Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-07 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: September 7, 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 Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 1. PRELIMINARY REVIEW, 375 Hamilton, Downtown Parking Garage [17PLN-00224]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Five-Story Parking Garage with One Basement Parking Level with 1,709 sf of Ground Floor Retail, Bike Storage and 331 Parking Spaces Located on a 29,164 s.f. Surface Parking Lot. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act, for Which a Scoping Session was Held on May 31, 2017 With the Planning and Transportation Commission. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 2. PRELIMINARY REVIEW, 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street [16PLN-00238]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a Concept Plan for Phased Redevelopment of the Castilleja School Campus for a Proposed Expansion. The Project Anticipates a Lot Merger, _______________________ 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. Demolition of Two Existing Single-Family Residential Structures, Construction of a Below Grade Parking Garage, Replacement of Several Structures and Other Site Improvements. Zone District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A Draft Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared, for Which a Scoping Session was Held March 8, 2017 With the Planning and Transportation Commission. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. At the applicant’s request this item will not be heard. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Draft Architectural Review Board Minutes of August 3, 2017 and August 17, 2017. Subcommittee Items Avenidas Expansion Project 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 # 8356) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Preliminary Review: Downtown Parking Garage 375 Hamilton Ave Title: PRELIMINARY REVIEW: 375 Hamilton, Downtown Parking Garage [17PLN-00224]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Five-Story Parking Garage with One Basement Parking Level with 1,709 sf of Ground Floor Retail, Bike Storage and 331 Parking Spaces Located on a 29,164 s.f. Surface Parking Lot. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act, and a Draft Environmental Impact Report will be Prepared with the Formal Application. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide comments on this Preliminary Architectural Review application. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and HRB members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. This is an opportunity for the ARB and the public to discuss the project and its context. The Planning and Community Environment Department has performed a cursory review of the concept plans for code compliance as part of the preparation of an Initial Study (Attachment E) and Notice of Preparation. The Notice of Preparation (Attachment F) was issued and the associated comment period concluded. A Scoping Meeting was held with the Planning and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Transportation Commission, and a ‘Prescreening’ was conducted by the City Council to provide direction on the approach to amend the PF zone district development standards. The purpose of the ARB meeting, and of the August 24 Historic Resources board meeting, is to provide the applicant opportunities to present conceptual project plans to the HRB and ARB and receive initial comments. Board members may identify aspects of the projects 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: City of Palo Alto Architect: Watry Design, Inc. Representative: Holly Boyd, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager Legal Counsel: Molly Stump, City Attorney Property Information Address: 375 Hamilton Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: L-shaped lot; 29,200 square feet (sq.ft.) of surface parking lot area (concept plans note 29,164 sq.ft. site) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Subject property (parking lot) is non-historic; (1) Across Hamilton Av. is 380 Hamilton, the US Post Office, a Category 1 and National Registered resource. Register Form, Inventory Form, and a photo are provided as Attachment B; (2) Adjacent site at 526 Waverley St. is a Category 3 Local resource that was modified following HRB/ARB review in February 1998 (new second story fenestration, new rear exit door, and elevator penthouse) and the Inventory Form and photos are provided as Attachment C; (3) 510 Waverley is a Category 2 Local resource; a photo is provided as Attachment D. Existing Improvement(s): The site is surfaced with asphalt and trees (some protected oak trees) in planters striped for use a public parking lot Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Subject site is zoned Public Facilities; Adjacent sites fronting Waverly and University are zoned CD-C(GF)(P): East, fronting Waverley: 526, circa 1928, Category 3, 2-story recently in retail use (Palo Alto Sport Shop and Toy World Inc.); 550-552, circa 1952, 1- story Prolific Oven retail bakery and Day One retail store; 558-560, 2-story circa 1938,Tai Pan ground floor restaurant, and second office space; North: 352-364 University, circa 1948, 2-story with CVS ground floor retail and second floor office space City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Adjacent site to the west zoned PF: 345 Hamilton, circa 19789, 4-story plus basement AT&T building (31,610 sf) Nearby sites zoned PF and CD-C (P): South: Post Office, circa 1932, PF zone; 510 Waverley, circa 1900, 2-story, GF retail, office upper Special Setbacks: 7 feet Along Hamilton Avenue Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional Community Commercial Context-Based Design: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design: The project is within the Hamilton Avenue District as described in the Downtown Urban Design Guide SOFA II CAP: NA Baylands Master Plan: NA ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): NA Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not within 150 feet of residential uses or district Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: December 2016: Council directed cost and impacts analysis and directed staff to proceed with design and environmental review. The Council staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55028 April 11, 2017: Council provided direction on legislative approach. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The Council staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56784 The video of the Council meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-123/ Council meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57557 PTC: May 31, 2017: Scoping Meeting The staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57978 The video of the Council meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-49/ Council meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58628 Excerpt Minutes attached to this report (Attachment A) HRB: August 24, 2017: Preliminary Review. The staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59211 and the video of the HRB meeting is at this link: http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-42/ ARB: NA Infrastructure Plan The new public parking garage was envisioned in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The applicant proposes construction of the garage to replace and increase surface parking facilities. Project Description The City intends to construct a new above and below grade parking garage providing 331 automobile spaces at 375 Hamilton Avenue. The plans provide context images, floor plans indicating 331 parking spaces (330 spaces plus 1 space serving 550 Waverley Street), with three options for architectural treatment. The project description is provided as Attachment A. The Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study also contain project descriptions. The City Council directed staff to proceed with full preliminary design of a new 331-space parking garage concept with five levels of above-ground parking, one level of basement parking and retail space along the Waverley frontage (see Staff Report #7942). Three distinct concepts were developed for discussion. The Public Works Department webpage for the ‘Downtown Parking Garage’ is viewable at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/downtowngarage. Updates to this website are anticipated. Additional application information and project plans are available through the “Building Eye” website at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. The HRB is provided hard-copy project plans. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Architectural Review – Major (AR).  Rezoning – Text Amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District development standards for public parking garages in the Public Facility zone districts in Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. The recent Council discussion served the purpose of a “prescreening” preliminary review for rezoning; Council directed staff to prepare revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning Ordinance to specifically accommodate public parking garages (see Staff Report #7942). Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan or other applicable policy documents. 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 City on the preliminary drawings. The ARB 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  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any The submittal of an application for amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District Development Standards is anticipated, in order to allow greater floor area ratio and height, and reduced street setbacks for public parking garages in the Downtown and California Business Districts. Public Facilities Zone Development Standards A zoning compliance table is attached (Attachment G) to note where the project would not meet PF Zone standards, and why a text amendment will be part of the formal application request. The text amendment is to relieve City parking structures from meeting maximum standards for setbacks, floor area ratio, and height. HRB Review August 24, 2017 On August 24, the HRB was scheduled to conduct a preliminary review. Staff will provide a verbal report to the ARB about the HRB meeting. Generally, the HRB was asked to review the proximity of the parking garage to, and any issues with respect to its compatibility with, two nearby historic resources:  526 Waverley Street, a local Category 3 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory; and  380 Hamilton Avenue, the US Post Office, a local Category 1 and National Register historic resource. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The HRB was also asked to discuss the relevance of Architectural Review Finding #2b, which states, “The project has a unified and coherent design that 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.” The HRB will be provided the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report, once published for public comment. Downtown Design Guide and AR Findings The project is identified in the Downtown Design Guide as within the Hamilton Avenue District. The Hamilton Avenue District Goals are as follows:  ‘Promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed use district which comfortably accommodates larger scale commercial office, civic and institutional buildings.’  ‘Maintain Hamilton Avenue as a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian environment with complimentary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity which naturally results from the provision of transit service and convenient surface parking.’ The most relevant guidelines within the Hamilton Avenue District section are these:  “Provide pedestrian links from Hamilton Avenue to University Avenue in conjunction with development of the alleys and parking lots.”  Regarding the westerly intersection corner (project site on map): ‘strong building volume recommended’, and ‘opportunity for pedestrian friendly use’. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared. To start the EIR process, an Initial Study (Attachment E) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Attachment D) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed on May 12, 2017. An EIR scoping meeting was held at the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting on May 31, 2017. Comments were received at the meeting from two members of the public, and from PTC members. An additional comment was recently received (Attachment H). The NOP comment period is now closed. The next step will be the release of a draft EIR (DEIR) after the design is further refined and a formal Architectural Review application is submitted. The Preliminary Review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion of the preliminary plans. The applicant will file the formal application subsequent to the ARB review of the Preliminary Review application. The meetings are webcast and archived through the MediaCenter website (http://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/). Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Downtown Parking Garage - Preliminary ARB Project Description (PDF)  Attachment B: Cty inventory form Post Office (PDF)  Attachment C - 526 Waverley inventory form (PDF)  Attachment D: 510 Waverley Street Photo (DOCX)  Attachment E - Downtown Parking Garage - Draft Initial Study - Signed (PDF)  Attachment F - Downtown Parking Garage - NOP - Signed (PDF)  Attachment G: Zoning Compliance Table (DOTX)  Attachment H: E Wong letter to Council (PDF)  Attachment H part 2: Wong Email week of August 28, 2017 (PDF) June 21st, 2017 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 375 Hamilton Ave., Downtown Parking Garage, ARB Preliminary Review Project Description To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is the preliminary ARB submittal package for 375 Hamilton Ave., the proposed Downtown Parking Garage. The project applicant is Watry Design Group, with Hayes Group Architects, on behalf of our client, the City of Palo Alto. This package includes eight sets of half size drawings and eight full size drawings, including the site survey, contextual photos, the proposed floor plans, elevations, sections, and perspectives. CONTEXT and EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at the east corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. The rear of the site adjoins the ‘Lane 21’ alley. The surrounding vicinity is a mix of downtown retail and office uses. Southwest of the property, at 345 Hamilton, is the four-story AT&T central office. Northwest along Waverley are several one and two-story retail buildings, including historic buildings at 526 Waverley, a category 3 historic building and 510 Waverley, a category 2 historic building. Across Hamilton, to the Southeast, is the historic, two-story Post Office, a category 1 historic building. Across Waverley to the Northeast is the All Saints Episcopal Church. The site is more than 150 feet from any residentially zoned properties so increased zoning restrictions do not apply. The zone district is PF: Public Facility. The district has a fifty-foot height limit. There is a special setback of seven feet along the Hamilton Ave. property line. Easements are not known at this time. The site area is 29,164 SF, accommodating a surface-level parking lot. There is a public restroom at the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. The Arborist Report identifies eight trees on the property, including one protected Coast Live Oak. The occupants of 526, 550 and 560 Waverley utilize a portion of the site to access the backs of their buildings and pick up trash and recycling. PROPOSED PROJECT Program/Goals Due to an increased parking demand and a shortage of available parking spaces in the downtown, the City of Palo Alto has begun the process for the design of a new parking structure at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. Maximizing the amount of structured parking while integrating the structure within the downtown context with retail storefronts are primary goals for the project. Description/Constraints The proposed building extends to the property line at the Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street edges as well as the interior side lot line shared with the AT&T building. A ground floor, 1,500 SF, retail space is programmed for the Waverley Street frontage. At the north property line, shared with 560 Waverley, the edge of the garage sets back ten feet from the property line, allowing openings for natural ventilation into the parking garage, as well as light to reach the existing windows at 560 Waverley. This necessary setback also creates an opportunity for a pedestrian walkway, focused on and leading to the secondary stair and elevator vertical circulation elements. The primary stair and elevator circulation features are prominently positioned at the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue since pedestrian way finding is an important aspect of garage navigation. At this street corner, the building edge erodes, creating a pedestrian court with access to the stair and elevator, as well as an entrance to the ground floor retail space that extends down Waverley Street. In order to maintain access for utilities, services and secondary means of egress for the existing buildings fronting on Waverley Street, the garage sets back sixteen feet from the shared property line at this location. To satisfy the car count goal, the garage is four stories, with parking at the roof level, plus one level of basement parking. The main vehicle entry / exit shall be on Hamilton Avenue near the south corner of the lot since Hamilton is a more travelled way. A secondary vehicular entry / exit shall be at Lane 21. The garage requires substantially open sides to provide natural ventilation for all levels save the basement level that is mechanically ventilated. Options Given the program and the site constraints discussed above, we are presenting three options for the architecture of the new garage for the ARB’s review, discussion and direction for the design team as the project is developed. Our approach in developing the three options for your review is predicated on the belief that the garage should be an integrated building in the context of the downtown rather than aggressive and self- conscious. An integrated building defines itself through program, connections with the site and context as well as streetscape character and compatibility. The program mandates a large, five-story, parking structure with primarily open sides for ventilation and a ground floor retail space fronting Waverley Street. Solving this problem, all options share the same height and footprint as well as façade transparency requirement. However, the three options vary significantly in their response to the context, materiality and streetscape character. One A metal fabric or perforated metal panel wrapped garage creates a semi-solid mass while allowing for ventilation. The semi-solid façade provides interesting visual depth during the day and glowing quality at night for the upper stories. A two-story arcade of plaster or concrete along Hamilton defines the street edge and subtly references the historic post office’s arcade immediately across the street and aligning with the overall height of the post office. Similar to the Hamilton façade, along Waverley, the two-story base of the building aligns with the façade and rhythm of the adjacent building and streetscape to the north. At the entry court, the metal mesh and the arcades disappear revealing the stair and elevator elements. The ground floor retail and seating areas are defined by horizontal canopies between the building columns. Two A metal, semi-solid material wraps the entire garage from the second floor to the fifth floor defining the edge of the garage in a vertical rhythm of bands. Within each band, taking a detail from the AT&T building, “windows” punch through creating a random pattern of shade, shadow and views from within. Defining the ground floor and concealing the parking from view, wrought iron or steel bars in a vertical array wrap the ground floor along Hamilton celebrating the handcraft of the wrought iron of the post office across the street. Along Waverley and at the corner court, a one-story frame of solid material defines the ground floor retail and references the architectural frame of 400 Hamilton. Along Hamilton, in front of the metal array, a linear bench provides opportunities for relaxing in full view of the historic post office. Three Solid fins of material, at random angles intended to create fixed patterns and celebrating the tile roof color of the historic post office, wrap the upper floors to define the volume and partially conceal the cars from below. Along Hamilton, as in Option One, a two-story arcade defines the pedestrian realm and provides opportunities for bench seating. Decorative infill panels of spaced brick reference the brick next door and the craft of the historic post office. Along Waverley Street a two-story façade reference the adjacent building scale and rhythm while defining the retail space. In all options, areas for landscaping, including planted areas and green walls, are provided at Hamilton, Waverley and the pedestrian walkway. New street trees along Hamilton and Waverley shall be coordinated with Palo Alto Urban Forestry. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES This project shall include 331 total parking spaces. Of these, 8 shall be accessible spaces and provision for 83 electric vehicle chargers 17 to be installed initially. This count also includes 6 spaces serving to the new retail space and 1 space serving 550 Waverley. A long-term bike storage room shall be at Hamilton Avenue near the main vehicle entry/exit. This room shall be approximately 800 square feet and have space for over 60 bicycles. Short-term bicycle storage can be provided at the sidewalk near the retail space. TRASH, COMPOST AND RECYCLING A common refuse storage room shall be at Lane 21 near the secondary vehicle entry / exit. This room shall be approximately 450 square feet. It will serve the Waverley businesses and the proposed new retail space. We look forward to our presentation and discussion with the Architectural Review Board. Please call us at (650) 365-0600x15 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal cc: Watry Design Group enclosed: Arborist Report, June 2017 510 Waverley Street Category 2 Resource on Local Historic Inventory City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 1 May 12, 2017  City of Palo Alto  Department of Planning & Community Environment  California Environmental Quality Act  CITY OF PALO ALTO  INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM     1. Project Title:  City of Palo Alto Parking Structure at 375 Hamilton  Avenue (aka Downtown Parking Garage)    2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue   Palo Alto, California 94301    3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Holly Boyd, Senior Engineer      Department of Public Works      Telephone: (650) 329‐2612    Fax: (650) 329‐2154  Email: Holly.Boyd@cityofpaloalto.org    4. Project Location:  375 Hamilton Avenue in the Downtown Business  District, Northwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and  Waverley Street, within the city of Palo Alto, Santa  Clara County, California. See Figure 1.    5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue   Palo Alto, California 94301    6. General Plan Designation:  Community Commercial (CC)    7. Zoning:    Public Facilities (PF)    8.  Existing Plan Area Land Uses:  The project lot is abutted by four developed sites.  These include: 345 Hamilton, 1958 building occupied  by AT&T and Excel Aviation (Lot 102), 526 Waverley, a  1928 building, Category 3 historic resource most  recently occupied by retail use (Palo Alto Sport Shop  and Toy World Inc.) (Lot 83), 550‐552 Waverley, a 1952  building occupied by the Prolific Oven retail bakery and  Day One retail store (Lot 84), and 558‐560 Waverley, a  1938 building housing  the Tai Pan Restaurant on the  ground floor and second office space (Lot 85). (Shown  on Figure 1) The existing parking lot serves restaurant  and retail uses along Waverley Street and provides  rear‐entry parking to the CVS market.    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 2 May 12, 2017  Figure 1. Downtown Parking Garage Site at 375 Hamilton Avenue    9. Description of Project:    The City of Palo Alto (City/project applicant) proposes to construct a parking garage on an existing City‐ owned surface Parking Lot D to provide a net increase of 205 to 329 public parking stalls to address  additional parking demand within the City’s Downtown Area.  The subject site is 29,200 SF in area, and  has 86 existing parking spaces. Parking is currently limited to two‐hour parking with no permit parking  provided. There are four existing access points from adjacent streets. The EIR prepared for the project  would evaluate build alternatives for replacing the existing surface lot parking.    The Project includes the following primary elements:     • A new five level public parking garage over one basement parking level, providing approximately  291‐415 spaces, and associated site improvements.     • An approximately 3,800 SF or less single‐tenant commercial shell space building fronting  Waverley Street, to be used as commercial retail space for new or existing businesses.     City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 3 May 12, 2017  • Other proposed options being considered include incorporating a bike station, mechanical  parking system, and a photovoltaic system.     10. Required Approvals:     The proposed project is within the City’s jurisdiction and will require approval from the City Council.  As  currently planned, the proposed parking garage will require changes to the zoning district ordinance to  allow for the planned lot coverage, floor area, height and setbacks.     ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:     The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at  least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following  pages.     Aesthetics  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Public Services   Agricultural and Forestry  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Recreation   Resources  Hydrology/Water Quality  Transportation/Traffic   Air Quality  Land Use/Planning  Utilities/Service Systems   Biological Resources  Mineral Resources  Energy   Cultural Resources  Noise  Mandatory Findings of Significance   Geology/Soils  Population/Housing      DETERMINATION:    On the basis of this initial evaluation:     I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a  NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.     I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,  there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by  or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.     I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.     I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially  significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been  adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has  been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached  sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated  impact.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects  that remain to be addressed.   I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,  because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or  NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated  Less Than   Significant  Potentially with Less Than  Significant Mitigation Significant No  Impact Incorporated Impact Impact    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 5 May 12, 2017  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:    I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:        a) Substantially degrade the existing visual  character or quality of the area and its  surroundings?    The project site and immediate vicinity  include commercial buildings, including listed  historic resources, and parking lots similar to  the proposed project. There are no impacts  anticipated on visual characteristics or scenic  quality of surrounding area.  There are  different perspectives on compatibility of  new buildings with existing architectural  context.            b) Significantly alter public viewsheds or view  corridors or scenic resources (such as trees,  rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings)  along a scenic highway?    There are no scenic routes or resources  located in the project area. The project is  located in the City downtown area in an area  with similar land use. The project will not  demolish or replace existing buildings, but  will remove existing protected trees. There  are no direct impacts anticipated on public  viewsheds, scenic resources or historic  buildings.             c) Create a new source of substantial light or  glare which would adversely affect day or  nighttime views in the area?      It is not anticipated that the project would  result in the addition of lights and glare as a  result of the vehicles head lights and interior  building lights.  It is anticipated that light and  glare from the project would be less than  significant.             d) Substantially shadow public open space  (other than public streets and adjacent  sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.  from September 21 to March 21?          Less Than   Significant  Potentially with Less Than  Significant Mitigation Significant No  Impact Incorporated Impact Impact    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 6 May 12, 2017  The project would replace a surface parking  lot with a five story parking garage building.  There are not any open spaces within the  project area. The project would not result in  shadow impact on the public open space.    II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. (In  determining whether impacts to agricultural  resources are significant environmental effects,  lead agencies may refer to the California  Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment  Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of  Conservation as an optional model to use in  assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In  determining whether impacts to forest resources,  including timberland, are significant  environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to  information compiled by the California  Department of Forestry and Fire Protection  regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,  including the Forest and Range Assessment  Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;  and forest carbon measurement methodology  provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the  California Air Resources Board.) Would the  project:         a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or  Farmland of Statewide Importance  (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared  pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and  Monitoring Program of the California  Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?     As documented on the California Resources  Agency Farmland Mapping and Monitoring  Program maps, the project is located in an  area designated as Urban and Built‐Up Land.  The project would not convert any Farmland  to non‐agricultural use.            b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural  use, or a Williamson Act contract?    The project site is zoned and used as  Downtown Commercial District (Pedestrian  Shopping). The project does not conflict with  any zoning for agricultural use or Williamson  Act contract.         Less Than   Significant  Potentially with Less Than  Significant Mitigation Significant No  Impact Incorporated Impact Impact    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 7 May 12, 2017  c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause  rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public  Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland  (as defined by Public Resources Code section  4526), or timberland zoned Timberland  Production (as defined by Government Code  section 51104(g))?    The project site is zoned and used as  Downtown Commercial District (Pedestrian  Shopping). The project does not conflict with  any zoning of forest land, or timberland and  timberland production.            d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion  of forest land to non‐forest use?    There is no forest land in the project area.  The project coverts existing parking lot to a  parking garage, and would not result in the  conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.               e) Involve other changes in the existing  environment which, due to their location or  nature, could result in conversion of Farmland  to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest  land to non‐forest use?    There is no farmland or forest land within or  near the project site. The proposed project  does not involve any changes which would  directly or indirectly result in conversion of  farmland to non‐agricultural use or  conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.          III. AIR QUALITY. (Where available, the significance  criteria established by the applicable air quality  management or air pollution control district may  be relied upon to make the following  determinations.) Would the project:         a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of  the applicable air quality plan? (such as the  Bay Area Clean Air Plan)    There is a potential for air quality impacts as  a result of the project. The consistency of the  proposed project implementation with  adopted, applicable air quality plans will be        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 8 May 12, 2017  evaluated in the EIR.  b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute  substantially to an existing or projected air  quality violation?    There is a potential for increased emissions  from the project activities and uses such as  increased vehicle traffic, and building  equipment operation. These activities could  result in exceeding Bay Area Air Quality  Management District (BAAQMD) significant  thresholds for pollutants of concern such as  particulate matter 10 microns or smaller in  diameter (PM10) and 2.5 microns or smaller  in diameter (PM2.5). The project may also  result in emission of reactive organic gases  (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are  precursors to ozone.  There are also potential  air quality impacts as a result of project  construction activities. The potential of the  project to violate air quality standards or  contribute to existing or projected air quality  violation due to construction activities and  operation will be addressed in the EIR.            c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net  increase of any criteria pollutant for which  the project region is non‐attainment under  an applicable federal or state ambient air  quality standard (including releasing  emissions which exceed quantitative  thresholds for ozone precursors)?    The EIR will address individual and  cumulative impacts on criteria pollutants for  which the project region is non‐attainment  as described under question III.b above.          d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial  pollutant concentrations?    The project has the potential to expose  sensitive receptors, if the air quality analysis  determined that the project would  contribute to substantial increase in  pollutants in the project area.  Impacts on  sensitive receptors will be addressed in the  EIR.                                     Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 9 May 12, 2017  e) Create objectionable odors affecting a  substantial number of people?    It is not anticipated that the added number of  vehicles using the site for parking would  create minimal increase in objectionable  odors affecting people. Construction  equipment may create objectionable odors  for short periods that would affect people in  the immediate vicinity of the project area.   The project is not anticipated to create  objectionable odors affecting substantial  number of people.                                    IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:    a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either  directly or through habitat modifications, on  any species identified as a candidate,  sensitive, or special‐status species in local or  regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by  the California Department of Fish and Wildlife  or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?    The project will be constructed on a site that  consists of a paved parking lot. However, a  few mature trees may be removed to allow  for the construction of the garage building.  Trees could provide nesting habitat for  raptors and other migratory birds. The EIR  would evaluate the project area to identify  the presence of any bird species that are  considered as candidates, sensitive, or special  status species by the CDFG, and USFWS. The  EIR would also evaluate the project  compliance with the state and federal  Endangered Species Act, as well as,  and also  species protection under the federal  Migratory Bird Treaty Act and further  protection of raptor nests under Section  3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any  riparian habitat or other sensitive natural  community identified in local or regional  plans, policies, or regulations, or by the  California Department of Fish and Wildlife or  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?                                                                   Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 10 May 12, 2017  There are no riparian habitats or species  protection under the federal Migratory Bird  Treaty Act and further protection of raptor  nests under Section 3503.5 of the California  Fish and Game Code.  c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally  protected wetlands as defined by Section 404  of the Clean Water Act (including, but not  limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)  through direct removal, filling, hydrological  interruption, or other means?    Wetlands are areas that periodically or  permanently covered with ground water and  support vegetation adapted to life in  saturated soil.  Wetlands could support fish  and wildlife, function as stormwater storage  and flood areas, and potentially ground water  recharge.   According to the National Wetland  Inventory for surface waters and wetlands,  there are no waters or wetlands within the  project area. There are no wetlands within  the project area, and it is anticipated that the  project would not have impacts on wetlands  in any means.              d) Interfere substantially with the movement of  any native resident or migratory fish or  wildlife species or with established native  resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or  impede the use of native wildlife nursery  sites?    The only wildlife anticipated to be present  within the project area is wildlife associated  with built urban environment for commercial  uses. Wildlife may include rodents, and other  small animals not restricted by the type of  developments in the project area. Trees in  the project area provide nesting habitats for  native and migratory birds. It is anticipated  that the project would have less than  significant impacts as a result of interference  with wildlife movement.              e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances  protecting biological resources, such as a tree  preservation policy or ordinance?          Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 11 May 12, 2017  The project includes removal of protected  trees and would be subject to the City tree  removal ordinances. A survey of the affected  trees would be completed for the EIR. The  EIR would include applicable tree  preservation/ replacement measures as  required by regulations. One‐one  replacement on the site may not be feasible.    f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted  Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural  Community Conservation Plan, or other  approved, local, regional, or State habitat  conservation plan?    There is no Habitat Conservation Plan,  Natural Community Conservation Plan, or  other adopted habitat conservation plan  applicable to the project site.          V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:        a) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or  eligible for listing on the National and/or  California Register, or listed on the City’s  Historic Inventory?    The City of Palo Alto inventory of downtown  area shows several historic buildings within  close proximity of the project area. The most  prominent building is the U.S Post Office  located across the street from the project  site, which is listed on the National Register  for Historic Places. However, it is not  anticipated that the project would affect the  post office building.  The adjacent building  located at 526 Waverley Street is listed on  the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 3  historic resource.  Other adjacent buildings  are more than 50 years old and are therefore  potentially eligible for listing. The EIR would  address the proximity of the historic  properties and any required measures to  avoid impacts to these resources.              b) Eliminate important examples of major  periods of California history or prehistory?    Excavation would be required for the        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 12 May 12, 2017  construction of the project. Alternative C  would require excavation of significant  depth. Previous construction at the project  site and nearby sites would likely have  disturbed archeological sites. However,  considering the depth of excavation required  for the project, there is a potential to disrupt,  alter, or eliminate undiscovered archeological  resources. The EIR would address any  measures required to avoid impacts on  potential archeological resources.      c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the  significance of an archaeological resource  pursuant to 15064.5?    See response to question V.b above.         d) Disturb any human remains, including those  interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?    The project could potentially disrupt, alter, or  eliminate undiscovered archaeological  resources, potentially including Native  American remains. The EIR would evaluate  this issue to address necessary measures for  the potential of the project disturbing any  human remains.            e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique  paleontological resource or site or unique  geologic feature?     Previous land development of the site would  likely have disturbed or removed    paleontological resources that may have  existed. However, due to the excavation  work required for the construction of the  project, the project could have the potential  to   disrupt, alter, or eliminate as‐yet  undiscovered paleontological resources. The  EIR would evaluate this issue to address  necessary measures for the potential of the  project disturbing or destroying any  paleontological resources.          f)  Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural  resource that is recognized by City Council  resolution?            Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 13 May 12, 2017  See response to question V.a and b above.    g)  Cause a substantial adverse change in the  significance of a tribal cultural resource,  defined in Public Resources Code Section  21074 as either a site, feature, place, or  cultural landscape that is geographically  defined in terms of the size and scope of the  landscape, sacred place, or object with  cultural value to a California Native American  Tribe, and that is:                1) a site, feature, place, cultural landscape  that is geographically defined in terms of the  size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,  or object with cultural value to a California  Native American Tribe, that is listed or  eligible for listing on the California Register of  Historical Resources, or on a local register of  historical resources as defined in Public  Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or    2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in  its discretion and supported by substantial  evidence, to be significant according to the  historical register criteria in Public Resources  Code section 5024.1 (c), and considering the  significance of the resource to a California  Native American tribe.         VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:        a) Expose people or structures to potential  substantial adverse effects, including the risk  of loss, injury, or death involving:         i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as  delineated on the most recent Alquist‐ Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map  issued by the State Geologist for the area  or based on other substantial evidence of  a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines  and Geology Special Publication 42.)    According to Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake  Fault Zoning Map for the Palo Alto 7.5  Minute Quadrangle Map, there are no  mapped faults within or adjacent to the  project site, nor is the project site within        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 14 May 12, 2017  fault zone. The closest fault is the San  Andreas Fault, located approximately over  5 miles southwest of the project site.      ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    Due to the presence of nearby active  faults, the project area is likely to  experience moderate to strong  earthquakes during the design life of the  project. Settlements caused by ground  shaking are non‐uniformly distributed and  can result in damage to buildings and  structures. Degrees of settlements  resulting from seismic ground shaking are  related to magnitude and distance of  earth quakes. Buildings are required to be  designed and constructed to avoid risks of  seismic ground shaking to people and  properties.  The EIR would evaluate the  potential risks at the project location and  measures to avoid and minimize the  potential impacts.                iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including  liquefaction?    Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which  the strength and stiffness of a soil are  reduced (behaves like a liquid) by  earthquake shaking of significant duration  or other rapidly applied loading.  Liquefaction and related types of ground  failure are of greatest concern under  conditions with loose to medium dense  cohesionless soils, shallow groundwater  (typically within 50 feet of ground surface)  and sustained ground shaking.    The EIR would evaluate potential impacts    that could be caused by liquefaction and  seismic‐related ground failure factors. The  EIR will identify potential impacts and  mitigation measures to avoid and  minimize impacts.            Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 15 May 12, 2017  iv) Landslides?    The topography within the project area is    flat. Landslide considerations are limited  to stability of excavations for construction  of the project. This issue will be evaluated  for the various project alternatives and  addressed in the EIR and during the  design phase of the project.          v) Expansive soils?    A study of the characterization and  consideration of site‐specific geologic and  soils conditions would be prepared for the  project and addressed in the EIR.  Project  specific soil test would be performed to  provide information regarding subsurface  geology, ground‐water levels, and the  engineering characteristics of soils in the  project area.     State and local planning, building, and  engineering regulations will also be  considered in addressing structures,  excavation, foundations, retaining walls,  and grading activities. The EIR will  describe recommendations to mitigate  effects of soils types and related factors in  the design of the project.            b)  Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of  topsoil?    Project construction would involve grading,  excavation, or other activities that could  temporarily expose disturbed soils to erosion.  The EIR will address the potential for erosion  that could occur during construction  activities, and applicable best management  practices according to the City and state  regulations.     Best management will also be implemented  as part of measures to avoid and minimize  effects of soil erosion on water quality. See  Hydrology and Water Quality section.          Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 16 May 12, 2017  c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is  unstable, or that would become unstable as a  result of the project, and potentially result in  on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading,  subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?    See response to question VI.a. and VI.a.v.  above.            d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in  Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code  (1994), creating substantial risks to life or  property?            See response to question VI.a.v above.                            e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting  the use of septic tanks or alternative  wastewater disposal systems where sewers  are not available for the disposal of  wastewater?    No use of septic tanks or alternative  wastewater disposal systems is proposed for  the project site. The proposed project would  have no impact related to the capacity of  local soils to effectively accommodate septic  systems.          f) Expose people or property to major geologic  hazards that cannot be mitigated through the  use of standard engineering design and  seismic safety techniques?     It is not anticipated that the project would  expose people and property to major  geological hazards that cannot be mitigated  with consideration of all applicable  engineering design and seismic safety  techniques            VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the  project:         a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either  directly or indirectly, that may have a  significant impact on the environment?     Greenhouse gas emissions would increase at          Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 17 May 12, 2017  as a result of new traffic attracted to the area  by the parking the facility. The greenhouse  gases emission as a result of the project  would be evaluated to determine if the  project would result in exceedance of  BAAQMA significant thresholds.      b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or  regulation adopted for the purpose of  reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     The project exceedance of greenhouse gas  emissions will be evaluated to determine  impacts on applicable plans and policies  adopted for the reduction of greenhouse  gases. The EIR would evaluate measures that  can be adopted as part of the project in order  to minimize impacts.            VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would  the project:         a) Create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment through the routine  transport, use, or disposal of hazardous  materials?    The project would not result in routine  transport, use, or disposal of hazardous  substances.              b) Create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment through reasonably  foreseeable upset and accident conditions  involving the release of hazardous materials  into the environment?    See response to question VIII.a above.            c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle  hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,  substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile  of an existing or proposed school?    There are no schools within one quarter mile  of the project area. In addition, the project  would not result in the emission or the need  to handle hazardous material.            Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 18 May 12, 2017  d) Create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment from existing hazardous  materials contamination by exposing future  occupants or users of the site to  contamination either in excess of ground soil  and groundwater cleanup goals developed for  the site or from the location on listed  hazardous materials sites complied pursuant  to Government Code section 65962.5?    The project is located in an area that has  been developed with various commercial  land uses. The EIR will investigate the    presence of existing hazardous material and  potential contamination of soil and ground  water in the project area. If contamination is  identified, the EIR will address all necessary  measures to avoid exposure of the public or  the environment to hazardous material.             e) For a project located within an airport land  use plan or, where such a plan has not been  adopted, within two miles of a public airport  or public use airport, would the project result  in a safety hazard for people residing or  working in the project area?    The project is not located within, or two  miles from land designated or used as airport  land.          f) For a project within the vicinity of a private  airstrip, would the project result in a safety  hazard for people residing or working in the  project area?    See response to question VIII.d above.            g) Impair implementation of or physically  interfere with an adopted emergency  response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    The project would not result in changes to  the roadway and transportation system and  would not create physical changes that would  interfere with emergency response or  evacuation plans.    The EIR would evaluate impacts on traffic and        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 19 May 12, 2017  potential road closures during construction,  as well as measures to avoid impacts to  emergency services.        h) Expose people or structures to a significant  risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland  fires, including where wildlands are adjacent  to urbanized areas or where residences are  intermixed with wildlands?    According to the Santa Clara County Fire  Hazards Map, the City of Palo Alto is not in a  moderate, high, or very high fuel hazard  zone. The project site and vicinity are built  environments largely devoid of wildfire‐ prone vegetation.          IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the  project:         a) Violate any water quality standards or waste  discharge requirements?    The existing site for the proposed project is a  paved parking lot. It is not anticipated that  the project would have a significant increase  to impervious surface subject to storm water  impacts. A stormwater control plan will be  prepared to address existing untreated storm  water and any potential future effects on  storm water facilities. The plan would identify  required measures to meet standards and  requirements of the NPDES permit.  The plan  would address the operation and  maintenance of the stormwater facilities.       The proposed project would be constructed  on a lot size less than one acre. If the  construction activities would disturb more  than one acre, the project would require  submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the  RWQB before start of construction. This  would also require the implementation of  Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan  (SWPPP) containing Best Management  Practices (BMPs) during construction. The EIR  will evaluate potential impacts on water  quality as a result of the operation and  construction of the project.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 20 May 12, 2017  b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or  interfere substantially with groundwater  recharge such that there would be a net  deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the  local groundwater table level (e.g., the  production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells  would drop to a level which would not  support existing land uses or planned uses for  which permits have been granted)?     The project does not result in the use of  groundwater and would not affect  groundwater recharge.  Dewatering during  construction may be addressed with standard  approval conditions.            c) Substantially alter the existing drainage  pattern (increase the rate, volume, or flow  duration of storm water runoff) of the site or  area, including through the alteration of the  course of a stream or river, in a manner which  would result in new or increased flooding on  or off‐site?    It is not anticipated that the project would  increase the rate, volume or flow duration of  stormwater runoffs. The project does not   propose to alter courses of streams or rivers.          d) Result in stream bank instability?    The project site is not located near a stream.            e) Significantly alter the existing drainage  pattern (increase the rate, volume, or flow  duration) of the site or area, including  through the alteration of the course of a  stream or river, or substantially increase the  rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner  which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site?    The project would not result in significant  increase in rate, volume, or flow duration of  stormwater runoff. The stormwater system in  the project area would be evaluated to  address needed drainage improvements and  potential for on‐ or off‐site flooding.               Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 21 May 12, 2017  f) Create or contribute runoff water which  would exceed the capacity of existing or  planned stormwater drainage systems or  provide substantial additional sources of  polluted runoff?    See response to questions IX.a and IX.e  above.            g) Provide substantial additional sources of  pollutants associated with urban runoff or  otherwise substantially degrade water  quality?    See response to questions IX.a and IX.e  above.          h)  Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard  area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard  Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or  other flood hazard delineation map?    Although Palo Alto contains no areas within a  100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on a  federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood  Insurance Rate Map, the EIR would evaluate  adequacy of the storm drains to handle  potential localized flooding during storm  events. In addition, due to the proximity of  the project area to the San Francisco Bay  region, the EIR will address potential impacts  on the project from global climate change on  the rise of sea levels.        i) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area  structures which would impede or redirect  flood flows?    The project is not located in 100‐year flood  hazard area, and does not propose the  construction of a structure that would  impede or direct flows.          j) Expose people or structures to a significant  risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,  including flooding as a result of the failure of  a levee or dam?    The project does not propose the        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 22 May 12, 2017  construction of housing or other  developments within a 100‐years flood  hazard area.     According to the EIR prepared for the Palo  Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, the project  area is within Dam Inundation area for Lake  Lagunita, and possibly Searsville Lake.   The  EIR will address potential impacts from dams  failure on inundation area.            k) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or  mudflow?     A seiche is a tidal change in an enclosed or  semi‐enclosed water body caused by  sustained high winds or an earthquake. A  tsunami is a series of waves created when a  body of water such as an ocean is rapidly  displaced on a massive scale, most commonly  as the result of an earthquake. Palo Alto is  not in a tsunami/seiche area or area  susceptible to a mudflow. There is no impact  anticipated on the project area from seiche,  tsunami or mudflow.            X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:     a) Physically divide an established community?    The project is located within the commercially  developed downtown area of the City and  does not include residential use. It is not  anticipated that the project would physically  divide an established community          b) Conflict with any applicable City land use plan,  policy, or regulation (including not limited to  the Comprehensive Plan, CAP, or the City’s  Zoning Ordinances adopted for the purpose of  avoiding or mitigating an environmental  effect.    i) Substantially adversely change the type of  intensity of existing o planned land use  patterns in area?    The project would increase the number of  parking spaces available in the downtown  area to meet the existing need for parking.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 23 May 12, 2017  The project is compatible with existing  land use designation (community  commercial) but seeks zoning code  changes to allow for greater intensity of  use beyond existing development  standards of the Public Facilities zoning  designation.  A text amendment to the  Public Facilities zone district will be  proposed as part of this project. It is not  anticipated to change the type and  intensity of existing or planned land use  pattern in the area. The EIR would  evaluate the project plans in relationship  to the City adopted comprehensive plan to  demonstrate compatibility with the City  plan for the project and surrounding area.   ii) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or  with the general character of the  surrounding area, including density and  building height.    The building height and character of the  building would be evaluated for  compatibility with the general character of  the surrounding area. Some may view as  incompatible with general character,  density and building height given the five  story parking garage would be next to a  Category 3 resource and across the street  from a low‐profile National Register  historic resource. See response to question Xb  above.    iii) Conflict with established residential,  recreational, religious, or scientific uses of  an area?    The project provides additional parking  facilities to accommodate commercial and  other facilities and services available in the  project area.      c) Conflict with an applicable habitat  conversation or natural community  conversation plan?    There is no habitat conservation plan or  natural community conservation plan in this  project area.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 24 May 12, 2017  XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:  a) Result in the loss of availability of a known  mineral resource that would be of value to  the region and the residents of the state?    The project is located in an area developed  and designated for commercial land use. The  project would not result in the loss of land  with known mineral resources.              b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally  important mineral resource recovery site  delineated on a local general plan, specific  plan, or other land use plan?    See response to question XI.a above.          XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:        a) Exposure of persons to or generation of  excessive ground borne vibrations or ground  borne noise levels?    Construction activities would result in  excessive ground born vibration and noise  levels. Impacts would be temporary and for  short periods during equipment operation for  construction activities such as and demolition  and excavation.    b) Exposure of persons to or generation of  noise levels in excess of standards established  in the local general plan or the municipal  code, State standards, or applicable  standards of other agencies, including but not  limited to:    i) Result in indoor noise levels for residential  development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?    There is no residential development  within the immediate project area;  housing units are found along Waverley  Street one block south of the project. The  project is not anticipated to have long‐ term noise impacts on residents.    ii) Result in instantaneous noise levels of  50dB or more in a bedroom or 55 dB or                                 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 25 May 12, 2017  more measures from other rooms inside a  house?    The sites in the immediate vicinity are  developed as commercial properties, and  the project is not anticipated to have long‐ term noise impacts on houses.    c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase  in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity  above levels existing without the project,  including:    i) Cause the average 24‐hour noise level  (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or  more in an existing residential area, even  if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB?    ii) Cause the Ldn to increase by three dB or  more in an existing residential area,  thereby causing the Ldn in the area to  exceed 60 dB?    iii) Cause an increase of three dB or more in  an existing residential area where the Ldn  currently exceeds 60 dB?    See response to questions XII.b above.   Construction noise may result in  temporary noise impacts during  construction hours. Standard conditions  require compliance with the City’s noise  ordinance and construction hours.          d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient  noise levels in the project vicinity above levels  existing without the project.    See response to questions XII.b above.                 e) For a project located within an airport land  use plan or, where such a plan has not been  adopted, within two miles of a public airport  or public use airport, would the project  expose people residing or working in the  project area to excessive noise levels?    The project is not located within, or two miles  from land designated or used as airport land.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 26 May 12, 2017  f) For a project within the vicinity of a private  airstrip, would the project expose people  residing or working in the project area to  excessive noise levels?    See response to question XII.d above.            XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:      a) Induce substantial population growth in an  area, either directly (for example, by  proposing new homes and businesses) or  indirectly (for example, through extension of  roads or other infrastructure)?     The proposed project accommodates the  need for additional parking in a built out area  that includes businesses and other public  facilities. The project does not propose  improvements that would result in  population growth either directly or  indirectly.              b) Displace substantial numbers of existing  housing, necessitating the construction of  replacement housing elsewhere?    The project is replacing an existing parking lot.  The project would not result in displacing any  number of houses or requires the construction  of replacement housing.          c) Displace substantial numbers of people,  necessitating the construction of replacement  housing elsewhere?    See response to question XIII.a and XII.b  above.          d) Create a substantial imbalance between  employed residents and jobs?           The project improvements would not result in  any changes to the existing employment and  housing conditions, and would not create  imbalance between employed residents and  jobs.              Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 27 May 12, 2017  XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.    Would the project result in substantial adverse  physical impacts associated with the provision of  new or physically altered governmental facilities,  or the need for new or physically altered  governmental facilities, the construction of which  could cause significant environmental impacts, in  order to maintain acceptable service ratios,  response times, or other performance objectives  for any of the public services:           a) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional school facilities in    order to maintain acceptable performance  standards?    Construction and operation of a new parking  garage would not require the construction of  new school facilities, parks, recreational  facilities, or library facilities.          b) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional fire protection  facilities in order to maintain acceptable  performance standards?  The project will increase the retail space and  parking facilities. However, this increase is  not anticipated to result in the need to    construct additional fire protection facilities  in order to maintain acceptable performance  standards. The project would not have  impact on the environment from the  construction additional fires protection  facilities.             c) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional police protection  facilities in order to maintain acceptable  performance standards?    Construction and operation of a new parking  garage would not require the construction of  additional police protection facilities.          d) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional parks and recreation  facilities in order to maintain acceptable  performance standards?              Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 28 May 12, 2017  See response to question XIV.a above.  XV. RECREATION.    a)  Would the project increase the use of existing      neighborhood and regional parks or other  recreational facilities such that substantial  physical deterioration of the facility would occur  or be accelerated?    The construction the parking garage would not  result in increase of demand on recreational  facilities such as regional parks or other public  recreational facilities.                b) Does the project include recreational  facilities, or require the construction or  expansion of recreational facilities which  might have an adverse physical effect on the  environment?    The project does not include the construction  of recreational facilities or require the  expansion of existing recreational facilities.          XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:    a) Cause an intersection to drop below its level  of service standard, or if it is already  operating at a substandard level of service,  deteriorate by more than a specified amount?    Construction and operation of the project  could increase traffic congestion and cause  intersections to operate below the desired  Level of Service (LOS) at local roads providing  access to the facility. The EIR will evaluate  potential traffic impacts at the local roads  and intersections in the vicinity of the project  area for peak hours, under existing  conditions, existing plus project, and future  conditions with and without the project.  Analysis of future conditions would also  consider cumulative impacts with and  without the project.              b) Cause a roadway segment to drop below its  level of service standard, or deteriorate  operations that already operate at a  substandard level of service?        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 29 May 12, 2017    See response to question XVI.a above.       c) Cause a freeway segment or ramp to operate  at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1  percent of segment capacity to a freeway  segment or ramp already operating at LOS F?    The project is not located near a freeway, and  would not generate additional trips that  might contribute to any segments of freeway  traffic.        d) Impede the development or function of  planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?    It is not anticipated that the project would  impede the development of function of  planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The  project. The project would impact the  existing facilities during construction. This  impact would be evaluated in the EIR.          e) Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle  facilities that cannot be met by current or  planned services.    It is not anticipated that the project would  increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle  facilities that cannot be met by current  services.        f) Impede the operation of a transit system as a  result of congestion or otherwise decrease  the performance of safety of such facilities?     The project is located approximately half a  mile from the Palo Alto Transit Center/  Station. The EIR would evaluate impacts on  the operation of the transit system.            g) Create demand for transit services that  cannot be met by current or planned services?    The project would not generate new demand  for transit services.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 30 May 12, 2017  h) Create the potential demand for through  traffic to use local residential streets?    As part of the evaluation of traffic impacts,  the EIR will evaluate potential impacts on  roadways and intersections located in  residential areas close to the project area.     i) Cause any change in traffic that would  increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential  Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?    See response to question XVI.h above.                                    j) Create an operational safety hazard?    The EIR will evaluate the project impact of  traffic and circulation in relation to potential  effects on operational safety hazards.            k) Result in inadequate emergency access?    See response to question XVI.j above.          l) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,  including either an increase in traffic levels or  a change in location that results in substantial  safety risks?    It is anticipated that the project would not  have impacts on air traffic.         m) Cause queuing impacts based on a  comparative analysis between the design  queue length and the available queue storage  capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are  not limited to, spillback queues at project  access locations; queues at turn lanes at  intersections that block through traffic;  queues at lane drops; queues at one  intersection that extend back to impact other  intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.     The EIR will evaluate potential queuing  impacts resulting from the project.                 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 31 May 12, 2017  XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the  project:            a) Need new or expanded entitlements to water  supply?    The project would connect to the existing City  facilities and would not result in new or  expanded entitlements to water supply.          b) Result in adverse physical impacts from new  or expanded utility facilities due to increased  use as a result of the project?    The project would connect to the existing City  facilities and would not result in new or  expanded utility facilities.           c) Result in a substantial physical deterioration  of a utility facility due to increased use as a  result of the project?    It is not anticipated that the project would  result in deterioration of utility facilities due  increased use.          d) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements  of the applicable Regional Water Quality  Control Board?    It is not anticipated that the project would  result in exceeding wastewater treatment  requirements. The construction and  operation of the project would be subject to  all applicable regional and local water quality  standards and regulations.           e) Result in a determination by the wastewater  treatment provider that it has inadequate  capacity to serve the project’s projected  demand in addition to the provider’s existing  commitments?    See response to question XVII.d above.          f) Would the project require or result in the  construction of new water or wastewater  treatment facilities or expansion of existing  facilities, the construction of which could        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 32 May 12, 2017  cause significant environmental effects?    The project may result in the design and  construction of new storm water drainage  facilities. It is not however, anticipated that  the redesign and construction of the facilities  would cause significant effect on the  environment.     g) Require or result in the construction of new  storm water drainage facilities or expansion  of existing facilities, the construction of which  could cause significant environmental  effects?    The project may result in the design and  construction of new storm water drainage  facilities. It is not however, anticipated that  the redesign and construction of the facilities  would cause significant effect on the  environment.            h) Be served by a landfill with sufficient  permitted capacity to accommodate the  project’s solid waste disposal needs?    The operation of the parking garage would  not result in significant impacts that would  affect capacity of landfills in order to  accommodate the project. Construction of  the project may result in one time need to  dispose of material resulting from excavation  and pavement removal of the existing  parking lot. The construction impact on  landfills will be addressed in the EIR.            i) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes  and regulations related to solid waste?    The proposed project would comply with all  federal, State, and local statues and  regulations related to solid waste.    j) Result in a substantial increase in natural gas  and electrical service demands that would  require the new construction of energy supply  facilities and distribution infrastructure or  capacity enhancing alterations to existing  facilities?                           Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 33 May 12, 2017  The project proposes to include  accommodations for the use of vehicles run  by natural gas or electricity. The additional  demand of electrical and natural gas demand  and impact on energy consumption created  by the project would be evaluated in the EIR.         XVIII. ENERGY    a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may  include:    i) Impacts resulting from amount and fuel  type used for each stage of the project    ii) Impacts on local and regional energy  supplies and on requirements for  additional capacity    iii) Impacts on peak and base period demands  for electricity and other forms of energy    iv) Impacts to energy resources    v) Impacts resulting from the project’s  projected transportation energy use  requirements    See response to question XVII.j above.                      XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.    a) Does the project have the potential to  degrade the quality of the environment,  substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or  wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife  population to drop below self‐sustaining  levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal  community, reduce the number or restrict the  range of a rare or endangered plant or  animal, or eliminate important examples of  the major periods of California history or  prehistory?        b) Does the project have impacts that are  individually limited, but cumulatively  considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"  means that the incremental effects of a        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 34 May 12, 2017  project are considerable when viewed in  connection with the effects of past projects,  the effects of other current projects, and the  effects of probable future projects)?      c) Does the project have environmental effects  which will cause substantial adverse effects  on human beings, either directly or indirectly?              ATTACHMENT F ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 375 Hamilton Avenue Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT) Public Facilities Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 29,164 sf 29,164 sf PF Setbacks -Minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF zone shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards of the most restrictive abutting district, provided no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet, and no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet –this provision would need to be modified for public parking structures Front Yard (Waverley)0’ in CD district (10’)NA 2 feet (encroaches 8’) –PF code to be revised Rear Yard (next to ATT bldg)10 feet NA 2 feet (encroaches 8’) –PF code to be revised Interior Side Yard (at CVS and backing Waverley addressed lots) 10 feet NA 10 feet –CVS and side of Tai Pan, 16 feet- from rear lines of Waverley buildings Street Side Yard (Hamilton, special setback) Special setback line: Seven feet on Hamilton But 20’ required in PF NA 2 feet (encroaches 18 feet into setback)–PF code to be revised Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)NA (not abutting 510 Waverley, CDC-GF-P, may have residential use on upper floor) NA Build-to-lines NA NA NA Max. Site Coverage Equal to site coverage established by most restrictive adjacent district (CD) NA NA Max. Building Height 50 feet NA 60’ stair/elev. Tower 50’ elsewhere –PF code to be revised Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)Equal to FAR established by most restrictive adjacent district (1:1 for non- residential use in CDC zone with increase allowed with TDR not to exceed 3:1 in CDC) NA 142,320 (4.88:1) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None NA NA From:Elizabeth Wong To:French, Amy Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Brad Ehikian (PPM); Jon Goldman; Eggleston, Brad; Boyd, Holly; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Lait, Jonathan Subject:375 Hamilton Date:Monday, August 28, 2017 11:43:10 AM Attachments:PkgD ltr 04072017 (5).pdf Good morning Amy, I have serious concerns regarding 375 Hamilton, mostly regarding the "walkway" parallel Waverley and behind 558-560 Waverley St. For as long as I remember, since such building was built in 1938, this "walkway" has been andis actively used by delivery trucks servicing the stores on Waverley St., specially the restaurant that takes deliveries several times a day and has scheduled grease trap evacuations. The delivery trucks park in the existing parking spaces and use the "walkway" to reach the stores. How will deliveries take place or service trucks reach the stores in Garage D's design? Will the stores continue to be permitted to park in the "walkway" for deliveries and servicing? Will the "walkway" be permitted to be used for ingress and egress to the Waverley properties,specially for residential occupants? Secondly, the "walkway" is only 16 feet wide. This is too narrow for entering and exiting the "walkway". This is of special concern for the properties on Waverley St as such properties areideal locations for housing above the commercial areas. Thirdly, the width of the "walkway" is further reduced by the planters and seating along the "walkway", making it even more punitive for accessing the Waverley properties. These concerns were discussed with Holly Boyd and others in Public Works (see attached). Iwould appreciate meeting with you soon, ahead of the ARB hearing, to discuss the above. I would prefer resolving these issues to avoid delays in and appeal of this project. Please set anappointment with me to discuss. Thank you. Elizabeth Wong 650 814 3051 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8467) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 9/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Avenidas Expansion Project - Subcommittee Review Items Title: Subcommittee review of architectural details meeting conditions of approval From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On October 27, 2016, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the subject project. At the ARB’s recommendation on October 20, 2016, a condition was imposed that required certain items return to the ARB subcommittee. Below are the items that were requested to return to the subcommittee and the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments: Architecture Review Condition 2c:  The following project details shall return to a subcommittee of the ARB to ensure project details listed herein are consistent with approval findings, prior to the submittal of associated building permits: (1) consider revising the light fixtures (i.e. the art deco sconces in the 10/20/16 ARB plan set) and include courtyard trellis light fixture, photometric plan, and any exterior emergency egress lighting for the former garage (if separate from the trellis lighting), (2) a detail of the trash enclosure roof/trellis showing material, and (3) final palette showing the paint color to be used for the exterior of the existing Category 2 building. Applicant’s Response: On April 30, 2017, the applicant submitted a cover memo (Attachment A) following submittal of the building permit application, which planning staff has not yet approved in part due to the need for the ARB subcommittee meeting review. The applicant submitted:  a paint color sample to meet condition 2c-3, and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2  plans showing exterior lighting placement (unchanged) on elevations to accompany lighting cut sheets for revised light fixtures and details as requested for the trash enclosure, to meet condition 2c-1 and 2, respectively. The applicant will bring a photometric plan to the ARB subcommittee meeting. The excerpt meeting minutes of October 20, 2016 are attached (Attachment B). A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-50/. The ARB is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or require further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Applicant's August 30, 2017 letter (PDF)  Attachment B: 10-20-2016 ARB transcript Excerpt (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Chair Robert Gooyer, Vice Chair Alexander Lew, Kyu Kim Absent: Board Member Baltay, Board Member Furth Amy French: Board Member Furth and Board Member Baltay are recused on the two items today and will not be participating. Thanks. Action Item 3 3. 450 Bryant Street [16PLN-00092]: Recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for Approval of an Architectural Review Permit to Allow the Renovation, Partial Demolition, and Addition to an Existing Historic Resource Resulting in a net Floor Area Increase of 7,158 square feet. Environmental Assessment: This project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this Project. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The ARB hearing of this Project is continued from September 1, 2016. For additional information contact amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Gooyer: If that's the case, why don't we start with Item 3, which is 450 Bryant Street, recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval of an Architectural Review permit to allow the renovation, partial demolition and addition to the existing historic resource resulting in a net floor area increase of 7,158 square feet. Environmental assessment, this project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Zoning district, public facilities, PF, zoning district. The ARB hearing of this project is continued from September 1st, 2016. Ms. French: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. Today we are here for the third formal hearing of the 450 Bryant Street, the Avenidas Senior Center, project. As you are aware, we have three members participating today. We do have a quorum. This went to the HRB last week. On the 12th, they rendered a decision which was to recommend to the ARB and the Director approval of the project. Today we are seeking the ARB's recommendation. As the third formal hearing, today is the day, per our Code, that we're looking for a recommendation one way or the other. We're interested in hearing your comments on the revised Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration. It was revised to reference a more recent report from the historic consultant on the project. There's been some discussion about retention of the former garage called the garden room. They weighed in on that and on the more recent project, which was the revisions made to address the ARB's comments made on the last meeting, which was in August. I'm sorry; September 1st is when that occurred with the ARB. Our request today is that you review and comment on the Architectural Review findings for approval, which is what staff is recommending. We reference the Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design Guide, which is referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. Just a note. In the Public Facilities Zone, the Context Based Design Criteria that you're accustomed to seeing do not apply. Those are not contained in that chapter of the Zoning Code. The third floor has been reduced as you saw in plans. It's also been in-set as part of that reduction. The garden room is retained, and there's a new deck over the courtyard, providing some ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES: October 20, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 interaction there. Bird-friendly glass is being used on both the parking lot-facing elevation and the park- facing elevation. There's some new details. Looking at the Bryant Street elevation, we have an addition. This is the latest set of renderings showing the reduced third floor. The addition is definitely visible from Bryant Street, but it is subordinate to the primary facade. The HRB found that to be the case. The view from Cogswell Plaza with the trees shows that not a lot of it will be seen. It will be interrupted as far as views from Cogswell Plaza. You can see the hyphen is how the addition and the Category 2 building are connected. That allows visibility, viewing of the Category 2 building. Here we have a view from the parking lot. This view does not show street trees along Ramona. If you're on the sidewalk, there will be street trees to interrupt this view as well. There are a couple of trees in the parking lot, not a whole lot. This glassed-in tree is not really a tree, as we are clear that that's a placeholder for public art. The applicant is meeting with the art folks and will be going to the Public Art Commission to look at a piece of art for that space. As I noted, bird-friendly glass is proposed. It's the dotted glass. Here's this new courtyard. Sorry; this new deck where the third floor was pulled back. You can see in the June scheme where the floor came out to. That floor has been pulled back, and it's now a deck overlooking this courtyard. That does provide some interactive space. There were formerly panels, the metal panels, up here. Those have been replaced by glass. Just in summary. From the park and alley elevations, as you see here, you can see this glass hyphen. You can see the floor pulled back. Here's the courtyard where they have the trash facilities and the nice, new gate that they're proposing. This is about 65 feet from Bryant Street, so it's quite a distance from the main facade, the entry. Here I have the plans that are in front of you. This is an elevation from the set that came to you in September, showing Approach 1. You can see here that the pitch of the roof has changed a bit and flattened. It's gentler than it was in September. The height has been reduced from this set in September to this now. You can see the additional trim that comes out. As far as the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Dec, I noted it's been revised to reflect the reduced square footage. This is the net square footage increase of 7,158 square feet. In terms of net floor area, it's not a large project for this increase. We have the aesthetic section of the document that is the purview of the ARB. That has not changed since the last time you saw this, the aesthetic section. There is a reference to cultural resources. That section did change to reflect that memo from the historic consultant. The AR findings are provided in this set. We are still on the findings that are in the existing Municipal Code. Council has not finalized its deliberations on the Architectural Review findings. We are still grouping those 16 findings into sets. I put those on the screen here. We could come back to those later. That concludes staff's presentation. The applicant is here to make a presentation. Chair Gooyer: Does the applicant ... Lisa Hendrickson, Avenidas: Good morning. I'm Lisa Hendrickson. I haven't spoken to you before. If I may this morning take a couple of minutes. I'm currently the capital project manager at Avenidas. We're returning today with modifications that respond to your comments at your September meeting. We're very hopeful that you will approve this design. We agree with others that the numerous modifications that we've made have only made this design better. I'd like to take a few minutes to explain why further delays, however, would put this project at serious risk and also to respond to Mr. Hirsch's comments at the last meeting and his letter to you requesting yet again that we demolish the old garage and start over with a two-story design. Next month it will be 2 years since we first met on this project. In November 2014, there was a study session at the site. We presented a two-story design that eliminated both the garage and the courtyard. At that meeting, we were urged by the City staff as well as members of the HRB and perhaps members of this Board—I don't remember—to further study the historic characteristics of the garage. We asked our historic consultants, ARG, to do that. They returned with a report that asserted that the garage is part of the historic fabric of the site and should be retained. To be honest, we were a little disappointed. The City accepted these findings, and it would have been, of course, unethical to seek a firm that would return with different findings. In July 2015, we returned with an entirely new design featuring a three-story addition where there is now a 1970s dining room and preserving the garage and much of the courtyard. This design reflected many of the comments that we received from this Board and the HRB. Our participants were very pleased that we were retaining much of the courtyard. There was concern expressed that the design called for the removal of some of the original eaves. We were asked to create a separation between the original building and the addition. We City of Palo Alto Page 3 were also asked for a design that was more compatible with the historic building. We returned again in May of 2016, this year, with a design that added a connector to preserve the eaves and with less contemporary styling, more in keeping with the historic building. Your comments were generally supportive, and we took note of the suggestions that you made with regard to massing and the additional detail that you requested. Over the summer, the City obtained a peer review of the historic resources evaluation, which confirmed ARG's findings about the garage. The CEQA document was completed. Last month we returned again with a design that reflected additional modifications and details that addressed your questions. We hope for your support for this design today for several reasons. Notwithstanding the comments that have been made about the significance of the garage and this design's compatibility with the Standards, that compatibility has been supported by two historic resource experts. A new design that demolished the garage would trigger a focused EIR, adding several more months to the entitlement process and could put the approving authority in the position of having to approve a design that did not comply with the Standards. We have been advised that if the City were to approve such a design, it would be risking a lawsuit for having approved the demolition of the garage. We also understand that the City usually asks the applicant to bear the cost of defense of such a lawsuit. Further delays put our project at risk for other reasons. Delays add unaffordable expense to the project. We've already spent about $500,000 on design costs and City fees and another $400,000 on fundraising expenses. Construction costs are escalating. There is only so much money that we can fundraise for this project, and delays add to the difficulties of funding the costs. Delays also put our fundraising at risk. We have a lead donor who will fund 20 percent of the project costs, but we will not be able to meet the conditions of his gift unless we start construction in 2017. Another $250,000 gift comes with the condition that the project be approved this year. Other gifts are contingent on design approval. Further delays put these pledges at risk. Our almost 90-year-old building is sorely in need of modernization. Our community's seniors deserve a better community center, one that is safer and with enough space for all of the programs that they want. We are 2 years into this entitlement process and have made numerous modifications to the design at the request of this Board and the HRB. The window to get this done is closing. We urge you to support this design today and hope you do. Thank you very much. With that, Kevin Jones, our architect, is going to describe the modifications. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Kevin Jones: Good morning. My name is Kevin Jones. I'm with Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners Architects. I'm going to try to just do a fairly brief overview of some of the things that we've presented to you in the past, basically focusing on the comments that we heard from you and how we have addressed those comments in our drawings. I think the comments that we've heard from both the ARB and the HRB over these past couple of months have yielded a much better project as a result of those. I'd like to share that with you now. Here's a little bit of a summary in kind of bullet form of the items that we heard from this Board and how we've addressed them. I'd just sort of like to briefly walk through them. Basically concerns about the overall height of the building. The approach was to step the third floor back. In doing so, we reduced some floor area, but I think the result of it, as you can see in some of the materials, really does a good job of altering the perception of the massing of the building. In doing so, we also on the third level, as Amy pointed out, pulled the third level back along the courtyard face to allow for much more of a two-story feel on that edge, and then creating an exterior deck as well. The clay tile comment, which I think was a great one as well. We're utilizing a flat, clay tile instead of the barrel tile that occurs on the existing building, further creating a differentiation between the historic building and the proposed new building. The next items here are about some cornice details and glazing. I'll walk you through those as we kind of go through it. As just a general overview, the massing of the project consists of the main 1926 Birge Clark building, the garden room or the former shed building, which we are retaining. There is the connector element that helps to create a glass connection in some ways between the old and then the new addition. That vocabulary carries its way up through the project as you proceed up the levels. Again, the second story of the Birge Clark building and the connector between the Birge Clark building and then the new structure and then down at the one- story level the existing, former shed building or the garden room. The third floor only here. Here's the area where we pulled back the facade at the loss of some square footage, but we were able to create a very pleasant deck that would look down into the courtyard as well as reducing the massing of the City of Palo Alto Page 4 building along the courtyard face. At that level, we have an exterior patio deck here as well as a larger one here that the original design had proposed. We've also done some work to try to reduce the roof heights and the pitches to again create a much shallower impression of it. These are the elevations, one from Bryant Street. The other one here is from the alleyway. The renderings give you a more true-to- life appearance of what happens in terms of where the perspective enters into it. You can sort of see on the wall here and also in your packet these renderings which help give you a better feel for what that perception will be if you're really on the ground looking at the building. Those elements are highlighted by the existing garden room building. This large glass element, which enters into a two-story, atrium-like space, serves as both vertical circulation, a stair and elevator, and a connector between the old and the new. Most of the program inside of the building in terms of the new elements are within this wing of the building. The ground-level of it being the loo and the new dining room. The second level being a wellness center, and the third level being a fitness center component. I'm getting this sign to sum up. I'm going to zoom a little bit here. We spent some time developing particular details. Much of the building is limestone-clad in large-scale pieces as well as precast concrete trim elements, which you'll see through it further articulation of the glazing system on the third floor, which shows in the renderings as well. Railing details, all of this is in your packet. Additional elements in terms of providing sunshading throughout. Here the view of the project from Bryant Street with the addition in the background. A view from the parking lot as Amy described. You can see here the stepping back of the third floor, reducing the appearance of this element to be smaller than that of the main building. By pulling the building back on the third floor, I think it does create a feeling of this as being the second story. In addition to having the glazing here, it does create a much more ... Chair Gooyer: If you'll start to wrap it up. Mr. Jones: I can wrap it up now. Any questions you might have, please ask. I as well as our Avenidas contingent can try to answer them. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: I think we're good at the moment. Thank you. I have three speaker slips, starting with Kathleen Basak and then Linda Jolie. You'll have 3 minutes. Katherine Basak: My name is Katherine Basak. I'm presenting in behalf of my neighbor, David Hirsch, who could not attend today. David is a respected, thoughtful and articulate architect with over 50 years of experience designing public buildings in New York City. To the ARB. The entire Avenidas scheme that you have seen for months is the result of a mistaken conclusion by the historic consultants with the misguided urging of Avenidas and the approval of the Planning Department. This mistaken conclusion is a garage structure behind the Birge Clark-designed building merits special consideration as a historic feature. Consider the following. It was built after the original design as an afterthought by Birge Clark and not included in his original drawings. It was hidden for years, hemmed in by other buildings. See the Sanborn maps in the historic report. It was only exposed to view when the surrounding buildings were torn down and this area became a parking lot. It was never the intention of Clark for it to be seen from this open parking space as is clearly evident in its blank wall. It does not represent any of the special, significant design characteristics of Birge Clark buildings. The question is why should you accept this structure as a legitimate historical element. As architects, I am sure some of you know that preserving it while the three-story addition is constructed immediately adjacent to it, with the deep foundations that are required, will be an expensive piece of work and cause immeasurable complications and cost to the project. If you ask, as the HRB did in an official vote, that the applicant show you a scheme without the garage, you will discover that it is possible to construct a two-story structure containing the entire Avenidas program completely in scale with the Birge Clark building. The applicant and the City chose not to bother with this HRB request. You won't have the opportunity to see this unless you do not accept what is being presented here today. This will be a hard choice because there is a conspiracy between the applicant, City Planning and their hired historic consultant to preserve this meaningless garage structure and its adjacent minimal courtyard to the detriment of a proper design. These should not be the aesthetic judges. You should. Turn this proposal down and require the applicant to redesign a two-story scheme by eliminating the garage. Respectfully, David L. Hirsch, RA, AIA, 798 Palo Alto Avenue. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Now, I have Linda Jolie [phonetic], and then Wes Marinov. Linda Jolie: Hi. I'm Linda Jolie. I actually have attended Avenidas and so has my friend, Wes Marinov. We're familiar with the attitude of users there and we're familiar with the attitude of members of La Comida which supplies the meal. To make a long story short, there is massive opposition among those people to this proposal. The Board Members of La Comida have actually said that they can pull out of Avenidas, ending the meal, ending the relationship. There's also a chance that they will propose legal action to end this thing. This is a very disturbed proposal, which should not go any further. I have extra copies of the architect's article exposing this, if Board Members would like to consider that. The users of Avenidas do not want their program broken up. They don't want to be moved to another building during construction. These are older people in walkers that should not have to undergo this. They're not here because they are in walkers. I think we represent them. I think that the underpinnings of this project have not been examined. The need for this project has not been adequately examined. I described the mendacity behind us. It has been alleged that Avenidas is overcrowded and, therefore, has to expand. Why don't you go there and see how overcrowded it is? The dining room is only half empty. There has been an allegation that there will be seniors in the future who will need these facilities. I tell you I'm over 70, and I don't see seniors like me using these facilities. There is loud music. There are other things that we don't want. You're going to build a big, expensive, empty building if you build this. You should reconsider the motives behind this, money or whatever it is. As far as we can see, we do not want it. We don't want it. Chair Gooyer: I now have Wes Marinov, and then Herb Borock. Wes Marinov: Good morning. My name is Wes Marinov. I got involved in this project on the urging of some vocal opponents of the project among the La Comida diners, the seniors who are the customers of Avenidas and La Comida. I presented a list of 20 signatures, some of the more vocal opponents, during the Historical Review Board meeting about a week or 10 days ago. I hope that committees for the City Council communicate with each other so you can get a copy of that list. Unfortunately, the negative sentiment continues to persist; although, there have been efforts on the part of the project management to popularize it or to expose the diners to the truth of the project. The main objections are, one, the people like that building, the current La Comida building. They like the cozy style, Spanish type. They like the ability to look at the park and at the same time look at the patio. The patio is the other question here. Most of the diners are opposed to have this patio be demolished. I understand the new version will have part of the courtyard remaining. The current atmosphere of sitting in this building that people have gotten used to love will not be maintained. I don't know how much time I have. There is another point here. There were allegations that some of those opposed to the project, diners of La Comida, have gone to the management and have complained and have not been listened to. Unfortunately, this was not confirmed. I talked to the main opponent, Electra [phonetic] (inaudible). She was in the hospital. I waited until she got out. She is in some—I'm sorry, I can't say that word—convalescent home. I talked to her and she couldn't remember whom she talked to. I want to apologize to any present involved managers who got (crosstalk). Chair Gooyer: If you'll wrap it up. Mr. Marinov: A couple of sentences more. There was an event which was quite discussed, and that was an altercation between Bruce Felber [phonetic] and Phil. The La Comida management or manager did not listen to one of the parties. Maybe that's why Electra imagined this thing. We can safely assume this is not true, that the managers and La Comida and the Avenidas and the project ... Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Mr. Marinov: ... managers listened. Chair Gooyer. Thank you. I now have Herb Borock, and then Bruce Heister. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Herb Borock: Good morning, Chair Gooyer and Board Members. This agreement between the historic experts is a classic disagreement that the Council can decide on as an argument between experts. While you're being threatened that if you agree with Mr. Hirsch, the City would be sued, whoever sues will lose the case. There's no concern for economic reasons there. There is a potentially significant effect by going along with the proposal. That is, you will be spending all this money building a big building that's supposed to serve all the seniors, but it won't. We all know how crowded Downtown is with all the over- development. It really doesn't serve people who are unable to get there. The alternative that should be studied is to have an alternate, second location down at a place like Cubberley where you won't need all this building Downtown. You have what purports to be a recommendation from the Historic Resources Board. In fact, the Historic Resources Board could not make a legal recommendation because every member who participated on the October 12th meeting had already expressed an opinion on October 11 which was not a legal meeting. Therefore, they demonstrated bias. They could not incorporate what they did on October 11th into the October 12th meeting. If they could do that, they could do the same thing for Chair Bernstein and Board Member Bunnenberg, who also expressed an opinion outside of the regular meeting and, therefore, had to recuse themselves. I mentioned this on October 11th and urged the HRB not to proceed and make comments, but they did anyway. The history is that there was a public notice as required by environmental law that was not required to have a description that you would have for the Brown Act. It omitted the fact that actions were being taken. The Brown Act notice was correct. The agenda was posted and said that actions would be taken. There was someone participating from a remote location. It wasn't noticed on the official notice that that person would be participating. The agenda posted at the remote location was not the agenda for the Brown Act. It was what was published in the public hearing notice, which omitted the fact that actions would be taken. It's very clear that the meeting on October 11th was not a meeting of the HRB. What happened there could not be incorporated into the October 12th meeting because members of the HRB were expressing an opinion outside of a legal meeting and, therefore, had bias which prohibited them from participating in the action on October 12th. As far as Mr. Hirsch is concerned, since he's new to Palo Alto, he may not be aware of the process to preserve his rights going forward. The next stop would be, if he disagrees with the Director's decision ... Chair Gooyer: If you'll finish it up. Mr. Borock: ... to appeal. Thank you. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. I have one more speaker, and that is Bruce Heister. Bruce Heister: I am a member of Avenidas. I am former Chair of the Board and still on the Board. I live at 107 Emerson Street, within walking distance of Avenidas. I think that people have (inaudible) talked about 20 people signing a petition, for instance, from La Comida. Avenidas serves over 7,500 people a year, clients. Of that, 1,600 of them are actual members of Avenidas. Very few of the people who go to La Comida have actually joined Avenidas as memberships. Avenidas hosts the La Comida program. You're hearing not the majority of members who benefit from Avenidas, the 7,500. You're hearing from at most 150 people that make up the dining set. With respect to what Avenidas has been doing, we have started to look at obviously using Cubberley as a second point to relocate during construction but also to use that as a place to start setting up classes. Avenidas carried on for over 5 years a discussion with the City about actually locating a wellness center in conjunction with some other organizations at Cubberley. Of course, because of the problems of Cubberley's ownership or joint ownership or lack of a future, nobody was able to guarantee anything that would allow you to put money into a location down there. It would be using the existing buildings but not adding any new building with the kind of facilities that seniors demand today, particularly for physical fitness. Thank you for hearing me. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Board. Kyu, why don't you start? City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Kim: I'll start with two quick questions for clarification. In the staff report, it was noted that the HRB meeting minutes from October 11th and 12th would be provided. I did not see those yet. just wondering if ... Ms. French: I think they weren't returned from our transcriptionist. It was just last Wednesday. I can give a basic summary of that meeting. I think I provided a summary in the staff report itself. I apologize ... Chair Gooyer: That would probably be a good idea. Ms. French: ... that I did not have those available at places today. In essence, just to respond to Mr. Borock's comments. The ad was correctly placed in the newspaper. The agenda was posted on the Friday. It did not state that telephonic participation was going to happen. The morning of, we put something out on the table to clarify that. It was not 24 hours in advance, which was the requirement for that agenda. What happened then at that meeting on the 11th is at 10:30, there was a continuation of the meeting to the next day beginning at 10:30. A notice was placed outside and at the HRB member's house regarding that meeting the next day. The HRB incorporated the comments made on the 11th and made a decision on the 12th. That was posted, that agenda. All four members that were participating, one telephonically, recommended approval of the project. I guess we don't have a number here today to convey the Board's general opinion about that. To sum up, they were pleased at the changes, the revisions. They did read and they announced, and I asked each one of them to clarify that they had read Mr. Hirsch's letters to the Board. They had and considered all of that and considered the report that ARG had prepared regarding the compliance of the project with Secretary of Interior Standards 9 and 10, retention of the garage. They were resolved in their opinion and did forward that recommendation for approval of both the Initial Study and the project. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Board Member Kim: My second question is regarding the approximate construction year of the garage/shed. In the architect's drawing set, it's been noted that it was an addition made in 1950. However, in the historic report, it says approximately 1930. Is there clarification on that? Ms. French: Yes. 1930 is the correct. The 1950s addition was the kind of kitchen area to the side that you can see from Bryant Street. It's the Bryant Street-facing, one-story component of the building, attached to the Category 2 building. The shed at the back is the 1930 building. I can show it on the screen if that would help. Board Member Kim: No, I think that's okay. Thank you. I just want to say thank you to the applicant and to the architect for the presentation. I'm actually very pleased with the way this project has progressed and the latest revisions that have been made. I actually find the project and the building to be very poetic. I think there's kind of a beauty that's been—there's a certain beauty that's come up throughout the evolution of the project. I think looking at the way that the old building is separated from the new building, the transition, the way that the new building is kind of nestled between two parts of the older buildings while also retaining the courtyard, the size, the massing, even though the new structure is taller, I do think there has been quite an effort made to make the taller portion of the building still feel subordinate to the historic structure. I think there's been a real careful kind of punctuation to the way that this project has begun to situate itself on the site. I think in a project like this it's the very little things that make a very big difference. I'm very pleased with the way that the project has come to where it's been presented today. I appreciate the changes that you've made to the metal panels along with the new entry on the parking lot side, changing them to glass, pulling back that third-story portion facing the courtyard and also the other architectural details to the roof, the eaves. The other accent elements, I think, make a big difference in bringing this project together. I do not find this three-story scheme to be overly massive. I think I've stated several times in previous meetings that facing towards Eleanor Cogswell Plaza, it's very well screened by those trees. Even if it wasn't for those trees, I think a case can be made that this building does not look out of place. I think there are other, City of Palo Alto Page 8 taller structures in the surroundings such as the parking structure itself even that do not make this building feel too large. It's very hard finding a balance. I think you've really, truly come to find that balance. I applaud your efforts and your resolution that you've come to. I would be more than happy to approve this project, seeing the changes that you've made. Again, thank you for your revisions and sticking through the process. Chair Gooyer: Thank you. Alex. Vice Chair Lew: Eloquently said, and I agree with everything that you described, Kyu. I think the only difference that I have is—I have like a list of nitpicky things that I think should come back to the Board at some point. I think ... Chair Gooyer: The Board or the ... Vice Chair Lew: I'll go through the list, and then we can talk about it. I think I did also want to distinguish two elements regarding the third floor. It seems like there are two issues. There's one issue which is the three-story mass overwhelming or over-scale to the park. There's a second issue of is the three-story addition over-scale to the historic, existing building. I think those are two issues. There's been opposition to them. I think that some of the other Board Members who aren't here today and then also David Hirsch are mixed up. They both sort of wanted to redo this scheme but, I think, they were making somewhat different arguments. With regard to the three-story, we have lots of three-story buildings around open space or courtyards here in Downtown. If you go all throughout the Stanford campus, you'll see lots of three-story buildings around courtyards. They're fine. They're beautiful spaces, and they're attractive. I think that's the case with this particular project. I'm not in a position to—I would not support somehow changing the ARG historic report and the peer review, which both state that retention of the garage is the correct solution. My list of things that I think should come back somehow. The new light fixtures; they seem like a little art deco style to me. They don't seem quite right. That's just a minor issue for me, though. They're illuminating outward. I would prefer ideally like some sort of shielded fixture or a down-light. We don't have a photometric plan of them. I think we have a photometric cut sheet of the fixture itself, but we don't have the photometric plan for the project. Also, I think you're showing trellis lights in the courtyard, but those don't appear in the lighting plan. I think my question would be if you have required egress through the courtyard, then do you need to meet the emerging lighting standards and whatnot for that. Also, in that courtyard, I think, we don't have any details of the trellis or the trash enclosure roof. It seems like it's somewhat of a combined structure. I would caution you that sometimes I've had like the Building Department require those trellises to be fire- rated if it's part of the egress path of travel. It seems like some of the landscape drawings are showing the trellis as wood, but in some other photos it looks like it's a metal structure. I think we need to see that. Also, the landscape plan is showing a pittosporum hedge along the park side of the project. It wraps into the—what do you call it? The hyphen, the glass connector window: that seems to me the wrong solution to have like a 15-foot high hedge blocking the nice window that you have there. I think that's like a feature window. It should make a connection between the building and the park. I'd like to see that revised. We don't have any—at least in our packets, in our drawings we didn't really have any of the colors or materials specified. I think maybe there's a color board. That's great. I haven't seen it. I think my question would be for the architect. Sometimes there's an issue when you have like sunshades and all the other metalwork. Sometimes it's hard to get those to match the windows. I don't know how you figured that out. Depending on what you specified, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work. I think we just need to see all of the materials together. Also, I don't think we've seen any of the paint colors for the existing building. I was wondering if you're doing all of this work, that maybe the existing building would be repainted, maybe not. I don't know. We haven't seen anything for that. If that is happening, I would like to see the colors and have the HRB weigh in on those. That's what it is. They're nitpicky, but that's where I am. I can support the project. Chair Gooyer: I agree. This project, I think, is very nicely done. I think it's come a long way since the first time we saw it. It is a three-story building, but I don't think the way it's been designed that it overpowers the existing two-story building. As far as the couple of items you have, those to me are City of Palo Alto Page 9 subcommittee items if you want to do that. You're right with some of the things. As far as the anodized aluminum, for instance, sometimes you won't know that until it actually comes out in the field. Then, it's going to have to be a call on the architect's part to say, "I either accept these or don't accept these." I've done it myself, where you just have to do some work between the various vendors and see if you can get it done at the same time. I don't have a real problem with that. The same thing. I'm willing to approve it as it stands right now. Can I get a motion from one of you? Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, if I may. Can we just confirm that we've closed the public hearing before we make a motion? Chair Gooyer: I'm sorry? Ms. Gerhardt: Can we just confirm that we have closed the public hearing before we make a motion? Chair Gooyer: I'm sorry. I did close the public hearing already. I closed the public hearing and then brought it back to us. Can I get a motion from one of you? MOTION Board Member Kim: Sure. I will move that we approve the project with the following things to come back for subsequent review with the subcommittee. These items are to include possibly reconsidering the light fixtures and also seeing the details for the light fixtures that we do not have spec sheets on; an overall photometric light study; details of the trellis and also the trash enclosure roof, if they are separate or if they are a single structure; and the final colors and materials palette and that they also be reviewed one more time; and also to look at possibilities of repainting the existing historic structures. Chair Gooyer: He got everything pretty much that you have? Vice Chair Lew: I will second that. Chair Gooyer: All those in favor? Against? Passes 3-0 or 3-0-2, I guess. Ms. French: Two recused, absent actually. Board Member Kim: Can I just say on the record that I'm very appreciative of the comments that were made by the public, also including Mr. Hirsch. I think those comments are important. I do not want the public to think that we disregard those comments. They are taken into consideration. I really hope to see more of those kinds of comments and engagement by the public in the future. Thank you.