning radius of the garages. I have a house that in 1982 we added onto and we have an arched garage that mimics this particular circumstance. Now, my lot is 50-feet wide and we are able to turn into our garage on a 90-degree arch but I have 24-feet to do that and I can’t imagine this 21-foot space would allow that unless you are City of Palo Alto Page 10 maybe using a mini – a very, very small car; Honda Fit or something. I suspect this all – my neighbors – I live on Boyce, do – the garage will never be used for a car, it will only be used for storage. At any rate, that seems to me to be an unworkable arch except for the very smallest cars and if there is a test, then I doubt this would pass. Just from my experience. Chair Lew: Thank you for that and so why don’t I pick up where you left off on the turning radius. My understanding is that from Staff and transportation that there’s no limit on how many back and forth a driver needs to do to get out of their garage. I think several people on the Board don’t agree with that so maybe we need to have a further discussion with that; maybe at a retreat. I would say that I think my take on it is that the applicant is preserving a lot of the trees on the sight and that makes the layout a lot harder so I am willing to go there. I think my recommendation would be to use – if it can work for you is to use a double-wide garage door instead of the singles. In the double --- the single – the doubles are – the single wide are more attractive but I think you’re showing 8-foot wide or 8 ½-foot wide doors and that makes it a lot harder. If you have just one single door, it makes it easier to get in and somebody – sometimes people will only put one car in the garage and then they use the rest for storage and bikes. It seems to me that would give you more flexibility on both lots. On – there were comments about the fences and the gates – the picket fence. I think my suggestion is that maybe that could come back to Staff or subcommittee. On driveway gates, normally we will do a steel structure because they sag over time so even if you want a wood look, they’re still a steel structure behind the wood or the steel is painted – the steel is finished to look like wood. Then also I think on Lot Two you’re showing opaque glazing in the ADU? I think you are showing it in both but I think that you – I think that if I look – recall the comments, I think we only needed it on Lot One. Lot Two you have second-floor windows facing Channing and I think that those should be clear. With regard to the setback, I am fine with the reduced setback for lot two. When I was looking at Lot One for the roof pitch, I am ok with having a higher pitch. I realize though that you do have an unusual ceiling arrangement, where you have 11-foot ceilings on the second floor, which taper down to 7-foot 10-inches. So, you’re doing something unusual and I think that’s attractive from the inside. I think there are some concerns from other Board Members about reducing it and I would be willing to entertain that but it doesn’t both me from the street – so much from the street side but it seems like it could be reduced. I think that’s all – the only – oh, then on – I think Wynne had a comment on the landscape finding and on the landscape plan. I was looking at the plant list and I think generally it's approvable. I would say there is room for improvement on – like underneath the oak tree on lot two. I think the landscape architect has picked out plants that don’t require summer water, which is good for planting – which is desirable for planting underneath an oak tree. The plants from Japan and Siberia, I don’t think that those meet the finding – ideally, don’t meet the findings. There are California native plants that do grow under oak trees. It seems to me that could be substituted so I would say that could come back to Staff or a subcommittee item. Ok, so that’s all of my comments. I think we do separate motions. Yes, Michael? Board Member Makinen: I just had one further comment on the tight turning radius. One solution that’s maybe considered a little bit novel but is workable because I know I’ve had some experience with it, is a turn table. For – I have a property back in the mid-east coast that has a 6-car garage – internal garage and has a turn table to rotate the cars on it. It’s a very workable scheme and I see it being used now on some of the properties in New York City and places like that. Chair Lew: We have one right across the street. Board Member Makinen: Do they? Chair Lew: From City Hall and the new building right on the corner here. Board Member Makinen: Ok, so for the cost of these properties it would not be a big hit but would certainly make it a lot more feasible. Chair Lew: Can I also just chime in on the garage issue? Is that, I mean I think we should just be honest, is that the percentage of people who actually park in the garage maybe like 10%, maybe 15% and it City of Palo Alto Page 11 changes over time. People change as their lifestyles change but the vast majority of neighbors that I know do not park in the garage. We have stuff. Ok, so – yes, too much stuff. Ok, so we’re going to do – we do separate motions so I will let Chair Bower handle the… Vice Chair Bower: Ok, for the HRB? Chair Lew: …HRB and then we’ll do the ARB motion, so separate motions. Vice Chair Bower: So, just to clarify with Staff, we’re looking at compatibility. There is no recommendation in our packet about what we need to recommend or approve so just as long as that’s what you’re looking for. So, HRB Members, would – should we have a discussion I guess first of the issues that were raised by the HRB Members? I can only think of two issues to discuss. One is the height of the building number one, which I raised on the roof pitch and then Margaret – excuse me – raised the issue about the ADU on lot number two. Did I – I don’t think I missed anything? Is there any HRB Board discussion about those two issues? Margaret? Board Member Wimmer: The two adjoining properties are not on the historic – any – on any historic list, are they? The two – the Channing… Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: That’s correct and a historic resource evaluation was prepared and provided in the last – the April report I believe, to this Board or this joint Board. I am getting confirmation. One thing as you, HRB Members, may recall that in reports that we bring to you for other projects that go the ARB after the HRB, we make reference to finding 2B, which talks about historic and compatibility type issues. So, you’re looking at nearby historic properties, you might want to make a reference to that finding 2B. If there is anything such as that roof pitch or what have you. Also, Board Member Bunnenberg said something about the siding. Was that part of the discussion? Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) there was differentiation between new construction or whether it might be taken some years from now as well, is this maybe older than we think? So usually the simple dimensions of lumber, the finishing of the edges and so forth is enough to make that differentiation. Vice Chair Bower: Alright. Margaret, do you have any comments to make about either of those issues? The ADU height or the height of the building Lot One? Board Member Wimmer: I guess even though I have expressed my opinion towards it, apparently it falls within the zoning code and it is respectful of the landscaping. I mean there is that redwood tree there that you have to navigate around. That’s an obstacle so I mean sometimes we have our opinions but I mean sometimes we have to realize that it’s within what they are allowed to do. I mean we can make our suggestions but this is the second time we looked at it so I think that – I mean I think that the applicant – I mean I – overall, I think it’s a great looking project. I think we’ve seen worse but I think overall, I’m agreeable to it. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, Michael? Beth, you are next. Board Member Makinen: I think the project is successful in that it is contextually compatible with the adjacent properties. The argument for different differentiation I think applies more to additions that are put on a property, rather than trying to differentiate an entire house from the neighborhood. So, I would opt more for the fact that it is contextually compatible. Vice Chair Bower: Beth, do you have any comments, discussion? Ok. Alright, well I’m – because I am new to this project, I missed the first one, I will differ to my colleagues about the height issue. I am concerned as I have expressed in other HRB meetings that our houses are growing unnecessarily tall. Even though we have a height limit that’s been reduced and this is under the height limit. Compatibility and context make a difference and that’s why I am concerned about house number one. I like house number two so do I have a motion from HRB Board Members to move our portion forward? City of Palo Alto Page 12 MOTION Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I can – I’ll motion for the HRB that the project does comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards and is contextually compatible and I think we should approve it. Vice Chair Bower: Ok, second? Board Member Bunnenberg: I’ll second that. Vice Chair Bower: Alright, is there any further discussion? Not seeing any. All in favor? So, that’s four in favor, no dissent. Chair Lew, it’s yours. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH CHAIR BERNSTEIN AND BOARD MEMBER KOLHER RECUSED AND BOARD MEMBER COREY ABSENT Chair Lew: Ok, I am willing to entertain motions. Wynne? Board Member Furth: Before you get to motions, I wonder if my architect colleagues would comment on the height issue and whether it’s possible to reduce the height by reducing the pitch of the roof without doing violence to the design and making things worse? I am concerned about the tendency of newer buildings to loom over older ones. I like to reduce it and avoid it whenever possible. I hear also Robert’s comments about un-matching roof pitches but I think that I would privilege reducing the roof pitch to reduce encroachment to the canopy of the oak tree if that’s the pair that we are talking about on lot two. Lot One? Right, Lot One. So, in other words, I would be in favor of requiring a reduction of the roof pitch if it wouldn’t make things worse. Board Member Gooyer: I have on that. I am the one complaining about the pitch of the roof on Lot One but I think the style of that house – it would be detrimental to flatten those roofs or the roof slope out. I mean a good tutor is a good tutor. They’ve got extremely severe roof slopes and I wouldn’t avoid a good tutor entering any resident or residential area in Palo Alto just because the other all building was so high. My biggest concern, as I said, is that the two don’t match and that makes it look like one was either jury rigged with or the other one was. Those two should work as a unit. Vice Chair Kim: Kyu, do you have any comments on that? Vice Chair Kim: I would agree with everything Board Member Gooyer has said but in my case, I am not overly concerned that the ADU and the house itself have two different roof pitches. I do think it would be detrimental to lower the pitch of the roof on Lot One while maintaining the style and character that it has right now. Chair Lew: Ok, so I guess my take on it was like an English style house and they don’t normally have a pitch that’s even higher than what’s shown. I think that is actually kind of low for that style of house. Then on the – I think I agree with Robert about the different pitches on the ADU and the house. I think on this particular case since there are two oak trees there near the property line, I am willing to let it go because I am not sure that you’re really going to see it. See the difference given that the oak trees are going to be obscuring most of that and oak trees have very low branches. I mean they actually – (inaudible) their own devices, they’ll touch the ground and they are Evergreen so I am willing to let that go in my mind. So, Wynne, does that help? Board Member Furth: That’s helpful and my only other area of concern is that there’s an interesting point about the stair on – I keep getting these backward. The Channing lot, perhaps being unlovely but I think I like the fact that it’s visible from the street and is therefore perhaps a little safer feelings space. That is enough for me to support it where it is. It does come back to this issue of landscaping and I know there are trees there and I know whatever is going to be done needs to not damage the existing trees but City of Palo Alto Page 13 given that the plant pallet includes a lot of native trees but – any plants but doesn’t include as many as it might and that the oak preservation plants could be more local and better habit. Given that there’s the possibility of using that landscaping for additional screening so that we get a better appearance from Channing, I would be in favor of approving the project, subject to further review of the landscape plans by subcommittee. Chair Lew: Do you want to try to put that in the – a motion with your comments on findings three, four, five and conditions of approval eleven and fourteen? MOTION Board Member Furth: Yeah, I move that we recommend – I move that the ARB recommend approval of this project at 400 Channing Avenue etc. upon the findings and conditions recommended by Staff and the Staff report with the following changes. With respect to condition of approval number fourteen, we add a sentence at the beginning of it that Staff has determined that no dewatering will be necessary on this site after reviewing what reference they – the geotechnical report you just looked at; should it be necessary and then continue. I think the rest of it can stand given Staff’s statements and on the findings, which I am looking for. On finding number three, I would just delete the sentence that begins the City consulting architect so that you’re left with proposed design uses traditional craftsman and English cottage styles that help meld the homes in the surround architectural aesthetic. The use of high-quality materials and finishes help define and clarify the respective architecture motif of each primary residence convincingly. On condition – finding number four, on the last sentence which refers to visual sight lines, say that the perimeter fence and proposed landscaping strip along unit one’s driveway shall be designed as to not obstruct vision when leaving… Chair Lew: (Inaudible). We call it like the sight triangle and we have it in the code so they just need to (crosstalk)… Board Member Furth: That the visual triangle shall be maintained with respect to the lot unit one driveway on Waverly Street. How do we do this? The last sentence turning – finding number five says further enhancements using zero-scape techniques and indigenous tolerant drought plant material can be included in more developed landscaping plans. What I want to do is change that to say plans will be further reviewed by a subcommittee to ensure… Ms. Gerhardt: Can we just say as conditioned because we will add a condition that subcommittee is required? Board Member Furth: Ok. So, how would that sentence read? Ms. Gerhardt: I was going to make that part up later. Board Member Furth: Ok, so basically further enhancements using zero-scape techniques and indigenous drought tolerant plant material shall be made subject to subcommittee review or subject to conditions. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, will be achieved as conditioned – by conditions of approval. Board Member Furth: Ok. Chair Lew: So, what – I would add that in your motion, right? Board Member Furth: Yes. Chair Lew: A fourth item. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Furth: Yes, which is that the revised landscape plan should be reviewed by Architecture Review Board subcommittee. Chair Lew: Is there a second? Vice Chair Kim: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: Are there any amendment – friendly amendments? I would propose one, which is to delete the opaque glazing on Lot Two and I think I misspoke. It’s the house mostly, right? So, this is a… Board Member Furth: Delete what? Chair Lew: So, Lot Two – is that right? Maybe I mixed up their elevations. No, it’s not the house. No… Mr. Brennan: Lot Two the west elevation is what faces Channing. Chair Lew: Ok, so I misread the plans. So, the – ok, let’s just leave that out. Board Member Furth: You ok? Chair Lew: Yes. Ok, and then Wynne you had mentioned previously condition of approval number eleven which is the street tree… Board Member Furth: Right Chair Lew: …boiler plate thing and did you want to modify that? Board Member Furth: I will accept Staff’s argument that they are going to in accordance with plans and hope that when we see it on another project, it’s changed. Ms. Gerhardt: Was there any conversation about – Board Member Lew, you were asking about maybe a larger garage door to help with turning radius and there was also… Chair Lew: Right but I didn’t hear any other support for that. Ms. Gerhardt: Ok. Board Member Furth: I would support that. Chair Lew: That’s not in your motion. Board Member Furth: That’s true, it’s you or nobody. Ms. Gerhardt: There was conversation about the Hollywood strips maybe not being appropriate on lot number two. Chair Lew: Yes. Board Member Furth: I was assuming that was part of the landscape plan. Chair Lew: I think it’s not proposed in the motion or amended. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Ok, so I think that’s where we are on this one. All in favor? Opposed? City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Gooyer: No. Chair Lew: Ok, so we have a 3-1 and Board Member Baltay is absent. MOTION PASSES 3-1 WITH BOARD MEMBER BALTAY ABSENT Chair Lew: Congratulations and I think that’s all for this – for the joint hearing. Thank you to the HRB. We will take a 5-minute break and reorganize and we’ll come back to the rest of the ARB agenda. Approval of Minutes Subcommittee Item Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment