The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-08-17 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 17, 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. 3001 El Camino Real [16PLN-00097 and 16PLN- 00220]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow for Construction of a Four-Story Mixed-Use Development with 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 30 Residential Units in the CS Zone as well as a Three-Story Multi-Family Residential Building with 20 Units in the RM-30 Zone. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Preliminary Parcel Map for a Lot Merger to Allow for the Proposed Development, a Design Enhancement Exception, and a Parking Adjustment for Shared Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Review on July 3, 2017 and the circulation period ended on August 2, 2017. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial), RM-30 (Multi-family Residential, and R-1 (Single-family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 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. 3.4190 El Camino Real (17PLN-00195): Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed 5,340 Square Foot, 22 Foot Tall Service Building Addition and 14,380 Square Foot, 27 Foot Tall Solar Canopy Over Existing Parking at an Existing Auto Dealership. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CS (AD). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.4256 El Camino Real: Preliminary Review for a New Hotel with Condos 4256 El Camino Real (17PLN-00085): Request by Mircea Voskerician for a Preliminary Architectural Review for the Review of a New Hotel Located at 4256 El Camino Real. The New Five-Story Hotel is Proposed to be 50' Tall, 51,581 sq. ft., and Would Include 39,173 sq. ft. of Hotel Amenities Including 69 Guest Rooms Over 5 Floors, and 11,758 sq. ft. of residential space including 8 townhomes (each townhome is proposed to be 3 bedrooms and 3 stories tall). Additionally, the site is proposed to have 85 underground parking spaces (78 spaces utilized with mechanical lifts, 4 surface ADA spaces, 2 valet surfaces spaces, and 1 undesignated surface space). Environmental Assessment: Is a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zone District: CS.For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Draft Architectural Review Board Minutes of August 3, 2017 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 # 8013) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/17/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3001 El Camino Real: Mixed Use With 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 50 Residential Units Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [16PLN-00097 and 16PLN-00220]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow for Construction of a Four-Story Mixed-Use Development with 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 30 Residential Units in the CS Zone as well as a Three-Story Multi- Family Residential Building with 20 Units in the RM-30 Zone. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Preliminary Parcel Map for a Lot Merger to Allow for the Proposed Development, a Design Enhancement Exception, and a Parking Adjustment for Shared Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Review on July 3, 2017 and the circulation period ended on August 2, 2017. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial), RM- 30 (Multi-family Residential), and R-1 (Single-family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and 2. Recommend approval of the Site and Design Application, Design Enhancement Exception, and Director’s Parking Adjustment to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Report Summary The proposed project would construct two buildings with a total of 50 dwelling units and 19,800 square feet of retail space on the east side of El Camino Real between Olive Avenue and Acacia Avenue. The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54501. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment I. The project plans are included in Attachment L. On July 12, 2017, the project was reviewed by the PTC, which recommended approval of the project. A copy of the PTC staff report and minutes are available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/. Staff believes that the applicant’s resubmittal addresses prior comments made by the Board and the analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report with modifications to reflect recent project changes. Staff is recommending that the ARB recommend approval of the Site and Design, Design Enhancement Exception, and the Director’s Adjustment to Council based on the findings and conditions of approval included in Attachment B. Background On November 3, 2016 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-51/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Multi-family Residential Elevations: Several board members asked for further consideration of the RM-30 building elevation, noting that lowering the height of the first floor would create a more direct connection with the streetscape and make the building more apparently residential as well as more pedestrian friendly. Board members also asked for more greenery and more pedestrian friendly features to activate the frontage. At least one board member noted that creating stoops along the frontage should be considered. The Acacia elevations have been redesigned as shown on Sheets A3.3, A3.6 and A3.7 of the project plans. The first floor elevation was reduced from 13 feet to 4 feet above grade. Pedestrian amenities have been included along the frontage and landscaping has been integrated into the design to enhance the frontage and these provided amenities. Stoops leading out to Acacia from first floor units have not been provided. Staff’s analysis of these changes is included below. Mixed-Use Building Elevations: Board members identified concerns with the elevations along El Camino Real. Comments The El Camino Real frontage has been redesigned as shown on sheets A0.0, A3.1, and A3.5 of the project plans. The applicant 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 stated that the elevations were too repetitive, lacking variation in the design and materials which created a “walled canyon” effect. Board members suggested that changes in the materials, color, and articulation as well as the addition of more pedestrian friendly elements, gathering spaces, and plantings could help break up the massing along this frontage. Some board members also noted that a passage/paseo running from El Camino to the rear of building would be recommend to further break up the building. has made changes to the proposed colors, material and articulation of the building. In addition, the applicant has made revisions to the awning design, added pedestrian amenities and plantings, and has added more defined gathering spaces at the corners. A passage between the rear of the building and El Camino Real has not been provided. Staff’s analysis of these changes is included below. El Camino Real entrances: Several board members noted that the El Camino Real Design Guidelines encourage entrances for both residential and retail along the El Camino Real frontage in order to activate the pedestrian environment. Board members expressed concerns about the lack of connection between both the retail and residential units to the street frontage as well the grade differential between the sidewalk and the entrances. Access to residential units from El Camino Real has been included in the revised design as shown on Sheets A2.1 and A3.1 of the project plans. Additional access to the retail commercial area has also been provided along El Camino Real. Materials: Board members commented on the material/style proposed, recommending that the applicant consider “more timeless” materials than corrugated metal and less heavy architecture to better fit into the area. One board member recommended that the many adjacent redwood trees be used as a source of inspiration in the materials. The applicant has revised the proposed materials, removing the corrugated metal and stucco. The applicant has incorporated more wood into the design combined with a cement plaster instead of stucco and has revised the colors. Staff’s analysis of these changes is included below. Design of Open Space: Some board members had asked for further detail on the amenity space for the mixed-use building located along El Camino Real. Sheet L1.02 of the project plans shows the schematic landscape plan for the second level open space on the mixed-use building. Sheet L6.01 provides additional renderings of podium details. This open space is consistent with code requirements. Parking and Bicycle Design: One board member commented that the provided parking spots seem compact. In addition, at least one board member commented on the bicycle parking distribution. Sheet A2.0 of the project plans show dimensions for vehicle parking stalls as well as the revised bike parking plan. Staff’s analysis of the vehicle and bike parking is discussed below. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Staircase Design: One board member commented that the connection between the below-grade garage up to the ground floor as well as the residential units above. In particular, it was noted that improved natural light to the staircase would make it more useable for residents and retail users. It was recommended that the podium open space be better connected to the parking below. Sheets A3.2 and A3.3 of the project plans show the revised elevation plans along Olive Avenue, along the rear of the CS building, and for the RM-30 building along Acacia. Staff’s analysis of this change is discussed below. Analysis1 Multi-family Residential Elevations Several board members commented on the initial elevation plans for the building in the RM-30 Zone. Specifically, the previous design included the parking garage at grade and the first floor of residential units was set 13 feet above grade, creating a 13 foot wall along the Acacia frontage. Board members noted that the design had minimal articulation and no direct connection between the residential units and the streetscape. The proposed plans, as revised, lower the garage so that it is partially below grade, setting the first floor units at approximately 4 feet above grade. Although stoops have not been provided along the Acacia frontage, the applicant has provided open balconies closer to the ground floor to create the presence of residential use along Acacia. In addition, changes included improved landscaping and more pedestrian friendly features such as benches that encourage a more active pedestrian environment while still maintaining privacy and security for the residents. Mixed-Use Building Elevations, Entrances, and Materials The proposed plans include extensive revisions to the proposed El Camino Real frontage. To address board member comments regarding the repetitiveness and massing along the frontage the applicant has made design changes to create more variation through better articulation as well as provide more contrast in the colors and materials to break up the building. Corrugated metal, which was proposed for large parts of the frontage, has been removed and more wood components have been incorporated. Both staff and board members commented on the lack of pedestrian features and entrances along the El Camino Real frontage. The proposed project, as revised, includes entrances to retail and residential areas from the El Camino Real frontage. Although it would be more desirable for these entrances to be set at grade and along the build-to-line, the existing grade changes at the 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 take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 site create a significant site constraint. Specifically, the grade at the approximate center line of the property along El Camino Real is notably higher than the grade at the Olive and Acacia corners. In addition, the grade of the site transitions from a high point along El Camino Real to a lower grade at the rear of the property (closer to the RM-30 zone). The applicant has explored multiple options for improving the pedestrian environment along El Camino Real to better comply with staff and board member comments as well as applicable design criteria that encourage pedestrian-oriented development. The proposed design ensures that the existing, mature landscaping along the El Camino Real frontage is preserved, that entrances to both residential and retails uses are provided along the frontage, incorporates usable amenities into landscape and hardscape features, provides small plazas/seating areas on each corner for gathering, maintains transparency along the entire frontage, and ensures that the below-grade parking garage does not daylight toward the rear of the CS Zone. The improvements to the ground floor along the frontage create a more defined base of the structure that provides an inviting pedestrian experience and is less repetitive than the previously proposed design. Although a different roof line might better define the roof, the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines encourage parapet roofing and the design is consistent with adjacent developments along the El Camino Real frontage. The step down from the 50 foot height limit to 35 feet on either side of the building frontage helps to define the line of the body of the structure. Parking and Bicycle Design Although no changes are proposed to the vehicle parking stalls, Sheet A2.0 has been revised to show the vehicle parking stall dimensions. Vehicle parking stall dimensions are consistent with standard code requirements, which require Uni-class stall A for 90 degree parking. Sheet A2.0 shows that bicycle parking has been revised to distribute the long-term bicycle parking appropriately between the CS zoned portion of the site and the RM-30 zoned portion of the site, consistent with board member comments. Long-term bicycle parking is provided in the parking garage. Although it may be more desirable to provide long-term bicycle parking at the ground level, the placement of long-term bicycle parking below-grade is allowed in accordance with the municipal code. Short-term bicycle parking is provided at ground level and is distributed between the various entrances, as required in the municipal code. Staircase Design The revised plans show a proposed open mesh material that will allow for natural light into all three staircases. All three staircases connect from the basement to all floors above so that residents or retail users can utilize the staircases as an alternative to the elevators, consistent with board member comments. In addition, the revised design for the mixed-use building in the CS zone connects the staircase to the second floor open space consistent with board member comments. PTC Requested Revisions and Clarification 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 On July 12, 2017, this project was reviewed by the PTC. Following the PTC’s motion to recommend approval of the proposed project to Council, the PTC passed a second motion asking the ARB to pay special attention to the following four items as they review the project: Revisions to the photometric study The PTC noted that the lighting studies only seemed to assess lighting from landscaping, parking, and at ground level entrances. The PTC asked for further consideration and revisions to the photometric study to ensure that lighting on upper floors is included. Sheet LT 1.1 has been revised to include the lighting from the upper floor balconies. Consideration of the Design Enhancement Exception The PTC motion included a request to the ARB to further evaluate this requested exception. As discussed further below, the DEE request would allow for the ramp to the below-grade parking garage to be located 5 feet into the required 10 foot setback/landscaping strip. The purpose of the request is to allow for a circulation design that would direct traffic away from Olive Avenue where it would likely be more impactful to single-family residences. Staff recommends approval of the DEE based on the findings included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Protection from construction impacts The PTC motion asked the ARB to further consider impacts of construction on adjacent residents. Although there was no further elaboration on what types of impacts were of concern, staff believes that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately analyzes, and provides mitigation, where appropriate, for construction related impacts. In particular, Mitigation Measures (MM) HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, and MMs N-1 through N-7 address construction related impacts associated with any hazardous materials that could be exposed as a result of ground disturbance at the site as well as construction related noise. With incorporation of these mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. Landscaping The PTC requested that the proposed landscaping along the rear property line between the RM-30 building and the adjacent single-family residences be similar in height and canopy to the existing trees along that property line. The applicant has added Sheet L2.01 to the plan set to show the anticipated height of the landscaping along this property line at 5 years growth and at maturity. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The subject site has a split land use designation of Service Commercial; Multiple Family Residential; Single Family Residential. As detailed in the initial ARB staff report, the proposed project components are consistent with the land use descriptions outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Land use and Design Element for each respectively designated area of the 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 site. The proposed project is located on a Housing Inventory Site (HIS) which is currently allocated to provide a maximum yield of 9 units and realistic yield of seven units to the City’s housing inventory. However, because of the proposed consolidation of three parcels (only one of which was listed as a HIS), the project proposes 50 units, more than five times the maximum yield outlined in the Housing Element. Proposed housing supports the Comprehensive Plan Goal of providing housing to support the City’s fair share of regional housing needs and the location of this housing within the proximity of job opportunities within the City (including the 10-story Palo Alto Square office complex and Stanford Research Park) is consistent with the City’s goal of improving the existing job/housing imbalance in Palo Alto. A consistency analysis with specific goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan is included in Attachment C. Based on the proposed uses within each land use designation, consistency with the housing element, and consistency with other policies and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, staff finds that on balance, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In response to a previous comment from the ARB, staff also discussed the light rail/jitney corridor right-of-way that previously ran through this area with both transportation and long- range planning. Previously identified right-of-way has, in most cases, been sold off to adjacent property owners (as is the case for this project site) and improvements have been added within that former right-of-way. The proposed new Comprehensive Plan does not include any reference to this corridor and the current adopted Comprehensive Plan generally speaks to a future jitney/rail line but does not specifically identify this former right-of-way as part of an existing or future corridor. South El Camino Real and El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project site is located within the California-Ventura corridor area and is identified as a Cal- Ventura strategic site in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The guidelines note that development of mixed uses in this area along the eastern El Camino Real frontage should accommodate pedestrian activity with attractive sidewalks and landscaping. New buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades and be clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians. The proposed project includes entrances to retail and residential areas from both the El Camino Real frontage as well as parking areas, consistent with the guidelines. As discussed above in staff’s analysis of the revised El Camino Real frontage, it may be more desirable and consistent with the guidelines for these to be set at grade. However, the proposed design ensures that the existing, mature landscaping along the El Camino Real frontage is preserved, that entrances to both residential and retails uses are provided along the frontage, incorporates usable amenities into landscape and hardscape features, provides small plazas/seating areas on each corner for gathering, maintains transparency along the entire frontage, and ensures that the below-grade parking garage does not daylight toward the rear of the CS Zone. Therefore, staff finds that the project, on balance, is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 The project is also subject to the 1979 El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR Guidelines) guidelines with respect to trees, signage, architecture and building colors. Because the occupant(s) for the proposed retail space is/are yet to be determined, specific signage is not currently proposed. Therefore, staff finds that the project is consistent with the 1979 El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Zoning Compliance3 Staff has performed a detailed review of the project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. As detailed in the zoning compliance summary tables in Attachments D and E the proposed project complies with the requirements for each respective zoning district or is seeking, through the requested approvals, permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the zoning ordinance.. Although a portion of the proposed site is zoned R-1, no buildings are proposed within this site area; therefore, no summary table is provided for this zoning. Landscaping and landscape features are allowed within required setbacks and are consistent with zoning code requirements. As rental housing, the project is not subject to the City’s inclusionary requirements for affordable housing; thus the project is not required to include deed-restricted affordable units. Nonetheless, the project consists of smaller rental units, and will contribute to the City’s affordable housing funds through payment of impact fees. Design Enhancement Exception The proposed building in the CS zone is set back substantially (between 75 to 90 feet) from the rear lot line and areas of the site within a different zone district. However, the below grade parking garage and associated ramp is located five feet from a lot line where a 10-foot setback is required in accordance with PAMC Section 18.16.060. In addition, PAMC Section 18.23.050(B)(vi) requires that a minimum 10-foot planting and screening strip be provided abutting a low density residential district. Placement of the parking garage ramp within the required setback allows for only a 5-foot setback and planting strip along a portion of the site between the CS and R-1 zone districts. The location/design of the roundabout allows cars to enter from Olive Avenue but does not allow cars exiting below-grade parking to exit toward Olive Avenue. Only a car parked in one of the 28 surface parking spaces adjacent Olive Avenue would be allowed to exit onto that street. This parking lot circulation design reduces traffic on Olive Avenue, adjacent to single-family residences and also allows for underground parking to reduce visual impacts of surface parking along El Camino Real. Approval of this encroachment requires that the findings for a DEE be made. The draft findings for approval of this DEE are included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Director’s Adjustment for Parking and Loading The project is seeking a Director’s adjustment to allow for six shared parking spaces in accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.050. The shared parking adjustment would allow shared use of four guest parking spaces with retail commercial uses and two at grade parking spaces to 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 be restricted during trash pickup hours, which would occur in the morning, outside of peak periods. The Parking Management Plan included in Attachment F provides a parking analysis showing peak periods for the proposed uses throughout the day. Because residential stalls would be secured, the analysis only includes the 99 retail parking spaces on the CS portion of the site and the ten guest parking spaces required for the CS portion of the site. The analysis shows that shared use of four parking spaces would be acceptable during maximum peak periods. Shared use of two parking spaces for trash pickup would be acceptable before noon (i.e. outside of peak hours). The applicant is also requesting a Director’s adjustment to allow for one on-street loading space. The site design, which is designed to place parking where it would be less visible from El Camino Real and would reduce vehicle trips out to Olive Avenue, would make circulation of larger trucks on-site infeasible. Parking spaces would need to be further restricted during morning loading/unloading hours and trucks would have to back up into the site, which could result in back-up beepers going off during morning hours. Policy L-77 encourages alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount of land that must be devoted to parking, provided that economic and traffic safety goals can still be achieved. The location of one shared loading space off-site on Acacia would be consistent with this goal because it would devote less land to parking. Loading would be restricted to non-peak business hours for both the project site and adjacent commercial activities to ensure that economic and safety goals can still be achieved. Because the applicant is requesting a parking reduction, in accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.030(i) a Transit Demand Management Plan will be required as a condition of approval for the project in order to reduce and manage the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips generated by the project. Context-Based Design Criteria The proposed development requires that the City make the findings outlined in PAMC Section 18.16.090, Context-Based Design Criteria, for the CS building and the findings outlined in 18.12.060, Multi-family Context-Based Design Criteria, for the RM-30 building. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with these context-based design criteria is included in Attachment G. Performance Criteria Because the proposed mixed-used development would be located within a CS zone, this portion of the development would be subject to the performance criteria outlined in Section 18.23 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). An analysis of the project’s consistency with the performance criteria is included in Attachment H. As discussed above, the applicant is seeking a DEE to allow for the ramp to be located 5 feet from the property line where the performance criteria require a 10 foot landscape strip. With the granting of the Design Enhancement Exception to allow for this reduced setback, staff finds that the project, on balance, is consistent with the performance criteria. Multi-Modal Access & Parking 2 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 The location, use, and required off-site improvements associated with the proposed project are consistent with the goals of the City’s 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). The City’s BPTP goals include converting discretionary vehicle trips to walking and biking trips as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse emissions by 15% and doubling rates of bicycling and walking. Mixed-use development located near transit (0.5 miles from Caltrain and 600-2,000 feet from several bus stops including VTA Route 22, 101, 102, 103 and the Dumbarton Express line DB-1) and housing allows persons to access a greater share of destinations while reducing the need for single-occupancy vehicle trips. Direct pedestrian connectivity from the public sidewalk is provided to both commercial and residential uses, promoting increased bicycle and pedestrian both from residents and those accessing the site from surrounding areas. Parking With approval of the Director’s parking adjustment, the proposed project is consistent with the municipal code requirements for vehicle parking. The Parking Management Plan in Attachment F shows that based on parking demand throughout the day for each use, the total number of spaces provided will be effective in providing sufficient parking. At least one board member noted that it would be more desirable for bicycle parking to be provided at the ground floor level. All short-term bicycle parking is provided at the ground floor level; however, the applicant has not made changes to place long-term bicycle parking at the ground floor level. Although staff agrees that ground level long-term parking would be more convenient, the municipal code does not prohibit providing long-term parking below grade. One member of the public commented that the existing surface parking is currently utilized and therefore should be replaced. The existing surface parking along El Camino Real is roped off and is not currently used. Although the lot adjacent the Fry’s site is often used by adjacent commercial and retail uses, is not required parking for any adjacent development and is therefore not required to be replaced. Circulation Overall, parking area circulation eliminates existing entrances to the site from El Camino Real; creating entrances on Acacia Avenue and Olive Avenue; which is more consistent with the El Camino Real design guidelines. The proposed parking lot would allow for entrance from Olive and Acacia Avenue but the garage ramp location for the mixed use building would encourage exit onto Acacia Avenue, away from nearby single-family residences. However, the placement of the ramp within the required setback requires that the City make the findings for a DEE. The draft DEE findings for approval of the DEE are included in Attachment B. 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 City’s environmental regulations. Specifically, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on July 3, 2017 and was circulated for a 30 day period through August 2, 2017. A link to the 2 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included in Attachment K. The ARB must consider the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in making a recommendation on the project and may comment on the draft. Following completion of the ARB’s review and recommendation on the project, a Final Draft MND and MMRP would be prepared for the City Council. Mitigation has been included, in particular, to address construction noise, to address construction in the plume, and to address pedestrian circulation. Construction, or payment toward construction, of a crosswalk across El Camino Real would be required. 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 August 4, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 4, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments During the first formal hearing with the ARB, one member of the public commented on the proposed project. This comment primarily focused on concerns regarding the displacement of parking from the existing at grade parking lot and concerns regarding massing along the El Camino Real façade. The commenter asked that more attention be made to the façade to make it more attractive and break up the vertical facade. A transcript of the ARB hearing is included in Attachment J and includes these comments. During the formal PTC hearing on July 12, 2017 one member of the public, whom identified herself as a nearby resident on Olive Avenue, expressed concerns about the size of the project, noting that she felt that the project was too large based on the size of the lot. She also expressed more general concerns about the City’s follow up on development projects in the area to ensure that requirements (e.g. landscaping) are being maintained and the fact that parcels along Olive Avenue should be allowed to rezone to multi-family residential. A transcript of the PTC hearing is not yet available; however, a video recording of the hearing can be viewed online at http://midpenmedia.org/planning- transportation-commission-52/. 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 Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment D: CS Zoning Consistency (DOCX)  Attachment E: RM-30 Zoning Consistency (DOCX)  Attachment F: Parking Management Plan (PDF)  Attachment G: Context-based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment H: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment I: First Formal ARB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment J: First Formal ARB Transcript (PDF)  Attachment K: Environmental Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment L: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 21 35 20 4 18 20 10 35 10 35 50 110.0'110.0' 150.0'191.7' 95.8' 109.9' 47.9' 705.1' 47.9' 150.0' 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 200.0' 49.9' 150.0' 199.7' 10.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 200 50.0' 200.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 105.3' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 590.8' 705.1' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0'50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 200 50.0' 200.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 109.9' 754.2' 570.4' 7 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 136.1' 50.0' 138.1' 50.0' 18.5' 100.0' 19.8' 100.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 134.7' 65.7' 134.7' 65.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8'109.3' 50.0' 109.3' 51.1' 119.6' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 127.3' 50.3' 132.6' 50.0' 119.6' 50.6' 127.3' 50.0' 132.6' 50.1' 136.1' 50.0' 32.0' 17.5'34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 142.5' 300.0'112.5' 49.8' 61.8' 49.0' 62.8' 63.3' 200.0' 8.8'12.1'13.1' 15.0' 9.1' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7'134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.6'134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6'134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6'134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7'134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.7' 100.0' 42.5' 100.0' 42.5' 100.0' 100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0'100.0' 315.6' 42.5'50.0' 235.0' 31.4' 145.6' 112.5' 65.6' 142.5' 100.0' 142.6' 99.3' 53.2' 83.7' 150.0' 10.0'10.0' 118.6' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 245.3' 200.0' 44.0' 706.6' 498.2' 526.6' 129.8' 129.8' 51.2' 50.0' 129.8' 129.8' 129.8' 51.4' 50.0' 308.6' 308.5' 206.0' 206.5' 95.8' 110.0' 40.0' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 199.7' 199.7'100.0' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 30.0' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0'275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 605.7' 605.7' 78.5' 53.4' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 50.0'65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 149.0' 150.0' 370.9' 427.3' 95.8' 164.9 199.7 6 5 1 2 3 Day Care 3 4 Fry's Electronics A B Palo Alto Square 2 PARKING GARAGE PF CN M-40 PC-4354 PC-4463 PC-4637 PC-2952 RM-30 R-1 GM CS CS ROLM CS RP GM C-4831 CS(D) 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 3150 3170 3200 3300 447 3375 3345 417 429 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3200 3201 395 385 375 450 430 400 425 32753261 3251 220 230 336 340 370 380 3101 210 365 345 315 305 295 285 245 265 275 3040 400 402 404 408 411 423 433 420 441 430 440 450 460 471 461 451 4702805 2865 2875 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 471 461 2999 2951 2905 461 2755 3000 3017 3001 412 410 2701 404 345 3128 755 406 3127 600 3111 473 435 3225 440 31802700 620 630 360 200 429 660 445 481 3215 3275 3327 3399 601 3333 3201 3051 3101 3160 2790 2705 3260 419 2825 3265 LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL HANSEN WAY EL CAMINO REAL SHERIDAN AVENUE SHERIDAN ASH STREET ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUEPEPPER AVENUE ASH STREET PAGE MILL ROAD E MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REA L EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone District Boundaries 3001 El Camino Real (Project Site) abc Zone District Labels 0'250' 3001 El Camino Real Proposed Site Parcel with Zoning Districts Area Map 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 RRivera, 2016-10-05 14:08:323001 ECR CH (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) Attachment A 2.a Packet Pg. 22 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ) Attachment B APPROVAL NO. 2017-__ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3001 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW [FILE NOs. 16PLN-00097 and 16PLN-00220] On ________, 2017, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; the Site and Design Review to allow demolition of two existing structures total 9,100 sf and construction of two buildings totaling 49,494 square feet (sf) of multi- family residential housing and 19,800 sf of retail space with both below and at-grade parking located at 3001 El Camino Real; the Preliminary Parcel Map for the Merger of three lots; the Design Enhancement Exception; and a shared parking adjustment 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 June 21, 2016 The Sobrato Organization applied for a Preliminary Parcel Map [16PLN- 00220] for the development of a 1.97 acre parcel. B. The project site is comprised of three lots (APN Nos. 132-37-055; 13-37-056; and 132-38- 072) that are 0.32 acres, 0.33 acres, and 1.32 acres, respectively. The site contains two structures currently used for retail. Single family residential land uses are located to the northeast. Other surrounding uses include office, retail, and commercial recreation uses. C. On March 15, 2016 The Sobrato Organization applied for a Site and Design Review [16PLN- 00097] to allow demolition of two existing structures totaling 9,100 square feet and to construct one new three story, 20 unit multi-family residential building with partially below-grade parking and one new four-story mixed use building with 30 residential units totaling 19,800 square feet of floor area with below and at-grade parking and other site improvements. D. Staff has determined that the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable CS, RM- 30, and R-1 development standards, as applicable to each portion of the site. E. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on July 12, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. F. Following staff and Planning and Transportation Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design and Design Enhancement Exception on August 17, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. G. On ________, 2017, the City Council reviewed the project design and the MND and MMRP. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the Site and Design, Preliminary Parcel Map, Design Enhancement Exception, and Shared Parking Adjustment subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Record of Land Use Action. 2.b Packet Pg. 23 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan approved by the City Council on ________, 2017. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the proposed project(s) would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed. The MND is available for review on the City’s web site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3729. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVE FINDINGS. The project is consistent with the Site and Design Objective Findings outlined in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed project is consistent with Objective A because the proposed use of the site is consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan for this particular area of the City and the proposed uses are consistent with permitted uses within each of their respective zone districts on this split-zoned site. The proposed project eliminates light spillover to adjacent residences; screens mechanical equipment, trash, etc., placing it away from adjacent residences; and places most parking underground. It provides ample open space and screening between adjacent uses and the El Camino Real frontage encourages pedestrian and bicyclist activity. The frontage of both sites is articulated with setbacks, changes in height, and changes in material in order to reduce massing, incorporate and highlight natural elements from nearby sites, and to provide appropriate transitions both along the frontage and between the site and adjacent single family residential uses. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The proposed project is consistent with Objective B because it includes retail uses on the ground floor close to adjacent office uses and also provides housing, placing residents in close proximity to office uses, commercial recreation uses, and retail both on and off-site. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The proposed project is consistent with Objective C in that the project use encourages pedestrian and bicycle activity, and situates both housing and additional retail in a location close to extensive transit opportunities as well as adjacent retail and office uses, which helps to reduce vehicle trips. The building is also designed to comply with Calgreen plus Tier 2 requirements and all plants will be drought resistant. The project will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. Although several trees on site are planned to be removed, these would be replaced in kind in a manner that creates functional open space area for retail users and residents. More than three times the existing number of trees will be added. None of the trees planned for removal are protected. Existing mature street trees along El Camino Real and Olive Avenue would be retained and protected during construction. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Objective D because the project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas in close proximity to transit. The design of the development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. More specifically, the Cal- Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the comprehensive plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi-family residential development. The project has been designed to be 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. These areas include pedestrian amenities that create public spaces to sit and rest at each corner of the development and vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City and Caltrans goals. As outlined in Attachment C of the staff report, the project is consistent with several policies and goals outlined in the Housing Element, Natural Element, Land Use and Design Element, and Transportation Element. With implementation of conditions of approval the project would be consistent with Policy N-29. Therefore, the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS. 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: The proposed use of each building is consistent with the permitted uses for each respectively zoned area of the site. With the exception of the Design Enhancement Exception and Director’s Shared Parking Adjustment requested in accordance with the municipal code allowances, the project is consistent with the applicable development standards for each zone district. There are no applicable coordinated area plans that have been adopted that would apply to the subject property. The project is consistent with applicable design guides, including the Context-Based Design Criteria as well as the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The map and proposed improvements are consistent with several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies outlined in the Housing Element, Land Use and Design Element, Transportation Element, and Natural Element as outlined in Attachment C of the staff report. The project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas in close proximity to transit (bus and Caltrain). The design of the development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. More specifically, the Cal-Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi- family residential development. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and zoning code build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. These areas include pedestrian amenities that create public spaces to sit and rest at each corner of the development and vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City goals. The project has been designed to highlight natural materials (i.e. wood) and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning code, and applicable design guides. 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, 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 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 project proposes merging three parcels into a single parcel and redevelopment of that parcel with a mixed- use retail/residential building as well as a multi-family residence. The frontage along El Camino Real incorporates pedestrian amenities including benches built into planters and open gathering areas at entrances to the retail and residential use that are desirable for occupants and visitors. The project materials incorporate inspiration from the large redwood trees on neighboring properties by highlighting wood as a material throughout the buildings. It preserves all mature trees along the main El Camino Real frontage, which helps reduce massing of the proposed project. The proposed project is also consistent with the context-based design criteria, performance criteria, South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and El Camino Real Design Guidelines, which are all applicable to the proposed project, as outlined in the body of the staff report and Attachments E and F of the staff report. The project has substantial setbacks between the main building and the single-family residential uses and the design takes into account the unique three-way split zoning of the site by providing appropriate uses and applying applicable development requirements within each respectively zoned area of the project site. The project enhances living conditions on the site by providing appropriate and usable open space areas for both developments and connects the two buildings to provide shared open space areas across the site. 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 design is of high aesthetic quality, providing pedestrian amenities and gathering areas across the site. It integrates natural materials inspired by adjacent natural features (i.e. mature redwood trees). The materials are of a high quality and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The design is set back substantially to provide space between the proposed buildings and nearby single-family residential uses and both buildings are designed appropriately based on their use and surrounding context, specifically nearby single-family residential uses and El Camino Real. Individual entries and detailed materials reinforce the pedestrian scale. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of 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: The proposed project eliminates at grade parking and curb cuts along El Camino Real and provides parking below-grade or at grade but not visible from El Camino Real, which is consistent with City goals. Vehicular access to the property and circulation are respectful of these goals and also reduces traffic adjacent single-family residences. Pedestrian oriented features have been incorporated into the frontage of both buildings and access to both retail and residential uses has been provided from El Camino Real. Access for pedestrians and cyclists is convenient and safe. The project would not impact the existing bike path along El Camino Real but would provide, in accordance with the Mitigation Measure (MM) T-1, improved pedestrian access from the new residential and retail uses to other retail, commercial recreation, and office uses across El Camino Real along this block. The project is designed to provide shared open space to residents across the site but provides sufficient 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 open space to meet all code requirements for each respectively zoned area of the site. Specific signage is not proposed as part of the project; however, the proposed concept for signage shows that it would be pedestrian oriented. 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: Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the existing street trees along El Camino Real and Olive Avenue consists of mature trees. This site asset will be preserved in the new design. Additional landscaping will be provided throughout the site and particularly along shared property lines with adjacent single-family residential uses to provide appropriate screening. The building materials, textures and colors are complimentary to the environmental setting and the landscape design utilizes drought tolerant and native plants that are appropriate to the site. Exterior pathways connect one building to another and provide outdoor areas throughout the site that are functional and serve as gathering places for residents and retail users. These outdoor areas are compatible with the buildings and natural features of the site. Although most of the plants are not indigenous, plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. More specifically, the plant material is appropriate for the unique planting spaces over podium and in perimeter landscape areas. The many proposed trees would provide desirable habitat for avian species. 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: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project will use low water-use, drought resistant plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. The project use encourages pedestrian and bicycle activity, and situates both housing and additional retail in a location close to extensive transit opportunities as well as adjacent retail and office uses, which helps to reduce vehicle trips. The project would result in three times as many trees on-site in comparison to existing conditions, which provides habitat, in particular, for nesting birds. SECTION 5. PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP FINDINGS. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed further below. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: 2.b Packet Pg. 27 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 The map and proposed improvements are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no specific plans are applicable to the project site. Merging the three parcels allows for use of the site for a development that increases the City’s housing inventory on a site that was identified as a Housing Inventory Site. The project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas within the 0.5 miles of the Caltrain station. The design of the development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. More specifically, the Cal-Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the comprehensive plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi-family residential development. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. These areas include pedestrian amenities that create public spaces to sit and rest at each corner of the development and. Vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City and Caltrans goals. The project has been designed to highlight natural materials (i.e. wood) and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific policies and goals with which the project would be consistent are included in Section 4. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The siting of the new mixed use and multi-family residential buildings is consistent with uses encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan for this area and are permitted uses within their respectively zoned portion of the site. The subject property is located within the Cal-Ventura area. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the California Avenue/Ventura Area (Cal-Ventura) has an established pattern of mixed use, with service commercial, light industrial and housing. Continued mixing of land uses is encouraged. The Comprehensive Plan also states that the proximity of this area to transit and services makes it an excellent location for both housing and commercial uses. In addition, the project site is a housing inventory site as identified in the City’s adopted Housing Element. The lot merger would allow for the development to not only meet but exceed the housing inventory allocation for this site, contributing positively to a reduction in the jobs/housing imbalance in the City. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The proposed density is consistent with densities outlined for multi-family uses in the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element notes that the permitted number of housing units for Multi-Family Residential land use will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities range from 8 to 40 units. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas. The proposed project, at a density equivalent to 28 units per acre, is consistent with the density allowances for this land use designation. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This merger will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site is located within a developed area. The nearest water feature is Matadero Creek, located over 750 feet west of the project site. There is no recognized sensitive wildlife or habitat on the project site or in the immediate project vicinity. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: 2.b Packet Pg. 28 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 The merging of three parcels to create one combined parcel for a mixed-use and multi-family development will not cause serious public health problems, because the site is designated for such permitted uses. The site is located within the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume; however, implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan as well as the conditions of approval outlined in Section 7 would ensure that, potential impacts associated with earth disturbing activities in the plume would not result in health impacts to existing or future residents within the area. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. There is a City of Palo public utility easement along the property line between the CS portion of the site and the adjacent single family residence. The ramp would be partially located within this easement. This easement currently provides power to the existing retail at the project site. However, as a condition of approval of the preliminary parcel map this easement would be vacated. A new easement from Acacia Avenue to a preferred central location would provide power to the resulting parcel. Therefore, the proposed preliminary parcel map would not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivision. SECTION 6. DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION FINDINGS. In order for Council to approve a design enhancement exception, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.050 of the PAMC. Finding #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; The proposed project site is extraordinary in that it has three-way split zoning and three-way split land use designation on the site, which results in the need to develop the site consistent with the zoning and land use requirements of each respective portion of the site (e.g. meeting development standards such as setbacks as well as ensuring that the use of each portion is consistent with permitted uses within that specific zone district as well as consistent with the land use designation) despite the fact that the preliminary parcel map results in a single parcel. Although two-way split zoning does occur in some areas of the City it is not very common and three-way split zoning is extremely rare. This, combined with the project’s location on El Camino Real, which makes it subject to the South El Camino Real design guidelines, as well as its proximity to nearby residential uses and therefore associated development standards for areas within 150 feet of these uses, creates restraints with respect to where the buildings and parking can be located. The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines as well as development standards require that buildings along El Camino Real be built up to the build-to-line and encourage parking to be located in areas that are not visible from the street frontage. In addition, height restrictions and attention to privacy limit where the buildings can be located with respect to the adjacent residences. The location of the ramp is designed to meet all applicable requirements and guidelines and is also located as to reduce overall trips leaving the site toward Olive Avenue where they could be more impactful to single-family residents in the area. 2.b Packet Pg. 29 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Finding #2: The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and The location of the ramp five feet into the required ten foot setback/landscaping strip is critical to the proposed site circulation, which is designed to reduce impacts on adjacent single-family residential uses by reducing traffic on Olive Street. In addition, the circulation design eliminates curb cuts and parking on/visible from El Camino Real by providing it at the rear of the property and underground, which is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and Caltrans. It enhances views from El Camino Real by eliminating parking visible along the corridor and enhances views from single-family residences by providing most parking underground. The ramp only encroaches on a portion of the setback and still allows room for landscaping to be provided along the length of the property line. Finding #3: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The exception relates to an encroachment of the garage ramp five feet closer to the property line than would typically be allowed in accordance with PAMC Sections 18.16.060(B) and 18.23.050(B)(vi). The proposed exception would reduce vehicle trips leaving toward Olive Avenue, reducing traffic adjacent single-family residential uses. A 5- foot landscaping strip would still be provided. A sound wall would be provided along the entire project site adjacent single-family residential uses to ensure that operational noise would not be impactful to existing single-family residents. Therefore, the proposed exception would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements. SECTION 7. Site and Design Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3001 El Camino Real Site Development Permit-Resubmittal 2” dated May 22, 2017 and stamped as received by the City on July 28, 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 approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 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. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 2.b Packet Pg. 30 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 6. Toxic Air Contaminants Emissions Reductions. To comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-29 the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce exposure of proposed residences to toxic air contaminants emissions from vehicles on El Camino Real: a. Submit to the City of Palo Alto a ventilation proposal prepared by a licensed design professional for all on-site buildings that describes the ventilation design and how that design ensures all dwelling units would be below the excess cancer risk level of 10 in one million established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. b. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (a MERV rating of 13 or higher). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors. c. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. d. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project e. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph) f. Ensure an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems. Manufacturers of these types of filters recommend that they be replaced after two to three months of use. g. The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system. 7. TRANSIT DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN: In accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.030(i) a Transit Demand Management Plan will be prepared and submitted to the City’s Transportation Division for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The plan will be required to reduce and manage the number of single-occupancy vehicle trips generated by the project. 8. NOISE: In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.040 no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 9. 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. 2.b Packet Pg. 31 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 10. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. Development Impact Fees, housing impact fees, plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 11. 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, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO AN EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 12. Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite per PAMC Section 21.16.220. 13. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Submit a copy of the off-site improvement plans that includes the replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, landscape, etc. Provide Caltrans standard details along the project frontage. Plans shall include the proposed public access easement, grades along the conforms. 14. Submit a construction cost estimate associated with the off-site improvements. 15. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to building permit demolition that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Plan shall include the following, but not limited to, construction fence, construction entrance and exit, stockpile areas, equipment and material storage area, workers parking area, construction office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, crane location, working hours, contractor’s contact information, truck traffic route, setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas, erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction. 16. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. Also plot and label the tree protection zone. 17. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: Owner shall create a public access easement for the additional area behind the property line needed to create a 12-foot wide sidewalk along El Camino Real. Plot and label the Public Access Easement along El Camino Real that provides the 12-foot wide sidewalk. 18. MAPPING: The proposed project appears to be located within 4 or 5 parcel. In addition it’s not clear from the plans how many parcels (at grade and air space parcels) the applicant intends to create as part of the new development. The parcels shall be merged and subdivided recorded prior to issuance of a building and/or grading and excavation permit. This project may trigger either a Minor or Major Subdivision Application. Five parcels would trigger a major subdivision. Please clarify the total number of proposed parcels associated with this project. If retail, commercial or residential units intend to be sold then new parcels would be required. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map 2.b Packet Pg. 32 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 requirements. If a Map is required, it shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit or excavation and grading permit. 19. STREET LIGHTING: The applicant is required to install decorative street lights along the El Camino Real sidewalk frontage. New pedestrian-scale luminaires, poles and bases shall be centered between the roadway lighting to provide a combined spacing of roughly 60-ft O.C. Decorative roadway and pedestrian scale lighting standards are available from Public Works staff. Plot and label the new lights on the proposed Site Plan and/or Utility Plan. 20. GRADING PERMIT: The grading and drainage plan must include an earthworks table with the estimated cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 21. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 22. Provide the following note on the Rough Grading Plan and the Final Grading Plan: “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade.” 23. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works or Caltrans. 24. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 25. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. 2.b Packet Pg. 33 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 26. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill in CY), pad, finished floor, garage elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable) grades along the project conforms, property lines, or back of walk. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for additional items. Projects that front directly into the public sidewalk, shall include grades at the doors or building entrances. Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10- feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splashblocks (2-feet long min) and any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks. Provide dimensions between the bubblers and property lines. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. In particular, runoff from the new garage shall not drain into neighboring property. For additional grading and drainage detail design See Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 27. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329- 2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Similar medallions shall be installed near the catch basins that are proposed to be relocated. Provide notes on the plans to reference that medallions and stencils. 28. STAIRWELLS AND LIGHTWELLS: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A separate drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 29. STORM WATER TREATMENT: Provide a note on the plans to indicate that at the time of installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, a third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 30. Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. If a backflow preventer is required, it shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly if a transformer upgrade or a grease interceptor is required it shall also be located within the private property. Plot and label these on the Utility plan. 31. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right- of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes 2.b Packet Pg. 34 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 that the work must be done per City standards and/or Caltrans standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center and from Caltrans. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 32. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. Submit a permit from Caltrans to perform the proposed work. 33. The following note shall be shown on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan: “Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 34. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite or within private property. 35. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all existing sidewalk, curbs, gutters and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work (at a minimum all curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage) The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Include the 12-foot wide dimension on the plans and verify that the sidewalk is unobstructed. 36. PAVEMENT: Contractor shall be aware that Olive Avenue was resurfaced in 2015, any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor may be responsible for resurfacing portions of the three project frontages based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 37. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 38. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR: Parking garage floor drains within covered levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be located within private property. Plot and label the proposed location of oil/water separator. 2.b Packet Pg. 35 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 39. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 40. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 41. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie-backs for the basement, provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties 42. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the grading or building permits. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 43. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center. 44. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 45. It’s unclear what the double dashed line surrounding the building represents on C2.0 as there is no Civil legend, but underground structures are not allowed to have perforated pipe drainage systems that pump groundwater. Please clarify what that represents and revise design accordingly. 46. Material of storm drain in ROW needs to be called out and propose materials per Engineering Design Guidelines. 47. Please include any applicable City standard details in the plan set and call them out on plans. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 48. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are 2.b Packet Pg. 36 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes and are consistent with City Tree Technical Manual Standards, Regulations and information: a. Provide a project arborist’s Updated Tree Protection Report (TPR) with building permit level mitigation measures, (e.g., resolve grading proximity issues with Public tree #2 and neighbor trees #3 and 5; exact TPZ scaled in feet). Provide plan revision directions to minimize root cutting conflicts that are obvious in the civil, basement, sidewalk improvement sheets. Specifically address new sidewalk replacement over El Camino Real trees. b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. 49. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, (John McLenahan, dated June 2, 2016) shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 50. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: In addition to showing TPZ fencing, add the following Notes on the specified Plan Sheets. a. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. b. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-321-0202"; c. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the 2.b Packet Pg. 37 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” d. Note #4. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 51. NEW TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, new right-of-way trees each new tree shall be provided with 800 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Dwg. #604/513. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. Sidewalk or asphalt base underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] shall use an Alternative Base Material method such as structural grid (Silva Cell). Design and manufacturer details shall be added to relevant civil and landscape sheets. Each parking lot tree in small islands and all public trees shall be provided adequate rootable soil commensurate to mature tree size. Note: this expectation requires coordination with the engineer, arborist and landscape architect. a. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Large: 1,200 cu.ft. Medium: 800 cu.ft. Small: 400 cu.ft. b. Landscape Plan. When qualifying for parking area shade ordinance compliance (PAMC 18.40.130) trees shall be labeled (as S, M or L). c. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). When approved, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base or channeling to a landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603a. Designated areas will be identified by cross-hatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. DURING CONSTRUCTION 52. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 53. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 54. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (John McLenahan of McLenahan Consulting, LCC, 650-326- 8781), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 55. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and 2.b Packet Pg. 38 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 56. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 57. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 58. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 59. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. POST CONSTRUCTION 60. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Building Division 61. Spiral stairs can be utilized to access residential areas no more than 250 square feet in size. 62. Separate reviews and permits are required for PV (solar) and EVSE (vehicle charging stations. Please show this on the plans in some way. 63. Common areas outdoors shall be made accessible for all elements. 64. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. Watershed Protection Division The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a 2.b Packet Pg. 39 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 65. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER: The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 66. UNPOLLUTED WATER: Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.055). And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 67. COVERED PARKING: Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.180[b][9]) 68. CARWASH: In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system. This requirement can be exempted if no washing is allowed on-site via rental/lease agreement and any hose bibs must be fitted with lock-outs or other connections controls and signage indicating that car washing is not allowed. 69. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) on and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 2.b Packet Pg. 40 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 70. LOADING DOCKS: Per PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 71. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 72. COOLING TOWERS: Per PAMC 16.09.205 No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following: (1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; (2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; (3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. (4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or (5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. 73. COPPER PIPING: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 74. MERCURY SWITCHES: Per 16.09.180(12) Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 75. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS and HEAT EXCHANGERS: Per PAMC 16.09.205(a) It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 76. Storm Drain Labeling: Per PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 2.b Packet Pg. 41 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 77. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 78. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT 79. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 80. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet per parcel/lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 81. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 82. The utility plan (C3.0) show 1.5” irrigation, 4” domestic, and 8” fire water on Olive Ave. The water main on this street is only 6”PVC. The maximum water service connection to this water main is 6”. The propose sewer lateral is 8” (existing 4” lateral), sewer flow studies may require. The plan also show propose 8” sewer lateral on Acacia Ave. (existing 6” sewer main). See current WGW engineering standards in CPAU website. A meeting with WGW and Electrical engineering is recommending prior to building department permit application. 83. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 84. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the 2.b Packet Pg. 42 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 85. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 86. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 87. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities or building inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 88. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 89. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 90. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 91. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 92. A new water service line installation for fire system usage may require. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 93. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 94. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 95. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 96. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 2.b Packet Pg. 43 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 97. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 98. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 99. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 100. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 101. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 102. Due to high demands outside City’s control, a three to six month wait time for water and gas meters are expected. The applicant is strongly encouraged to provide the application load sheet demands as early in the design process as possible to the WGW utilities engineering department. Once payment is made, anticipate service installations completed within said time frame (3 – 6 months). GREEN BUILDING 103. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must provide a preliminary GB-1 sheet for planning entitlement approval. Submittal requirements are outlined on the Development Services Green Building Compliance webpage. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. EVSE Transformer Location: 104. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. Local Energy Reach Code for Residential Projects 105. Energy Efficiency Option 1: No Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi-family residential, non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy 2.b Packet Pg. 44 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi- family construction is at least: 10 percent less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) Green Building Requirements for Residential Projects 106. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select from the City’s list of approved inspectors found on the Green Building Compliance Webpage. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 107. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the new residential development project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the project will require an separate permit for Outdoor Water Efficiency. See Outdoor Water Efficiency Submittal Guidelines and permit instructions at the following link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/outdoor_water_efficiency_.asp 108. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 109. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 110. Construction & Demolition: For residential construction projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements, the project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at 80% construction waste reduction. PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 111. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each residential unit in the structure. For guest parking, the project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of the guest parking, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE installed. See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016). 2.b Packet Pg. 45 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 112. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, with attached parking, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each newly constructed residence in a multi-family residential structure featuring (1) a parking space attached to the residence and (2) a shared electrical panel between the residence and parking space (e.g. a multi-family structure with tuck-under garages). See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016) 113. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Permit Plans. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. SECTION 8. Preliminary Parcel Map Conditions of Approval PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP SUBMITTAL 1. Proposed S.W.E. along El Camino Real should be changed and labeled as Public Access Easement. 2. Any proposed transformer is to be shown and kept on private property. 3. The Parcel Map shall include CITY ENGINEER STATEMENT, CITY SURVEYOR STATEMENT and DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT. 4. The utility easement from Olive Avenue between the property line and the adjacent single family residence must be vacated prior to approval of the Parcel Map. 5. The new utility easement from Acacia must be shown on the Parcel Map. PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP RECORDATION. 4. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor we have retained the services of Siegfried Engineering to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. Siegfried will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Parcel Map associated with your project. In effort to employ the services of Siegfried Engineering, and as part of the City’s cost recovery measures, the applicant is required to provide payment to cover the cost of Siegfried Engineering’s review. Our intent is to forward your Parcel Map to Siegfried for an initial preliminary review of the documents. Siegfried will then provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. We will share this information with you once we receive it and ask that you return a copy acknowledging the amount. You may then provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review process. 5. Submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Parcel Map to the Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and Surveyor prior to formal submittal. SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Site and Design, Design Enhancement Exception, and Parking Adjustment Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Site and Design approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this 2.b Packet Pg. 46 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. SECTION 10. Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Parcel Map approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 8 of this Record. Approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by Kier and Wright, “Preliminary Parcel Map City of Palo Alto County of Santa Clara 3001 El Camino Real May, 2017”, consisting of three lots to be merged into one lot, dated May 17, 2017, is strictly limited to those features required to be included on a preliminary parcel map under PAMC Section 21.12.040. No development rights shall vest under PAMC Chapter 21.13 or the Subdivision Map Act as a result of this approval. SECTION 11. Parcel Map Conformance. The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by Kier and Wright, “Preliminary Parcel Map City of Palo Alto County of Santa Clara 3001 El Camino Real May, 2017”, consisting of three lots to be merged, dated May 17, 2017, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 8. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Parcel Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 2.b Packet Pg. 47 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 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 ATTACHMENT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 3001 El Camino Real / File No. 16PLN-00097 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is split between Service Commercial, Multi-family Residential, and Single-Family Residential The project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan by providing mixed use development and multi-family housing in a transit-oriented area and providing high quality design and public amenities that improve the aesthetic quality and vitality of the area, as discussed in further detail below. Housing Element Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. The proposed development includes both a mixed- use building along El Camino Real and an exclusively multi-family residential building at the rear of the lot. The development would include a total of 50 units with more than two-thirds of the proposed units being smaller (approximately 550 to 750 square feet) and therefore, presumably commanding a lower rent than the other larger units. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The project maintains the appropriate scale and character based on the respective zoning for each building. It has appropriate density for each site and includes mixed use along the El Camino Real corridor and multi-family development along Acacia in close proximity to Caltrain. The Cal-Ventura area in which this development is located is specifically identified in the Comprehensive Plan as being an ideal location for mixed-use and multi-family residential development. The retail tenants are within walking distance to nearby residential neighborhoods and office locations. The proposed project has been designed to creatively make use of the existing site and existing Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development Policy L-12: Preserve the character residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians 2.c Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n C o n s i s t e n c y A n a l y s i s ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. buildings. The project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent single-family residential uses by concentrating the bulk and mass of the building toward El Camino Real, consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and zoning code build-to-line requirements, and set back substantially from the rear neighbors. Easy pedestrian and bicyclist access is provided to both residential and retail uses along El Camino Real to encourage alternate transit in a transit-oriented area. The project improves street trees and provides improved sidewalks and bulb outs. It would be required to provide a crosswalk across El Camino Real. Attractive and inviting small plazas that are open to the public are included at each corner of the development and vehicle access to the site is oriented away from El Camino Real in accordance with City goals. The project has been designed to highlight natural materials (i.e. wood) and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with these Land Use Element Comprehensive Plan policies Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles. The project provides for all of its auto parking needs with the approval of shared parking, is located next to transit, supports walking due to having a mix of local and regional serving retail tenants near residential neighborhoods. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Local serving retail immediately adjacent to residential neighborhoods can increase walking and bicycling by its proximity and easy access. Bicycle parking is also required as part of the project. Provision of bicycle parking spaces supports increasing bicycle trip mode share. In addition, a Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. 2.c Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n C o n s i s t e n c y A n a l y s i s ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f Policy T-19: Improve and create additional, attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, at public facilities, in new private developments, and other community destinations. space for the future bike share location is provided. The proposed project would include improvements to sidewalks, street trees, and public spaces and would also provide pedestrian amenities. Site lighting would also be updated, which in turn would promote an improved pedestrian environment. Policy T-20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. 2.c Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n C o n s i s t e n c y A n a l y s i s ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3001 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00097 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None Currently 3 parcels 1.97 acres (49,927 sf in CS Zone) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 11 feet to create a 19’ sidewalk 4’ setback to provide 12’ wide effective sidewalk Rear Yard 10’ 70’ 5 feet for ramp; 75 feet for building (Design Enhancement Exception requested) Interior Side Yard 10’ N/A N/A Street Side Yard (Acacia Avenue) 5’ N/A (surface parking lot) 5’ Street Side Yard (Olive Avenue) 5’ 0’ 5’ Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) 70’ 5’ for ramp; 75 feet for building (See above: DEE requested) Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real(7) (total frontage 239’7”) 33% of side street built to setback on Acacia Avenue (total side street 189’11”) 33% of side street built to setback on Olive Avenue (189’11”) 0% N/A (surface parking lot) 113’ (56.5%) 137’10” (57%) 63’10” (33%) 79’6” (42%) Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps N/A N/A 2.d Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C S Z o n i n g C o n s i s t e n c y ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Permitted Setback Encroachment Balconies, awnings, porches, stairways, and similar elements may extend up to 6' into the setback. N/A Balconies extend up to 4’ into the 12’ front setback. Max. Site Coverage 50% (24,963 sf) APN 132-37-056: 42% APN 132-37-055: 37% APN 132-38-072: N/A (surface parking lot) 47% (23,310 sf) Minimum Landscape Open Space 30% (8,989 sf) Not provided (all surface parking lot) 42% (21,212 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Two buildings 14 feet and 18 feet in height 50 feet; steps down to 35’ Residential density (net) 30 None 30 Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Residential 0.6:1 (29,956 sf) Retail 0.4:1(19,971 sf) Residential: None Retail: APN 132-37-056: 0.42 APN 132-37-055: 0.37 Residential 0.6:1 (29,952 sf) Retail 0.4:1 (19,798 sf) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone (6) Appears to comply with 16 feet at 60 degrees Complies with 16 feet at 60 degrees (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 18.16.080 Performance Standards. As further described in a separate attachment, all development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 2.d Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C S Z o n i n g C o n s i s t e n c y ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail and Residential Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking Retail: 1 space/200 sf= 99 Studio Units (12): 1.25 spaces/unit= 15 One bedroom Units (6): 1.5 spaces/unit= 9 Two+ Bedroom Units (12): 2 spaces/unit= 24 Residential guest parking: 33% of units= 10 Total of 157 parking spaces required 11 spaces (additional surface parking lot roped off) 152 spaces (shared parking adjustment requested) Bicycle Parking Retail: 1/2,000 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) equals 2 LT and 8 short term spaces; Guest: 3 ST Residential: Studio: 12 LT One bedroom: 6 LT Two+ bedroom units: 12 LT None 43 spaces (32 long term, 11 short term) Loading Space 1 loading spaces 5,000 – 29,999 sq. ft. 1 on street and one part-time loading (required further resolution) 2.d Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C S Z o n i n g C o n s i s t e n c y ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3001 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00097 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth Complies (currently 3 lots) 30,738 sf (0.7 acres) Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet Parking lot 20 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Parking lot 28’3” above and below grade Interior Side Yard 6 feet Parking lot 20’6” and 70’ above and below grade Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet Parking lot 33’ Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (12,295.2 sf) Parking lot 38% (11,710 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (18,443 sf) Parking lot 0.63 (19,535 sf) Does not comply; requires revision prior to decision Minimum Site Open Space 30% (9,221.5 sf) Not Applicable 41.5% (12,738 sf without R-1 portion) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (3,000 sf for 20 units) Not Applicable 222 sf per unit (4,440 sf) Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (1,500 sf for 20 units) Not Applicable 222 sf per unit (4,440 sf) Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (sf) Not Applicable 90-230 sf per unit Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. 29 spaces required Guest Parking: 33% of total number of units. 7 required 29 spaces 8 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) plus 1 short term space per 10 units 20 LT and 2 ST 2.e Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : R M - 3 0 Z o n i n g C o n s i s t e n c y ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Memorandum Date: August 4, 2017 To: Mr. Robert Tersini, The Sobrato Organization From: Gary Black, Ricky Williams, and Jane Clayton Subject: Parking Management Plan for 3001 El Camino Real Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a Parking Management Plan for the mixed-use development at 3001 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California. The project consists of two buildings that are referred to as the CS and RM-30 buildings, in reference to the existing zoning regulations for the parcels that make up the site. The CS site includes the development of a three/four-story mixed-use building along the El Camino Real frontage with 19,798 square feet (s.f.) of first-floor retail space and 30 residential dwelling units. The RM-30 site includes the development of a partially below-grade, three-story residential building along the Acacia Avenue frontage with 20 residential units. This Parking Management Plan is based on the site plan provided by The Sobrato Organization and Steinberg Architects, dated May 22, 2017. The purpose of this plan is to identify the parking requirements of the proposed project and parking strategies to ensure that the parking supply is adequate. Parking Requirements The parking requirements for the project are based on the City of Palo Alto municipal code. Based on this code, the project would be required to provide adequate parking on each site for its respective use. Based on the City parking requirements, the project would need to provide parking on-site at the following rates: Residential: 1.25 spaces per studio unit; 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit; 2 spaces per 2-bedroom or larger unit Residential Guest: 33% of the number of residential units Retail: 1 parking space per 200 s.f. of gross floor area Based on the above requirements, the project would be required to provide a total of 193 parking spaces, including 99 retail spaces, 77 residential spaces, and 17 residential guest spaces. The required 77 residential spaces are based on the following for the project as a whole: Studios: 24 units x 1.25 = 30 parking spaces 1-Bedroom units: 10 units x 1.5 = 15 parking spaces 2 or more bedroom units: 16 units x 2 = 32 parking spaces The requirement for 17 residential guest parking spaces is based on a total of 50 units (50 x .33 = 17) because the Palo Alto municipal code requires 33% guest parking if more than one space per unit is assigned or secured. The project will provide secured residential parking that is separatefrom the retail parking in the below-grade garage of the CS structure. Residential parking will be 2.f Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 3001 El Camino Real Parking Management Plan August 4, 2017 Page | 2 assigned in both structures. It should be noted that the 33% parking requirement for residential guests is higher than the residential guest parking requirements in surrounding municipalities. Table 1 summarizes the parking requirements and parking provided for each of the sites. Table 1 Parking Summary for 3001 El Camino Real Size or Parking Parking Parking Site and Use d.u.Requirement a Required Provided Location of Spaces CS Site Retail 19, 798 s.f. 1 per 200 s.f. 99 99 68 below grade, 31 surface Residential Studio 12 units 1.25 per unit 15 15 1-bedroom 6 units 1.5 per unit 9 9 2+ bedroom 12 units 2 per unit 24 24 Total Residential 30 units 48 48 48 below grade Residential Guest 33% of units 10 5 5 surface Total CS Site 157 152 116 below grade, 36 surface RM-30 Site Residential Studio 12 units 1.25 per unit 15 15 1-bedroom 4 units 1.5 per unit 6 6 2+ bedroom 4 units 2 per unit 8 8 Total Residential 20 units 29 29 29 below grade Residential Guest 33% of units 7 8 8 surface Total RM-30 Site 36 37 29 below grade, 8 surface Total Project 193 189 145 below grade, 44 surface Note: (a) Parking requirements are per Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.52.040 2.f Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Figure 1 Below-Grade Parking (6) 3001 El Camino Real TDM Plan 2. f Pa c k e t P g . 5 7 Attachment: Attachment F: Parking Management Plan (8013 : 3001 El Camino Real: Mixed Use With 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 50 Figure 2 Ground-Level Parking 3001 El Camino Real TDM Plan 2. f Pa c k e t P g . 5 8 Attachment: Attachment F: Parking Management Plan (8013 : 3001 El Camino Real: Mixed Use With 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 50 3001 El Camino Real Parking Management Plan August 4, 2017 Page | 5 Parking Supply Parking for the project would be provided in four areas. Both the CS site and the RM-30 site would include below-grade parking areas and both would also include surface parking areas. Figures 1 and 2 show the below-grade and ground level parking areas, respectively. These parking areas would provide a total of 189 parking spaces, including 99 retail spaces, 77 secured residential spaces, and 13 residential guest spaces. Access to the CS site is provided through two driveways, one on Olive Avenue and one on Acacia Avenue, while access to the RM-30 site is provided through one driveway on Acacia Avenue. The project would provide four fewer parking spaces than would be required for the residential guest parking. Hexagon does not believe that this would cause any on-site parking demand issues based on the shared nature of the parking supply. A shared parking analysis was conducted in order to support this claim. The project has also provided for potential additional parking needs on the CS site by including a pit below some of the secured residential parking spaces in the below-grade garage. The pit would allow conversion of those parking spaces for use with mechanical parking lifts, providing space for two cars per stall in the future if necessary. In that case, the residential gate would be moved to keep the same number of residential spaces utilizing the lifts and increase the number of retail spaces. It is not currently anticipated that these additional spaces would be needed, but if one of the retail space occupants were a restaurant with greater parking needs, this foresight will provide the needed flexibility to adjust the parking supply in the future. Shared Parking Analysis Since the project would include complementary land uses on the CS site, on-site parking can be shared between the retail and residential guest uses. The shared parking analysis is based on the Urban Land Institute’s publication entitled Shared Parking, which provides parking occupancy rates for many land uses according to time of day. Based on the land uses provided on the CS site and the City’s municipal code, the project is required to provide 157 parking spaces, including 99 retail spaces, 48 residential spaces, and 10 residential guest spaces. The project site is proposing 152 parking spaces (99 retail, 48 residential, and 5 residential guest spaces) on the CS site, which is five fewer guest spaces than required. Because one more space than required is being provided on the RM-30 site, the project as a whole is providing four fewer spaces than required. As shown on the below-grade parking plan (see Figure 1), the 48 parking spaces for the residents of the CS site in the below-grade parking area would be fenced off from the portion of the garage open to retail employees and customers. Thus, the residential spaces are not included in the shared parking analysis, since only the retail and residential guest spaces would be shared. The combined requirement for the shared uses is 109 spaces (99 for retail and 10 for residential guests). According to the shared parking analysis (see Table 2), the project would only need to provide 104 shared spaces to meet the on-site parking demand for the two proposed uses. This is because the peak demand for the retail use and the peak demand for residential guest spaces do not occur at the same time of the day. Peak demand for retail occurs mid-day, and peak demand for residential guests occurs in the evening hours. The combined peak demand occurs at 7:00 PM on weekdays. Therefore, the 104 spaces provided would be adequate to meet this peak demand. 2.f Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 3001 El Camino Real Parking Management Plan August 4, 2017 Page | 6 Table 2 CS Site Shared Parking Analysis Based on the site plan, two parking spaces located in the surface parking area would be needed during certain hours for access to the trash enclosure. Two spaces near the Olive Avenue driveway would be located by the trash enclosure and parking would be prohibited during trash pick-up times. Therefore, when parking is restricted for these two parking spaces, the project would provide 102 total shared parking spaces. However, the parking restrictions would be in effect during the morning hours only. During the afternoon and evening when the site is expected to experience its peak parking demand, there would be no restriction on the use of these spaces, therefore leaving all 104 spaces available. Because combined demand reaches 101 spaces by 1:00 PM, the project should ensure that the two trash collection spaces are unrestricted by noon. As long as the parking restrictions for the spaces adjacent to the trash collection area are in effect only during the morning hours, the number of spaces provided on site would be adequate to meet the estimated parking demand for the CS site. The project would provide 37 total spaces on the RM-30 site. Per the City’s requirements, a total of 36 spaces would be required on this site, including 29 for the residential use, and 7 for residential guests. The RM-30 site would provide 29 residential spaces and 8 guest spaces, which is one space more than the requirement. The additional guest space would also be open to guests of the CS building residents. Wkdy Wknd Wkdy Wknd Wkdy Wknd 6 a.m. 3 3 0 0 3 3 7 a.m. 7 7 1 2 8 9 8 a.m. 20 16 2 2 22 18 9 a.m. 43 39 2 2 45 41 10 a.m. 68 56 2 2 70 58 11 a.m. 86 70 2 2 88 72 Noon 95 83 2 2 97 85 1 p.m.99 91 2 2 101 93 2 p.m. 95 99 22 97101 3 p.m. 91 99 22 93101 4 p.m. 91 95 2 2 93 97 5 p.m. 94 90 4 4 98 94 6 p.m. 94 80 6 6 100 86 7 p.m. 94 75 10 10 104 85 8 p.m. 81 66 10 10 91 76 9 p.m. 54 52 10 10 64 62 10 p.m. 32 37 10 10 42 47 11 p.m. 11 15 8 8 19 23 Midnight 0 0 5 5 5 5 Max. Demand 99 99 10 10 104 101 Source: Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 2nd Edition, 2005 . Total DemandHour of Day Residential GuestRetail Parking Demand by Hour 2.f Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 3001 El Camino Real Parking Management Plan August 4, 2017 Page | 7 Parking Management Measures To ensure that the parking supply is used efficiently and as intended the following measures should be implemented.  Residents should be prohibited from parking in the retail and guest spaces.  The retail and guest spaces should be marked and signed as “RETAIL/GUEST PARKING ONLY.”  The curb adjacent to each retail and guest parking space should be painted green. If no curb is present, the parking lane lines and/or parking stop should be painted green.  The retail and guest spaces should be clearly marked and signed.  All driveways and the entrances to the residential secured parking areas should include a “PARKING RESTRICTED 24 HRS A DAY” sign. Furthermore, it is recommended that the project establish a monitoring system for the on-site parking. The monitoring system would monitor residential violators, i.e., residents that park outside the residential secured parking areas in one of the retail and guest parking spaces, and issue warnings accordingly. The monitoring system would be established and maintained by the project’s property manager and/or the manager of the residential units. If violations persist, the project should consider a towing ordinance and the appropriate accompanying tow away signs. Conclusions Based on the shared parking analysis, the project would provide adequate parking to meet the anticipated parking demand on-site. The project should ensure that the two spaces adjacent to the trash collection area are unrestricted after noon. Also, the project should ensure that the retail and guest parking spaces, driveways, and entrances to the residential secured parking areas are marked and signed as described above. In addition, the project should establish a monitoring system for the on-site parking. 2.f Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a r k i n g M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Attachment G: Context-Based Design Criteria 3001 El Camino Real 16PLN-00097 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to the CS Zoned portion of this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides bike racks near the building entrances for short term use as well bike lockers in the garage to support the bicycle environment. The street facades provide canopy coverage along the sidewalks and provide pedestrian shelter, which supports street activity. The site circulation with a central plaza and walkway provides an easy connection for pedestrians to travel within the site. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project provides substantial sidewalks to allow for pedestrian ease of use and includes canopies for shelter; the street facades are primarily storefront windows that supports an interior connection with the street and pedestrians; and the placement of an open plaza along the El Camino Real frontage provides a strong connection with the street and supports accessory outdoor activities on the site. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project complies with the CS zone setback requirements while also meeting the build-to line requirements in accordance with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the design incorporates appropriate articulation and materials as well balconies that help break-up the mass of the building. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. The proposed buildings are both set back substantially further than required from the property lines and the project is consistent with height requirements within the 150 foot radius of single-family residential uses. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with private balconies for the residents and an at-grade plaza and walkways for all to use. 2.g Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C o n t e x t - b a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is located and accessed from side streets and the project eliminates parking lots and curb cuts along El Camino Real. Also, the majority of parking spaces are located within a below-grade garage. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. Although the proposed street façade along El Camino Real may seem tall in comparison to adjacent buildings, the façade built up to the build-to-line, is encouraged in accordance with design criteria for El Camino Real, which notes that buildings should be a minimum 25 feet in height to provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real. Gathering spaces clearly define entrance areas along the frontage. Project elements such as balconies are provided along the frontage to signal habitation and entrances to both retail and residential uses are provided along the frontage. The proposed building along El Camino Real includes ground floor retail with extensive windows that provide visibility into the retail stores as well as an outdoor seating area on the corner of Acacia and El Camino Real. These design features contribute positively to the pedestrian experience. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. The project will utilize low-water use plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirments. Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060, the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to the RM-30 Zoned portion of this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in multi-family residential districts. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi-family residential district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Project Consistency Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with street(s). The project provides most parking below-grade and includes windows, doors, and balconies along the frontage to provide a human scale and signal habitation. The entries are in keeping with the scale of the building and are oriented toward the street. Pedestrian amenities, new landscaping, and new street trees provide visual interest and human scale along the frontage. The materials are of a high quality and the project frontage uses balconies and a variety in the setbacks to provide articulation. The project is set back further than the required setback along the side lot lines and rear of the property. In addition, the majority of the building is 25 feet tall where 35 feet is allowed which provides a better transition between the adjacent single-family residential 2.g Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C o n t e x t - b a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 uses. All exposed sides of the building are designed with the same level of care and integrity. 2. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower- scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. The project is set back further than the required setback along the side lot lines and rear of the property. In addition, the majority of the building is approximately 25 feet tall where 35 feet is allowed adjacent single-family residential uses. This proposed height provides a better transition between the adjacent single-family residential uses. All exposed sides of the building are designed with the same level of care and integrity. As discussed above, the project setbacks both on the side property lines as well as along the rear property line are greater than the setbacks required to comply with the municipal code. This area is also planned to be heavily landscaped. As shown on the landscaping plan sheets, the proposed trees along the rear property line are expected to be 15 feet tall at 5 years and would grow to a mature height of 40-50 feet to provide a substantial buffer between the project and adjacent single-family residences. The project is well below the rear daylight plane requirements ensuring that sun and shade impacts on the neighboring residential uses would not be an issue. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the open space is designed for both passive and active uses, incorporating seating into the landscaped areas as well as providing a BBQ. Both private and common open space is provided beyond the minimum requirements and common open space is sheltered from noise and wind to provide useable gathering spaces. Gathering spaces and pedestrian amenities are provided along the frontage to increase eyes on the street and activate the pedestrian areas. 4. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is mostly provided below-grade with guest parking stalls provided at grade for convenience. The applicant has set the first floor at 4 feet above grade in order to provide privacy for the first floor residence but to maintain the pedestrian scale. 5. Larger (multi-acre sites) Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed mixed-use development responds to its immediate environment by reducing the height of the majority of the building to approximately 25 feet where 35 feet is allowed adjacent single-family residences. Gathering spaces and pedestrian amenities improve the pedestrian experience in the immediate area and the project includes street level bicycle parking where none was previously provided. 2.g Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C o n t e x t - b a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units (Figure 6-1), attached rowhouses/townhouses (Figure 6-2), and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. The proposed project includes a single multi-family residential building in the RM-30 zone and therefore is not subject to these additional requirements for small-lot detached units, townhouses or cottage clusters. The project is consistent with all applicable code requirements for developments within the RM-30 Zone District. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. The project will utilize low-water use plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirments. The project is designs to provide a comfortable microclimates in common open space areas at the rear of the building and parking areas meet vegetation shading requirements to reduce the heat island effect. Short term bicycle parking is provided at most doors and exceeds requirements to provide convenience for bicyclists. The project is located in close proximity to several bus stops and the California Avenue Caltrain station. 2.g Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C o n t e x t - b a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Attachment H Performance Criteria 18.23 3001 El Camino Real 16PLN-00097 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project includes trash enclosure facilities at the rear of each building. The facilities are fully enclosed and not in clear sight of any public right-of-way or neighbors. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the project’s residents as well as adjacent residents. The photometric studies show that there is no light spillover. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick-up. Current project proposal does not include late night uses or activities. Future commercial tenants that would like this will need to file for a Conditional Use Permit, as required per the Zoning Code. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is adjacent to residential uses and provides landscape screening across the parking lot and along the property boundaries between residential uses and the project. The buildings are set back substantially further than the required distance providing extra space and daylight plane to ensure light, air, and privacy. Mechanical equipment and service areas are screened. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 2.h Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 R e s i d e n t i a l The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. Loading, refuse storage, and all mechanical equipment is set back substantially from adjacent single-family residential uses. Although the proposed ramp to the parking garage is located in close proximity to an adjacent residence, landscaping and a sound wall are provided to limit noise. Also, by constructing the ramp in this location the circulation reduces car trips toward Olive Avenue, reducing noise from cars leaving the site as well as traffic on Olive Avenue adjacent these single family residential uses. The project would comply with PAMC 9.10. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project’s parking is primarily located below grade and is designed to be focused away from the street frontages where they are more visible. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates easy access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. The project eliminates a curb cut along El Camino Real and provides a pedestrian hybrid beacon crosswalk across El Camino Real, which would make a safer pedestrian experience. The proposed circulation design also significantly reduces trips leaving the site toward Olive Avenue, reducing impacts on adjacent single-family residences along Olive Avenue. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No uses on the site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that air quality would not result in impacts to future residents at the site. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 2.h Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 R e s i d e n t i a l Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7273) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/3/2016 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3001 El Camino Real: Mixed Use Project Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER / PUBLIC HEARING. 3001 El Camino Real (16PLN-00097): Review and Comment on an Site and Design Application for a Proposed Mixed-Use Development That Includes 50 Residential Rental Units and Approximately 20,000 Square Feet of Ground Floor Retail/Commercial Space. No Recommendation or Action Will be Taken at This Meeting. Environmental Assessment: It is Anticipated the Project Will Require a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Zoning District(s): Service Commercial (CS); Medium Density Multi-family Residential (RM-30) and Single-family Residential (R-1). From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provide direction regarding the proposed project’s overall design and its consistency with applicable design guidelines and continue the project to a date uncertain. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The proposed mixed-use project, located on the corner of El Camino Real and Acacia Avenue, includes 50 residential rental units and approximately 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail. The project would replace the existing Mike’s Bikes retail use and surface parking lots. Although the project is still under staff review to determine compliance with zoning requirements and applicable design guidelines, the applicant has requested ARB review to obtain initial feedback on the project. The project, as proposed, requires two exceptions: 1) a Director’s Adjustment to allow a two- space parking reduction (1%) (not within ARB purview); and 2) a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow the below-grade garage and associated ramp to encroach five feet into the 2.i Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 required 10-foot rear setback. Approval of the DEE requires the City make findings outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.050 (4)(c). The project is subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR Guidelines), South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines), context-based design criteria, and performance criteria. The applicant requests ARB’s consideration of the project’s compliance with applicable design guidelines as well as feedback regarding the overall design. The discussion and analysis provided in this report is based upon plans submitted on June 7, 2016. Because the project is a mixed-use project that includes more than nine residential units it is subject to Site and Design review. When the project is ready for action, it will be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission, Architectural Review Board and City Council, as required by the Site and Design review process. Background Project Information Owner: SI 35 LLC / Sobrato Organization LLC Architect: Steinberg Architects Representative: Tim Steele / Sobrato Legal Counsel: None Property Information Address: 3001 and 3017 El Camino Real (132-37-055; 132-37-056; and 132-38- 072) Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: CS portion - 250’ x 200’; 49,927 sq. ft. RM-30 portion - 278’ x 110’; 30,647 sq. ft. Housing Inventory Site: R-1 portion -250’ x 20’; 5,000 sq. ft. No Located w/in a Plume: Yes Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): Building #1 (3001): 6,112 sf; one-story; built 1930 Building #2 (3017): 2,988 sf; one-story; built 1968 Existing Land Use(s): Retail (Mike’s Bikes); Vacant lot at Acacia corner; Surface parking lot with 66 undesignated parking spaces Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 (single-family homes); RM-30 (commercial/Fry’s) West: CS (retail/Verizon Wireless) East: CS (commercial recreation/Equinox; office/GM Advanced Technology) South: PC (office, theater/Palo Alto Square); CS (eating and drinking/McDonald’s, Fish Market; hotel/ Hotel Parma) 2.i Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Split zoning: Service Commercial (CS); Medium Density Multi-family Residential (RM-30) and Single-family Residential (R-1) Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial; Multiple Family Residential; Single Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: 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): Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): R-1 zone and single-family uses adjacent to project site (Olive Avenue); RM-30 zone with commercial use adjacent at rear of site Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project would merge three existing parcels (a separate application for a preliminary parcel map is being processed concurrently) and redevelop the combined parcel with mixed-use development. The total lot area of the resulting parcel would be 85,574 square feet (sf). The parcel would have split zoning, which requires each zoned portion of the lot to be developed based on the respective zoning. The portion of the lot along the El Camino frontage is zoned Commercial Services (CS) and includes a 49,927 sf area; a portion of the lot along Acacia Avenue is zoned medium density multi-family residential (RM-30) and includes 30,647 sf; and a portion of the interior of the lot that parallels Acacia Avenue is zoned single-family residential (R-1) and includes 5,000 sf. Development standards (e.g. density, FAR, setbacks) for the respective zoning districts cannot be transferred to the other portion of the lot for development. Attachment A includes a map of the proposed parcel with the zoning district boundaries. The project includes two buildings, a mixed-use building in the CS zone and a multi-family residential building in the RM-30 zone. No buildings are proposed in the R-1 zone. The CS building along El Camino Real is four-stories with 30 surface parking spaces and one level of 2.i Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 below-grade parking with 118 spaces. This building has 30 residential units and 19,917 sf of ground-floor retail. The proposed below-grade garage and vehicle access ramp encroach five feet into the rear 10 foot setback, adjacent to a single-family residence. The second building, located within the portion of the parcel zoned RM-30, is three-stories and includes covered/podium ground-level parking (29 spaces) and surface parking (15 spaces) for 20 residential units. This development backs up to one-story single-family homes for the length of the parcel and allows for an access easement through the property to enter into the Fry’s site at the northeast edge of the subject property. Two additional parking spaces are required to meet code requirements for the proposed development. A Director’s Adjustment is requested to address this two-space deficit. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary entitlements are being requested:  Site and Design: The project is mixed-use with more than nine residential units and is therefore subject to Site and Design review. The process for evaluating this type of entitlement is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and Design applications are reviewed by the PTC and ARB, and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council for final action. Site and Design projects are evaluated against specific findings that include both the ARB findings (ARB purview) and Site and Design findings (PTC purview). 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 for Architectural Review are listed in Attachment B; the specific project analysis is not included at this time since no action is taking place.  Design Enhancement Exception (DEE): The project includes a rear yard setback encroachment and the DEE process can be used for this type of requested development exception. The process for evaluating this type of entitlement is set forth in PAMC 18.76.050. DEE applications are reviewed in conjunction with the larger development project, and for this project the recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final action as part of the Site and Design review. DEE requests are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the exception. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The DEE findings are listed in Attachment B; the specific project analysis is not included at this time since no action is taking place.  Director’s Parking Adjustment: The project is providing two spaces fewer than required for the proposed site development in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.52, Parking and Loading Requirements. To address this 1% reduction in the total required parking, the applicant has requested a Director’s Adjustment in accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.080. The Director’s approval of the adjustment would require that the applicant prepare and submit a Transit Demand Management (TDM) Plan proving that the reduction would be commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the 2.i Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by the alternative programs presented in the plan. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character Surrounding buildings with single-family, retail, and commercial recreation uses are primarily one-story, ranging from 14 to 24 feet in height. The Palo Alto Square Complex across El Camino Real is a 10-story development but has a substantial setback from El Camino Real. The proposed mixed-use building along El Camino Real would be built to a maximum height of 50 feet along the El Camino frontage, and step down to 35 feet within 150 feet of residentially zoned areas as required by code. There is an approximately 75 to 100-foot setback between the mixed-use building and adjacent residential zoning districts. The height of the proposed building along El Camino Real may appear tall in comparison with other adjacent buildings (14 feet on the left side and 17 feet on the right side); however, the proposed site is surrounded by streets on three sides, providing a setback between the proposed building and these adjacent one-story buildings along El Camino Real, which may help to transition between these buildings along the streetscape. Staff is requesting ARB review of the height of the proposed structure for compatibility with the adjacent buildings. The proposed building fronting Acacia Avenue at the rear portion of the parcel would be three stories, built to a maximum height of 35 feet with some mechanical equipment slightly exceeding the 35-foot height limit, as allowed in accordance with the municipal code. There would be a 26 foot setback between the building and portions of the site zoned R-1. There would be a 46 foot setback from the rear lot line of most residences abutting the property, helping to transition between the proposed multi-family residential building and existing single- family residences. Zoning Compliance2 Staff has performed an initial review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards based on the plans submitted June 7, 2016. Summary tables comparing the proposed project to their respective zoning requirements for the CS and RM-30 zoning districts are provided in Attachment C and Attachment D, respectively. Setbacks The proposed building in the CS zone is set back substantially (approximately 75 to 90 feet) from the rear lot line and areas of the site within a different zone district. However, the below 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 2.i Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 grade parking garage and associated ramp is currently located five feet from a lot line where a 10-foot setback is required. As designed, this would require a DEE. A portion of the proposed site is zoned R-1. No buildings are proposed within this site area; however, additional information on the decorative structures, as shown on Sheet A3.1 of the plans, is needed to determine if these structures comply with setback and daylight plane requirements for the R-1 zone district. Height limit The proposed stairway in the RM-30 zoned portion of the property is shown to daylight onto the roof, exceeding the height requirement. In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.40.090 stairways may not exceed the maximum height requirement. Alternative options (e.g. a hatch) are available to comply with Fire Department requirements for access to the roof. Floor Area Ratio In the RM-30 portion of the lot, the project exceeds the permitted floor area ratio of 0.6:1 because the plans inaccurately include lot area dedicated to the R-1 District. Development standards (e.g. density, FAR, setbacks) for each respective zone district cannot be transferred to another portion of the lot for development (PAMC 18.08.070). Accordingly, it is anticipated that the applicant will revise the project, removing approximately 745 square feet of building area, to comply with this standard. Context-Based Design Criteria Development in the CS Zone District requires that the City make the findings outlined in PAMC Section 18.16.090, Context-Based Design Criteria. The applicant is seeking the ARB’s input with respect to the project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria. In particular, the ARB’s feedback on the following design criteria is requested and further described below:  Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment  Street Building Facades  Massing and Setbacks The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity. The proposed building along El Camino Real includes ground floor retail with extensive windows that provide visibility into the retail stores as well as an outdoor seating area on the corner of Acacia and El Camino Real. These design features contribute positively to the pedestrian experience. However, minimal pedestrian access is provided from El Camino Real for retail patrons and no pedestrian or bike access is provided for the residential units from El Camino Real. Given the contours of the property and street, portions of the building are also set approximately 1.5 feet below the existing sidewalk elevation, requiring ramps and stairs down into the building’s first floor. 2.i Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Although the proposed street façade along El Camino Real may seem tall in comparison to adjacent buildings, the façade built up to the build-to-line, is encouraged in accordance with design criteria for El Camino Real, which notes that buildings should be a minimum 25 feet in height to provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real. The placement of doorways along the build-to-line may be more consistent with the guidelines than setting entrance areas back from the street. Awnings or other similar features would be encouraged to more clearly define entrances along the El Camino Real frontage. Project elements such as balconies would be visible from the El Camino real frontage to signal habitation but no stairs or entrances are present for residential access. In accordance with the context-based design criteria, buildings should minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. The proposed project includes setbacks at the corners rather than along the frontage. Reinforcement of the corners at the build-to-line with articulation along the frontage to help minimize massing may be more consistent with the guidelines. A complete list of the context-based design criteria is included in Attachment E. Performance Criteria Because the proposed mixed-used development would be located within a CS zone, this portion of the development would be subject to the performance criteria outlined in Section 18.23 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Staff is still reviewing the proposed project for consistency with the performance criteria. A complete list of the performance criteria is included in Attachment F. Staff has noted the following design criteria, in particular, for the ARB’s consideration:  Visual, Screening, and Landscaping (PAMC Section 18.23.050)  Noise and Vibration (PAMC Section 18.23.060) PAMC Section 18.23.050(B)(vi) states that a minimum 10-foot planting and screening strip shall be provided abutting a low density residential district. Placement of the parking garage ramp within the required setback allows for only a 5-foot planting and screening strip along a portion of the site between the CS and R-1 zone districts; which would also require approval of a DEE. In addition, 18.23.050(B)(viii) notes that landscaping material associated with screening should have adequate room to grow and be protected from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic. While hedges and smaller trees would be viable, larger screening trees may not have sufficient space to grow within the 5-foot buffer adjacent to the ramp. The performance criteria states that design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas. Placement of the ramp in a different location on the site, further from the R-1 zoning district, may be more desirable for compliance with this performance criterion as it relates to noise from parking. However, other locations may be less desirable for site circulation. Currently the roundabout only allows cars to enter and not to exit towards Olive Avenue. Therefore, other than the 30 surface parking spaces proposed closest to 2.i Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Olive Avenue, cars would not be allowed to exit onto that street. This parking lot circulation design reduces noise on Olive Avenue, adjacent to single-family residences. Interim Retail Preservation Ordinance The project is subject to the interim retail preservation ordinance, which prohibits the conversion of ground-floor retail or retail like uses to office uses. The proposed project does not include office use. The existing 9,100 sf of retail currently occupied by Mike’s Bikes would be replaced with approximately 19,900 sf of retail/commercial space on the ground floor and is therefore in compliance with this interim ordinance. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The subject site has a split land use designation of Service Commercial; Multiple Family Residential; Single Family Residential. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan identifies service commercial land use as a land use with facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element notes that residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. The Comprehensive Plan further notes that the purpose of mixed-use is to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas, and to encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to provide a high quality pedestrian-oriented street environment. The proposed mixed-use development in the CS district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the type of use (retail/residential) proposed. However, a more pedestrian- oriented building may be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed further below under the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Design Element notes that the permitted number of housing units for Multi-Family Residential land use will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities range from 8 to 40 units. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single family residential areas. The proposed project, at a density equivalent to 28 units per acre (proposing 20 units per .7 acre), is consistent with the density allowances for this land use designation. Permitted land uses in the Single Family Residential land use designation include horticulture and gardening. Use of areas on the parcel zoned R-1 for vegetation screening/open space would generally be consistent with similar allowed uses in the R-1 district. However, principal use of the land zoned R-1 for surface parking to support a multi-family use in the RM-30 district would not be permitted. Further, required parking spaces for proposed uses must be provided within their respectively zoned areas in accordance with PAMC Section 18.08.070. Housing Element 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2.i Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The Comprehensive Plan Housing Element includes Policy H2.1 to “identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse.” The proposed development includes both a mixed-use building along El Camino Real and an exclusively multi- family residential building at the rear of the lot. The development would include a total of 50 units with more than two-thirds of the proposed units being smaller (approximately 550 to 750 square feet) and therefore, presumably comanding a lower rent than the other larger units. Proposed housing supports the Comprehensive Plan Goal of providing housing to support the City’s fair share of regional housing needs and the location of this housing within the proximity of job opportunities within the City (including the 10-story Palo Alto Square office complex and Stanford Research Park) is consistent with the City’s goal of improving the existing job/housing imbalance in Palo Alto. Because the proposed units are for rent they are exempt from the City’s current BMR ordinance. However, the City is in the process of updating its ordinance and depending on how the Council elects to treat “pipeline” projects, it is possible the new BMR regulations could apply to this project. El Camino Real Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project site is subject to the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines) due to its location within the California-Ventura corridor area and is identified as a Cal-Ventura strategic site. The guidelines note that development of mixed uses in this area along the eastern El Camino Real frontage should accommodate pedestrian activity with attractive sidewalks and landscaping. New buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades and be clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians. Development within the Cal-Ventura strategic site should anticipate future public transit in the area, providing amenities such as plazas and seating areas. The proposed project focuses entries to ground floor retail away from El Camino Real, providing entrances to these areas from the rear parking lot rather than from the El Camino Real frontage. Access to some of the retail area is provided from the frontage; but these points of access are located at the corners and are both set back from the build-to-line and set lower than the street level rather than being emphasized along the frontage. No residential access is provided from El Camino Real; which is inconsistent with Guideline 4.2.1 that notes each building use and ground floor tenant space should have at least one functional entrance directly visible and accessible from the street. In addition, pedestrian pathways from the rear exit of the mixed-use building do not provide direct access to side streets. Overall the design of the building is oriented toward single-occupancy vehicle use rather than transit or pedestrian- oriented development as called for by the South ECR Guidelines. Areas of the frontage meeting the minimum required build-to-line are focused in the center of the block with the corners of the building set back both on the front and side lot lines. The guidelines note that for corner parcels, the building should be built up to the setback line in order to define the corner. Remaining portions of the side street frontage should include 2.i Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 articulations as well as features such as low wells, hedges, etc. to continue the street wall. In addition, Guideline 4.1.7 notes that corners should be addressed with special features such as prominent entries, massing and architectural elements. Although the guidelines do encourage recessed entries that provide space for seating and gathering, as is proposed on the corner of ECR and Acacia Avenue, the placement of these recessed entries away from the corners but along the frontage may be more consistent with the Guidelines. The project is also subject to the 1979 El Camino Real Design Guidelines (ECR Guidelines) guidelines with respect to trees, signage, architecture and building colors. Because the occupant(s) for the proposed retail space is/are yet to be determined, specific signage is not currently proposed. The existing mature City street trees along El Camino Real are currently proposed to remain. The applicant is seeking preliminary feedback from the ARB with respect to architecture and building colors. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The location, use, and required off-site improvements associated with the proposed project are consistent with the goals of the City’s 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). However, the building design, specifically the ground floor commercial component, should be revised to provide direct pedestrian connectivity to the public sidewalk for pedestrians accessing the site from surrounding areas, excluding the on-site parking lot. As proposed, the majority of the entrances for the commercial areas exclusively front the parking lot to the rear of the building, prioritizing access for trips by private automobile. The City’s BPTP goals include converting discretionary vehicle trips to walking and biking trips as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse emissions by 15% and doubling rates of bicycling and walking. Mixed-use development located near transit and housing allows persons to access a greater share of destinations by reducing distances traveled, but buildings must be inviting for pedestrians and cyclists to reach from public streets. Attractive storefronts and entrances directly facing the public sidewalk are important mechanisms for promoting increased bicycle and pedestrian use within mixed-use areas. Parking The mixed-use development on the CS zoned portion of the site includes 10 spaces less than required in accordance with the municipal code. Eight of these spaces are proposed to be located on the portion of the parcel zoned RM-30. The location of these required guest parking spaces on a separately zoned portion of the parcel would be inconsistent with PAMC Section 18.08.070. A Director’s adjustment could be requested to allow for joint used (shared) parking facilities for these eight spaces. A Director’s adjustment to allow transportation and parking alternatives would be required to address the applicant’s requested reduction of two required spaces (a 1 percent reduction) on this legal parcel. Both of these Director’s adjustments would require a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to assure parking reductions are achieved. 2.i Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 The existing surface parking along El Camino Real is roped off and is not currently used. Based on existing research, the surface parking lot adjacent to the Fry’s site is not required parking for any adjacent development. However, this lot is often used by adjacent commercial and retail uses, and has signs that restrict its use to parking for Fry’s customers. The applicant has indicated that, with revisions to the existing Fry’s parking lot, the 66 spaces that would be removed could be replaced within the existing Fry’s parking lot area. Circulation Overall, parking area circulation eliminates existing entrances to the site from El Camino Real; creating entrances on Acacia Avenue and Olive Avenue; which is more consistent with the El Camino Real design guidelines. The proposed parking lot would allow for entrance from Olive and Acacia Avenue but the garage ramp location for the mixed use building would encourage exit onto Acacia Avenue, away from nearby single-family residences. However, the placement of the ramp within the required setback requires that the City make the findings for a DEE. Consistency with Application Findings Because no action is requested, staff has not included draft findings for the proposed project. A complete list of the Architectural Review and DEE findings are provided in Attachment B. Environmental Review Environmental analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be required prior to approval of the proposed project. The City, in coordination with a qualified traffic engineering firm, is currently preparing a traffic study to analyze the impact of the proposed project on traffic and transportation. The results of this analysis will inform the level of environmental analysis required for the proposed project. Staff is aware that there is a plume in the area and the applicant has provided a Phase II report, which will be peer reviewed by a qualified environmental contractor hired by the City. Appropriate measures for residential use on the site would be assessed closely as part of the CEQA analysis. 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 October 21, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 24, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2.i Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB and DEE Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: CS Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: RM-30 Zoning Compliance Table (DOC)  Attachment E: Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 2.i Packet Pg. 79 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B S t a f f R e p o r t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 1 1 Architectural Review Board Meeting 2 Excerpt Minutes of November 3, 2016 3 4 5 6 7 Boardmembers: Staff: 8 Robert Gooyer- Chair Hillary Gitelman, Planning Director 9 Alexander Lew– V-Chair Cara Silver, Senior Deputy City Attorney 10 Wynne Furth Jonathan Lait, Assist. Director 11 Peter Baltay Claire Hodgkins, Planner 12 Kyu Kim Alicia Spotwood, Administrative Assistant 13 Molly Stump, City Attorney 14 15 16 QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER/PUBLIC HEARING. 3001 El Camino Real (16PLN-00097): Review and Comment 17 on a Requested Architectural Review Application for a Proposed Mixed-Use Development That Includes 18 50 Residential Rental Units and Approximately 20,000 Square Feet of Ground Floor Retail/Commercial 19 Space. No Recommendation or Action Will be Taken at This Meeting. This Project is Being Evaluated in 20 Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. It is 21 Anticipated That the Project Will Require a Mitigated Negative Declaration. For additional information 22 contact Claire Hodgekins at Claire.hodgekins@cityofpaloalto.org. 23 24 Chair Gooyer: We'll go on to Item 4 at 3001 El Camino Real. Review and comment of a requested 25 Architectural Review application for the proposed mixed-use development that includes 50 26 residential rental units and approximately 20,000 square feet of ground-floor retail/commercial space. 27 No recommendation or action will be taken at this meeting. This project is being evaluated in 28 compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, and the CEQA Guidelines. It is 29 anticipated that the project will require a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 30 31 Claire Hodgekins: Good morning, Board Members. I'm Claire Hodgekins, the project planner for this 32 project. This morning you're being requested to consider the applicant's proposal for development of a 33 mixed-use project located at 3001 El Camino Real. The project site is currently three parcels that would 34 be merged into one as part of a separate application for a preliminary parcel map. The site includes split 35 zoning, Service Commercial, medium density, multifamily residential and single-family residential. This 36 was not included in the Staff Report, but staff wanted to also note that one of the three parcels is located 37 on the housing inventory. Currently developed with 9,100 square feet commercial building, Mike's Bikes, 38 that's surrounded by surface parking. A proposed mixed-use project has 19,917 square feet of 39 commercial area and 50 residential units. This shows the zoning of the proposed parcel. As you can see 40 there is CS zoning along El Camino Real. The RM-30 zone is along Acacia, and there's a strip parallel to 41 42 Acacia Avenue and adjacent to the single-family residences that is zoned R-1. This was part of the 43 former railroad right-of-way. The project includes two separate buildings. A four-story building proposed 44 in the area zoned CS includes ground-floor retail/commercial, 30 residential units and one level of 45 underground parking. The second building is a three-story building located in the area zoned RM-30. It 46 includes parking on the ground level and two stories with 20 residential units above. Parking adjustment 47 2.j Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 2 request of 1 percent is requested to provide 192 spaces instead of 194. An additional adjustment may be 1 required for the proposed location of eight parking spaces. As designed, the project requires a Design 2 Enhancement Exception for a 5-foot encroachment into a 10-foot required setback and 3 vegetation screening buffer. Key issues are highlighted in the Staff Report and include consistency with 4 the Zoning Code, consistency with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines, consistency with the 5 performance criteria, and consistency with the Context Based Design Criteria. Staff is seeking ARB 6 input on the project's overall design and consistency with the design criteria and the project's 7 overall design. Next steps include a review and incorporation, as appropriate, of ARB comments; 8 finalization of studies and the draft CEQA document; and then the site and design process requires 9 review by the Planning and Transportation Commission. It would come back to the Architectural 10 Review Board for a recommendation and then City Council. Staff recommends the ARB provide 11 direction regarding the proposed project's overall design and its consistency with applicable design 12 guidelines and continue the project to a date uncertain. No recommendation or action is requested. 13 14 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Any comments or questions of staff? 15 Jonathan Lait: I'm sorry. Chair, just if I may? 16 Chair Gooyer: Sure. 17 18 Mr. Lait: Because this is a quasi-judicial matter, we just want to make sure that Commissioners have an 19 opportunity to express any ex parte communications before we commence further with the 20 dialog. Thank you. 21 22 Board Member Furth: I've spoken with staff to ask them for the history of the strip of R-1 designated 23 property, to which I now have a partial answer. 24 25 Ms. Hodgekins: It's adjacent to all of the single-family residences on Olive Avenue. 26 Board Member Furth: (inaudible) 27 Ms. Hodgekins: No, that was part of one of the existing parcels in the CS zone. It's not part of the 28 railroad right-of-way. 29 30 Board Member Furth: (inaudible) 31 32 Jodie Gerhardt: Our understanding is that this R-1 piece that you're seeing here is part of the old 33 railroad. In this case, this property owner picked up that property. It seems like in this case the 34 homeowner picked up the property from the railroad. 35 36 Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? 37 38 Board Member Baltay: Yes. I guess I had three questions. I'm still not clear. The Design Enhancement 39 Exception is to allow the ramp for the parking to be closer to the neighbor's property. What is it for? 40 41 Ms. Hodgekins: It's an encroachment into the 10-foot required setback from ... 42 Board Member Baltay: What is encroaching? 43 Ms. Hodgekins: The ramp is encroaching. 44 Board Member Baltay: The ramp is encroaching. 45 46 Ms. Hodgekins: Yes. It's also a 10-foot required vegetation screening under the performance criteria. 47 48 2.j Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 3 Board Member Baltay: The second thing. I noticed in this letter that came to us recently from 1 Transportation, Item Number 2, after evaluating the topographic survey with the plans, it appears the 2 sudden grade change and high point about the railroad stuff. Could you just explain to me what's going 3 on? Where is the grade changing? I walked around the site. I didn't see big grade changes. 4 5 Ms. Hodgekins: There's ... 6 7 Board Member Baltay: Just put it out for the record. What is it that we're talking about here? 8 9 Ms. Hodgekins: If you watch the pointer on the screen, there's a grade change along El Camino Real. 10 It's a little bit higher here versus here and here. Basically the railroad right-of-way comes through here. 11 It's slightly higher where that former railroad was. 12 13 Board Member Baltay: I'm sorry. On the ... 14 15 Ms. Hodgekins: The center of the site, of the frontage. 16 17 Board Member Baltay: The El Camino frontage has a bump in it? 18 Ms. Hodgekins: Yes. 19 Board Member Baltay: I didn't notice it when I spent about half an hour there. I guess I'm just kind of 20 blind. Lastly, through the Chair, Robert, there was a number of back-and-forths about the 21 appropriateness of this whole hearing to begin with. Could we get staff just to put on the record what's 22 going on and why we should be hearing this? Through the Chair, it's your call. 23 24 Chair Gooyer: You're talking about the email we got last night? 25 Board Member Baltay: And then staff's response to it, yes. 26 Ms. Gerhardt: Staff did respond to Mr. Borock's comments about this hearing. The applicant did not 27 apply for a preliminary review. They just applied for a formal application. That's what we're here with 28 today. We are considering this to be the first of three hearings that we would normally do with a formal 29 application. As far as fees are concerned, we take deposits on these major ARB applications. All of our 30 hours are recovered through that deposit process. 31 32 Chair Gooyer: I felt comfortable when it was sort of a fee-based type situation, where they just draw 33 from an account. 34 35 Board Member Baltay: I found everything to be reasonable. I just wanted to have it put out on the 36 record. 37 38 Chair Gooyer: If there are no other questions—yes? 39 40 Board Member Furth: I agree that this seems to be a no harm, no foul situation even if somewhat 41 unusual. I will say that since I don't have the benefit of sound studies and other data that CEQA 42 documents would give me, I may object if you tell us we've hit our three including this one, should we 43 ever get to that point 44 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. That three is at the Director's discretion. We have the ability to have additional 45 hearings if needed. 46 47 Board Member Furth: I'm happy to ... 48 2.j Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 4 1 Ms. Gerhardt: Because we don't have the CEQA documents and we're a little bit out of order here too is 2 why we're not asking for a recommendation. We're just asking for some guidance to help this project 3 along. 4 5 Chair Gooyer: At this point, I'll open it up to the public. I have one speaker slip at the moment, Jeff 6 Levinsky. Why don't we start with that? Jeff, you have 3 minutes. I'm sorry. You're right. Jeff, hang on. 7 You're right I haven't even done the applicant's presentation yet. Why don't we start with that? I'm 8 sorry. You've got 10 minutes then. 9 10 Tim Steele: Good morning. Tim Steele, I'm with the Sobrato Organization representing the applicant. I 11 also have with me the architect, Jeff Berg, from Steinberg. In the audience I have Nick Samuelson from 12 Guzzardo Partnership, who is our landscape architect, and Nick Torres Mathew [phonetic], who is our 13 civil engineer, with Kier & Wright. If you have any questions associated with those, they're available to 14 answer those as well. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, to introduce to you 3001 El Camino, a 15 mixed-use project. We had a few design challenges with three different parcels and two different 16 zonings. Our goal of this team in approaching the project was to make each parcel and each zoning area 17 conforming relative to the Zoning Ordinance and is partially why the decision to come directly to 18 you instead of going through the preliminary review. We've had plenty of opportunities over the years to 19 talk with staff about this and the adjacent Fry's site, which we also own, and getting feedback and 20 context for that. We were hoping we could build on some of that. We looked to the neighborhood for 21 cues. You, a few years ago, had approved the project across Acacia on El Camino, on the Equinox site. 22 We looked to that for a lot of cues on materials and finishes and design features. We tried to pick up 23 on those cues and integrate them here. With that, I don't want to get into all the details. I'll let the 24 architect make his presentation, and hopefully he can answer any questions you might have. Thank you. 25 26 Jeff Berg: Good morning, members of the Board and staff. We're very excited to be here. Again, my 27 name is Jeff Berg. I'm an architect and principal with Steinberg. We're excited to bring this first project 28 to you here on El Camino, in this portion of the Fry's site. As Tim said, there is challenges in terms of— 29 there are some wonderful opportunities, but there are some challenges. We had to start kind of 30 somewhere in terms of making some assumptions on how to design our building. I will start off by 31 saying that the project really has three frontages. There's the El Camino frontage, the Olive frontage, 32 and the Acacia frontage. I think we can make a case on any of those as to what we would call the front 33 or side. I think that will come up a little bit later when we talk about the ramp. We saw that as a 34 challenge but also an opportunity. The split zoning also presents somewhat of a challenge. The 35 buildings that were presented to you and drawn here—we've approached this that each building 36 essentially stands alone on itself. The CS building works with the CS zoning, and the RM-30 building 37 works with the RM. We are truly thinking of this as a mixed-use site, and that's what we're bringing forth 38 to you today. We think that there's some very nice solutions that we'll get into on how we believe this 39 works in a mixed-use way. The Board has picked up on the topography; although, you don't necessarily 40 see it. El Camino does have about a 20-inch rise across its frontage. In the world of ADA and flatness, 41 that does present a design challenge for us, especially in terms of consistent retail entries across that 42 frontage and having a flat building and not stepping inside. There's also a number of mature trees that 43 we very much want to keep. The City has a heritage of keeping trees, especially mature street trees. A 44 proposal of lowering the sidewalk or what that impact would be all the way out into El Camino is 45 not considered in this application. We're working with the existing trees. Another item, I think, for 46 consideration is in the El Camino Design Guidelines in terms of how we planned the transportation entry. 47 We're keeping the El Camino frontage very much vehicle-centric. There's no mid-block curb cut. Cars 48 2.j Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 5 are funneled around and to the sides on Acacia, primarily on Acacia. There's also working within the 1 height restrictions and so forth. I think the project that we'll go through now really responds quite nicely 2 to a lot of those guidelines and have come up with some nice design solutions. If you see these on your 3 screen here, we'll just go through a number of these slides. You're familiar here with the Mike's Bikes 4 parcel. That sits squarely in the CS zone. What we call the tail or the RM-30 piece runs to the north 5 along Acacia. We did do and put together and stitched a street frontage for you for your reference. I 6 think you've all visited the site probably and are familiar with here. These are for reference. We took a 7 number of our design cues from projects in and around the area and also the project on the Equinox site 8 that was approved several years ago, used that as some cues in terms of what the ARB and City was 9 looking for at that point. Here's the data. We'll talk, I'm sure, about parking. This is pretty 10 straightforward calculations in terms of the floor areas and parking required. I think staff has shown that 11 we're complying with the numbers in terms of floor areas and heights. There is a discussion we'll have 12 about parking and shared use. This slide, again, demonstrates some of those challenges in terms of the 13 topography. What I will say is in terms of the parking and entry here for mixed use, the vehicular traffic 14 is off of El Camino, pointed to Acacia. The main, what we call the vehicular entrance, is right here. 15 We've taken the vehicles and the transportation coming in for all of the residential uses and really 16 the bulk of the retail use and directed that to a mid-block situation here. The turn here and the 17 circle prevents cut-through traffic to Olive. It also directs them to the ramp to the subterranean parking. 18 Note that the ramp starts at the very back—this was intentional—of the adjacent R-1 parcel to get those 19 cars ducking down and below grade before we're next to a home. We think that is a very nice design 20 solution there. Really the other surface parking that would serve the retail use, there's only 30 spaces, 21 and that is accessible off of Olive right here. We've provided really—there is a minimum kind of 22 amount for retail that works well for that quick pick-up, drop-off or jump-in on a trip. That really is 23 limited to the 30 cars right here on Olive. We see this also working well. There's an entry on the 24 building on Olive, and that would focus pedestrians or residents north towards the Caltrain station and 25 that kind of pedestrian and mass transit situation. A couple of cross-sections. There's the 26 architectural site plan; we'll get to the sections. We've put a lot of effort into the landscaping 27 around the perimeter as well as the amenity spaces. We have some very nice buffers on the point 28 that's called out as the R-1 leftover zoning area here, with nice landscaping and features across the 29 back, heavily planted to meet our storm water retention guidelines. Also there's an amenity space 30 for the building on the second floor of the CS building. This place, again, located far away from our 31 R-1 zones. I think this was about 75 feet—no, it was more than that, I think over 100 feet to the back 32 here. Cross-sections, you can see how we're handling our heights here. The 50-foot-high portion of the 33 building is pushed out to El Camino, and then we respect that 150-foot circle and drop the building 34 heights down as we approach and get closer to the R-1 zones. The cross-section here shows this 35 adjacency with the single-family home, which on this drawing is shown there, but it's pushed very 36 much to the front of their parcel. You can see the setback in question and then the ramp diving down 37 to the garage below. We did put in the building that was approved here, so you could see some 38 context in terms of what was approved. We've taken that also in terms of our mass and bulk, materials 39 and colors and used that as cues for our design. We feel very good about the design use of materials. I 40 think this would be a nice addition on El Camino and picks up on other buildings that have been 41 approved closer down to Page Mill, I think, with that variation of plane, color use and then some higher-42 quality materials at the corners. There's a sample here. This was also included in the submittal package. 43 There are a few renderings here to illustrate the overall architectural design. Thank you very much. Be 44 excited to answer your questions. 45 46 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? 47 48 2.j Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 6 Board Member Kim: I have a quick question. I was looking at the building section on A4.1. I don't think it 1 was actually in your presentation. In our packets, if you look at the left portion of that building section, it 2 looks like there's a parking stacker. 3 4 Mr. Berg: Yes. We're proposing in the basement—along the Acacia frontage, we have provisions in the 5 plans to allow for mechanical parking on that wall, on that side. 6 7 Board Member Kim: Do your parking calculations take into account the stacked spots as well? 8 9 Mr. Berg: They include the stacked spots. The most intensive use we saw on the retail side would be a 10 restaurant. The plan was to build—we conform without putting the stackers in, if it's not a restaurant. 11 We would put in the pit, and you can cover the way those are designed and manufactured. We build the 12 pit with the basement, and then there's a series of metal plates that cap that off. If there was a 13 conversion or a time when parking was needed, they can go ahead and install the system. The physical 14 bones to do the stacker is in place and built from the outset. 15 16 Board Member Kim: The stacker would really be to provide enough parking for a restaurant if it were 17 (crosstalk). 18 19 Mr. Berg: (crosstalk) intense parking situation, yes. 20 Board Member Kim: Thank you. 21 Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? 22 23 Vice Chair Lew: I have a question for you. I guess we are calling it the RM-30 building on Acacia. You have 24 the parking at grade. I was wondering if you had considered doing subterranean parking or a half level 25 down parking. 26 27 Mr. Berg: We had considered that. Noting that the heights were at 35 feet we could accommodate all 28 the parking without going through a subterranean situation, we chose to keep that at grade for this 29 exercise. 30 31 Vice Chair Lew: Thank you. 32 33 Chair Gooyer: Anyone else? In that case, now I'll open it up to the public. Like I said, I have one 34 speaker slip at the moment, Jeff Levinsky. Jeff, you've got 3 minutes. 35 36 Jeff Levinsky: With all due respect, I think it's 5 minutes for a hearing like this. That's what it says on 37 the agenda. I won't need it. Two points. First of all, thank you all for hearing this item. The concern I 38 have is about the present parking situation. The Staff Report doesn't really mention this, but the lot that 39 it talks about of 66 undesignated spaces is currently in use. It didn't take long to figure out how. I went 40 over there a couple of days ago and people are parking there all throughout the morning and then 41 walking over to 380 Portage Road, a separate property where there's a company called Playground 42 Global. They were going in there. Those people are all going to be displaced when this project goes up. 43 The question is where are they then going to park. I realize that the buildings are owned by the same 44 owner and there's been an agreement to handle this in the past. I think it would be appropriate for the 45 staff to go through and explain whether the remaining parking spaces are going to be adequate for the 46 parking that's going to be displaced. Acacia is completely parked bumper-to-bumper when I was there. 47 That couldn't absorb these people either. This is actually a pretty tricky issue because we also have seen 48 2.j Packet Pg. 85 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 7 this over at Foot Locker, which is going to be torn down and rebuilt. Cars are parking in the back of Foot 1 Locker for another property. There are these agreements, informal or formal worked out, where cars 2 aren't parking in spaces that are going to survive. The question is what's going to happen. I've spoken 3 with Becky Sanders, who is the president of the neighborhood association. There's already concern 4 about overflow parking from other projects and such. I think simply counting up the parking spots at 5 Fry's and saying there's enough for all the tenants at Fry's may not itself be adequate. We'd like to know 6 whether or not Fry's store, for example, has the rights to park so many cars for customers and whether 7 that is going to be in—that has to be maintained so that you can't just move the people for Playground 8 Global over to the other side where Fry's customers park. I think that all has to be sort of very carefully 9 explained so that the public can understand what's going to happen. The other concern that Becky and 10 her community are concerned about is sort of the canyonization of El Camino. This building, while it does 11 an interesting job of moving the mass away from the R-1 homes as appropriate, creates along El Camino 12 what's going to be sort of a very vertical facade. We've seen that similar design in other buildings. It 13 would be great if you could find ways to make that more appealing and more attractive rather than 14 what you already have north of Oregon Expressway with the various projects that have gone up, which 15 have gotten quite a bit of public backlash about how unattractive it is now to have these tall buildings on 16 both sides and such. I hope you can give some attention to those issues. Thank you. 17 18 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address this Board? Seeing none, I'll close the 19 public portion and bring it back to the Board. Kyu, you want to start? 20 21 Board Member Kim: Thank you for your presentation. 22 23 Mr. Lait: I'm sorry, Chair. I'm the stickler on process here. Typically, we give the applicant an opportunity 24 for rebuttal. Since there was some public comments, there's an opportunity for an applicant to rebut 25 anything that was heard in the public process. I think your agenda (crosstalk). 26 27 Chair Gooyer: I was going to do that after we—that's fine. No problem. 28 29 Mr. Steele: Specific to the parking question, it's a good observation to see that that portion of the 30 parking is used on a fairly active basis. However, we've been monitoring the parking lot and actually 31 recently signed it because we're finding that that portion of the parking that is subject to this project 32 being displaced isn't used necessarily by our project. Predominately it's used by private parties going 33 across Acacia in the Equinox project. The gym primarily uses that parking lot a lot. For about a 2-month 34 period about 6 months ago, we had a security guard monitoring that portion of the parking lot and 35 checking where everybody is actually moving to when they park their car and walk to, and then asking 36 them if they're not part of the Fry's campus, if you will, that whole parking lot and the facilities that go 37 with that parking lot, the Fry's building, the Global Playground and such, that they not park in our parking 38 lot. We've recently signed it to say they're not allowed if you're not part of our tenancy. We also would 39 like to point out that the Fry's main building parking lot areas have kind of grown haphazardly over its 40 life. As it acquired the railroad easement through the property, they paved it. As they got other pieces, 41 they paved it. There was no rhyme or reason with the layouts of the parking and how efficient they drive 42 and such. We're in the process of actually having the parking lot looked at to make it more logical and 43 efficient. In that we get to add additional parking, which will help offset the displaced parking that would 44 be part of our project. 45 46 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Why don't we bring it back to the Board then? 47 48 2.j Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 8 Board Member Kim: Thanks again for your presentation. I think this is a very interesting site. I 1 remember when it was still a car dealership, and I remember when Verizon was Pizza Hut and so on and 2 so forth. One of the first things that kind of interested me was the fact that this was used as a part of 3 the railroad. I think it's interesting that across El Camino between the McDonald's and the Palo Alto 4 Square we still have that strip of land that used to be the railroad tracks. Just a very casual comment. I 5 think I was a little bit sad to see that there wasn't any kind of association made to that, which I think is 6 fine. Again, it's just an observation to start. As far as looking through your packet and drawings, thank 7 you for providing such a large set of drawings. I mean that in earnest, because it's really important to be 8 able to see a lot of the complexities that are going on. I think there are a lot of things to be applauded 9 with regards to the project. I particularly think that the ramp is a good decision and a good design 10 approach to give some respect to the single-family residence that is neighboring right next to that, and at 11 the same time provide somewhat of a buffer between the more high-density structure that's to be 12 proposed. I think that the elevations along Olive Avenue and even to a certain extent along Acacia have 13 been pretty well thought out. Especially on Olive, I like the breaking up of the elevation and not being so 14 repetitive. However, I do feel like there can be some additional studies along El Camino Real. I 15 understand that it's a certain unit type that's being repeated and mirrored, but I still feel that it's just a 16 little too bland and too repetitive. I think there are opportunities to kind of introduce some more 17 pedestrian scale and pedestrian interest and gathering spaces along El Camino that currently don't exist 18 there the way the site currently is and along with the proposed design. I think the decision to use the 19 roundabout in the center of the site to prevent people from cutting across is important. I know, as 20 somebody that's guilty myself of using Olive Avenue as kind of a shortcut from El Camino to Oregon 21 Expressway, it is a frequently used shortcut by many people in town. To have that linkage from Acacia 22 would only encourage people to do it more. I think that roundabout is being mindful of that and trying to 23 deter that. I like that decision. I'm a little bit concerned about the parking. I realize that we're not 24 making a decision today and that things may still be in flux, especially with Planning and the Department 25 of Transportation. To me it feels like a lot of those spots are super compact spots. I thought if this 26 becomes a development that's thriving and has a lot of people, I think it's going to be a real traffic jam 27 down there. I don't see how people are going to be encouraged to park down there. With regards to 28 the plans, I thought it would be nice in the future if you could show the outdoor amenity space for the El 29 Camino building on that second-floor plan. I didn't see it currently. I think this would be specifically on 30 Sheet A2.2CS. You do have a note that the podium amenities are there, but I thought it would be nice if 31 you could actually show those amenities and how they relate back to the residences. I was looking at 32 things such as trash and getting in and out of the site. I think those have been for the most part pretty 33 well thought through. I think those can work. I do have concerns if one of the retail spaces on the 34 ground floor of the CS building will be a restaurant. The thought that restaurant customers may have to 35 use the parking lift system is a concern that I have. I also have some issues with the bicycle parking. I 36 noticed that all of the long-term bicycle parking spots were in the Acacia building. The majority of those 37 long-term parking spots are actually for the CS building. I don't know if that's the best way to go about 38 the long-term bicycle parking. It almost felt like "we've got this long-term bicycle parking that we need 39 to address; let's just put it where we have the space to put it." I don't think that's the best solution for 40 that. I also do think that additional surface grade bicycle parking should be encouraged. I realize that 41 you do have some of those spots, but I think more of the people that need to use the long-term bicycle 42 parking spots, I think, will just kind of leave their bikes on surface grade, which will take up those bicycle 43 parking spots for the people that actually bike here for temporary uses. Those were the initial comments 44 that I had. I'm excited for the project. It's a site that can definitely use a more vibrant piece of 45 architecture and land use. There still needs to be some more thought put into the repetitiveness and the 46 use of materials and colors. As a start, I'm excited to see the project move forward. I think the initial 47 pieces are in there for you to clearly show us that you're thinking about some of the more complex issues 48 2.j Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 9 at hand. Thank you. 1 2 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Alex. 3 4 Vice Chair Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I think this is a pretty exciting project. I very much 5 like the range of units that you've put in the project. We haven't really seen very many people propose 6 this kind of project in Palo Alto. I do like that. I do like what you're proposing in terms of the units, and I 7 do very much like that you have private balconies and large common open spaces for all of the units. I 8 think that's very important. I think my main questions on the project have to do with the repetitiveness, 9 which I think Kyu has mentioned. Also for me, when I was reviewing the El Camino Design Guidelines, I 10 think there are some things that you're missing. One is a prominent entrance for the residences facing 11 the street. Yours are kind of in a courtyard facing the back of the property. Our guidelines do actually 12 say that you should have entrances for the retail and also for the residences. It's a guideline, not a 13 zoning requirement. I do want to caution you that the Council has been deliberating whether or not to 14 make the guidelines part of the Code. That's out there. They haven't decided on that. I would just pay 15 attention to that, because that's come up before on other projects. It seems like the guidelines do allow 16 some wiggle room where it could be on a side street if there is a plaza or some sort of pedestrian 17 connector to El Camino. There are maybe some ways around that. The guidelines do specifically 18 mention that. On the repetitiveness and also to Mr. Levinsky's point about the walled canyons, it seems 19 to me the amount of frontage that you have on El Camino, that more variation is warranted. Don't make 20 every window on every building the same proportion. I've worked on projects like this. It's very easy for 21 the architect working on it just to try to make everything the same. That's actually the wrong thing to do 22 on a project of this size. If you carry that through into the materials and colors, again I think we want 23 real variation between the buildings. Don't use the same palette on both buildings on all facades and 24 whatnot. We want more distinction between them. You're starting to do that on the corners. I think the 25 corners are working really well. On balconies, if you have HVAC, like if you're using mini splits with wall- 26 mounted (inaudible)—you're not, good. One, I want them to be screened if you do. If you have Z vents, if 27 there's a way around that and not doing it—we've had some projects do ducting up to the roof so that 28 they're not visible on the El Camino facade—that would be great. On your retail frontage, things like 29 planters and recesses could go a long way to breaking the repetition. I think the Staff Report also 30 mentioned more prominent awnings. You do have awnings in the sections, but having more prominent 31 awnings and letting tenants—what do you call it? Incorporating a place for tenants to have signs is key. 32 On your RM-30 building on Acacia, I think my suggestion is to lower the building a half level if you can. 33 I've seen projects in San Jose where they actually add front steps to each of the units on the second 34 floor. Instead of just the balcony, it's actually more like a porch. In a way it's a little weird because you 35 have a unit with two front doors, one from the street and one into the corridor. It makes the street a lot 36 better. Right now you have a blank wall. If you guys don't do that, then I really want to see more of 37 what the blank wall looks like. I was looking in the elevations, but I couldn't really tell exactly what you 38 were doing on the garage wall facing Acacia. I do acknowledge that you're trying to do storm water in 39 that setback there. I'm a little concerned about your—what do you call it—your automobile 40 circulation. It seems to me that you're putting more of the access on Acacia versus Olive. The downside is 41 Acacia is narrower, and at least temporarily it doesn't connect to very much. You have to go through 42 that little alley to get to Portage or drive through a parking lot. I know that won't be permanent; 43 something else will happen in the future. The downside to me is that you can't turn, you can't go 44 southbound on El Camino from Acacia because there's a median. You're really kind of forcing people 45 to go through the alley to Portage because of the median. Olive, you can make a left turn or a right 46 turn, because that's also the Palo Alto Square intersection. Olive is 10 feet wider than Acacia. I 47 would imagine that the neighborhood is concerned about cut-through traffic and whatnot and 48 2.j Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 10 parking. Some of our other neighborhoods, like in Evergreen Park, have put barriers there. The mixed-1 use projects can access part of Olive, and then there's a barrier, and then the residents have access only 2 from the back side. That's one possible solution if that is an issue. On the grading of your first floor and 3 a lot of the ADA access, I've worked on projects like this. I know it's a challenge. I've worked on ones 4 where we've split the slab, stepped the slab. I know that causes all sorts of problems. It seems to me 5 that may be a better solution. You're saying no. I've gone through it. I've racked my brain over that too. 6 I would say on the Equinox project there, there was a Design Enhancement Exception for that project to 7 help with the ADA access. They tried to take up the grade on the side streets. To make up the difference, 8 they put ramps in there. I would say that at least I'm open to that kind of thing if that helps. I'm not 9 crazy about having the retail floor lower than the sidewalk. That just seems really odd to me. Whatever 10 you can do to get it higher, I think, is better. I think that's all that I have at the moment. Thank you. I look 11 forward to this project. 12 13 Chair Gooyer: Thank you, Alex. Wynne. 14 15 Board Member Furth: Thank you, and thank you for the large, readable, highly informative plans, as Kyu 16 said. It's a pleasure to be thinking about a project like this and the uses that you propose. It was good to 17 be reminded that when I see an asphalt parking lot as something vastly improved by having housing 18 built on it, there is a loss, namely those parking spaces. I will be interested in hearing how these things 19 work out in the larger neighborhood. I guess I've been hearing about how these parcels are about to 20 change to housing since 1998, when I first showed up to go to work in the Planning Department at least 21 as their legal advisor. I had a question for staff. In the South El Camino Design Guidelines, it talks about 22 the 3000 block, and it talks about a jitney and the old railroad right-of-way. Could you explain how that 23 relates to this project and site? Page 18. 24 25 Ms. Hodgekins: I've discussed this with Transportation, and they indicated that, although this notes that 26 there was an old railroad right-of-way here, there are no future plans even mentioned on a 27 potential basis from anyone at this point in time to actually develop that. They indicated that much of 28 the right-of- way already has been developed. There are no ... 29 30 Board Member Furth: Do we expect that to change in the Comp Plan revision? 31 Ms. Hodgekins: They don't expect that to change (crosstalk). 32 Board Member Furth: No, I mean they would change the Comp Plan, because this is a reference to a 33 Comp Plan note. 34 35 Ms. Hodgekins: Yeah. 36 37 Board Member Furth: Thank you. This was a question for the applicant. You mentioned that you 38 control other properties in the area. This line of single-family dwellings along Olive, are those also 39 controlled in part by you? No. Are those individually owned houses? 40 41 Mr. Steele: We bought the Fry's land that you know as the Fry's building as well as—not Mike's Bikes but 42 the railroad easement that came up was also owned by them. They own going along Olive just, I'd say, 43 about 60 percent of the individual single-family homes, and they kept those. Boyd Smith kept them 44 when they sold us our piece. I think out of all of them on our side of Olive there might be two privately 45 owned, then the bulk of the remainder is owned by a third investor that we're not related to. When Boyd 46 sold us his properties, the Fry's site, he indicated he would not oppose the redevelopment of our 47 parcels. The one parcel immediately adjacent to us is privately owned. We have been attempting to 48 2.j Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 11 contact them. It appears that they might be an absentee owner. We also looked at the title report, and it 1 looks like there might be some financial issues going on with the property, which is why we can't get a 2 hold of the person possibly. There's a pile of mail on the front porch. We're making an attempt to get a 3 sense of their reaction to this proposal, but we haven't had an opportunity to meet with them yet. 4 5 Board Member Furth: Thank you. I was asking these questions because a lot of our guidelines talk 6 about doing various things to be careful with and protect adjacent residential neighborhoods. This site 7 does not mostly adjoin residential neighborhoods. It's hard to tell; it all appears to be in flux. I know we 8 have to start somewhere. Thank you. Basically I was looking at the site. I was thinking ignoring the issue 9 of the R-1 strip which probably the owner would have a right to have re-designated since it's not 10 develop-able under R-1 standards, but it's not an easy process to get a zone change even a correcting 11 one like this. It's basically RM-30 throughout and then with the mixed-use, with the commercial. Just 12 sort of thinking about it. It's a single parcel with a big El Camino frontage, but it's two different zones. 13 When I look at the South El Camino Guidelines, I'm thinking do I apply the residential building only 14 standards to the CS building. I think they're important. I would ordinarily be looking for access from 15 residential units to the sidewalk, because that's one of the things that's encouraged in these guidelines 16 in a residential building. I don't know if that works effectively when what's across the street is not 17 residential uses. It does concern me that this design is so inwardly focused. I would prefer that it 18 address the street more directly and that it be more apparent that there's residential uses than I think 19 this design does. I know our El Camino guidelines—you've got two of them, two sets to think about—talk 20 about big, built-up corners. I actually think that really well designed, truly pedestrian-friendly uses on 21 corners can be more valuable than towers. I think what you have could work. My big concern will be is 22 it actually a place that will be pleasant to be. I suspect 10 years from now the traffic will not be as noisy 23 on that street, but it'll be interesting to see the sound studies and think about how it practically works. I 24 think we have a number of alleged public spaces along El Camino that don't work because they're too 25 noisy. I'm also concerned with having—I'm not supportive of having a block-long facade along El Camino 26 with no significant entry through it. I think it needs to be broken up. Our guidelines unconsciously don't 27 really anticipate block-long developments. We have to read them in that context. If you look at them, 28 they talk about cooperative developments with pedestrian amenities and passages between the 29 buildings. I think you own both those buildings, and I would be looking for that kind of approach. Also 30 generally, there's a lot of really attractive development in this part of the City, a lot of the new 31 buildings. A lot of them are back against Park or Birch, and they don't have to be as armored against 32 the street as your building will be on El Camino. They don't have to deal with as much noise, as 33 much dust, as much smoke. Generally the architecture there is lighter. It's lighter elements. I'm sure 34 my colleagues know how it's done. I am looking for lighter, less heavy architecture in this area. This 35 has always been the less developed, less intense part of the City. If you look across the street, you 36 have a very high urban forest. It's big. That's the tallest thing around. I would like to keep that aspect of 37 visibility and light and greenery. I think this site is under-landscaped as it's presently designed, 38 particularly for an area where the dominant use is residential. I think it needs a lot more greenery, 39 and I don't mean a bunch of horsetails, equisetum, whatever it's called. I very much like the use. I like 40 the mix of units you have. I like the fact that you have outdoor spaces which would be buffered from 41 intense noise. I'm not sure they're designed to really work yet socially. I think they need perhaps 42 more eyes on them, more to encourage interaction. My principle concern is this long, heavy El Camino 43 frontage and failing to tie that residential in both buildings more to the street. Thank you. 44 45 Chair Gooyer: Thank you, Wynne. Peter. 46 47 Board Member Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for the comprehensive presentation. I'm very excited 48 2.j Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 12 about this project. I think the use is great. I find myself in agreement with and actually wanting to build 1 on a lot of the comments of my colleagues. Let me start by saying that I think this is increasingly a 2 pedestrian-friendly area. It doesn't seem so at first blush. It's not if you're not really familiar with the 3 area, but it's so rapidly changing into a higher-density microcosm of an urban area. It's kind of exciting 4 and neat. The scale and the kind of apartments you're proposing really fit into that. I think the 5 architecture needs to be considerably more pedestrian-friendly. I'll build on Wynne's comments right 6 away. I think the El Camino frontage is too much building. I'd love to see some sort of break between 7 the building with an entrance perhaps through some buildings or a large opening between them, 8 somehow to signify that it does front on El Camino. That's the address, 3001 El Camino. I'd really love to 9 see some sort of break in the building. That also responds to what Kyu was saying about the building 10 feeling too monotonous and regular. Again, break it up a little bit. That will help. I feel even more 11 strongly, I think, than Alex does about the residential units. When you lift them off the ground by the 12 height of a parking garage, you don't really have residential units on the street. That's out of context, 13 and I find I really won't be able to support this if those units are a full height above the street. I really 14 think you need to come down at least half a story. What Alex was painting a picture of is really quite 15 attractive houses with porches stepping off a little bit. Up in Redwood City, they just did that on some 16 new apartment buildings off of Veterans where the parking is pushed down a little bit. Each house has 17 this sort of brownstone stoop. Anything you can do to make these apartment homes part of the 18 community, because they are, will really help. Right now, when you look at some of your perspective 19 renderings, it's pretty horrific. On Sheet A3.1, you get a good view of the residential units off of Acacia. 20 That's really not attractive that way, and it's not making any kind of contextual connection to what is a 21 residential neighborhood. I think the same thing applies in the back. You have an outdoor space that 22 you really want, and the residents of these apartments will want to use. Yet, when you lift them up a full 23 floor above it, there's not a whole lot of mothers who are going to be comfortable with their 24 children playing when they can't easily get to them and see them. Being a full floor above it is 25 just not comfortable; it's not appropriate. Again, if you were to sink the parking down just half a 26 flight, just enough that you can still make it all work, you have room for the ramps and stuff. You could 27 then find a way to make more visual and architectural connections from those units to the street and to 28 the backyard open area, which would I believe just make it much more successful. Again, I'm building 29 on what Alex was saying, but I feel even more strongly than he does that it's essential to get that. When I 30 look at the parking situation, in general I think you're making it work. Certainly the 1 percent is not a 31 problem. I do support the Design Enhancement Exception for the ramp. We've done that before. 32 This is such a limiting factor. To pull it a full 10 feet from the property line really limits how you can 33 make the parking work. What you've done is quite nice, and I find I accept that. Again, building on what 34 Kyu was saying, the stacked parking works maybe for residential units. It really doesn't for any kind of 35 retail purpose. I just can't support that at all if you can't make the parking work without the stacked 36 units. I understand that they're not part of the project now, but I just want to put it on the record that I 37 don't think stacked units really work at all, but for residential units at best. 38 39 Mr. Steele: Is there a chance to clarify (inaudible)? 40 41 Board Member Baltay: No. The last thing about the parking. I've said this on many projects before. If 42 there's any way you can get some kind of a connection from the parking garage up. Right now, I come 43 home and I have to go out through either an elevator or a fire stair to get up to the main plaza and into 44 the houses somehow. If you had some kind of an opening, a staircase, a way to go back and forth 45 between the two levels, you'd just make it so much more friendly. For retail, people are so much more 46 likely to want to go to these shops when the parking is easy to get there. If you think of Kepler's book 47 store and Café Borrone up in Menlo Park, Bob Peterson's building, where they have these huge 48 2.j Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 13 lightwell-filled stair areas that you go up and down from. When you're in the garage, you 1 immediately know where to go. It's full of light. It's quite successful. It's a pleasant way to get out of a 2 parking garage. It just makes such a difference. Here it's just an absolute minimum parking garage, fit as 3 many cars in as you can. That comes around to me on the second floor common space for the CS 4 building open space on the outside. Again, if there was some way to connect that space to the 5 parking, to the area, to El Camino, a staircase going down, some level of just connection, visual 6 connection and a practical, physical way to get back and forth between all of this. As you refine the 7 designs, maybe you'll find an opportunity to do that. The more you can get—just a staircase going down 8 is just so much easier for somebody to have two or three ways to come home. It just makes it nicer 9 if you're walking over from the train station, you don't have to go inside some fire stair to get up. All 10 these small things really count. I do share everybody's comments about the buildings looking a little 11 too regular and monotonous. At first I had actually circled the corner thinking where is the corner 12 element. On thinking about it and listening to what my colleagues say, it may well be that the way you've 13 designed this corner will be quite successful. Having a sort of a recess and a strong entrance off of 14 that might well do the corner marking. I do caution you and remind everybody that in our El Camino 15 Design Guidelines we call for buildings to have a base, a middle and a top. Like it or not, that's what 16 we've all approved in our El Camino guidelines. We've talked about this at previous meetings. I 17 remind staff I don't see that mentioned anywhere in your report. My colleagues have all discussed this 18 before. It is in the guidelines, and we can't just ignore those things. It does force a more traditional 19 style of architecture, but that is what we've collectively agreed to do through our Codes and 20 guidelines. We should be enforcing that or at least mentioning it and letting us come back with 21 architectural solutions to it. Two final things. As I look at these elevations, I notice you're proposing 22 some sort of corrugated metal treatment on these taller, vertical elements on the CS building and 23 possibly on the residential one. I find that not to be a very comfortable or timeless element at all. I think 24 it's sort of a catchy, current architectural trend. I'd like to think of us looking for buildings that are more 25 timeless, to have more durable materials that 20 years from now will still be looking strong and solid. I 26 don't think a corrugated metal is one of those. I think we've had a couple of buildings in town where 27 we just go a little bit too far that way. It doesn't really work. Lastly, it really struck me standing on the 28 corner the other day that there's quite a few large redwood trees up and down El Camino, especially 29 looking north across the street. It strikes me as a real source of possible inspiration for your 30 landscape architect. The redwood, El Palo Alto really is the symbol of our City. Here's an opportunity 31 where from this building you're going to see quite a few of them, a whole density of them. Maybe 32 incorporate a few more of those into your design somehow. Just go out there, landscape 33 architects. You can't help but to miss—there's got to be a dozen 50-foot-tall redwoods within a couple 34 hundred feet of this place. It really struck me as a beautiful thing that I think of a lot when I think 35 about Palo Alto. I'd love to see if there's a way you could just get some inspiration from that. Thank 36 you. 37 38 Chair Gooyer: Thanks, Peter. I pretty much agree with everything Peter said and actually what most of 39 my other colleagues have said. The residential area in the back, I think, needs to be dropped a half—if 40 you don't want to drop it completely, but at least a half a story which would make it a lot more friendly to 41 the pedestrian sidewalk. It's been used in numerous areas around here. The first thing that comes to 42 mind is Bay Meadows used it very successfully in the same sort of format. The perspective you've got on 43 the front sheet, I really do not like the El Camino elevation. It is way too monotonous. Going back to 44 specifics, also some of the corrugated metal, the type of materials being used. Also the street-level 45 facade, basically other than the two ends, I see no doors, no nothing. If that's going to be retail, that 46 makes no sense to me at all. That needs to be changed. It's difficult and I guess it's become very 47 traditional because of the height limitations, but almost every new building that's being built these days 48 2.j Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 14 has a flat roof. It's getting very monotonous. When it gets to the point where my wife starts 1 commenting that every new building, then I know it's getting that way. Being in the business, you notice 2 things like that. When a person who's not begins to notice it, it seems to be trend-setting. I think there 3 needs to be some variety. Further down on El Camino, we've had some buildings of this scale approved 4 recently, that are being built. They've got some variety to them. This looks like one large complex, and 5 it doesn't need to be. I would have no problem if this looked like four or five different buildings. It still 6 gets you the type of units that you're looking for. I like the fact that you're creating some 550 plus or 7 minus square foot units. I think that's great, especially right near the train. I think that's all the right way 8 to do it. Right now the concept is great. Just the way it's being presented needs to be fixed. I'm not 9 happy with it at the moment. I could accept the ramp, the 5 feet instead of 10. I don't really have a 10 problem with that. Let's see. Basically I don't think there's anything I can say that hasn't already been 11 said. I do agree—I know you were raising your hand. I've never seen lifts work successfully with a 12 restaurant or whatever type situation. I've seen it done on a very large scale in Europe. I've seen it 13 done in some areas in San Francisco. The average person in Palo Alto isn't going to want to run into a 14 lift system to go to a restaurant for an hour. I just don't see it. 15 16 Mr. Steele: (inaudible) 17 18 Chair Gooyer: Like I said, right now this is a preliminary meeting. I don't need you to explain the whole 19 thing. If you want, that's fine. I'm getting the nod here. Come on up and you can explain to me your 20 end of it. 21 22 Mr. Steele: It's our fault for not going into that level of explanation. It's not intended for the retail to use 23 the lifts. The way the space is designed the residential is a secure parking space. It's also designed that if 24 we were to add the lifts, we shift the secure gate and fence further in to where the lifts would be 25 added. We're adding surface-level parking for the commercial when we put the lifts in. The lifts would 26 then service the residential only. We agree with your comments that were expressed, I think Kim, Peter 27 and yourself at least. I think this ... 28 29 Chair Gooyer: Like I said, we were just making a comment that I've never seen it work. If you agree, 30 then ... 31 32 Mr. Steele: It won't work, I agree. I do agree, yes. 33 34 Chair Gooyer: Having said that then, any other last comments from anyone? Go ahead. 35 36 Vice Chair Lew: I just wanted to respond to your comment about the flat roofs. I don't disagree with 37 you. Our guidelines encourage flat roofs and discourage pitched roofs or mansards or whatever. I think 38 there's an opportunity here. Your top-floor units have some double-height spaces. You could have 39 variation in there, because you've got lots of volume to play with. I don't want the guidelines to 40 discourage you from trying to do something different up on the top floor. You have room to play there. 41 I've seen that done in San Francisco in some south of Market projects, where the top floor has a sloped 42 ceiling up there on the upper units. It's actually really beautiful. 43 44 Chair Gooyer: In response to that, it's just like with so many other situations where regulations in some 45 cases are done to have a really good intent, and then all of a sudden it goes to the extreme. It becomes 46 excessive. 47 48 2.j Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 15 Vice Chair Lew: I did want to share that I looked at a mixed-use project down in Los Angeles, in 1 Glendale. It's kind of like their Santana Row. It's called the Americana. There is something there that 2 they did, which I haven't seen before. Instead of having the residential units and the retail all line up in 3 one flat facade, they pushed the units back. 4 5 Chair Gooyer: The residential stuff back, yeah. 6 7 Vice Chair Lew: The podium landscape that you have, which is facing the back, they have that on the 8 front. You can see it from the street. You see that there's this big garden up there. The public can't go 9 up there. It works. It's a taller building than what you're proposing. I'm not sure that it actually works on 10 the scale of your building. I think we should discuss—I don't know—somewhere offline that there are 11 ways of addressing the canyon aesthetic that some people in the public are concerned about. At the 12 moment, I think our guidelines sort of encourage the wall, so I will stick with the wall. I'll try to bring 13 images of that project sometime in the future. Chair Gooyer: I guess that's it then. Thank you. 14 2.j Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : F i r s t F o r m a l A R B T r a n s c r i p t ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Attachment K Environmental Documents Hardcopies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are provided to Commissioners. These documents are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3001 El Camino Real” 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 “Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3001 El Camino Real” 6. Open the attachment named “Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” 2.k Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t K : E n v i r o n m e n t a l A n a l y s i s ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 Attachment L Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Commissioners. 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 “3001 El Camino Real” 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 “2017-0728 Project Plans” 2.l Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 0 1 3 : 3 0 0 1 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e W i t h 1 9 , 8 0 0 S q u a r e F e e t o f R e t a i l a n d 5 0 R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8256) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/17/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4190 El Camino Real Preliminary Review Title: 4190 El Camino Real (17PLN-00195): Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed 5,340 Square Foot, 22 Foot Tall Service Building Addition and 14,380 Square Foot, 27 Foot Tall Solar Canopy Over Existing Parking at an Auto Dealership. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CS (AD). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment Department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. 3 Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Trustee of the Mullen Trust Architect: TWM Architects Representative: Christian Oaks Legal Counsel: None Property Information Address: 4190 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Green Acres Lot Dimensions & Area: APN 137-24-019; 9,975 sf APN 137-24-022; 56,329 Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): Three buildings totaling 13,899 sf; all one-story and approximately 20 feet; built 2011 Existing Land Use(s): Auto Dealership (McLaren and Volvo) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CS and CN Zoning across El Camino Real (Retail and Medical Office [dentist] in Service Commercial land use designation and multi-family residential use in the Neighborhood Commercial land use designation) West: CS (AD) Zoning (Tesla Dealership; Service Commercial land use designation) East: R-1 Zoning (Single-family residential land use designation) South: CS Zoning across Arastradero Road (Midas [auto repair]; Service Commercial land use designation) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Service Commercial with Auto Dealership Combining District Overlay (CS[AD]) Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicable Performance Criteria 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): Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable 3 Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project would be located on two existing parcels, APNs 137-24-019 and 137-24- 022, totaling 66,304 square feet (sf). The project includes the addition of a new “L” shaped service building located along the interior rear and side lot lines of APN 137-24-022 and that would be partially located within APN 137-24-019. The new building would have a maximum height of 22 feet and would have a gross floor area of 5,340 sf. The new building would complete a square with a center area devoted to parking. The project also includes a solar canopy which would cover this central parking area and extend to 27 feet in height, about 5 feet above the new buildings and about 7 feet above the existing buildings along the Arastradero Road and El Camino Real frontages. The solar canopy would cover an approximately 14,380 sf area. Together, the existing and proposed buildings at the site would result in a total floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.28:1, which is less than the total allowed FAR of up to 0.6:1 (0.4:1 plus an additional allowance of 0.2:1 for automobile showroom space). Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR). The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Major AR 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. 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. The findings to approve AR applications are provided in Attachment B.  Certificate of Compliance. The new solar structure would be located across two existing parcels and the proposed new building would not be consistent with required setbacks on APN 137-24-022. Therefore, the applicant would need to request a Certificate of Compliance to merge the two lots. In accordance with PAMC Section 21.08.050, a Certificate of Compliance would be the appropriate application for this lot merger because the two lots are adjacent and fewer parcels would result. In accordance with PAMC Section 21.08.050, any such lot line adjustment shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, Title 21 (subdivision and other divisions of land), Title 16 (building regulations) and Title 18 (zoning). The City Engineer shall issue 3 Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 and cause to be recorded a certificate of compliance or a conditional certificate of compliance for the involved lots. Therefore, this requested approval would not be subject to ARB review. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. A Zoning Compliance based on available information is included in Attachment C. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  On-site circulation  Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Background Section)  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any The following key issues have been identified by planning staff and may warrant discussion from the ARB: Parking As shown in Attachment C, pursuant to the PAMC Section 18.52.040, the project is required to provide one parking space per every 400 square feet of building area used as “sales, service, and office administration area”. In addition, one parking space per 500 square feet of “exterior sales or display area, excluding automobile storage (not on display)” is required. The proposed project includes 18,846 sf of “sales, service, and office administration area” and 4,203 sf of “exterior sales and display.” Therefore, 57 parking spaces are required. Although 57 parking spaces are shown, eight are provided within the new buildings. If these parking areas are used only for storage this is acceptable; however, if these areas are planned to also be used for service or detailing these parking spaces would need to be provided elsewhere on the site to meet code requirements. As part of a formal application, the project would be required to address this code requirement by clarifying the proposed use, utilizing some of the display parking spaces as required customer parking, or by otherwise redesigning their project for consistency with zoning code requirements for parking. Daylight Plane Compliance 3 Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The new building adjacent to the interior side lot line abutting the single-family residences must meet daylight plane requirements in accordance with PAMC Section 18.16.060(a)(6). The daylight plane shall be measured at a 45 degree angle starting at an initial height of 10 feet from the side lot line. Although it appears that the project may meet this requirement, insufficient information has been provided on the plans to verify consistency. This additional information would be required should the applicant submit a formal application. Context-Based Design Criteria The project is subject to the context-based design criteria for commercial districts. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.16.090(A) compatibility with the context-based design criteria is achieved when the “apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained.” The “space frame” solar shade structure extends above the existing buildings by seven feet and therefore would be very visible. It is not clear to staff that the proposed design of the solar shade structure and proposed materials is consistent with the existing buildings on site and seems inconsistent with the context of the neighborhood, specifically adjacent single-family residential uses. A summary of the context-based design criteria findings for approval is included in Attachment D. A consistency analysis would be performed if the applicant moves forward with a formal application. Performance Criteria The proposed project is subject to the performance criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23 because it is located within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone. Staff notes in particular, that the project must comply with the performance criteria requirements for landscaping by providing landscaping within the required 10 foot setback adjacent to single family residential uses. Sufficient space has been provided to accommodate this planting; however, landscaping is not shown on the plans. This would be required to be addressed if the applicant files a formal application. A summary of the performance criteria requirements is included in Attachment E. A consistency analysis would be performed if the applicant moves forward with a formal application. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines Section 2.3.2.2 of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines specifically identifies this parcel and discusses what should be encouraged if the existing dealership is redeveloped or intensified. The proposed project would intensify use of the site by adding additional square footage. Although the proposed project does not include redevelopment of any of the buildings along the frontage, the project could better incorporate pedestrian amenities and vegetation along both Arastradero and El Camino Real. The South El Camino Real design guidelines do encourage taller buildings and the additional of the solar structure would be consistent with this goal. However, as noted previously, it is unclear whether the design of the solar structure is consistent with the neighboring context. The South El Camino Real design guidelines encourage buildings to relate to and compliment surrounding buildings and street frontages. 3 Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Architectural Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Context Based Design Criteria Findings (DOCX)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 103 132-46-072 137-25-006 137-25-094 U nio n P la z a A p a rt m e nts 137.0' 46.2' 0' 137.0' 46.2' 137.0' 46.2' 137.0' 46.2' 137.0' 46.2' 137.0' 46.3' 137.0' 46.3' 137.0' 46.2' 137.0' 46.2' 46.2' 84.0' 92.4' 84.0' 92.4' 70.0' 92.4' 3 5 7.7' 3 0 7.2' 113.3' 275.0' 2 0 6.6' 2 4 9.5' 2 0 6.7' 2 0 6.6' 50.5' 147.0' 0' 46.3' 46.2' 125.0' 25.0' ' 1.5' 93.7' 1 2 4.3' 73.3' 109.0' 1 1.3' 44.7' 171.4' 181.7'173.1' 171.4' 68.5' 94.8' 55.0' 73.8 5.1' 86.3' 5.0 ' 7 5.6' 90.0' 60.1' 1 1.3' 10 112.1' 1.5' 93.7' 1 2 4.3' 73.3' 109.0' 1.5' 93.7' 1 2 4.3' 73.3' 109.0' 1.5' 93.7' 1 2 4.3' 73.3' 109.0' 1.5' 93.7' 1 2 4.3' 73.3' 109.0' 1.5' 93.7' 1 2 4.3' 73.3' 109.0' 1.5' 93.7' 1 2 4.3' 73.3' 109.0' 1.5' 93.7' 1 2 4.3' 73.3' 109.0' 1.5' 93.7' 1 2 4.3' 73.3' 109.0' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 60.1'60.1' 171.4' 62.6' 73.3' 1 2 0.0'135.1' 1 4 2.0' 231.0' 73 123.5' 2 6 0.7' 252.7' 41.1' 1 9 0.0'1 4 7.0'118.5' 118.5' 118.5' 118.5' 46.2' 46.2' 46.2' 46.2' 46.2' 37.0' 104.4' 104.4' 104.4' 98.1' 38.1' 46.4' 46.0' 46.0' 75.6' 90.0'62.2'75.6' 169.6' 198.6' 2 4 0.0' 2 5.0' 566 572 560 554 4170 4174 544 538 531 535 539 4175 4185 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 0 4 2 1 4 4 2 1 6 4 2 1 8 4 2 0 0 5 3 5 532 530 4190 4180 4170 4 9 6 4195 4191 4 8 8 4 9 3 41644168 417 3 4 9 1 527 47 6 36 421 4228 4 2 3 8 4193 4198 4203 4166 4192 IRVEN COURT ALTA MESA AVENUE E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L W EST C H AR LE ST ON R O A D E L C A M I N O R E A L 041 5 PF PC-5034CS RM-30 RM-40 CS CS (AD) 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) Sidewalk Highlighted Features Underlying Lot Line abc Easement Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'83' 4190 El Camino Real 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 Altochodgki, 2017-07-20 11:24:26 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Site 3.a Packet Pg. 104 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 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w ) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 4190 El Camino Real 17PLN-00195 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 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. 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. 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. 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.). 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. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 3.b Packet Pg. 105 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 8 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w ) ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4190 El Camino Real, 17PLN-00195 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 2 parcels: APN 137-24-022 (56,329 sf) APN 137-24-019 (9,975 sf) 1 parcel (66,304 sf) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) ~50 feet to service bays on APN 137-24-019 and ~10 feet to showroom on APN137- 24-022; at grade parking lot built up to setback No Change Rear Yard None ~20 feet to APN 137- 24-019; no setback from existing service bay on APN 137-24-022 Additional 130 feet of building built up to rear setback Interior Side Yard None 6’2” from interior side 10’2” setback for new building; existing building to remain Street Side Yard None ~5 feet to McLaren showroom and ~50 feet to Volvo showroom ; at grade parking lot built up to setback No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) Existing building is legal non-complying (6’2”) New building 10’2” Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback on Arastradero(7) None No change Special Setback 24 feet on Arastradero ~50 feet No change Max. Site Coverage None 33% (21,890 sf) 54.5% (36,270 sf) 3.c Packet Pg. 106 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w ) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 18-22 feet 27 feet Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 (26,521 sf) 18.18.060(e) Additional 0.2:1 FAR permitted for automobile showroom space (18.30[F].050) 22% (14,843 sf) 28% (18,846 sf) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone 45 degrees starting at initial height of 10 feet(6) Not provided Not Provided (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property No Change Special Use Requirements in the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers (18.16.040 (c)) N/A N/A Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.060 (h)) Areas used for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, boats, campers, camp trailers, trailers, trailer coaches, house cars, or similar conveyances shall meet the minimum design standards applicable to off street parking facilities with respect to paving, grading, drainage, access to public streets and alleys, safety and protective features, lighting, landscaping, and screening. No Change Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) N/A (addition is less than 30 percent more floor area than existing; however, trash/recycling enclosure is proposed) N/A Employee Showers N/A (applies to addition of 10,000 sf or more) N/A 3.c Packet Pg. 107 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w ) (18.16.040 (j)) Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. N/A 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development (See attachment E). 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in attachment D, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Automobile Dealership* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/400 sf of gross floor area for sales, service and office admin (18,846 sf) for a total of 48 spaces 1/500 sf of gross floor area for exterior sales and display (4,203 sf) for a total of 9 spaces Total of 57 spaces required 60 spaces 49 spaces, with additional 8 spaces within new buildings Bicycle Parking 1 per 10 employees (100% short term) equals 4 spaces 4 short term spaces 4 short term spaces Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 0- 29,999 sq. ft. 1 loading space 1 loading space * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 3.c Packet Pg. 108 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w ) Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria 4190 El Camino Real 17PLN-00195 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 3.d Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C o n t e x t B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a F i n d i n g s ( 8 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w ) Performance Criteria 18.23 4190 El Camino Real Avenue 17PLN-00195 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Consistency will be assessed when a formal application is submitted. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 3.e Packet Pg. 110 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w ) The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 3.e Packet Pg. 111 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w ) Attachment F 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 “4190 El Camino Real” 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 “2017-0804 Project Plans” 3.f Packet Pg. 112 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 2 5 6 : 4 1 9 0 E l C a m i n o R e a l P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8325) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/17/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4256 El Camino Real: Preliminary Review for a New Hotel and Condos Title: 4256 El Camino Real (17PLN-00223): Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for a new 51,581 Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 69 Guest Rooms and Eight Townhome Units with 85 Underground Parking Spaces in Lift Systems. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. 4 Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: Catherine Huang Huang Architect: Studio T Square Representative: Mircea Voskerician Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 4256 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Palo Alto Orchards Lot Dimensions & Area: 163.5’ by 147.3’ to 95.2’; 25,960 sf Housing Inventory Site: Yes; maximum yield of 17 units, realistic yield of 12 units Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: 5 Street Trees; 4 Redwoods; 2 Cedars Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 3,296 sf ; Single Story; Built 1964 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Use (Eating & Drinking Services; Su Hong Restaurant) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CS (Residential Multi-Family) West: CS (Residential Multi-Family) East: CS(H) (The Sea Steak House & Dinah’s Poolside) South: CS (General Business Office) Aerial View of Property: 4 Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (CS) Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes, see discussion below 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): Yes, see discussion below Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, see discussion below Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action 4 Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project would demolish the existing the 3,296 sf single story building which is occupied by the Su Hong restaurant to construct a five story 51,581 square foot hotel with below grade parking on a 25,947 sf lot. The project is proposed to have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0:1 (0.25 for residential use, 1.5 for hotel use). The building is proposed to be 50 feet tall with the first floor lobby area being 18 feet in height and the other floors being 9 feet high. The subterranean parking garage will utilize valet parking (62 spaces; 32 space via 3 level parking lifts; 30 via 2 level parking lifts). The residential portion of the building will consist of eight, three story residential condominium units. The residential units will also utilize the subterranean parking (16 spaces) and will not require valet parking services. The project is located within a housing inventory site and is subject to the Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement. The residential portion of this project would require 1.20 BMR units (8 total units x 15% = 1.2 units) and thus would result in one affordable unit and payment of in lieu fees for the 0.2 fractional unit. In addition, the project would pay impact fees for the net new non- residential square footage. The applicant requests ARB’s consideration of the project’s compliance with the applicable design guidelines, in additional to feedback regarding the overall design. The proposed project has a contemporary architectural style and utilizes wood siding, stucco, stone, and exposed metal beam in the design. The colors palette for the project are beige, brown, white, and dark grey shades with greater color variation along the El Camino Real Frontage. The existing redwoods provide screening between the project and the adjacent multi- family residential developments. The project is designed in a U-shaped layout which allows for a courtyard to be throughout the development starting directly behind the hotel lobby and extending to the rear of the property, providing open space for residents and guest alike via Japanese garden inspired landscaping. The projects’ site design calls for sidewalks which vary from 10 and 12 foot widths, where a porte cochere driveway is proposed for valet service and access to the below grade parking facility. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): This project would be subject to the criteria found within PAMC 18.77.070. Architectural Review applications are reviewed by the Architectural Review Board whose recommendations are then forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Actions by the Director are appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Architectural Review projects are evaluated against 4 Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 specific findings which must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires a project to be redesigned or to be denied. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Access to the site  Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Background Section)  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any The following key issues have been identified by planning staff and may warrant further discussion from the ARB: Parking and Lift Systems Parking will be provided in a below grade facility with most spaces utilizing a parking lift system. The layout of the lifts calls for a tandem puzzle configuration and would be supported by a valet operator for hotel guests. However, the residential parking spaces are similarly arranged and require residents to drive through and back out through an empty lift parking space to access and exit the lift system. In conformance with PAMC Section 18.54.020(4)(G), non-residential uses shall provide a minimum of two spaces or 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces provided, whichever is greater, in a standard non-mechanical configuration. The proposed project currently provides three such spaces, which is less than the required 10 percent. Staff encourages the Board to review this layout and would need to further evaluate the project’s compliance with the City’s code provisions regarding lift parking at the time of formal application. Protected Redwood Trees In addition, there are concerns involving the extent of the excavation required for the construction of the below grade parking facilities and the impacts to the trees both on site and 4 Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 those directly adjacent to the property. There is a project arborist who prepared a tree health report which was submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department and City Arborists. A detailed tree preservation report (TPR) which outlines how each individual tree would be protected via mitigation measures to insure the survival and health of trees on and directly abutting the site will be required for the formal submittal of a Major ARB application. The results of this report could result in significant design changes to the project. Zoning Compliance The proposed staircase within the hotel portion of the project will exceed the 50 foot height limit and is not considered exempt from this limitation and would need to be redesigned. In addition, the project is subject to providing a continuous 12-foot wide sidewalk along the El Camino Real frontage. The project must remove or relocate the proposed planter within the sidewalk area and alter the paving materials at the driveway locations. Public Utilities Easement The project is proposed over an existing public utilities easement (PUE), located on the northern portion of the site (see diagram). The applicant will need to either submit an application to abandon the PUE, relocated the PUE, or redesign the project to move the structure out of this area. A survey will also need to be provided to clarify the location of all possible easement on and directly adjacent to the site as part of the formal application submittal. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. A project of this size would potentially generate between 30 and 50 net peak-hour automobile trips, requiring the preparation of a focused transportation impact analysis as part of the city-led environmental review process. Public Comments: 4 Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 During the review of this project, three comments letters were submitted by groups/members of the public. There are concerns over the potential loss of street trees along the frontage of the site, in addition to the potential loss of other trees on the site. One commenter explained that the existing trees should be maintained and or replaced with mature trees. Comments were received from the HOA of the Palo Alto Redwoods which is the adjacent residential complex to the site. The Palo Alto Redwoods is a community of over 200 residents whom provided the majority of the public comments regarding this project. The residents within this community are concerned about the projects impacts on traffic, noise from construction, privacy, the overall size of the project, and the projected shadows which would be cast by the project on to their property. The applicant has been in contact with the residents and staff, DRC comments have been provided to residents for their review. The submitted comments from the Palo Alto Redwoods community can be found within Attachment F. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Context Based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (PDF)  Attachment F: Palo Alto Redwoods Comments (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 119 4.a Packet Pg. 120 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 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 4256 El Camino Real 17PLN-00223 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 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. 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. 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. 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.). 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. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 4.b Packet Pg. 121 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4256 EL Camino Real 17PLN-00223 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.595 acres (25,960 sf) 0.595 acres (25,960 sf) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 10 – 12 foot sidewalk width Rear Yard None Not known Interior Side Yard None Not known Street Side Yard None Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback Special Setback Max. Site Coverage None 12.69% (3,296 sf) 49.88% (12,973.5sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 50 feet Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 (10,384 sf) 18.18.060(e) 2.0:1 for hotels 18.18.060 (51,920 sf)(d) 31.74% (3,296 sf) 48.35% (51,581 sf) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. 4.c Packet Pg. 122 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property Special Use Requirements in the Charleston and Midtown Shopping Centers (18.16.040 (c)) Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotel & Multi-Family Residential Type Required Existing Proposed Hotel Vehicle Parking 1 space per guestroom; plus the applicable requirement for eating and drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial or other as required for such uses, less up to 75% of the spaces required for 46 spaces 69 spaces 4.c Packet Pg. 123 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) guestrooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking study of parking generated by the mix of uses. Hotel Bicycle Parking 1 space per 10 guestrooms, plus requirements for accessory uses (drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial or other) 7 spaces Multiple-Family Residential Parking 1.25 per studio unit 1.5 per 1 -bedroom unit 2 per 2-bedroom or larger unit At least one space per unit must be covered Tandem parking allowed for any unit requiring two spaces (one tandem space per unit, associated directly with another parking space for the same unit, up to a maximum of 25% of total required spaces for any project with more than four (4) units) 16 spaces Multiple-Family Residential Bicycle Parking 1 per unit 9 spaces 4.c Packet Pg. 124 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria 4256 El Camino Real, 17PLN-00223 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 4.d Packet Pg. 125 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C o n t e x t B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) Performance Criteria 18.23 4256 El Camino Real 17PLN-00223 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pickup. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 4.e Packet Pg. 126 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 4.e Packet Pg. 127 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) 1 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Palo Alto Redwoods August 3, 2017 City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board RE: 4256 El Camino Real - Preliminary Architectural Review - 17PLN-00233 Dear Architectural Review Board, Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association is submitting the following comments for your review regarding the proposed development of the Su Hong Restaurant property. Thank you for carefully weighing our concerns and our request that the proposed development be significantly scaled back and include neighborhood benefits. Overview of Palo Alto Redwoods Award Winning Complex Palo Alto Redwoods (PAR) is a condominium community of 117 units, most of which are 3 stories high, located at 4250 El Camino Real in South Palo Alto, next to and behind Su Hong restaurant. The complex was built in 1983 and designed on a former Redwood Tree farm, which had been an early Palo Alto estate, to take advantage of the existing large Redwood trees and provide a uniquely wooded habitat. PAR has been honored with awards for aesthetics, design, and construction, including:  Gold Nugget Award (1984) from Pacific Coast Builders Conference for the best condominium complex 900-13000 square feet in the 14 western states;  Builders Choice Merit Award (1985) for best high-density condominium of any size in the USA. In addition, the Architect Robert J. Geering was honored with the Maybeck Award (2010-2011) by the American Institute of Architects California Council for outstanding achievement in architectural design for his lifetime body of work, which included the Palo Alto Redwoods complex. 117 large trees, predominantly Redwoods 117 units 265 residents, including 35 children 216 parking spaces (194 residents & 22 visitors) driveway & parking for delivery & service vehicles plus turnaround for fire trucks & large vehicles 4.f Packet Pg. 128 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a l o A l t o R e d w o o d s C o m m e n t s ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) 2 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Peaceful, Beautiful, Private Redwood Forest PAR Homeowners Association strives to maintain the complex in its timeless original award winning design to respect its unique architectural integrity. Special care has been provided by an arborist for over two decades to maintain the health of all 117 large trees, predominantly Redwoods, as they are tremendously valuable assets to the lush, forest-like atmosphere. The property contains two types of Coast Redwood trees, Aptos Blue and Soquel, which are both native to Northern California. In addition there are over 100 smaller trees such as White Birch, Flowering Crabapple and Kwanza, and an array of plants and bushes which bloom seasonally adds bursts of color. The complex is often described as a hidden oasis conveniently located close to stores and restaurants. PAR has always been a peaceful, quiet place to live, and its angled design patterns provide every unit with unique views of trees and greenery and a great deal of privacy. The clubhouse and pool patio area in the front of the complex provides a private respite for owners and guests or a place to host parties or events. Demographics Over time the population at PAR has increased as single family home prices are outside the reach of many. There are currently 265 residents of multiple ethnicities, including a growing number of families with 35 children, living in the community. Most units are owner occupied and around 15% are used as rentals. The majority of residents work somewhere in the Silicon Valley or travel for business. There are a number of older residents, many original owners, who no longer drive. Some residents work out of their homes full-time or part- time. Typically the garages are fairly empty of cars during the day time, but seniors and parents with children on foot can be found strolling the complex or entering/exiting the property to walk to nearby services. One resident with a disability maneuvers the neighborhood in a motorized wheel chair with a service dog. Commitment to Sustainability and Health PAR is proud of its commitment to sustainability and health. We recycle and compost, encourage bicycle riding and provide bike storage, have implemented electric vehicle charging, and are systematically replacing plants with drought resistant varieties to save water where appropriate. PAR discourages smoking of any kind and will rigorously implement Palo Alto's multi-family smoking ban when it goes into effect January 1, 2018. 4.f Packet Pg. 129 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a l o A l t o R e d w o o d s C o m m e n t s ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) 3 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Access, Egress, Parking and Traffic There is only one way for vehicles to enter and exit the property and that is through a driveway on El Camino Real. There are several exit doors at the sides and back of the complex that residents on foot can use for fire emergencies. Two levels of underground parking house 194 resident parking spaces plus 18 visitor parking spaces. In addition, there are 4 visitor parking spaces at grade level, two at the front of the complex and two next to the entry stairway. The driveway includes a large turnaround area in front of the entrance which can accommodate fire trucks and large vehicles. Palo Alto Redwoods is a self-contained complex that does not intrude upon neighbors with vehicles or block traffic on El Camino Real. Over 200 vehicles of residents and guests come and go daily, and in addition an array of service vehicles utilize and park in the driveway daily. They are all able to park within the property while rendering services. These include US Postal Service, FedEd, UPS, On Trac, Google Express, taxis, Uber, Lift, grocery delivery, landscapers, association maintenance and cleaning services, plumbers, electricians, cleaning services for residents, delivery trucks for new appliances or home furnishings, contractors and other installers doing remodels, large moving trucks for residents moving out and in, to mention some. Police and Fire occasionally have to access the complex and have space to do so. Original Architectural Drawing by Robert J. Geering 4.f Packet Pg. 130 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a l o A l t o R e d w o o d s C o m m e n t s ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) 4 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Issues/Concerns with Proposed Development Palo Alto Redwoods has a number of issues with the development proposed for the Su Hong site. There is not one single thing about the development that will benefit residents of Palo Alto Redwoods or the neighborhood overall. However, there are many things that either will or potentially may cause harm, including living through noisy and dirty construction, safety risks, privacy issues, loss of a neighborhood restaurant, traffic congestion, health and environmental issues, and negative impact on property values. Below are bulleted lists of concerns grouped by topic. 1. Liability a.Upfront PAR needs to see proof of high liability insurance limits for all members of the project team in the event that PAR property is damaged or residents are injured. b. Developer HXH, LLC does not have a proven track record locally. HXH organized as a Limited Liability Company in California in October 2016 shortly before purchasing the Su Hong property. The LLC uses a business address at Pacific Workplaces Palo Alto (which provides a Palo Alto address to virtual entities). This raises significant liability concerns. c.Additionally, designated funds should be set aside to cover potential damages exceeding insurance. 2.Engineering Analysis & Construction Viability a.PAR has a right to expect "lateral and subjacent support" from adjacent property. We want a comprehensive engineering analysis done to identify risks and measures that will minimize damage. b. PAR is extremely concerned that excavating a hole for underground parking and then placing rebar and concrete will damage PAR buildings, break plumbing lines or cause subsidence and building sinking. c.PAR is also concerned about reaching and depleting groundwater. 3. Reasonableness/Appropriateness of Project Proposal a. The project needs to meet a reasonableness standard of being appropriate for and benefitting the neighborhood, not being overly dense, and causing no safety risks. It does not. b.The proposed project pushes the development limits to the maximum by going up 50 feet high, requiring variances, and covering the property with buildings up to 10 feet from the property line. c.The proposed project is way too dense and has way too much building on too small of a space. Only a portion of the proposed density should be allowed at the site, given the impact on neighbors and traffic. d. Zoning is R1 with underlying CS - residential should be prioritized. A boutique hotel co-housed with some townhouses will not mitigate the housing shortage in Palo Alto, make the neighborhood more walk able, create spaces that invite the community in, or contribute retail or dining to the neighborhood. e.Because it is on El Camino Real, the proposed project should be self contained, accommodating all service and delivery vehicles, staff and guests so it does not unreasonably impose on neighbors. Currently there is no designated parking for service or delivery vehicles, guests or staff. f.The daylight plane standard requires that sunlight not be blocked. Further analysis should be done for the Redwood Grove behind Su Hong and the pool patio area in the front of the complex. Three story buildings will tower over and shade the secluded pool and patio and the five story hotel will block much light to units and trees facing the proposed development as well as the pool. g.33 PAR residential units face the proposed development site and will be significantly impacted during and after construction. All of PAR Areas A and B (half the residents) will be directly impacted by noise as they are close to the site. All PAR residents and guests will face traffic safety issues going forward. 4. Traffic Safety a.The proposed project does not include surface parking for service or delivery vehicles. As a result vehicles will double park on El Camino Real (causing traffic congestion), park in neighboring properties, or block access and egress of neighboring properties. b. The project does not include parking for staff or guests, so they will intrude on neighbors. c.Vehicles exiting Palo Alto Redwoods will confront major safety issues as they attempt to exit through the driveway if the street is blocked by vehicles, particularly large vehicles or busses. d. Stacked parking is problematic and can cause congestion if flow cannot be handled quickly. 4.f Packet Pg. 131 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a l o A l t o R e d w o o d s C o m m e n t s ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) 5 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 e.Traffic congestion on El Camino Real will increase significantly, causing significant safety risks. f.Other streets like Charleston or San Antonio will be impacted by construction vehicles. 5. Privacy a.The fence around PAR is 11 feet tall and will not assure privacy next to 35-50 feet tall buildings. b. The three story 35' tall townhouses and 50' tall five-story hotel rooms will look into the pool/clubhouse area and units facing the Redwood grove behind the fence dividing the properties, eliminating privacy. c.Bamboo will not be high enough to create a barrier between the properties. 6. Sunlight Reduction/Restriction a.The development should not be allowed to block light shining on Redwood trees or the pool. b. A tree health study needs to be done to assess the impact that reduced sunlight will have on the Redwood trees. It is likely that lower limbs below building height will die, causing the grove to simply be trunks and significantly reducing privacy for units facing the grove. c.Many units facing the proposed development will have all light blocked and will become dark shaded places, reducing livability, salability, and property values. 7. Noise a.Increased noise during construction will make many PAR units uninhabitable during construction hours. b. After construction more noise is expected from more density 24:7. To mitigate this the areas near the property line should not be designated as areas for congregating and talking. c.Townhouse entry doors and windows should not be allowed to face PAR. 8. Health & Safety a.The proposed project must adequately address health and safety risks from fires and smoke. 1. No fire pit should be allowed because of fire risk, increased heat and air pollution. 2. Smoking anywhere must be prohibited, particularly near the property line under the Redwoods. 3. Barbeques must be prohibited, particularly near the property line. PAR prohibits any barbequing and any open flames on the property due to fire hazard, per California Fire Code. b. During construction air and noise pollution must be minimized. 9. Environmental Impact a.The proposed development is essential all thermal mass with few trees. This will cause local warming and heat up the neighboring Redwood grove and units. b. More people means more energy use, more traffic, and more greenhouse gas emissions, which negatively impacts the environment in addition to the local warming "urban heat island" effect. c.Blocking sunlight into units and the Redwood grove is very detrimental to the environment. d. Groundwater must not be removed during construction as it affects neighbors. Please require the development to be redesigned and scaled back for all of the above reasons. Sincerely, Board of Directors, Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association We have always lived in a peaceful, beautiful oasis with ample light and air for trees, plants and people to flourish. If the proposed development of the Su Hong Property is approved, we will be living in the shadow of a monolith that negatively impacts us all. 4.f Packet Pg. 132 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P a l o A l t o R e d w o o d s C o m m e n t s ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) Attachment G 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 “4256 El Camino Real” 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 “Initial Plans” and dated 06/20/2017 4.g Packet Pg. 133 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 3 2 5 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : P r e l i m i n a r y R e v i e w f o r a N e w H o t e l a n d C o n d o s ) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Peter Baltay, Robert Gooyer, Absent: Board Member Wynne Furth Chair Lew: Welcome to the Architectural Review Board meeting for August 3rd, 2017. Can we have a roll call, please? Oral Communications Chair Lew: Now it is the time for oral communications for items that are not on the agenda. I do have David Carnahan from the City’s Clerk’s Office here. Welcome, David. Mr. David Carnahan, City’s Clerk’s Office: Thank you, Chair Lew and Board Members. David Carnahan with the City’s Clerk’s Office, I am here to speak to you about Board and Commission recruitment. You should have all receive an email last night about our current recruitment, which is for the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, and the Planning and Transportation Commission. We are accepting applications through September 19th at 4:30 PM and we encourage each of you to reach out to at least one or two people. If you are one of the people whose term is up on this Board, we would of course, no expect you to encourage someone to compete against you but for the other Boards, we would like you to reach out to see if you have any members of the community you know who you think would be a – would get some value out of serving on one of these Boards and Commissions and could add value for the community. Applications are available on the City’s website cityofpaloalto.org\clerk and again, the application deadline is September 19th at 4:30 PM. Thank you very much. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, David. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Lew: We don’t have any agenda changes today. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-00147]: Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Junior ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: August 3, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 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 Chair Lew: We can move onto the first item which is number two. It’s a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter for 1451 Middlefield Road. 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 site improvements to the existing parking lots including fire access, accessible parking stalls, multi-modal circulation, storm drainage infrastructure, and site lighting. The environmental assessment is an initial study has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA and the zone district is public facilities. Welcome, we have our Chief Planning Official Amy French here today. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, good morning. Amy French and I am here to present the project that is returning to you after several preliminary meetings. I just have some -- a couple of fun photos. This I showed to the HRB on June 22nd, when we last appeared before them and they recommended approval of this. The Lucie Stern Complex dates back to 1937 and here’s an old photo that shows that along Middlefield it was pretty much a park. Then it took sometime after the original Stern Complex, in a matter of 3 or 4-years, to come in with the Junior Museum and Zoo and the library and the Girl Scout House in its current location. Here’s what it looks like today with our crazy parking lot that is to be rectified with this project. The context is one to two, two-story buildings; it feels one-story but there are two-story elements on the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Lucie Stern. The Lucie Stern Center is a Category One resource and many buildings are included in that. We’re interested in having the Girl Scout House become of the listed items; it is not currently today. There is an interest in moving a bird bath from the Girl Scout House over to where the Boy Scouts are located. The Lou Henry Hoover House was mentioned in the last meeting. Since the last HRB meeting, there was a study done for Rinconada Park Long Range Master – Long Range Plan Historic Resource Evaluation and that determined that this Girl Scout House is eligible for listing as a historic resource. Here are some other images of the area behind the Girl Scout House and the parking area behind the Stern Theater and seam shop there. So, back in January the ARB and the HRB reviewed in study sessions some concept plans. These concept plans were then changed and the ARB looked at that version and provided some support as far as that approach and the applicant is going to summarize what you said back in March in their presentation. The revised plans were shown to the HRB, then there’s been slight revisions since then that the applicant will provide. The HRB (inaudible) on June 22nd, requested an HRB subcommittee review the roof colors in their effort to look at compatibility. They were pleased with the gable – the switch to gables roofs. They just had a question about the color and asked for alternatives to come to a HRB subcommittee. The initial study is being prepared and finalized this week and will be available on Friday. So, that will be circulated to the HRB and the ARB for any comments there. Then today, we’re going to be asking you to continue this item either to a date certain or a date uncertain so that the CEQA document can run its course for public comments. We’ll back before you with findings and conditions set for approval and when I say approval, its recommendation to the City Council. The HRB subcommittee has weighed in two out of three so far via email to me, they have not met as a Board, but the question came up about the taupe roof that was proposed; the charcoal roof was an alternative and red roof was another. I don’t think either of the ones that I spoke with so far preferred the red roof altogether. Here is an image that one of the HRB Members Margaret Wimmer was saying that if you went with charcoal, which she thought blended better with the red as far not contrasting as much, then it’s a little bit too dark in the court yard. She suggested maybe pulling down the red to make it more whimsical there. So, that’s our presentation from Staff and let me introduce again, John Aiken, while I load the other presentation and then the architect will present. Mr. John Aiken: Let me quickly review the goals of the project, which are to right size the building for our current programs and audience, to seek accreditation with the American Alliance of Museums and the City of Palo Alto Page 3 Associations of Zoos and Aquariums, as well as tailor the spaces to better suit visitors and make it safe for kids to interact with animals. With that let, me introduce Cody Anderson Wasney who has Brent Mcclure and Sarah Vaccaro here and I’ll let them take it away. Mr. Brent Mcclure: Thanks John, Brent Mcclure CAW Architects. Board, thank you very much for having us back again to present this exciting project. We’re going to just get this – we ‘ve got a short PowerPoint. We wanted to briefly recap what we had shown you – I think, we had talked about before at the last meeting. This is the site plan, a little to nothing has changed with the horseshoe shaped building around the dawn redwood court. What we talked about a lot last time was this sort of strong pedestrian promenade that links you into the park and established a lot of these connecting points. Thinking about the context, thinking about this a civic project and having much stronger presences both within its surrounding neighbors and public use. Then we spent a lot of time with you talking about this exterior experience along the way and how do we engage a child’s curiosity as we move through these spaces. If you recall, we talked about before they even – the experience starts on Middlefield or it starts at the park itself as you drawn and kind of pulled into the museum itself. With a lot of experiences that are open to the public outside the building which is along the promenade. These included – we talked about things of scale, areas where kids can play, establishing a water shed, can we illustrate wind in a creative way and also play with lights and sort of just also the elements as well. Then the massing model that we showed you at that study session was in essences – I think it was this image that you see before you now and so a lot has – we’ve maintained this form and this overall concept but lots has developed since then. The comments that we had heard at the meeting was to – there’s a lot with this design that we heard positive feedback, which was terrific, on the focus of the site and scale and the civic context and whatnot. Comment that we had noted where can we rethink the promenade on how it intersects and connects with the Girl Scout building and how does it turn to kind of go into the park and can we shove something back 20-feet or magically figure out a way to do that? Oh, one comment that we had noted – I think it was comment from Board Member Baltay about modulation and really kind of trying to think about that elevation along Middlefield. I think all the elevations that we brought forward to you before were kind of more of a clean, modern lengthy aesthetic and there was encouragement to explore that this is a residential neighbor. Can we break the scale down in different ways and how can we animate that façade? Then another comment was really of you all wanting to see more obviously and the details and sense of scale and looking some more at the fine grade elements that we didn’t have obviously with this model here. To walk your around the building, this is an overall rendering as to sort of where we are to date. I think the best way to kind of – what I would like to do is walk around the site and maybe start from the Middlefield approach and talk about the building. Not so much elevation by elevation and massing and whatnot but really how you would then experience the facility. So, what we’ve done is – this is a long – this perspective is along Middlefield Road. The program that is inside this wing here consists of classrooms, zoo exhibit – museum archives and storage back and other here and then office space as well; this is the elevation and then this is that entry portal. Before we just had this open slot and what we’ve wanted to do was really kind of punctuate that and make it fun and whimsical and actually working towards designing a rainbow kaleidoscope tunnel, if you will. So, that as you pass through, you go from light to dark and we get light in all different types of colors coming in from different skylights. We’ve looked to sort of break this down to kind of have more – some solid here, a punctuated window that could have some display and then classroom and office windows that are modulated back in here that you can kind of see more in this elevation. As you enter through the – one of the other things that we’re looking to do is also think about thresholds and that experience. So, as you even leave the sidewalk, we’re exploring ways and looking to have this read as a bridge so there would be a little bit of a watershed, if you will, kind of in and around with plants and whatnot. So, as you enter into the kaleidoscope tunnel, you would be walking along this bridge element here to enter into the building. We’re looking to face the inside of this space, (inaudible) ceiling down to kind of pull the walls in. We’re looking to do this economically and we’ll be looking to maybe probably even do some mock ups to make sure that we can the effect that we are looking for but in essences, solar tubs would either have prisms and/or diagrammatic film within in them to get that kind of effect. So, this is a plan section and this is an elevation section through that space. As you then emerge through the tunnel, you are then on that walk way into this dawn redwood court yard and there’s two different zones to this that we are having to address. One is that there is a space that the users are looking to kind of contain and have be fenced in City of Palo Alto Page 4 and then there’s an area just open to the public which is the promenade along this edge. So, this is where you enter into the watershed and a bridged sidewalk with depressions and raised areas of plantings. Then we have a red fence that you can kind of see in this elevation back in here so we’re looking to playfully separate and design fencing that isolates the public area from the paid experience. Then back in over here is a series of walkways around the building of natural materials and then some planter areas where – as part of the exhibit design, they will be looking to bring in really exciting and different and unique plants, have it themed as a Jurassic garden so that it becomes this educational opportunity to leverage outdoor space within this court yard. The thing is, as you might recall when we talked about this project, every square inch is precious because we’re so – we’re very, very budget constrained. Finishes in and around here – I’ll talk about finishes in a minute and we can come back to the renderings. Then here’s another section through that space looking at some of the plantings. Then the view overall from the parking is this entry piece in through here so here’s the courtyard. We’ve kind of quit – there’s the entrance tunnel as you walk along this edge but the building reads somewhat quiet so that the entrance is really played up and focused. What we’ve done is we’ve taken the end gable concept and thinking of doing it economically and so we’re basically using almost like a barn like or a butler building kind of concept in construction. Then using some natural materials as far as the wood and metal and then it almost becomes this extrusion as this comes out so that you don’t have this hard, sharp face. We’re creating this court yard that’s partially enclosed with a trellis. Then this artist wind screen that will be part of the art’s or artist and residences that will be part of this project. That is to design this wind sculpture that will actually become part of the façade of the building. So, we’re trying to get as much into this space as possible. Here are some sample images of what section that are would look like. Then as you move down the way and around the pecan tree, there will be some outdoor play areas and whatnot. Here’s a section through the portico that I was just describing in some representative images of the aesthetic that we’re looking for and it’s the sort of bent steel with the zegers that extrude out. Up lighting and down lighting and then some little punctuated window view spots onto either side here. As well as a little trellis piece, over there so this is a section through that portico that’s out at the front of the street or at the main entrance before you enter the building. Then a sample wall section through the building here. We’re looking to get some thickness and some heft as your kind of express that main form of the dominant form of the museum itself but clean, taught eaves and detailing and whatnot. To kind of talk more about that, this kind of represents the finishes. We’re using a combination – we’ve got a sample board that we’ll hand out. A combination of wood siding and then standing seam roof, the whole building would be roofed with standing seam and then at the – to differentiate it a little bit, we were looking to kind of have this playfulness of that the museum – the main museum piece, that is a story and half, would then have that finish wrapped down. There would be those deep recesses over here that I was just talking about. Out in the trellis area there’s this punctuated view window that looks out into the watershed zone with the wind screen above. So, that – we’re trying to have this possessional effect as you move and kind of draw you in and then pull – and simultaneously pull you out. Site finishes is kind of echoing the same materials with a combination of concrete and wood finishes to soften the space. We talked about the view netting before and then as you move into the park, those boundaries would consist of [introgo] colors stucco plaster walls and wood fencing. We’ve done that for economic reasons but then having those nest in and around each other. Let’s go to the next slide. There we go, so this is a rendering kind of illustrating some of that. So, as you are in the park area, this is not – this is kid flying a kite, that’s not part of the building. There’s a – we’re looking at having that rust red color plaster wall here and then wood fencing that would kind of nest and wraps in and around. Then in some key moments like along this one section here, we’re looking at having some graphics on the fencing to illustrate a sense of scale and patterning and what not to suggest that hey, this is a children’s museum and there are exciting things that are happening within it. Then just a couple of footnotes, we talked I think at the last meeting about this Phase Two portion of the site. The Phase Two of this two-story building is not part of the review. The client has made a decision as to kind of differ that I think at this time so it’s more of just one fine day and not part of the application at this point. The zoo, we haven’t changed anything at this point with what’s inside other than that there’s the netting and the columns that spring off of the walls themselves. Then imagery of the Phase Two building that I just mentioned and that’s it. Chair Lew: Great, thank you very much, Brent. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Mcclure: Thank you. Chair Lew: If there are members of the public that want to speak at this item, now would be the time. Otherwise, I’ll bring it back to the Board for questions. No questions? Ok. Oh, yes, Peter? Board Member Baltay: Yes, for the applicant I guess. I noticed in your write up about the project that you’ve talked extensively about the concept of a tunnel from Middlefield and then a bridge at the dawn court yard. On the plans I see a concrete sidewalk so can you explain what’s really the presentation and why? Mr. Mcclure: We’ve been going through in real time in the last couple of month here from the application submittal and the narratives to where we are today looking at costs. One of the things that the clients has looked at is a reduction at that spot. I think what we’ll look to do is the contractor has indicated that to do something that’s a complete and true bridge through there is more cost effective than to have it be more of a solid piece. What we would be looking to do is to (inaudible) some edges that cantilever out and maybe there could be some sections that could tunnel through so that we could give the implication that you’re still up and above to create that same effect. That’s kind of where we are at with that piece. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Lew: Why don’t we have Board Member comments. Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for coming back to the Board with this project. It’s a very exciting project and overall, I’m very pleased with the direction that it’s been heading in. I think the amount of work that you’ve put into this project in this amount of time is actually quite impressive. I have some very minor comments but overall, I’m very pleased with most everything. From the design of the site plans and the actual building itself, even down to the materials. Why don’t I pick up on the materials and as far as the roof material, I can see and understand perhaps some of the concerns that the HRB has brought up but for me, I think this building wants to be as environmentally friendly as possible and in tune with the surrounding and the site. To me, I think going with that darker roof color is actually creating more of a heat on effect and that would be my primary concern with the darker color. I think the taupe here in correlation with the more red color actually looks quite handsome. I think it would work fine and I appreciate the fact that your kind of accenting the skylights with that red color as well. One of the newer changes that I’m seeing with this set of plans as it’s developed from the last time that you presented to us, is that tunnel connection from Middlefield to the main entrance to the museum. I’ve been kind of going back and forth with this. I think that way that it was originally presented it almost looked like a transparent area or section of that gable that became the tunnel and I thought from a simplicity standpoint that actually worked very well. It looked kind of interesting in the fact that you were changing from perhaps an opaque kind of roof to a more transparent kind of roof but I see that you’ve presented this gable scheme and this tunnel that goes from a larger opening towards Middlefield to a smaller opening towards the main entry to the museum. I was kind of thinking back to architectural history and a lot of the Chinese, Japanese, Korean gardens actually had these smaller portals that you would enter into. Not because of any height difference but really more so that you were creating this gesture of bowing as you enter and I really like that you are making this tunnel larger on Middlefield and smaller towards the entry of the museum. It’s kind of this similar experience of – even adults being kind of transformed into being a child again and I thought that was very nice. So, I think I’m ok with this new gable but the primary concern that I have is that how often is it going to be used? I think the majority of the people that are going to visit the museum are going to park in the parking lot and to have them go through the reverse process so going out to Middlefield and back in seems a little bit like a missed opportunity. I wonder if people are actually going to experience it in the desired manner. So, that was a comment on that but I think the idea and the concept of that tunnel is actually quite impressive and it’s too bad that we can’t maybe perhaps or perhaps we can even think about moving that somewhere to the main entry of the museum. Looking at the main entry of the museum, I’m glad that you’re showing us a little bit of a different placement in the signage. I was a little disappointed in the original yellow signage that was directly in the middle of the gable. I like that you’ve pushed it off to the side and that the art City of Palo Alto Page 6 piece, the wind screen, becomes more of the feature there. I would just question if that wind screen has to be so rectangular and so plain as a shape? Perhaps it can follow the gable shape up and become more triangular at the top. Then I guess we’ll hold off any comments on the future two-story building since it’s not a part of this proposal. Looking through this set of plans, thank you for providing so much information, even these concept diagrams. Just a minor comment on the Phase One proposed floor plan, you have these very dark shadow lines I think. It took me a while to understand that they were shadow lines but they kind of obscure the drawings so much that it becomes more of a distraction but it’s a very minor comment as we’re just picking up on the drawings. I think that’s really it for me. I like the depth and richness of the materials that are combined with a simple gable forms and I appreciate the amount of thought that’s been put into it. I understand that it’s a difficult challenge trying to balance out all these wonderful concepts along with the budget so I applaud your efforts. I am interested to hear what my fellow Board Members think, thank you. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Yeah, I agree, I think it’s a great step forward. I really like what you’ve done. The biggest concern I have and it was also in your presentation, you keep talking about the economy, trying to make it cost effective and everything else. I mean that – I understand what the reality of life is but you can also – a building like this is intended to be around for a while so I don’t want to see it where you constructed to cheaply that you end up with a maintenance nightmare for the next 50-years or whatever. We all know one of these buildings is going – whether they intend to or not, seem to stick around for 50 or so years; that’s just the reality of it. It’s interesting that you mentioned the term butler building because that’s what I had in mind. Note also that it looks like a modified butler building and I don’t really want to push that too much. The biggest concern here is going to be, as with any metal building like this is you’re going to probably have to spend a few bucks on making sure that the metal is covered. Meaning either a powdered coating type situation or whatever the case is and not just painting it and hoping that in 10-years the maintenance Staff at the museum will repaint it or whatever the case is. The elevation on – I think the elevation on Middlefield is a big improvement. The only thing that might be, if anything, is that possibly -- that middle section that is the darker color, possibly if you kick the roof up a couple feet just to break up that enormous continuous roof. That’s the only thing that I have a bit of a problem with. To bring the… Mr. Mcclure: Which section? I’m sorry. Board Member Gooyer: This one, the top one you’ve got there, that very long uniform roof line. I’m saying this section in the middle where the windows are the dark red color. Possibly kick that (crosstalk) section up a couple of feet or something just to break up that very long elevation. Mr. Mcclure: So, maybe the roof (crosstalk)(inaudible)… Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) that kind of construction. You could just kick it up a couple of feet and it’s fine so that the cost issue is not that tremendous of difference. As to the – this whole difference of opinion as far as color. I personally prefer the taupe color, I think it works better than the charcoal and I think you ought to stay with that. I do like the entry, I’ve been involved in a couple of projects that – over years that deal with kids. I mean, I’d love to see that entry, which I know now a day are code infested design process that wouldn’t allow it but I would love to see that entry to drop down to about 5- foot 6 where the parent has to duck down. Which means it becomes sort of the haven of the children and the parent's sort of have to work at it to get into that same – but we both know that the building official would laugh at that. Anyway, be that as it may, it – I think I like or I should say I think that whole entry concept. The whole idea that this is for the kids, not for the parents. As far as the bridge, I can see it. I would have been nice and maybe it’s the kind of thing that’s sometime in the feature you get some generous donor that you can turn it into the whatever; ABC’s bridge that they donated or whatever. All and all I think it’s a big improvement and I can vote for it like this with a few minor modifications. Chair Lew: Peter. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Baltay: Thank you. More or less I echo the comments of my colleagues perhaps not quite ready to completely support it but I would like to comment that I looked at your drawing A-1.3 and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a drawing that more clearly explains an architectural concept. I was sort of thinking back over the process and I really would like to compliment that it’s been a pleasure to see good architects really work to come up with a concept and push it forward. This is really nice to you grasping what a kid’s museum should be like and then trying to give form to that and this notion of a tunnel and a bridge and then shelter leading to the park is really powerful. I say in that in part because I want you to feel good about it and partly because I’d like to see you push harder to keep that bridge. The idea of a bridge and of seeing water underneath you and having that explain why we have a bio-swell and retention system is really, really powerful. That’s education for kids and for adults and for the community. It’s a new thing that we’re trying to accomplish throughout and it seems to me that’s something that’s worth fighting for. So, I would just like to encourage you to get it as much as a push as you can and to go on the record that it’s an intricate part of your very strong concept. This is award winning stuff, this kind of concept and executing it is great. Ok, but, there’s always a but, I agree that we want to make it an architecture of our time. I’d like you to encourage thinking about making it of our place as well. I am troubled by this – what’s essentially what’s an agricultural building. You’ve used the term butler building but it really is a metal shed and I think you’re not quite getting away from that enough. This is the heart of Palo Alto is a very important civil building and I think has the risk of looking like a farm shed. Especially the main part where you choose to run the metal roofing down as siding, right down the edge. That’s exactly what a farmer does out in Stockton and that’s not where we are and that’s not really appropriate. I don’t – I think that we’ve missed that takes away from the Birge Clark design where you have a distinct roof and a wall that are very different. Different textures, colors, materials and I don’t want to tell you what the architecture should be but I’d almost prefer to see it all be the same with just a wood siding and a roof than having that metal roll down the side. I think that would look just to industrial, to agricultural and then Robert’s concerns about the painting it very real with that metal siding. The paint will eventually start to flake off no matter what you do and you’ll never have enough money to maintain that. It’s an expensive kind of thing to paint and you set them up for a long-term failure with that very, very inexpensive idea to begin with so again, I think it needs just a little bit more there. I keep saying that it may be of our time but it’s not yet of our place, which is equally important. Another concern that I have is the Middlefield elevation. I’ve expressed this before and I think you’re making steps towards doing things. It’s really nice to see the gable end picking up the motif of the building coming out on Middlefield but overall, it’s one long straightforward low building on a street that’s quite long. So, I did go out there again just to check and it is about the only place where you have this long of the building that is this continuous and I think Robert is absolutely correct. That changing the roof is probably the way to break it up but I’d really like to see you get some more modulation on that façade if you could, and in and out or a breakup or some sense of another utility entrance. I was hoping that the trees and the fact that you’re driving by quickly would break it up but at least in my judgment when you go out there, that’s really not the case. It’s quite visible and it really will be the frontage, the face of the building, to most of the public as we drive by it every day and it’s not quite there. It’s come a long way with your first concept but if you could put half of the energy that you put into the creativity on figuring out how to make this for a kid and figure out how to make it for Palo Alto as well. How do we build next to Birge Clark? Where we see both of these in the same space of 30-seconds as we drive by. That would really be appreciated so I don’t think it’s quite there yet on those two factors. The façade along Middlefield is still to uniform and I’m concerned about the overall gable form where the siding drops down the side giving it too much of an agricultural look. On a detail, I do share Kyu’s sense that the metal screen over the entry would be better served if it followed the gable on the inside. I’m just putting that out there in detail but Middlefield elevation and rethink the agricultural look. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Peter. I don’t have a lot to add to this particular – to the other Board Member’s comments. I think the project to me, looks great. It seems to me that I could meet the findings for this project. In my notes, I just have some nitpicky details. One is like the wood slats at your – at the entry porch. I guess I was curious about the finish of those if it was like a stain that would be applied to the wood and the maintenance – long term maintenance of them. It’s a high maintenance item and it’s a City project so that’s a concern. If you have a transparent stain that’s only going to last maybe 2-years before it would need to be touched up so that’s a concern. That’s a concern that the Board has had on City of Palo Alto Page 8 other City project’s as well and on the other projects they’ve been changed too – like on Mitchell Park Library, I think the architect changed it to metal. I think they considered EPAY so I would – I’d like to see more information on that. On the – also on the building you’re showing – I guess it’s like an 8-foot wood and stucco fence along the park side, along that and I did see that in the perspective and I think I understand the details. I would like to just have a detail in the set. It seems to me – whenever I’ve done those wood slats, it – the size of the boards and the spacing of the boards is really important and it was an issue at the –with the Board on the Art Center project. Also, just the species of the wood and the grade of the wood. On your landscaping plan, I think you’re showing small cape rush along the Middlefield Road planter strips and so those are like 2-3-feet high and I guess I would ask to consider having something within the door zone that’s lower. I mean typically you’re in a car – if there’s – there are typically lots of cars parked along that section of Middlefield so when they open the door usually they will damage – if a plant is a 3-feet high, it will get damaged by somebody opening the door. I would ask – consider something smaller along the curb. I think the plant is fine otherwise, outside of the door opening zone. On the colors, I did want to sort of echo the comments about the maintenance of it and I would just say like an example of what went wrong was there’s the CVS store on Middlefield Road which has the metal – red metal kind of like a (inaudible) and it looked terrible when it was faded. People were complaining and they weren’t repainting it and stuff and I don’t want that to happen on this particular project. It seems like the – I’ll differ to the other Board Members but it seems like you were mentioning that it could have a coating or the Kynar finishes that are much more durable than the painted finish. I don’t know how long those last but it seems like the Kynar lasts longer than powdered coating, I would think. Board Member Gooyer: But that lasts longer than painting so that’s what I was basically – something over and above painting. Chair Lew: Yeah and I guess it could but I don’t know how long and then we have to factor in – this is like a City – yeah, a City project and let’s say it should last, ideally, last 50-years? Board Member Baltay: We have Kynar 500 coated roofs and after about 20-years they look faded. That’s the honest truth. Chair Lew: So, then that gets to my next point, is if you have the red – I really do actually like the red color but it seems to me like faded red looks pretty terrible. It looks pink after a while and it seems to – if it’s a taupe or charcoal and it fades, nobody is going to notice the difference. Board Member Gooyer: Well the other thing is like a Core 10, something like that. Board Member Baltay: The guys on the firehouse went to, wasn’t it Zinc (inaudible) or something? Board Member Gooyer: That’s very cost prohibited. Chair Lew: It’s expensive. Board Member Baltay: Well, it’s cost prohibited now but over 50-years, it’s probably the most cost- effective solution. Well, (crosstalk)(inaudible)… Board Member Gooyer: The Board on something like that isn’t going to say yes but it’s going to save our maintenance for the next 50-years. Board Member Baltay: Yeah but if we get a pink looking building 20-years from now. Chair Lew: Ok, so I think that’s where we are at. I think we want to see some more information and I wasn’t quite sure – actually, could I ask a clarification maybe from the architect or maybe Amy. Is the HRB’s concern about the – it was mentioned that they were concerned about the roof color. Are we City of Palo Alto Page 9 saying that their recommendation is that the roof be one color and the siding – the metal siding be a different color? Ms. French: No, I think what one Member on the subcommittee thought that if you were going to go with the darker, she liked the darker charcoal I guess, but didn’t – thought it was too somber for that court yard. So, she suggested that you could pull the red down and have that provided some whimsy but the other Member liked the taupe. Chair Lew: Ok, I think I get it. I think my other comment then would be if there where – if anybody ever foresees photovoltaics on the roof, I think charcoal is a better fit for that. Also, if – you’ve got skylights showing on there and again, I think generally a charcoal color works better with all of those aluminum skylights and the frame and the dark glass and what not. Then for all of the roof penetrations like plumbing vents and all the fans and all of that stuff, generally taupe looks better. I mean red could work but generally, a dark color is a little bit more forgiving and so that’s all that I have. We don’t have – I think we’re – the recommendation is to continue it. We don’t have… Board Member Gooyer: Can I just… Chair Lew: Yeah, yeah. Just one more thought is that we don’t have draft findings that we’re not going to comment on that yet. Vice Chair Kim: It’s the CEQA that we’re waiting for (inaudible). Chair Lew: Right. Board Member Gooyer: I just have one concern and you can see that I think more than one of us has that concern that the whole thing about the whole concept of it being metal. That there may need – that you may need to look at doing something other than metal or at least if it is metal, main framing metal but either cover it or something that – to get away from the whole butler – not even so much appearance but the concept. I don’t have a problem with the shape but it’s just I have a fear that, like you said, it’s going to turn into a pink building with rust all over the place. So, I think you need to at least possibly address the concept of using something other than that or a different framing system or something. Board Member Baltay: Are we as a Board willing to give them more clear direction on that? I really think it’s often really helpful if we come out and say it. To me, the concept of the Kynar 500 coating or any kind of painted standing seam metal, as I listen to our comments, probably is just not the right solution. If you’re going to use metal, it really should be something like the zinc aluminum which is really expensive. So, maybe metal is the wrong choice for a civic building that we expect to last a long time. Chair Lew: Can we clarify maybe – could we differentiate or separate this – your comment into the roof and the siding because I think – because, in my mind, the siding needs to last longer than the roof. The roof isn’t going to last forever anyway, right? In theory, the siding should last longer than the roof. I mean normally we think the roof is going to last 25… Board Member Baltay: The roof takes more abuse. Chair Lew: Right, (inaudible)(crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible) you don’t typically paint a roof. You don’t typically paint metal roofing, siding, the standing seam. Once it’s manufactured, you don’t repaint it typically. It’s very hard to do that. Chair Lew: So, then you have another issue is that say the roof – typically the roof would be replaced before the siding and so if it’s all the same, then there’s the potential problem of matching the colors; you’re going to have to replace everything. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Baltay: Do you think Birge Clark built Lucie Stern thinking the roof would be replaced after 25-years? We’re building to make timeless architecture, this is a civic –this is a public museum. Chair Lew: Yes, you know but they had the – I don’t know what the right word is. They built during the depression and they were under very different circumstances and they also built all of those buildings one at a time because she couldn’t solve her (inaudible) stock. I mean that was coming out of her income fund. Board Member Baltay: There’s fascinating history behind it all but when we’re creating civic architecture… Chair Lew: Right, we want it to last… Board Member Baltay: … (inaudible) corporate building and we know full well that maintenance is a real issue over time. It’s really hard to find the budget to keep these things up so now is the time to encourage to push – for the Architecture Board just to come out and say, standing seam metal on siding certainly and roofing is really not appropriate for a building like this when it’s painted or when its… Chair Lew: Ok, I think my take on this is just slightly different in that I think it’s fine for the roof and then I think the siding I think I’m more in agreement. Board Member Gooyer: At least if that’s the case then, unfortunately, if you do it for the roof you need to do a color that even if it fades, it really doesn’t change that drastically as compared to a pink or a red that’s goes to a pink. A beige is going to be – say a beige, not that I’m saying that it needs to be beige but something like that. That you end up with that sort of criteria. Chair Lew: I am in agreement with you about – on that. Any other – Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Just another minor comment, I thought the scale of the elevations was much too small for us to read. I just they would show up a little bit larger on a full-size set but for us, on the half size sets, they’re a little bit small. Then on sheet A-4.2, drawing number four, the elevation A, maybe it was a slightly – previously reiteration but to me, I think that gable should be shown on the right side of the building toward Middlefield and I don’t see that there so just a minor comment. Chair Lew: I have one last question for Staff. On our favorite topic of parking, it seems like there’s no – there’s not a requirement – generally, there’s a net reduction in maybe two spaces but there are loading zones. I was wondering just how the City was thinking about the parking requirement and the reason why I am asking today is that the – I was just at the site yesterday and it’s the peak of the summer and the park was in maximum use yesterday and the parking lot was pretty full. It wasn’t completely full but I was just wondering if the City had any thoughts about adding parking or are we trying not – are we trying to just keep everything as is? Ms. French: Yeah, I think conceptually with the bicycle circulation, the bus drops off, providing bike racks when they aren’t as many today, that’s key. We want to encourage people to drive less and we know that in the Rinconada Park plan, there is going to be some changes down the road over a long Hopkins. There’s a lot of street parking too. I know for a commercial business we don’t consider that but this is a Civic Center/Community Center and street parking is something that is also on public property. I think there’s a little bit of different thinking for this type of a use. Again, there’s an increase in zoo area, the animals will have a better experience and more place to reside. I don’t think that necessarily results in more cars. Again, we’re – and John can weigh in on programmatic aspects of this but we’re looking at – and you’ll – when you do get the CEQA document, you can see a description of this. We had opened to have that in your packet last week but it did get pushed a week so we can have more conversation about that in the next report. Chair Lew: Ok, thanks. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice Chair Kim: Just a quick comment on the zoo area. I saw that in the central tree stump you have this glow in the dark type of thing, right? Could you explain that perhaps a little bit and if it’s a reasonable thing considering how early public facilities in Palo Alto and the effect – possible detrimentally effect towards the environment and animals in that area. Ms. Sarah Vaccaro: That’s the tree fort and that’s actually part of the future Phase Two. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, so that’s not technically a part of this project? Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Yeah, I have a question for Staff, Jodie? So, if we can continue this to date certain, is there a date in particular? Ms. French: September 21st would be preferable. Yeah, I think September 21st, we’ll stick with that and if they are able to beat that, we can always advertise it for earlier. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you, that’s – so… MOTION Board Member Baltay: I’d like to move that we continue this project to September 21st subject to the comments that we’ve made. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: Great, so we have a motion to continue it by Baltay and seconded by Gooyer. All in favor? Opposed? None and Board Member Furth is absent. Great, thank you. The project is looking good and we’ll look to see this back in September. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER FURTH ABSENT 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 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 Chair Lew: The next item is number three. It’s a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter, 2747 Park Boulevard. 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. The environmental assessment is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA in accordance with guideline section 15311 for accessory structures. The zone district is general manufacturing and our project planner today is Graham Owen, welcome. Mr. Graham Owen, Project Planner: Thank you, Chairmen Lew. So, yes, I’m Graham Owen and I’m a planner with the City. I’ve been working with the applicant on the application that is here before you today. So, as you said this is a Master Sign Program for the new R&D building which is currently under construction at 2747 Park Boulevard. This Master Sign Program is essentially a – it’s a way of providing a framework for feature tenant signage. So, no tenants have been selected at this time for the building which is under construction but the applicant has expressed an interest and the developer has expressed an interest in providing feature tenants with basically a framework document that has basic design parameters for feature tenants. The benefit for a Master Sign Programs is that once that framework document – once the Master Sign Program has been approved, no further architecture review is required City of Palo Alto Page 12 as long as signage is consistent with the Master Sign Program. So, this – the plans that are before you today do show logos and companies but those are just examples as no tenants have been selected at this time. This is a site plan showing the build outs of the 27247 Park Boulevard project. The building is located at the apex, right at the corner of Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue in the Ventura neighborhood and there are ten total signs that are being requested with this application. Two are free standing tenant monument signs which would be located at the vehicle entrances. Those would be 9-feet in total height and 54-square feet. There are two that would be two free standing monument signs which would be located at the building entrances, right at the apex and then also facing the parking lot. Three wall signs, one of which would be at the pedestrian level directly facing Park Boulevard and another that would be or two, excuse me, that would be located closer to the parapets of the building at the top. One facing the apex at the corner and then one facing the Caltrain right of way. Then there would also be two signs which would essentially be addressed so 2747 numbers. This is an example of the freestanding monuments signs which would be located at the vehicle entrances. So, as I mentioned, 9-feet in total height, 54-square feet in total sign area. These signs would be made out of aluminum, as well as a clear plastic material to go on the cabinet. The signs would be externally illumination from below shining onto the sign. This is another example showing a different cabinet which shows three tenants instead of just one. This is an example of the type of sign which would be proposed at the building entrances, slightly smaller at 5-feet in total height and smaller sign area of course. These – the two that are proposed at the building entrances are not proposed to be illuminated. Then this is an example of the wall sign which would be located -- as I call them skyline signs but signs that would be located near the parapets of the building. This is proposed in two locations and this example is slightly different from the iteration that you saw in the earlier plans that we provided in the packet. This shows an example of a total sign area of 120-square feet for the sign – total sign area and 2 ½-feet in total height for the letters; which is what is requested with this application. The signs – the two signs that are mounted at the top of the building would be channel lite so internally illuminated signs. So, Staff is recommending approval of this application at this time. We would want to highlight two conditions of approval that are significant for the project. The freestanding monument sign, as I mentioned a couple times, is 9-feet in total height as proposed. We felt that along the Park Boulevard corridor, you don’t actually see that many monument signs to begin with so we felt that a 9-foot high sign might be inappropriate for the neighborhood. We are requesting through the conditions of approval that total height is lowered to 6-feet. The other is to ensure that the walls signs are compatible with the area. We’re just reiterating that the letters for the wall signs be no more than 2 ½-feet in total height, which is consistent with what it is in the plans. I believe that the applicant has a presentation as well but I’m happy to answer any questions. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Graham. So, let’s do the applicant presentation and you have 5-minutes. Ms. Julie Vogel: Is this on? That’s good, thanks, Graham. My name is Julie Vogel and I’m from Kate Keating Associates and this is Shawn Reese. I am president and Shawn is project manager for this particular project. Graham did a really great describing that there are only ten signs. There’s not really an elaborate presentation that we can expand on a great deal more. I think that one – a couple of things that we just want to highlight on an overview and that one is that the signs have been designed to the best of our abilities to be compatible with the site and with the architecture. The goal is to have the opportunity for the tenants to display their brand in a way that will give them the identity and still have a really nice site and experience on the street and that’s been the goal of the project all along. We’ve kept the setbacks that are required and one of the things about making – from our perspective is the potential of making the sign a lot shorter means that the footprint would expand considerably instead. Then we’re trying to keep the sign out of the sightlines for the vision triangle and a very safe distance for viewing for people who are turning in and out of the parking lot. If you see, this sign is the one that Staff is suggesting that we lower the size and one of the reasons that we’re concerned is that right now, if this was to be reduced by 6-feet – to 6-feet. That’s a thirty percent reduction and right now, things like – these all make belief companies and we just make these – load these us ourselves but for example, the Techglow logo, the Techglow is only presently 5-inches tall and the smaller the sign becomes, the more – the smaller the font has to become. Ideally, what we’re trying to achieve here is a clear area that allows for these logos not to be kind of smashed on top of each other and if the building were to lease one tenant per floor, that they all have enough clear space so it doesn’t look kind of junky out there. That’s City of Palo Alto Page 13 the goal is that the font of the logo is large enough, the logos are not on top of each other and they all have clear space and that each of the three tenants potentially has the opportunity to be identified on the street. That’s the goal and kind of how we got to where we are. Again, the sign itself is of the same coloration and materiality of the building. Then also the one at the door here is we’re planning to co- locate the card reader into it to kind of clarify the elevation as you enter the building. Those are really the only things that I wanted to add to Graham’s presentation so if you guys have any questions, we would be happy. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I do want to open it up to public comments. I don’t have any speaker cards and I think we also do need to do disclosures with this item. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I’d like to disclose that I had an email exchange with Tom Gilman, the architect of the project, just asking questions about the wall sign. Chair Lew: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Board? Vice Chair Kim: I have a quick question. I am wondering if this is maybe more comment oriented but you’re showing a multi-tenant monument sign on the street but the free-standing door tenant monument, you’re only showing a single tenant. So, what are your plans if you’re going to have multi- tenants for that door tenant monument? Ms. Vogel: That’s a good question. The idea of both of those signs is if the whole building goes with one tenant… Vice Chair Kim: Then it’s easy. Ms. Vogel: …that – they would – it would either look like that Elogic or the Techglow but if the building went with three tenants, both of the signs would have a similar layout where you would have the (inaudible). Vice Chair Kim: Where you would divide the door tenant signage into three as well? Ms. Vogel: Yes. Vice Chair Kim: You’re confident that you can get your desired height for lettering? Ms. Vogel: Well, at that point the sign is basically a greeting for the front door. It’s more of a pedestrian scale and the goal is not really to have a vehicular experience with that sign. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Peter? Board Member Baltay: Two questions please and I don’t if it’s for the Staff or the applicant but down the street from this is the Groupon building. It’s sort of brick building and how tall are the letters of the Groupon logo? Mr. Owen: We looked at that up and they are 2-feet 3-inches. Board Member Baltay: The second question for the applicant, I dug up a perspective rendering of this project as we approved it and I’m wondering if on this rendering can you say where the large Techglow, as you’ve put it, the logo would be as the building curves around. Your elevation on sheet 3.02 doesn’t really specify where in the curve it would be if you’ve decided that but there seems to be a roof overhang that varies in thickness and depth; I think that would matter. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. Vogel: The intention is to have it at the apex of the corner. The plan kind of describes that a little bit better. Board Member Baltay: So, right in the middle, sort of half way around the curve. Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Board Member comments? Peter? Board Member Baltay: Yes, thank you. I share Staff’s concern that the monument sign is just too tall, in fact, I think 6-feet is even too tall. As I go around that neighborhood there really are no monument signs and that’s the size sign you would have for when you’re traveling down El Camino or even a larger street moving 30 MPH. Nobody drives that fast, this is a pedestrian dominated area and it will become much more pedestrian dominated. Signs that are 1 ½ times the height of a person as you’re drawing so aptly demonstrates is really inappropriate. I can share your concern about the height of your fonts and stuff but your talented sign makers. I’m sure you can come around making signs that are pedestrian scaled. I’ve said this about many buildings and projects in this area. This Park Avenue, south of Oregon is a rapidly changing area in our community and it is astonishing how many people are walking around on foot in that community. I think we all need to really consider that as a pedestrian area and the signage has to reflect that. These are signs made for high vehicles passing by, that’s your intent, that’s your objective. You are doing it and it works for that but that’s not the right place for it. I think of a minimum; the signs have to go down to 6-feet and I’d like to see it less than that. My second concern is with the large logo on the wall of the building. As I just pointed out, I pulled up the architectural rendering of it and I just don’t understand how you put a channel mounted a big sign on a glazed curtain wall. I don’t see how that’s integrated into the building when the faced is curving one way and the roof overhang is a little bit different. It just seems to me that it’s sort of stuck on as a logo and that’s not integrated into the building. So, I’m eager to hear what my fellow Board Member’s think and I’m happy to pass around this rendering but I don’t think that a large sign on the wall of the building is integrated into the architecture. Other than that, I think the materials are fine. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I agree that the monument sign probably is too big for what it is based on the comments you’ve already said so I’ll just leave it at that. The problem with a lot of these signs that go in front of curtain walls is either they secure them from the roof down so you see the support system behind to make it somewhat free standing. I find it a strange place to put it right at the curve. I think it ought to either go – if you’re going to put the sign it ought to be on either this end or that end if it has to be at that front end. I – but I don’t want to see it – I wouldn’t really want to see it right at the bend. First of all, I think it’s going to be a situation that if you’ve got something that’s free standing letters but if you end up having something that is some sort of different configuration, it might even be difficult to make it on a bend like that. Other than -- like I said, it’s not rocket science so I’m not too upset – most of it is ok other than the sign, I think needs to be smaller and I’m not a big fan of the larger sign right at the bend. Chair Lew: Ok and Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, thank you for presenting the Master Sign Program package here. I will agree that I think the free-standing monument signs at the parking entrances are a little too large. I don’t think that they’re – they would be too large if these signs were on a busier street but I think considering the pace of traffic along these two minor streets off of Park and the dominance of pedestrian traffic. I do think that they will begin to dwarf the people and almost give the building a sense of a standoffish feeling, almost. I think it would be better if they could be reduced in size and maybe present the building as a little bit more welcoming and pedestrian scale. The concern there, of course, with the area and the size of it are not so much the actual area of the logos. I think there are ways you could keep the logos and their areas the same while reducing the sign in overall size so I think there’s something that can be done there. I disagree with the previous comment that the materials are ok. For me, these tenant monument signs that are freestanding, to me they actually lack a little bit of depth. I think it’s a little bit too plain and I’m almost curious to see what these look like in 3-D with the shape of the curve and the plastic. City of Palo Alto Page 15 How much reflection we get? I think there needs to be a little bit more thought into the depth of the materials and I was looking at the materials board and the materials that were used on the building itself. I don’t know if there is another material that can be picked off from the building and incorporated into the signage. I do share concerns about the wall mounted sign, less so about the one facing the train tracks but more so about the one facing Park and Sheridan. I’m also curious to know how that’s going to work on a curved surface but more so than that, just the fact that we’re kind of slapping that on to the glass surface. I don’t know if that’s the best way to go about that. I also have questions and concerns regarding the raceway connecting the letters in that case. Somebody brought up previously that often these are not just directly mounted onto the glass but hung off the roof. That was something that I was going to possibly suggest but I realized that the roof changes in depth there, the (inaudible), so I don’t know if that’s possible. Yeah, I guess I’ll leave it at that, thank you. Chair Lew: We’re going back to Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I have one comment and this is probably just being totally anal on my part but on 2.05 where the actual building address is. I have a real problem with the relationship of the letters to the material in the back of it. In other words, the seam right in between the 4 and the 7. It – I know – like I said, that is – either it gets shifted so that the address is completely centered on one tile or something like that. Like I said, it’s an anal comment and maybe by the time they get done and depending on the size of the joint, it may not be an issue but like this, it just really rubbed me the wrong way. So, if nothing else, it’s on the record. Chair Lew: I think my comment is that the – it seems like we higher standards for signs in the City and in particular in the adjacent Research Park. So, for example, Stanford – on Stanford land, they don’t allow any wall signs. So (inaudible) down Page Mill Road, you won’t see any walls signs and all of their monument signs, most of them are all very, very low. I – from my point of view, I think they are too small. I think I understand that – your sign makers point of view that you want them to be readable and I think what I found in – at least in the Research Park, is that when they have a multi-tenant building and they required the monument signs to be really low. They put them side by side in these really small fonts and I don’t think they look very good and to me, they are hard to read. That’s Stanford, that’s their rules for signs there but it creates a really beautiful landscape environment. Then I think the hard thing that I’ve been struggling with on your site is I think it’s – I think I agree with Board Member comments that it’s the – there’s a lot of pedestrian activity like at lunch time. I find the intersection on this particular site to be very confusing. If I was a visitor I wouldn’t really know exactly where I was supposed to go and where to park. I would think that if I were the building owner, I wouldn’t want Caltrain people to park in the lot because it looks – it’s right adjacent to the parking – Caltrain parking lot. I think I understand the desire for the placement of the monument signs for the parking lot. I think I would just – not – I don’t have a smaller proposal – the 6-foot proposal but at the moment I would just say that I would concur with the Staff condition of approval. I think it would be a question – I guess a question for the Board would be, do you want to see this again or do you want to just let the Staff recommendation or the Staff’s condition of approval to make it smaller to just let it stand and we have – without having seen it. If we continue it, it would allow them to make another case for something in between. I think that’s an open question from me. On the… Board Member Gooyer: Well, I mean if you want an answer to that. I have actually a more problem with the wall sign than I do the monument sign. Chair Lew: Yeah, I was going to get – you’re right, I was going to get to that. Board Member Gooyer: If I was going – I mean I would trust the judgment of either proportionally going from 9-feet down to 7 ½-feet or something like that. Even if it doesn’t go all the way down to six because I can understand where the applicant is coming from. The wall sign is what I have more of a problem with. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Lew: Ok, then on the wall sign, I would say the – previously the Board had a lot of issues with the Survey Monkey sign, which was hung with a structure – you know if it was hung from the cornice of the tower and that was an issue. It’s still got – well, it did -- they left pretty quickly. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: But the sign did go up and the armature to hold the sign up was not beautiful but I think we made it better. I just want to remind the Board that for us to – when buildings come through, to ask for placeholder locations for signs on the other projects because it’s an issue. Then I guess at the same time is the – I think we have to sort of acknowledge that the desire for signs on buildings is changing. At one time really, we really didn’t have any office tenants putting wall signs up on the cornice of buildings but it is an issue and we do want them; even here in the downtown district. I just want to sort of put that out there that things change. I think I’m in agreement with the placement of the wall sign on the curve; it seems strange. I think I would rather have it on one end or the other. I’m ok with the one on the back, the one on the back seems a little strange to me in terms of placement. I think what my take on it is that I think you guys want them to come back to the Board, is that where… Board Member Baltay: Well, I’m certainly not ready to approve it with the wall sign and I’m skeptical that they will be able to find a place on that curved façade to make it work. A sign of the size that they are talking about, you just don’t have a chunk of a building that supports that. Maybe the question really to ask is that they are asking for a Master Sign Program so there’s not even really any firm proposal of where… Chair Lew: Right, it would depend on the tenant. Board Member Baltay: In my email exchange with Tom Gilman, he made that very clear that this is still very dependent. Maybe what we can do is approve the sign program with the change to the monument but just don’t approve the wall sign and that has to come back as an ARB project when they figure out what they want to do exactly. So, we can see the mounting details and the exact specific sign. I think it’s important on a building like this with a fairly dramatic appearance that the sign should not just be stuck on the glass wall. Board Member Gooyer: But that’s the – why you do a Master Sign Program so that you don’t have to come back and we can’t yes, we’ll approve the Master Sign but you have to come back anyway. Then you sort of defeat the purpose of. Board Member Baltay: Well, then maybe a Master Sign Program is inappropriate for this situation. Board Member Gooyer: That could be but I mean that maybe that is why they are doing it. (crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: I hear you but I am not able to approve the wall sign. Chair Lew: Right, I mean I think the Board… Board Member Baltay: Maybe Staff can chime in (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Lew: I think the Board could recommend no and then the Staff could come back with a response on how to proceed. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I’m open to whatever mechanism is appropriate. I have a big issue with that wall sign the way it’s presented. Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: I think it’s up to the Board how you’d like to proceed. I mean we can certainly bring it back. If we were to bring it back, it would need to be probably September City of Palo Alto Page 17 21st though. We – I mean you also have the subcommittee option if you felt like there were some smaller refinements that needed to be made. Board Member Gooyer: Well, let me suggest that if you’re ok with the sign on the back. Is that basically because it’s facing the railroad tracks or is it because it looks better or works better on that portion of the building? Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, for me it was that it works better on that side of the building but I am still curious to see the actual mounting details. Board Member Gooyer: What I was going to suggest, if that’s the case, then maybe on the front we don’t allow the sign to go on the curve portion and put it on the far end of the building, on the south end of the building at the corner. Chair Lew: Which is actually a better – in my mind is a better location because it would give you (crosstalk) (inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) basically a sign that – or I should say a mounting situation that basically mirrors the two and they could be the same and then there isn’t a difference. I mean that’s (inaudible)… Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, I’d be ok with that. Ms. Vogel: Hi, can we comment on that? Chair Lew: Yes, please. Ms. Vogel: The thinking of the location on the curve and the apex is that this is capturing specifically Oregon Express Way and the traffic that’s moving through the neighborhood. To put it further to kind of mirror what’s facing the Caltrain is – and put it towards the corner of Park and Page Mill, there’s a lot of trees and there’s an adjacent development. You would actually never see that sign from the sight lines so the locations are chosen by sight lines of what’s actually visible. If I can speak a little bit to how it’s attached. The way we would detail these – we’ve done a lot of these with DES, is that the (inaudible) system itself gets brackets and it has support and nothing comes over the roof. Then all of the raceway is generally as minimal as it can be to handle the LED equipment which is much smaller than it use to be and it’s painted to black out. This is on glass but it’s spandrel glass so it’s not visual glass so it’s basically a solid surface anyway. The goal is to have these letters be up there kind of floating and you just don’t have a lot of perception by the location. Even though it’s on glass, it has the framework and the raceways are all painted to kind of black out. Board Member Gooyer: Well, part of that is that let's say that spandrel glass was stucco. It’s not even so much what that is, I just don’t really like the thing right on the curved corner of the building. It’s not so much that it – I mean it is – I mean you’ve got two things there working against it but like I said, even if that was a solid band I would have a problem with it right on the apex of the curve. Board Member Baltay: As I look at it more I find even the sign on the back, just seems to me haphazardly across the moulin and the windows and then the solid wall and it’s not – it’s just not integrated with the architecture. Board Member Gooyer: That (inaudible) what I said with the sign – the address sign. It’s put on but it doesn’t relate to the wall behind it. Board Member Baltay: I mean I think you’re – with all respect, your renderings even to us, show us a sign in a 2-dimensional rendering on a curved façade, the letters are all the same dimension. There is no sense of graphic curving to it. You’re not even thinking about the curve in your signage. I guess I’m just City of Palo Alto Page 18 having trouble with the big wall sign on this building. Questioning whether we even really show have a wall sign here at all honestly. Somehow the Groupon sign is some much more subdued. You see that from a distance and it’s just a big brick building. This – we have to make a finding that it’s integrated with the architecture and I’m unable to do that the way it’s presented. So, the only solution is to say no or to continue it. Chair Lew: Ok, well I think my recommendation to the Board would be to continue it because they are allowed – the sign code allows them a certain amount of (crosstalk)(inaudible)… Board Member Gooyer: Absolutely. Chair Lew: …so I would say let them have another stab at this… Board Member Gooyer: That’s fine. Chair Lew: …and continue it to – I think the Staff was saying September 21st. MOTION Vice Chair Kim: So, I will move that we continue this item so that it comes back to the Board for September 21st and have the applicant reconsider the wall signs and how they relate to the building so they do better relate to the actual architecture of the building. Also, to reduce the free standing tenant monument signs at the parking lot entry to be a maximum of 6-feet tall. Board Member Baltay: I’ll second that motion. Chair Lew: We have a motion by Board Member Kim, seconded by Baltay. All in favor? Opposed? None, so that passes 4-0 with Board Member Furth absent. Ok, thank you. We’ll see you in September. MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER FURTH ABSENT Approval of Minutes: 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. Chair Lew: Ok, we have one last item which is the approval of the minutes for July 13th and that was ARB meeting, as well as a HRB/ARB meeting. Are there any comments from the Board? I have one comment on the minutes. This is on page 16 and there was just a -- Board Member Furth was dissenting from the vote. Vice Chair Kim: Which set of minutes is this? The joint or the ARB only? MOTION Chair Lew: I think it was the ARB only. This was the – I think it was the Alma – Peter’s project, Alma. The three houses on Alma Street. Anyway, it’s just the word in the minutes is decent, it’s dissent and I think that’s nitpicky but I think that one is important for the meaning of her comment. I’ll move that approve both sets of minutes for July 13th. I think Peter, you have to recuse yourself on part of it, right? Board Member Baltay: I wasn’t at the meeting so I won’t… Chair Lew: Right. Oh yeah, that’s right. Vice Chair Kim: I’ll second the motion. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Lew: Ok, all in favor? Board Member Baltay: I abstain. Chair Lew: Great, so that passes 3-0-1-1. Ok, we are adjourned. MOTION PASSES 3-0-1-1 WITH BOARD MEMBER BALTAY ABSTAINING AND BOARD MEMBER FURTH ABSENT Subcommittee Item Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment