Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-21 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 21, 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 Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. Various Sites (250 Hamilton Avenue in database) [17PLN-00193]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of Location and Siting Criteria, Design Criteria, and Design Options for the Deployment of 16 Small Cell Wireless Communication Nodes on Utility Poles and Street Lights in the Public Right of way. Nodes are Proposed for Downtown North, University South, and Near Town & Country. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: Varies. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-00147]: Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Junior Museum and Zoo Building and Construction of a New 15,033 Square Foot, One-Story Museum and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo With Netted Enclosure, and _______________________ 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. Reconfiguration of and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2120 Staunton Ct [16PLN-00419]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Two Existing Dwelling Units and Construction of a new 3,124 Square Foot Duplex. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: RMD(NP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at APetersen@m-group.us 5.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 392 California Avenue [17PLN-00088]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow Changes to the Façade of an Existing Commercial Building in the California Avenue Business District. The Façade Changes Include a new Storefront Window System, an Individually Illuminated Channel Letter Sign, and a New Custom Abstract Mural by Artist Victor Reyes. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Scott McKay at Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 3, 2017 and September 7, 2017. Subcommittee Items 7.1545 Alma Street [16PLN-00283]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Driveway Surface Material, Open Space Seating, and Circulation Into the Unit B Garage From the Site Driveway. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us _______________________ 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. 8. 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00248]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Lot 2 Architecture, Lot 4 Shed Roof Pitches, Lot 9 Ceiling Height, and Lot 15 Porch Roof Overhang. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Consistent With the Previous Determination and no new Mitigation Measures are Necessary. Zoning District: R-2 and RM-15 (Two Family and Low-Density Multi-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 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 # 8309) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Crown Castle Downtown North, University South, & Town & Country: Prelim for Small Cell Nodes Title: Various Sites (250 Hamilton Avenue in database) [17PLN- 00193]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of Location and Siting Criteria, Design Criteria, and Design Options for the Deployment of 16 Small Cell Wireless Communication Nodes on Utility Poles and Street Lights in the Public Right of way. Nodes are Proposed for Downtown North, University South, and Near Town & Country. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: Varies. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide comments. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As this is a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of the project in relation to applicable codes, including context- based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project in relation to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto (Owner of Utility Poles in the Right-of-Way) Applicant Crown Castle on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless Representative: Rochelle Swanson (Crown Castle) and Sharon James (Verizon) Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 16 Various Wood Utility Poles and Streetlights in the Right-of-Way Neighborhood: Generally, Downtown North, University South, and adjacent to Town & Country Lot Dimensions & Area: Not Applicable Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: No, but some nearby Historic Resource(s): No, but some nearby Existing Improvement(s): 18 Various Wood Utility Poles and Streetlights in the Right-of-Way Existing Land Use(s): Various, including Residential, Commercial, and Mixed Use Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Various, including Residential, Commercial, and Mixed Use Location Map: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Various, including Low Density Residential, Multiple Family Residential District, Public Facility (Park), South of Forest Area (SOFA), and Community Commercial Comp. Plan Designation: Various, including Multiple Family Residential, Major Institution/Special Facilities, Regional/Community Commercial, Mixed Use/Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Yes South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Yes Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: NextG Networks executed the Master License Agreement with the City on August 15, 2011. Subsequently, Crown Castle acquired NextG Networks through a merger with its subsidiary Crown Castle. The merger took place in 2012. PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Staff Level Architectural Review: None Project Description The proposed sixteen (16) small cell deployment node locations in this Preliminary Architectural Review application represent three future clusters of small cell wireless communication facility nodes proposed for the Downtown North and University South neighborhoods, as well as adjacent to Town & Country.1 In total, Crown Castle/Verizon Wireless proposes to install these sixteen (16) small cell deployment nodes in order to expand coverage and capacity in these high demand areas. The applicant has provided a detailed project description in Attachment D that includes example elevations for each of the three configurations. The project plans also provide more information on equipment configurations for preliminary public and Architectural Review Board consideration and comment. Three proposed configurations are as follows: 1. all six wood utility poles would have a 48” top mount antenna, an approximately 7-foot bayonet, two (2) radios, and additional equipment attached to the pole on separate standoff brackets, 2. seven streetlights would have a 24” top mount antenna and two (2) radios within a concealed mailbox type cabinet, and 3. three streetlights would have 24” top mount antenna and four (4) radios within a pole- mounted concealment shroud. All sites include one electrical disconnect box, associated conduit, and fiber/power. Fiber and power would be provided from underground utility connection(s) and trenching would be necessary at some sites. Additional background information can be found on the applicant’s project website (http://www.crowncastle.com/projects/palo-alto_ca.aspx). 1 The address for this application 17PLN-00033 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The proposed sixteen (16) small cell deployment node locations are identified in the Table 1. Please note that Node 026 is proposed as an entirely new pole or street light, rather than utilization of one that already exists. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Table 1: Preliminary Sixteen (16) Small Cell Deployment Node Locations: Configuration #1 – 48” antenna with all equipment attached to the pole Configuration #2 - 24” antenna with all equipment enclosed within mailbox/utility box Configuration #3 - 24” antenna with all equipment attached to the pole *Pole only Option for PA026 Configuration #2 – 24” antenna with all equipment enclosed within mailbox/utility box City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits, as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.42.110. Any formal application would be processed as a Major Architectural Review with the addition of Conditional Use Permit findings. The applications will need to comply with the development standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i), the conditions of approval in PAMC Section 18.42.110(j), the Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d), and the Conditional Use Permit findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c). Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant during Development Review Committee meetings and site walks. Staff has attached the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies (Attachment B) and the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110 pertaining to Wireless Communication Facilities (Attachment C). A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. Small Cell Deployment in Other Cities Other cities have already evaluated and developed guidelines for small cell deployment applications in the right of way. While Palo Alto is unique in that it owns or jointly owns many of the utility structures, these examples are instructive. Following are a few links showing how other cities are approaching the siting and design of small cell projects:  City of San Francisco “Design Preferences for Personal Wireless Service Facilities for DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEMS, “DAS” OR SMALL CELLS ON WOODEN UTILITY POLES & WOODEN STREET LIGHT POLES” - August 2015 (http://www.sf- planning.org/ftp/files/currentplanning/wireless/wireless_Design_Preferences_for_Wireless_Fac ilities_August2015.pdf)  City of San Diego – “Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Guidelines” - January 4, 2016, Page 16 (https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/development- services/pdf/industry/telecomguide.pdf)  City of Berkeley – “Wireless Telecommunications Program Guidelines for Projects Requiring Telecommunications Encroachment/Excavation Permits” – March 15, 2011 (http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_-_Sidewalks,_Streets_- _Utility/Aesthetic%20Guidelines%20for%20PROW%20Permits%20Under%20BMC%20Chapter% 2016_10.pdf) Preliminary Location/Siting Criteria, Configuration Design Criteria, and Configuration Design Options The primary purpose for this Preliminary Architectural Review application is to receive public and Architectural Review Board feedback on the preliminary location/siting criteria, design City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 criteria, and design options for the proposed small cell deployment nodes. The applicant has presented their key questions within their project description in Attachment D. Members of the public and the ARB are encouraged to provide feedback to the applicant. At the May 18, 2017 ARB meeting, staff previously debuted the following preliminary location/siting criteria, configuration design criteria, and configuration design options for the deployment of small cell wireless communication equipment in the right-of-way as part of processing Preliminary Architectural Review application 17PLN-00033 for Vinculums/Verizon. Location and Siting Criteria 1. Locate small cell nodes on poles in the right-of-way only. 2. Disfavor poles that are in a proposed undergrounding district area. 3. Identify poles with the following items in the descending order of precedence: a. Guy stubs, b. Poles with overhead secondary conductors only, c. Primary dead-end poles, d. Primary poles with no transformers downstream to end of line, and e. Primary poles with no electric utility equipment on either side of the proposed pole. 4. Encourage placement away from intersections in order to reduce visibility of the project. 5. Encourage poles with significant tree screening in order to reduce visibility of the project. 6. Favor poles that do not interfere with bikeway clearances either physically or visually 7. Favor poles away from first and second story windows in order to reduce visibility of the project. 8. Confirm the project adheres to ADA clearances, as well as conformance with the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District requirements where applicable. 9. Confirm the project provides adequate vehicle clearances and site triangles when in proximity of intersections and driveways, addresses proximity to on-street parking spaces, and provides vehicle door clearance if ground mounted equipment is proposed. 10. Identify the pros/cons of increasing or decreasing the number of proposed nodes including coverage, different sizes and heights of antennas (ex. deployment of a four foot high antenna versus a two foot high antenna) 11. Confirm if there are any additional factors that may prevent above-grade facilities, such as: a. Conflicts with future transportation improvements, and b. Conflicts with transit facilities or other areas which generate pedestrian activity 12. For projects with ground mounted equipment and/or trenching: a. Favor poles with little or no surrounding tree roots to reduce tree impacts. Ground mounted cabinet locations shall strive to improve existing tree conditions and avoid or limit taking valuable root area from existing tree sites. b. Favor poles with little to no underground utilities to reduce conflicts. c. identify if the project requires any trenching and disfavor projects where adjacent road surfacing has recently occurred or is planned within the next 1-2 years. d. Encourage them to remain clear of street and driveway sight lines as required by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.54.050(b). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Configuration Design Criteria 1. Design for the minimization of equipment sizes. 2. Design for streamlining of equipment views from the sidewalk and driver view angles. 3. Limit the use of ground mounted equipment to the greatest extent possible. 4. Place emphasis on ensuring the project design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood context - consider the various neighborhood styles and character (ex. historic, modern, etc.). 5. In areas with Design Guidelines, ensure the project responds to these guidelines. For example: Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines (§7.0-7.43, Guidelines for Site Improvements: Landscape, Accessory Buildings & the Streetscape). 6. In commercial or mixed-use areas, encourage either pole mounting back-up battery equipment or placing it below grade to ensure a clear sidewalk for pedestrians. 7. Power shall come from the nearest utility box and equipment must have a protective device (i.e. fuse or circuit breaker) for isolating the circuit to avoid affects on City of Palo Alto equipment or circuits. Configuration Design Options 1. Utilize passive cooling or other methods to prevent or reduce noise. 2. Design the project to visually soften the deployment by providing landscaping or trees next to the pole. 3. Design for stealth and concealment of equipment. Examples: use shrouds, blend the bayonets by utilizing similar shapes and widths as the underlying pole, paint all equipment to match the pole, conceal all wires, provide a continuous installation instead of allowing gaps for light to pass through in the installation, and mount equipment as close to the pole surface as possible. 4. If soil is lost in response to any ground mounted equipment installation, pursuant to the Urban Forestry Master Plan (Policy 1.A, 1.E.), the project shall provide an equal square footage of pervious soil to street trees in the immediate area. 5. Paint or artistically wrap all ground mounted equipment at minimum. Otherwise, pursue stealth strategies through the provision of street furniture that supports pedestrian activity and/or prevents visual clutter. 6. Emphasize stealth, concealment, and painting strategies that require low maintenance or otherwise present a maintenance schedule. Department Comments Staff is continuously refining the above location/siting criteria, design criteria, and design option guidance. Departments provided the following preliminary comments on the proposed project for further consideration:  Urban Forestry – Urban Forestry requires the submittal of a tree protection report for any forthcoming formal applications that covers both pruning of protected trees and any trenching associated with installation. It is anticipated that protected trees would City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 present constraints on the siting of proposed nodes and should not be overlooked as a siting criteria.  Public Works – Public Works is particularly interested in ensuring that all proposed nodes are in the right of way and the presence of relevant easements. In the future, Public Works (not the Building Department) would review plans for any ADA-related obstruction, grading and soil replacement, traffic logistics plans, and locations/constraints associated with trenching for fiber and power. Public Works specifically cited node 025 as potentially creating an obstruction.  Transportation - Transportation indicated the need for high sensitivity to pedestrian and bicycle traffic in all proposed node locations. In particular, Transportation cited that some of the proposed ground mounted cabinets presented possible physical and visual obstructions, as well as pedestrian congestion points on existing sidewalks and inadequate vehicle door clearance. They also indicated that ground mounted cabinets should remain clear of street and driveway sight lines as required by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.54.050(b). Specifically, Transportation indicated that further ground mounted cabinets in commercial areas, mixed use areas, and the South of Forest Area would present consistency difficulty relative to Comprehensive Plan policies and the Bicycle and Pedestrian plan.  Utilities-Electrical – Utilities-Electrical has a wide variety of siting and attachment requirements that are based upon technical codes, as well as the Master License Agreement requirements. For example, as one design requirement, Utilities- Electrical indicated that only antennas may be attached to street light poles and that attachment of radios and other types of equipment is prohibited on streetlights. This is synergistic with some of the comments provided by Transportation regarding placement of equipment underground. Utilities-Electrical is also responsible for reviewing wood utility pole and streetlight structural stability items in any forthcoming formal applications.  Historic - In anticipation of possible adjustment in the locations of nodes in any forthcoming formal applications, the City’s Historic Planner identified historic resources near to the node locations proposed by the applicant. Additionally, the City’s Historic Planner identified that the initially proposed node 026 and associated ground mounted cabinet was immediately adjacent to the historic Staller Court at 345 Forest Avenue. Consequently, the applicant proposed the current new location and pole listed in the project plans for node 026. However, this current location is in front of an eligible apartment building (332 Forest Avenue). Although this U-shaped building does not possess a central plaza with sitting area, and therefore would not be considered a significant impact on the potentially eligible building, staff is interested in ARB feedback on the sensitivity of this location with the character of the building in mind, as well as relative to the overarching question of the utilization of a new pole relative to City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Comprehensive Plan policies, Downtown Design Guidelines, architectural review findings and other policies.  Planning – Planning has indicated the need for the applicant to host a community meeting(s) prior and submit a summary of any resultant project changes with any forthcoming formal applications, per the City’s wireless code. Among other items, Planning has also indicated concerns with any proposed node relative to locations on corners without screening, the absence of stealth and a cohesive design for the attachments to existing wood utility poles, the absence of any proposed trees or landscaping for screening, the presence of equipment within close view proximity of active living spaces, and the presence of equipment on or above narrow sidewalks. Planning has also emphasized the need for compliance with FCC emissions standards, the City’s noise requirements, as well as those requirements outlined by other departments. Specific to nodes near Town & County, Planning indicated that the corner areas of El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road were sensitive relative to findings for compatibility with the character of shopping center and requested that the applicant explore options for colocation with existing wireless facilities at Town & Country and to also propose less prominent poles. Planning also communicated previous Fire and Police comments regarding the need to avoid creating sidewalk obstructions, given the significant pedestrian flow in the area on special event days on campus. Collocation Where it makes sense, the City encourages the collocation of wireless facilities to reduce visual clutter. The three (3) nodes proposed near Town & Country are not currently anticipated to be colocation opportunities. However, according to the applicant, the remaining thirteen (13) nodes proposed for Downtown North and University South could accommodate an additional carrier based upon the general colocation oriented business model for Crown Castle and only if a separate and subsequent application were filed for some increases in size of the equipment. Consequently, the project should be considered as designed for a single carrier at the present time. It is important to note that, once a wireless facility is placed on a given pole, the Federal Spectrum Act allows for a streamlined process should a second carrier apply to collocate. Consequently and in order to promote transparency in the analysis process, the applicant is required by the City’s wireless code to provide a study of the maximum build out permissible by the Act when they submit their formal Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility permit applications. Additionally, except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project is prohibited to exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height by the City’s wireless code. Next Steps City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 The applicant may elect to file formal Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility permit, which would then be followed by staff analysis and a public hearing(s) before the ARB. Environmental Review The Preliminary Architectural Review discussion involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project under CEQA will be performed. Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Radio Frequency Emission Standards As part of a formal application, the applicant will submit a detailed report that discusses the small cell deployment node designs at each location in comparison with the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) radio frequency emission standards. The City will utilize an independent peer review process during the analysis of the formal application to address questions regarding radio frequency emissions/health and safety. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require any particular form of notice for a Preliminary Architectural Review application. Nonetheless, as a practice, the City publishes notice of the review in a local paper and mails owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on September 8, 2017, which is thirteen (13) days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 11, 2017. Public Comments Staff received a significant number of comments and inquiries from members of the public over email and by phone. Multiple members of the public preferred to gather more information before commenting. Staff received comments expressing both support and opposition. Supporters generally cited a desire for improved wireless coverage. Opposition generally cited aesthetic concerns, noise, compatibility with historic resources and radio frequency emissions/health and safety concerns. Email correspondence up to September 11, 2017 is included in Attachment E. Copies of any additional correspondence received after this date will be provided to the ARB at the hearing. In addition to these project specific comments, the City has received many emails with general questions about aesthetics, noise and emissions for any small cell node installation. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Rebecca Atkinson, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2596 (650) 329-2575 Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map with Zoning Districts (PDF)  Attachment B: Comprehensive Plan Goals/Policies and Other Relevant Guidelines (DOC)  Attachment C: Wireless Communication Facilities Code Section (DOC)  Attachment D: Applicant Project Description and Key Questions (PDF)  Attachment E: Public Correspondence (Received through September 11, 2017) (DOCX)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 934-944 927 932 233 281 933-937 1001 469 475 744 459 832801 427-453 912 362 370 900 460 815 840836834 845 931933 835-837 831-8 802800 810-816 818 817-819 825 543 515-517 136 610 116-122 150 535529525 542 516 140 102 116 124 163 145 566556 167 528 643 635 635 645- 685 660- 666 620 180 164 158156 624 628 632 636 640 644 617 621 151-165 171-195 203 642640636200 151 115 125 135 514 101 440 444436432 427 425 117 119 630616 208 228220 240 575 530- 534 536 540 552 177 156 201 209 215 225595 229 231 611-623 180 508 500 625-631 170 172 174 542 544 538- 542536534 552548546 541- 547 230-238 734 723 721 702- 730 220-244 744 701 731 755757 771 200 160 728-732 762- 776 740-746 250 275 270 255 741 265 724 730 651 221-225 227 668 707 205 201 203 451449 209 219 221 233 235 450460 470 442 444 400 420 430 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171-169 441- 445435- 439 346344 333 335 342 344 431 460 450 235 530 220 220 B 222 240 514 278 274270 250 545 540 251 485 255 271 281 300 310 301 581 259-267 533 535 537 261 267 518-526 532520-526 530 534 271 281 252 270 240-248 202- 216 228226 234 238 244242 210- 216 228- 234 223- 229 209 215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 251 360 344 326 340 337 339 323 317 400 420 332330 314 353 355 367 305 347 265 272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 300- 310 431 401 366 436426 369 335319 390301 315 375 307- 311 325 330 332 1&2330 1-3 324 326316 318 373- 377 416- 424 361 314 338 340 560 345 321 325 315 529 285 555 650 636628 385 365 375 380 345 664325 650-654 661 635 300 690 675 555541-549 533 535- 539 318 320 322 324326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405403 453 461 383 460 502 510 526 520 540 499 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364360 431 440-444 423 499475 421-423 431-433 432428 460-476 450 635 446 430 400 745 720 706 385 744734724-730720712704 360 351 315 737 332 300 653 -681 683685 512 501 619609605 518 482 486 496 610 630 455 400 653-687 543-545 532 534 542 544 550 552 554 556 55 560 562 564 635-637 643-645 601-619 470 313 334 333 325 326 342 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 321 335 426-428 427-431 183 359 357 341 343 228220 356-360 347-367 351 357 369-379 360 258- 296 193 173169159 449Units 1-4 419 350 210204 176 365 375 381 181- 187 302- 316 379 310 320 328 332 340 437 412 311 A-B 404 313 325 327 333 407401 385 411 452 378-390 360 - 1A - 1C 360 - 2A - 2C 360 - 3A - 3C 360 - 4A - 4C 360 - 5A - 5C 360 - 6A 344-348 418420 482 328 456 321 325 330 204 218 236 240 250- 252 477 475 467 457453 249 235225221 201 460 275 505-509 239- 243 209- 213 210- 214 513-519 460 474 472 228- 230 466 446 453 176 471-479 483-485 465-467459-461 432 2 535 201 516512 209 215 223 231 521 239-245 333 335- 337 351 457451 465 463 489-499360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451 443437 411405 419405401 441 480-498 347 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 425 415 400 570568 556 550 543 327321315 305 343 515 525 551 555 328 309-311 518-528 536-540 552-554 558-562 573 591-599 557-571 330-332 318-320 406-418 417 542 548 568 524 550 500-528 578 564 550 546 540530B 530 530A 531-535 541 505 525 537 555 565 571 530 660-67 642-652630-640 619-623 520 440-446 401 579 567 649 625523 518 610 600 616 624 630 511 517 524 500 680 555 581 420-438 437 656 600-610 559 355 335576 566 345-347 623-643 505 678676 674 672642636-638 567 555 711701705 725 759 704 555 530 723 575 555 550536518 720 62 627 611601 608600 620 626-628 621 1101 135 112811201112 1111 115 179 189 1013 1021 1029 110041000 1006 1020 1024 1030 1040 1048 1091 108510351027102310171001 132 1060 1043 151 1090108010401028 1102 1 160 1111 1119 1127 1053 1055 623 137 145 700 780 790 744 111 150 753 100 825805 33 51 75 63 841 44 675 4941 71 1 799 703 100 101 139 654 625 1019 1027 A B 1035 10521044 1061 107105103 1045 10281020 160 1001 1005 1009 1015 1027 1037 1010 1024 1004 930 975945 929 931 948 181 940 960 145 900 955 999 875853 925 81 855 901-907 909 87 98 10381036 917 921 925 735 849 707 847 842 828820 248 230-232 212 825 829 833 839 800 812 818 882 165 831 801 815 809801 841 791 153 718 774 761 795 745 201 209 834 836 845 895 926190 934 942 948 203 209 219 225 929 200 240 904 910 926 270 935 904 909 909A 25 50 217 222 148 171 421 130 312 318 324 317301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131 129 101 301 235 258 212 163 115 291 247 150 210 201 207 164 202 158 180 165 170172 123 235 251249 252 247 244 250 177 220 261 251-257 205 245 231225213205 170 172 206 234 240 183 251 270 241-247 215- 237 210- 216 147 221-243 27 5 220 246 250 260 166 162 130 129 346 350 380 345 331 119 125 00 310 320 154 309-321 340 374 171 219 219 235 262 202 245 254252250 151 159 203 215 221 313-317 318 220- 224 238 319-323 311-317 339 327-335 390 197 185 177 170 22 A 429 437 121 151 187- 197 309 167- 169 165 135 143149 155 302 310 314 320 161 171 101 115 110 120 354 344 334 364 160- 164 126 134 150 168 181 179 542-550 531-539 759 223-239 188190 251- 293 202 206 208 210 212 216 220 1008 275 539 400 27 168 865 857 302 324 340 795 848 918 903 903A 408 412 440 483A - F 435 751 735 745 210 727 733 335 328 330 345 214 350 800 806 409 419 630 4 230 302 306 308 312 316 301 303 305 307 309 325 251 807 821 829 801 818-824420 424 430 832A 832 842A 842 852A 852 862A 862 872A 872 351A 351 355A 355 359A 359 363A 363 367A 367 425 911 943 951918 936 940 944 271 253 241 301 319 919A 919 93 928 936 940-946 264 1010 423 425 457-467 469-471 473-481 454 729 733-743 734-740724-732 824826828 920 949943941 715 95 445 324 328 54 5547 549 590 425 447 827 565 585 595 904 315 507 706 536 200 100 280-290 150 158 162 164 276 516 698 161 159 157777 132 127 180 528 120 247 372 524 548 550 152 207 345336 515 658 227 27 29 539 115 550 321 558 965 140 350 808 915 461 435433 945 1012 421 727 218 255 206 225 1032 739 260 840 650 642 351 451 551 375 530 643 415 1 2 700 1175 95 55 802 9989 87 85 901 548 423 668 901 305 -313 423 405 352 354 611 320322 346 323 532 470 471 484 1148 426 264 430 1001 508 756 - 760 930 544 546 515 454-458 211 213 537 543539 151 160 257 433-457 482 547 330 349 401 539 440 691 755 67 312 202 651 443445 447 716 398 998 262 335 218 640-646 506 526 327 469 261 263 3 401 403 254 401 91 40 819 1107 725 536 705 363 541 321319 600 146 411 - 419 229 355 365 111 121 548 597 100 143 602604 502 504 506 432 434 436 519 215 KING AL M A STRE ET HIG H STREET RA M O N A STR LIN CO LIN COLN AVENUE HIG H STR EET E M B A R C A D E R O E M ER SON STREET E M ERS O N STR EET H O M ER AVE NUE BRYANT STREETO AVENU E HA W TH O R NE AVE N UE TR EET R A M ON A STREET EM ERS O N STRE ETAVENUE HIG H STREET EVERE TT AV E N UE EVERETT AVEN U E HIG H STREET STREET ALM A ST R EET LYTT O N AVE N UE E L C A M I N O R E AL ALMA STREET E M ERS O N STREET R AM O NA STREETLYTTON AVENUE U NIVE R SITY AVE N UE R A M O N A STRE ET BRYA NT STR EET HIG H STR EET E M ERS O N STR EET ALM A STREET E M ER S ON STR EET HIG H ST R EET HIGH STREETHAMILTON AVEN U E HA MILTO N AVEN U E EME R S O N STR EET H A MILTO N AVENUE GILM AN STREET W AVE RLE Y STREET BR YANT STREET FO REST AVE NUE FO REST AV ENUE BRYANT STR EET RA M O NA STR EET RA M O N A STREET BR YANT STRE ET FL O REN C E STREET KIPLIN G STR EET LYTTO N AVEN UE W AVE RLEY STREET W AVERLEY STREET E VERETT AVEN UE EVE R ETT AVEN U EBRYANT STREET W AVERLEY STR EET H A W TH O RNE AVEN U E RA M O NA STR EET BRYANT STREET LYTTO N AVEN U E U NIVE R SITY AVE NUE C O W PE R STREET KIPLIN G STREET U NIVE R SITY AVE NUE UNI V ERSITY A VENU E C O W PER STREET W AVE RLE Y STREET HA MILTO N AVE NUE RUTHVEN AVE POE STREET PALO ALTO AVE NUE TREET C O W PE R STREET W AVERLEY STREET HA W TH ORN E AVE N UE KIPLIN G STREET E VERETT AVEN UE C O W PE R STREET E BSTER STRE ET W EBSTER STREET LYTTO N AVENUE TASSO STREET SC O TT ST ADDIS O B R YANT STREET BR ADDISO N AVE N UE HA MILTON AVENU E C O W PER STREET FORE ST AVENUE FO REST AVENUE W AVERLEY STREET BRYANT STR EET H O M ER AVENUE W AVE RL EY STRE ET CHA N NIN G AVEN U E R AM ONA STREET RA M O NA STR EET W EBSTE R STREET W C O W PE R STREET HO M ER AVE NUE KIPLIN G STREE W AVE UNIVERSITY AVENUE U BYR O N STREET MIDDLEFIELD R OA D ELD R O AD LYTTO N AVE N UE W EBSTER STR EET TR EET MID DL HA M HA MILTO N AVENUE F U N I V E R S I T Y CI RCLE EVE RET T CO URT LA N E 39 LANE B EAST LANE 7 EAST LANE 5 EA ST LANE 6 EAST LANE 20 EAST LA NE 30 LAN E 20 W EST LANE 21 MITCHELL LA N E LAN E 33 LANE 15 EAST BRYA NT C O URT PAULSEN LANE LA N E 12 W EST LA N E 11 W EST C ENTENNIAL W ALK LANE LA N E D W EST D O W NIN G L A NE C A M I N O R E AL PENINSULA C O R RID O R JOINT PE NINS ULA CO R RID O R JOINT PO W E RS B O AR D PALM DRIVE PALM DRIVE ARBORETUM ROAD E M ERS O N STREET E ME R SO N STREET HIG H STREET HIG H STREET HIG H STREET AL M A STREET AL M A STR E ET ALMA STREET AL M A ST R EET ALM A STREET F O REST AV ENUE CHA NNI N G AVEN UE H OM ER AV E NUE AD DIS O N AV ENUE E L C A MIN O R E A L E L C A M IN O R E A L E L C A M IN O R E A L E L C A M I N O R E A L E L C A M IN O R E A L E L C A MIN O R E A L E M B A R C A D E R O R O A D W E L L S A V E N U E U R BAN LANE U R B A N L A N E E N C I N A A V E N U E E N C I N A A V E N U E M E D I C A L FO UNDATION WAY LANE 7 W EST LANE 8 W EST LANE A W EST LAN E B W EST CHA NNIN G AVEN UE CS CC PC-2967PC-3266 PF RM-15 R PC- 4182 PC-3707 PC-4283 PF RT-35 PC-4389 CS CS PC-4465 CS CD-C (P) RM-30 AMF(MUO) DHSCD-S(P)AMF PC-4612 PF PFPF R M-30 PC-4063 PC-38 72 PF PF PC-2130 PFCD-C (P) PF PF CD-C (P) CD-C(P) CD-N (P) PF PC-3111 PC-3007 PC-3974 PF PF PC-4262 PC-4243 PC-4195 RM-15 R M D(NP) RM- 40 PC-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C(GF)(P) RM-40 CD-C (P) CD-C (P) PFAMF DHS DHS PF PC-4611 PC-4053 RMD (NP) R M D(N P) R M-3 PF PC-2049 PC-3102 RM-15 R-1 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 R M -30 PF PC-4052PF PC- 2545 RM-40 PC-2145 PC-2968 PC-3995 PC- 3753 PC-4782 CS RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-50 RT-35 RT-35 R-2 RT-50 RT-50 PC-4779 RM-30 CD-C (P) PC-2649 PC-4296 RM-15 PC-4173 PC-4436 PC-3437 RM CD-C(GF)(P) PC-5158 CD-C(P)CD-C(GF)(P) CD-S(GF)(P) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 16 Proposed Cell Site Application (17PLN 00193) Districts 0'348' Proposed Small Cell Nodes and Zoning Districts: Downtown North, University South, and Town & Country 17PLN-00193 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ratkins, 2017-09-12 10:40:46 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment A 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES File No. 17PLN-00193 Land Use and Community Design Element GOAL L-1: A Well-designed, Compact City, Providing Residents and Visitors with Attractive Neighborhoods, Work Places, Shopping Districts, Public Facilities, and Open Spaces. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. GOAL L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct Character and Within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places. POLICY L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. POLICY L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. GOAL L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers That Offer a Variety of Retail and Commercial Services and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering Places for the City’s Residential Neighborhoods and Employment Districts. POLICY L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character.  PROGRAM L-19: Support implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. POLICY L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians. POLICY L-25: Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area. POLICY L-32: Maintain Town and Country Village as an attractive community-serving retail center. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural character. POLICY L-34: Encourage improvement of pedestrian and auto circulation and landscaping improvements, including maintenance of existing oak trees and planting additional oak trees. POLICY L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.  PROGRAM L-48: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines, and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design.  PROGRAM L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new development to maintain and support the existing character. POLICY L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 5 balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. POLICY L-56: To reinforce the scale and character of University Avenue/Downtown, promote the preservation of significant historic buildings. GOAL L-9: Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and Streets that Enhance the Image and Character of the City. POLICY L-66: Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps frame and define the community while meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. POLICY L-67: Balance traffic circulation needs with the goal of creating walkable neighborhoods that are designed and oriented towards pedestrians. POLICY L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. POLICY L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. POLICY L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial districts; and Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real.  PROGRAM L-72: Develop a strategy to enhance gateway sites with special landscaping, art, public spaces, and/or public buildings. Emphasize the creek bridges and riparian settings at the entrances to the City over Adobe Creek and San Francisquito Creek. POLICY L-74: Use the work of artists, craftspeople, architects, and landscape architects in the design and improvement of public spaces. POLICY L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. Capital improvement projects represent substantial public investments. Areas of high pedestrian traffic, especially Centers, should have priority for infrastructure repair. While the purpose of infrastructure is usually utilitarian or functional, attention to design details can add beauty to the City or even remedy an urban design defect. For example, replacing a sidewalk can provide an opportunity to create larger tree wells and provide new street trees.  PROGRAM L-79: Undertake a coordinated effort by the Public Works, Utilities, and Planning Departments to establish design standards for public infrastructure and examine the effectiveness of City street, sidewalk and street tree maintenance programs.  PROGRAM L-80: Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on street tree root systems and planting areas.  PROGRAM L-81: Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, and backflow preventers. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. Transportation Element 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 5 Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations.  PROGRAM T-18: Develop and periodically update a comprehensive bicycle plan.  PROGRAM T-19: Develop, periodically update, and implement a, bicycle facilities improvement program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities.  PROGRAM T-20: Periodically produce a local area bicycle route map jointly with adjacent jurisdictions. POLICY T-22: Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. POLICY T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. GOAL T-5: A Transportation System with Minimal Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods. POLICY T-37: Where sidewalks are directly adjacent to curbs and no planting strip exists, explore ways to add planting pockets with street trees to increase shade and reduce the apparent width of wide streets. Natural Environment Element Goal N-3: A Thriving “Urban Forest” That Provides Ecological, Economic, and Aesthetic Benefits for Palo Alto. POLICY N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest through public education, sensitive regulation, and a long-term financial commitment that is adequate to protect this resource. GOAL N-8: An Environment That Minimizes the Adverse Impacts of Noise. POLICY N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility. • The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is an Ldn of 60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, 60 Ldn is a guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects). Where the City determines that providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design. • The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation Standards must not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB in multiple family dwellings. This indoor criteria shall also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto. • Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential units exposed to an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB. Noise exposure can be determined based on the noise contour map 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 5 included in this plan, or more detailed noise measurements, if appropriate. POLICY N-40: Evaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development and activities in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. POLICY N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria: • The project would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB; • The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB; • The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB. POLICY N-42: The City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following: • Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns. • Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment. • Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. • Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed. • Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows. • Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. Goal N-10: Protection of Life and Property From Natural Hazards, Including Earthquake, Landslide, Flooding, and Fire. POLICY N-50: Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment. Business Element GOAL B-1: A Thriving Business Environment that is Compatible with Palo Alto’s Residential Character and Natural Environment. POLICY B-1: Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure that business change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods. In addition to growth limits, the City will use zoning, development review, environmental review, coordinated area plans, and other planning tools, to maintain compatibility between residential and nonresidential areas. POLICY B-2: Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and the surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. POLICY B-3: Recognize that Palo Alto’s street tree system is an economic asset to the City. GOAL B-3: New Businesses that Provide Needed Local Services and Municipal Revenues, Contribute to Economic Vitality, and Enhance the City’s Physical Environment. POLICY B-10: Promote Palo Alto’s image as a business-friendly community. Assume an active role in fostering new business, particularly small, start-up businesses in emerging industries. POLICY B-11: Encourage the use of public/private partnerships as a means of redeveloping and revitalizing selected areas. 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 5 POLICY B-13: Support the development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. POLICY B-14: Work with electronic information network providers to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users. POLICY B-15: Allow the creative use of City utilities and rights-of-way to ensure competition among networks in providing information systems infrastructure. GOAL B-4: City Regulations and Operating Procedures that Provide Certainty and Predictability and Help Businesses Adapt to Changing Market Conditions. POLICY B-16: Encourage streamlining of City administrative and regulatory processes wherever possible. Reduce inefficiencies, overlap, and time delays associated with these processes.  PROGRAM B-7: Improve design guidelines to reduce ambiguity and more clearly articulate design principles to the business community. Policies in the following Plans and Guidelines may also be applicable:  Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928)  South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase 1 and Phase 2 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/area/sofa.asp)  Urban Forest Master Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36187)  Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514)  El Camino Real Design Guidelines (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19040) 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT C PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.42.110 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES File No. 17PLN-00193 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter, which may include an architectural review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this chapter are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b) Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. (1) "Antenna" means a wireless antenna and its associated equipment. The term includes a macrocell antenna and a microcell antenna. (2) "Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back- up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 7 (3) "Base Station" means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: (i) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). (iii) Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. (4) "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (5) "Eligible Facilities Request" means any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. (6) "Eligible Support Structure" means any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. (7) "Existing" for a constructed tower or base station, means that the tower or base station has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. (8) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. (9) "Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. (10) "RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. (11) "Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). (12) "Substantially Changes" means, in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: (i) For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: (a) The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. (ii) For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: (a) The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 7 (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or (c) It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or (d) It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre- existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. (iii) For any eligible support structure: (a) It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or (b) There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or (c) The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or (d) The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. (iv) To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: (a) For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; (b) For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (v) To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (13) "Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC- licensed or -authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. (14) "Transmission Equipment" means equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service. (15) "Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small cell system, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto. (16) "Wireless Communications Service" means, without limitation, all FCC-licensed back-haul and other fixed wireless services, broadcast, private, and public safety communication services, and unlicensed wireless services. (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: (i) Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or (ii) Any collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. (d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 7 (1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department to file an application; (2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; (3) The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; (4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; (5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; (6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); (7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. The applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: (i) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting before filing the application; (ii) A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; (8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and (9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods (1) City review of application materials. The timeframe for review of an application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the city finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that delineates the missing information in writing. Such requests shall be made within 30 days of submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the city will notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed to complete the application. If the city makes a determination pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 processing time, as applicable, shall begin to run when the city issues this decision. (2) Tier 1 processing time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the WCF application, together with any other city permits required for a proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (i) If the city determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request, the city will notify the applicant of that determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF Permit application, as applicable. (ii) To the extent federal law provides a "deemed granted" remedy for Tier 1 WCF Permit applications not timely acted upon by the city, no such application shall be deemed granted until the applicant provides notice to the city, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted after the 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 7 time period provided in Section (e)(2) above has expired. (iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the city grants or that is deemed granted by operation of federal law shall be subject to all requirements of Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). (3) Tier 2 processing time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (4) Tier 3 processing time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (5) Denial of application. If the city denies a WCF application, the city will notify the applicant of the denial in writing of the reasons for the denial. (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapters 18.77 or 18.78; (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: (i) The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and (ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070. (2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section18.76.010(c) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 7 (i) Development Standards Except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; (3) Shall be screened from public view; (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. (4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 7 (5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new conditional use permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (l) Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (Ord. 5340 § 1 (part), 2015) PROJECT DESCRIPTION & REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK  PRELIMINARY ARB HEARING  RE:  Crown Castle – 16‐node expansion project within the downtown and core area   Introduction  Crown Castle (formerly NextG Networks) is seeking approval of a Crown Castle node  expansion project in the core area of Palo Alto. This project will utilize the similar designs  as approved in the previous project 15PLN‐00140. Crown Castle has a Master License  Agreement with the City of Palo Alto that allows for use of city‐controlled space on utility  poles and streetlight poles and in conduits owned by CPAU.  This Crown Castle project  small cell project is designed to be installed in the public right of way on existing utility  poles and street light poles. The small cell wireless sites provide capacity coverage to the  larger cell site or cell tower in the area. Verizon Wireless is the carrier to be installed in  these expansion nodes.   Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, Verizon Wireless and Crown  Castle Radio Frequency (RF) engineers have identified locations throughout the city that  require service. Sixteen (16) installations are currently planned to be co‐located on wood  utility poles and metal streetlights. Ten (10) of these small cells are proposed to be co‐ located on existing city street light poles, and the remaining six (6) small cells are proposed  to be installed on existing wood utility poles. These small cells will provide the City of Palo  Alto much needed improvements in network capacity and coverage. Small cells are  currently proposed in three (3) configurations that are dependent on the design  opportunities and constraints of specific pole locations within the City of Palo Alto.   Received September 11, 2017 Attachment D Coverage Needs  The unprecedented current and future demand for wireless service requires the  densification of existing cellular networks. More people are using a wireless connection for  personal and professional needs, both in home and in transit. As a result, wireless  communication facilities are diminishing in height and being located closer to the user to  meet both daily needs as well as provide essential coverage for emergency personnel. The  coverage map below demonstrates the current need. Blue indicates poor coverage, green  indicates good coverage.  Diagram 1 shows the area identified for the 16 nodes is  predominately blue. On the following page, Diagram 2 shows the improvement in coverage  achieved where green replaces blue.  Diagram 1: Current level of coverage:  Received September 11, 2017 Diagram 2: Proposed Improvement in coverage:          Site Selection & Site Locations      The process for site selection by Crown Castle aim to meet the need for service coverage,  while at the same time locating poles that will have the least impact. With high demand of  wireless services, the small facilities need to be located within a relatively narrow area as  compared to a ‘macro’ or traditional larger wireless facility. The 16 sites were initially  chosen based upon the greatest needs in coverage in the area identified. Each site was  walked by a team that included RF (radio frequency) engineers, a construction manager,  A&E (architectural and engineering) professionals and government relations consultants in  order to make on the spot decisions of the best pole in the neighborhood that could  accommodate the wireless equipment within the City’s criteria and with sensitivity to the  neighborhood. Pole location proximity to a residence and sidewalk, orientation of the  placement of the equipment on the pole and general visibility were taken into account as  to which pole in any given area was finally chosen. There are typically only one or two poles  that are viable candidates due to the small size design of the sites and limited range of the  signal. Pole selection in determined in the field ensuring the RF need for the facility and  constructability are met while meeting zoning and other requirements by the City,  including sensitivity to the community needs.         Received September 11, 2017 Configuration #1 – 48” antenna with all equipment attached to pole  Configuration #2 – 24” antenna with all equipment enclosed within mailbox/utility box  Node Closest address for  identity purposes  Assessor's address  based on location in  plans  Adjacent  APN Pole Type Config Pole  #  Adjacent  Zone Overlay  Zone  20 251 Emerson St (near  205 Everett St) 205 Everett St 12025024 Wood  utility #1 6474 RM‐30 MF  21 301 Bryant ( across  from 311 Everett Ave) 301 Bryant St 12014045 Wood  utility #1 6362 RMD  (NP) MF  22  386 Everett Ave  (across from 311  Waverley St)  386 Everett Ave 12035001 Wood  utility #1 6356 RM‐30  MF  23  482 Everett Ave  (across from 305  Cowper St)  482 Everett Ave 12014057 Wood  utility #1 6350 RMD  (NP) MF  24 243 Hawthorne Ave  221 Hawthorne Ave 12024002 Wood  utility #1 6378 RM‐30 MF  25  275 Forest Ave  (corner of Ramona St  & Forest Ave)   250 Hamilton Ave 12027011 Street  light #2 23 PF  MISP  26 332 Forest Ave 332 Forest Ave 12016038  Street  light or  stand‐ alone  pole*  #2 32 RM‐40  SOFA I CAP  27 248 Homer (across  from 819 Ramona St) 248 Homer Ave 12028012 Street  light #2 82 RT‐35  SOFA II  CAP/ HE  Corr SOFA  II  28 near 370 & 362  Channing Ave 370 Channing Ave 12017042 Street  light #2 34 R‐2 SOFA I CAP  29 751 Waverley St (near  760 Waverley) 385 Homer Ave 12016066 Street  light #2 76 DHS SOFA I CAP  30  411 Bryant St (corner  of Channing Ave and  Bryant St)  845 Ramona St 12028109 Street  light #2 86 AMF  SOFA I CAP  31  190 Channing Ave  (across from 913  Emerson St)  190 Channing Ave 12028051 Street  light #2 16 RT‐35 SOFA II  CAP/ HIS 5  32 201 High St 201 High St 12025049 Wood  utility #1 6492 RM‐15 MF  33  65 Embarcadero Rd  (and adjacent to 855  El Camino Real)  855 El Camino Real 12034015 Street  light #3 181 CC  ECR DG  34  77 Embarcadero Rd  (and adjacent to 855  El Camino Real)  855 El Camino Real 12034015 Street  light #3 143 CC  ECR DG  35  130 Embarcadero Rd  (and adjacent to 855  El Camino Real)  855 El Camino Real 12034015 Street  light #3 6 CC  ECR DG  Received September 11, 2017 Configuration #3 – 24” antenna with all equipment attached to pole   *Pole only Option for PA026 Configuration #2 – 24” antenna with all equipment enclosed  within mailbox/utility box      Configuration #1 – 48” antenna with all equipment attached to pole            Received September 11, 2017 Configuration #2 – 24” antenna with all equipment enclosed within mailbox/utility box  Received September 11, 2017 Configuration #3 – 24” antenna with all equipment attached to pole                        Received September 11, 2017 *Pole only Option for PA026 Configuration #2 – 24” antenna with all equipment enclosed within mailbox/utility box Received September 11, 2017 Woodpoles  After the team decided upon the 16, the list was discussed with staff from City of Palo Alto  Public Works and Utilities and then a site walk of all the sites was held on March 29, 2017  with engineering and compliance staff members. During that walk a request from staff was  made to locate all of the equipment proposed on wood utility poles be placed on the top of  the poles, rather than the original proposal to locate within the Communication space  between the existing wires. The proposed wood pole design uses a canister that will be  encompass the antennas and will be painted to match the woodgrain of the pole. The  additional skirt below the canister will also match and provides the most visual coverage  allowed by California Public Utility Commission’s General Order 95 (GO 95).  Received September 11, 2017 Streetlights & Stealth Radio Cabinets  For the streetlights chosen, the same criteria to choose the best pole taking into  consideration the distance to power, the least impact on the sidewalk for pedestrian flow  and visual impact are utilized. In response to staff concerns about ground equipment  location, the original placement design was revised to ensure all boxes are 2” away for the  curb.  As evidenced in the photo simulations within the drawings and the application  packet, ground equipment is proposed that blends within the immediate vicinity. The  mailbox design proposed for the sites in keeping with the other 19 Crown Castle nodes that  were approved by the City. We are looking for direction as to preference for the ground  equipment. Below are some options for consideration. Due to the concerns raised at the  May 18, 2017 ARB Preliminary hearing, benches and trash cans as concerns were raised  about space in the sidewalk and confusion as to a trash receptacle. More options can be  explored at the direction of the Board. Each site is unique, therefore art wraps in front of  shops may be preferred. We recognize that each neighborhood is different and therefore a  blended green mailbox or a specific art wrap may be the best option. A beige color as  depicted in the photosimulation demonstrates a more muted color.  Artistic wrap suggestion near foliage        Current dark green installation  Received September 11, 2017 Artistic wrap suggestion for boxes for shopping district Proposed site PA030 with lighter color option Received September 11, 2017   Built Crown Site for Viewing  635 Bryant Street across from City Hall is an example of an existing Crown Castle site.   Received September 11, 2017 Request for feedback from the Architectural Review Board   Crown Castle requests feedback on the following matters.  1)We have included two options for Node 26. This node was originally located at the corner of Gilman and Forest. In our Design Review Committee staff shared that the node at 675 Gilman was not appropriate, as it would create a visual impact the nearby historic resource and its front landscape view. The new location across the street does not create the same impact on the Historical aspects of 675 Gilman. Crown Castle needs to be able to keep the integrity of the RF design for the network while at the same time being sensitive to the requirements and preferences of the ARB and the Palo Alto community. The goal to have a Node that covers this important segment of the design with the least intrusive impact. Please advise as whether a new light pole is the preference, a simple slim line pole without a light or a modification to the original Node location. We will order the pole at the direction of staff and required specifications. 2)Do members of the ARB prefer the mailbox and utility box equipment painted to match the existing equipment boxes in the immediate vicinity of each site or is there a preference to incorporate art wrapped boxes? a.Mailboxes – is there a preference to have colors reflective of the surrounding area or one standard color? b.Art Wraps – is there a preference for Crown to work directly with Public Art during the application and hearing process to identify specific art in context with the specific location or simply identify art boxes with specific art to be determined by staff and the community later? 3)In particular, Crown requests feedback as to the Town & Country sites along the Embarcadero. The proposed design reflects the build out of these three sites with the single carrier, thereby eliminating the need for any equipment to be placed on the ground. However, as Crown Castle small cells are typically designed for collocation of more than one carrier, there will be a need for future ground equipment when a second carrier is added. The three sites identified are critical for coverage in this busy area. May we design these sites using mailboxes and/or utility boxes, a decorative bench, or must these remain pole only equipment? 4)Does have the ARB have additional feedback regarding our materials and orientation of facilities to guide our project to be more compliant with the City’s requirements? Crown Castle designed and cited the proposed telecommunications facilities to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as it addresses most of the major themes, including but not limited to: Received September 11, 2017 a.Building community and neighborhoods through providing infrastructure that allows residential housing and commercial enterprise along the expressway to have dependable wireless signal to support telecommuting, workplace connectivity and reliable access to emergency services, b.Maintaining and enhancing community character, while protecting natural features by carefully locating the facilities on existing utility poles chosen for least impacts, c.Meeting Residential and Commercial needs by providing needed communications infrastructure, d.Moreover, generally providing a modern buildout that accommodates the on‐the‐go lifestyle that defines the region. Project information can be found at http://www.crowncastle.com/projects/palo‐alto_ca.aspx  Respectfully submitted,   Rochelle Swanson   Government Relations Consultant for   Crown Castle   r.swanson@sure‐site.com 916‐801‐3178 Received September 11, 2017 Attachment E Public Correspondence Please review correspondence received on 17PLN-00193 through September 11, 2017 online at the project webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4001&TargetID=319 Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “250 Hamilton Avenue” and open the record for 17PLN-00193 by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachments named:  “17PLN-00193 – Resubmittal Project Plans 081617 1of4”  “17PLN-00193 – Resubmittal Project Plans 081617 2of4”  “17PLN-00193 – Resubmittal Project Plans 081617 3of4”  “17PLN-00193 – Resubmittal Project Plans 081617 4of4” More information can also be found on the City’s project webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4001&TargetID=319 Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00193 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles and streetlights that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8378) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1451 Middlefield: Junior Museum and Zoo (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-00147]: Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Junior Museum and Zoo Building and Construction of a New 15,033 Square Foot, One-Story Museum and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo With Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend Council adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as it applies to the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) project, and 2. Recommend Council approval of the JMZ project based on the findings and conditions in the attached Record of Land Use Action (RLUA). Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58854. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the ARB and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On August 3, 2017 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-67/ and verbatim meeting minutes are also online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59087. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s responses are summarized in Attachment C and in the following table. ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Create an architecture of its place, and:  Study alternatives for siding,  Separate the roof from siding, and  Reference context (residential and Lucie Stern)  Changed exterior wall finish to light cement plaster and wood siding, distinct from the metal standing seam roof material.  Added a taut roof eave1 on the lower and taller buildings to create shadow line between roof and wall transition  Extended the roof over the exhibit gallery (taller building) over the entry porch to create a covered gathering area.  Modified wood slats along the sides of the entry porch to create interesting openings and views.  Added playful square clerestory windows along the exhibit gallery wall facing the dawn redwood courtyard. Adjust the mass facing Middlefield by raising the roof or modulating the wall plane  Popped up the ridge along a portion of the roof along Middlefield to create clerestory windows down into the classroom, offices and collections hub.  Shifted the section of windows, wood siding accent and popped-up roof closer to the rainbow tunnel entrance for greater modulation of the long façade.  Increased the contrast of the wood 1 “taut eave” is not a technical term; it is a phrase to describe a very short eave that only extends a few inches beyond the exterior wall. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 siding/fence accents and rainbow tunnel red entrance portal with light cement plaster finish to modulate this façade. Restore the bridges shown in first concept Bridges are shown as an “add alternate” in revised set; JMZ will seek grant money for educational opportunities associated with bridges along the bio-swale. Ensure use of durable materials CAW has provided specifications and research on durability, finish and maintenance of metal standing seam roofs and wood siding, slats and fences. Look for additional places to use the portal concept CAW has further develop the playful tunnel and portal experience at the Rainbow tunnel. CAW is focusing on this area for this experience. Consider revisions to signage and wind façade  Plans now show the end gable filled in by the artistic wind façade (placeholder for the public art component – artist determines the final location and aesthetic).  Signage will be shifted off-center at the entrance plaza Fix drawings to ensure legibility.  The shadows on plans have been lightened to improve legibility.  The elevations have been enlarged to 1/8” scale for legibility. Analysis2 The proposed changes appear to substantially address the ARB comments (see comparison images below). If there is no additional grant money obtained, the bridges may not be possible, at least for the initial installation. The August 3rd staff report provided a narrative about the project’s conformance with Comprehensive Plan policies and PF district zoning standards. August 3rd ARB, Aesthetic issues: September 7th ARB, Improved: 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Metal roof turned down as wall Plaster and wood siding walls distinct from roof Roof extended over entry porch August 3rd ARB Close-up (Issues): September 7th ARB, Close-up (Improved): August 3rd Parking Lot Facing Elevation (Issues): September 7th Parking Lot Facing Elevation (Improved): August 3rd ARB, Middlefield Rd. Elevation (Issues): September 7th ARB, Middlefield Rd. Elevation (Improved): Clerestory windows in pop-up ridge over classroom City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 And better modulation and contrast across long elevation September 7th ARB plans include helpful sections reflecting recessions: Recessed Entrance to Exhibit Hall Section of Rainbow Tunnel Draft Architectural Review Findings Draft AR approval findings are provided in the attached Draft RLUA (Attachment B). The HRB’s findings from June 22nd are also included in the attached Draft RLUA. The HRB had received the cultural resources documents before making its recommendation and HRB members were given the opportunity to comment on how the project met AR Finding #2a. To ensure the project will meet AR Finding #4, staff added condition #5 to require landscape plan refinements prior to City Council review of the project. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The IS/MND was published August 4, 2017; the end of the initial public comment period was September 5, 2017. The ARB and HRB members were invited to comment on the IS/MND during the public comment period. As a group, the ARB may wish to comment on the Aesthetics and Cultural Resources sections of the IS/MND prior to providing a recommendation. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The City’s consultant (Powers) prepared the IS/MND, which covers both the JMZ project and the Rinconada Park Long Range Master Plan. Verbal testimony regarding the CEQA documents provided during the ARB hearing will be captured in verbatim ARB meeting minutes. Environmental review documents prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, are attached (Attachments F, G, H and J). The ARB’s recommendation to Council regarding the MND (Attachment G) is to focus on the JMZ project. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) focused on both the JMZ project and the ‘programmatic’ Rinconada Long Range Plan (RLRP). The RLRP is not an Architectural Review application. Subjects Covered in IS/MND Technical reports prepared for this project covered several subjects: Air Quality Report, Arborist Assessment, Noise Assessment, Traffic Assessment, and Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE). Cultural Resources The ARB and HRB had previously received the Historic Resource Evaluations used as source documents for the Cultural Resources section of the IS/MND. Transportation and Traffic On August 3rd, in response to an ARB member’s observation and question about parking at the facility, staff noted that information about the usage of the project’s parking lots would be provided in the IS/MND. The “Transportation and Traffic” section of the IS/MND notes:  parking in the area, including the JMZ lot and street parking, was never more than approximately 50% occupied during weekday AM and PM peak hours;  the gain of one street parking space due to the elimination of one Middlefield driveway, and the loss of one parking space within the reconfigured parking lot;  the proposed spaces plus existing spaces to remain would result in sufficient parking facilities for weekdays; and  the parking supply would be sufficient to accommodate any additional demand on Saturdays. The IS/MND also provides detailed information about trip generation for the project, weekend visitor data, efficiency improvements for better circulations (including better site ingress and egress and passenger drop-off area), and school bus trip increases during the weekday midday period. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments This public hearing date was announced at the August 3, 2017 ARB hearing as the continuation date for the hearing of this item. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. As this project was continued to a date certain by the ARB, no additional mailed noticing was conducted, but courtesy notice was provided. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Public Comments Two written public comments (Attachment I) were received prior to the publication of the CEQA document; these discussed aesthetics (following the ARB meeting of August 3rd) and parking (prior to the ARB meeting of August 3rd). A community meeting was held August 10th for the public to ask questions about the project and provide any verbal comments about the CEQA document; at that meeting, the public was advised to send any written comments to the assigned planner. One written comment was received during the CEQA public comment period (Attachment L), in support of using a metal roof. A later comment letter, received on September 12, 2017, is also attached (Attachment N). Next Steps/Alternative Actions The project will be scheduled for a City Council meeting, tentatively scheduled for mid- November, if the ARB recommends approval. City Council will review and take actions on the MND (which covers both the JMZ and the ‘programmatic’ Rinconada Park Long Range Plan), the JMZ project application, a Parks Improvement Ordinance (PIO), and formal agreements regarding JMZ construction and operations. Although funding for Phase 2 does not exist at this time, Community Services Department staff is working to identify funding, since integration of the Phase 2 project into Phase 1 implementation is the most prudent course of action. If funding is secured, articulated designs for Phase 2 will be presented to the ARB. In addition to the recommended action, the ARB may: 1. Recommend Council approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a third and final hearing date (un)certain to resolve any design issues the ARB does not wish to delegate to staff, the ARB subcommittee, or Council; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information 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: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)  Attachment C: Summary of ARB Comments and Responses (PDF)  Attachment D: August 31 Revised Project Description (PDF)  Attachment E: August 3 ARB Report (No Attachments) (PDF)  Attachment F: Signed Notice of Intent JMZ Rinconada (PDF)  Attachment G: Signed MND August 5, 2017 (PDF)  Attachment H: Initial Study - Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 8.4.17 (PDF)  Attachment I: Public Comments Prior to ISMND Publication(PDF) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8  Attachment J: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (DOCX)  Attachment K: Revised Project Plans (DOCX)  Attachment L: Public Comment Received During Public Comment Period (PDF)  Attachment M: ARB Excerpt Minutes August 3, 2017 JMZ (DOCX)  Attachment N: Public Comment September 12 (PDF) 003-46-006 003-45-014 120-08-037 124-02-010 003-58-033 120-08-012 120-08-011 20-08-009 120-08-036 124-01-011 003-45-013 120-08-031 120-08-030 120-08-029 120-08-027 120-08-015 120-08-014 120-08-013 120-08-010 120-08-038 120-08-039 120-08-040 120-08-042 124-02-011 120-08-025 120-08-019 120-08-018 120-08-017 120-08-023 003-58-051 0 003-58-032 003-45-010 003-45-009 003-45-056 003-45-057 003-45-046 120-08-028 003-45- Girl Scout House Children's Library Junior Museum and Zoo 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 00' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 89.1' 132.5' 19.0' 112.5' 119.0' 132.5'48.9' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' .0' 203.3' 20.7' 22.5' 1.8' 209.9' 1494.6' 370.8' 560.5' 241.2' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 150.0' 80.0' 15 58.0'100.0' 173.2' 108.0' 204.1' 108.0' 00' 139.2' 58.9' 139.2'22.5' 20.7' 55.9' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 95.4' 132.5' 25.3' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 90.3' 132.5' 20.2' 112.5' 461.9' 510.8' 241.2' 560.5' 370.8' 75.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 60.7' 125.0' 60.8' 125.0' 78.7' 93.0'109.7' 31.9' 82.6' 123.4' 87.4' 26.5' 60.7'32.0' 78.7' 68.2' 78.4' 3.5' 148.4' 30.6' 26.5' 87.4' 130.7' 68.4' 151.9' 71.7' 80 110.9' 51.1' 16.2' 112.0' 112.0' 82.9' 70.0' 90.0' 125.0' 90.0' 125.0' 125.0' 60.4' 125.0' 60.0' 130.7' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 67.4' 23.1'102.6' 41.5' 170.0'18.4' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 67.4' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 149.0' 50.0' 149.1' 50.0' 149.1'3.5' 6.5' 46.5' 155.7' 50.0' 155.7' 50.0' 155.8' 50.0' 108.9' 53.5' 109.0' 53.5' 108.8' 46.5' 108.9' 46.5' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 51.5' 150.0' 51.5' 156.5' 53.5' 156.5' 53.5' 10 50.0' 1010 50.0' 11 56.5' 1 52.5' 135.0' 52.5' 135.0' 70.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5'40.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5' 50.0' 60.0' 50.0' 60.0'40.0' 50.0 147.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100 50.0' 100100 50.0' 100 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 75.0' 60.0' 75.0' 60.0' 200.1' 1 57.3'42.2'50.0' EMB A RC AD ER O ROA D HOPKINS AVENUEHOPKINS AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD E M BAR C A DE RO RO AD ON STREET CEDAR STREET WILSON STREET COMMUNITY LANE COMMUNITY LANE HARRIET STREET This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) Curb Edge Tree (TR) abc Known Structures abc Lot Dimensions Water Feature Railroad City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary 0' 165' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto afrench, 2016-07-26 00:10:42Parcel Report (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) APPROVAL NO. 2017-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO (JMZ) [FILE NO.17PLN-00147] AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR JMZ PROJECT AND RINCONADA LONG RANGE PLAN On _______, 2017, the City Council approved the Architectural Review application for the replacement Junior Museum and Zoo, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On April 27, 2017, the architect representing the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo submitted an Architectural Review application for the replacement Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) at 1451 Middlefield Road, zoned Public Facilities, and associated site improvements (“Project”); the review of this application followed two preliminary review meetings with the Architectural Review Board and one study session with the Historic Resources Board to discuss earlier project designs; B. On June 22, 2017, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the Historic Resource Evaluations and the project and recommended approval of the project, C. On August 3, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and continued the hearing to allow for revisions and publication and public comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); D. On August 4, 2017, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City (1) published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluating the JMZ project and, programmatically, the Rinconada Long Range Master Plan, (2) provided a Notice of Intent for circulation of the document for public comments for a period ending September 5, 2017, and (3) held a community outreach meeting on August 10, 2017 regarding the CEQA document and process, and no comments on the CEQA document were received; and E. Following the end of the public comment period, the ARB reviewed and recommended Council approval of the IS/MND (with respect to the JMZ project) and Project application on September 21, 2017. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comment from August 4, 2017 through September 5, 2017, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared. SECTION 3. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW. The Historic Resources Board found that; (1) the project is in substantial compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards, (2) the project meets Architectural Review Finding 2b, in that the project preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively the site and historic character/resources, with the provision that the applicant work with an HRB subcommittee to find a solution to the roofing issue the HRB raised prior to ARB review, and (3) the HRB is supportive of listing the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House as a historic resource. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS 1a. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, specifically: i. Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and ii. Policy C-22, which encourages new community facilities to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community; and iii. Policy L-48: “Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.” 1b. The design is also consistent with: i. the Public Facility uses and development standards, and ii. with the other applicable Zoning Code regulations (Parking ordinance, , as clarified in the ARB August 3, 2017 staff report and attachments thereto. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas; More specifically: i. The design was revised during the process, which involved two preliminary review sessions with the ARB and one study session with the HRB, and two formal meetings with the ARB. ii. Once implemented, the site plan will provide a better internal sense of order at the site. iii. The new gable-roofed JMZ building, at a height of 29 feet and set back 24 feet from Middlefield Road, would be similar in height and setback to existing two- story houses located across Middlefield Road near the JMZ. The netted zoo enclosure, at 36 feet in height, would be taller than the existing building. iv. There is no context based design criteria for the PF zone, but the building facades feature exterior colors and textures to provide visual interest and features gable roofs, materials and colors to respond to the site context (Lucie Stern Center, Girl Scout House and the residential neighborhood). The Middlefield Road façade has been reworked during the process to have greater modulation and improved materials that will fit the neighborhood. The lower masses along Middlefield and property line shared with Walter Hays respect the residential neighborhood scale. Along with a roof line that pops up for clerestory windows and, with the wall cladding, help to break the long façade, the building eave, skin and structure extend beyond the exterior wall for a section as shade protection for the storefront windows facing south east. v. The project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and does not cause significant impact to the historic resources including the Girl Scout House. Existing protected trees and important trees will be retained. vi. Two street trees would be removed (Little Leaf Linden along Middlefield Avenue and a London Plane Tree along Hopkins) for driveways, but new street trees will be added to the project in the locations of the old driveway aprons to mitigate the removals (subject to additional study of adjusted driveways at Middlefield and Hopkins, per approval condition, and coordination with Urban Forestry staff regarding planned street tree plantings and removals). vii. No heritage or protected trees will be removed, and tree removal and replacement will comply with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance. Transplanting of one coast redwood and one coast live oak is proposed. viii. Approximately 41 public trees would be removed as part of the JMZ project, including the above-noted street trees (six are for the parking lot reconfiguration near the Girl scout House, 12 in the Zoo area for zoo reconfiguration, 13 for the new JMZ building, six, non-native trees in poor condition - from the oak grove next to Lucie Stern to improve the growing conditions for the remaining native oaks, and one from the edge of Rinconada Park for the new entry plaza). 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area, in that: i. The materials to be used include smooth, hand-troweled plaster; clear-stained cedar, horizontal siding and ceilings, and use of wood slats horizontally and vertically for fences and enclosures; netting; durable standing-seam metal roofing and accent panels; low-E aluminum curtainwall and punched windows; wood-topped concrete seat-walls; with use-appropriate whimsical signage, public art and rainbow tunnel; and ii. Colors are warm, earth tones, plus off-white and red colors enhancing the composition by their reference the Lucie Stern Center buildings and the bright colors used for the whimsical components of the Project. iii. The architectural details of the building and site invoke whimsy and child-like scale into the simple massing and contemporary materials. iv. Facing Middlefield Road, the wall cladding further breaks up the long façade and provides warm natural material accents. 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.) in that: i. The project responds to the new crosswalk planned on Middlefield Road at Kellogg Avenue, and improved crosswalk on Newell Road at Hopkins Avenue, allowing connection from Middlefield to Rinconada Park with ADA compliant paths and featuring a raised pedestrian crossing through the parking lot providing a direct connection between the Lucie Stern Community Center and Rinconada Park; a new pedestrian path connecting the sidewalk on Middlefield Road to the JMZ as a ‘promenade’ to the park entry plaza, including bicycle parking facilities at key locations. ii. The proposed parking lot would provide efficient circulation with no dead-end drive aisles, and meet the City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles with safer, 90-degree parking spaces allowing sufficient room for vehicles to back out of parking spaces. The vehicular circulation will be improved with the project, including maneuverability of buses and large trucks. 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be appropriately maintained in that: i. New landscaping is proposed at the JMZ facility and parking lots, designed to meet the 50% shade requirement of PAMC Section 18.54.040 and “no net loss of canopy” goals; conditions of approval for use of Silva cells will ensure this goal and code requirement will be achieved. ii. The project features 57 new trees including five native oaks, intended to offset tree removals and many (but not all) of the plants to be used are ‘regionally indigenous drought resistant’ species. iii. Use of non-natives in key locations is appropriate for this use (educational) and setting (important community center and children’s facility requiring drought resistant, sustainable and appropriate plants). 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning, in that: i. The project is designed to CALgreen guidelines for design and operational and efficiency provisions to minimize wasteful energy consumption. The building is oriented to optimize daylight to interiors, and features low-emissivity glazing, energy efficient LED lighting, and includes new bicycle parking spaces for greater sustainability in the transportation sector. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. Planning Conditions 1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 2. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 3. Mitigation Measures (#3a – #3d): The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project (Exhibit A) is incorporated by reference and the mitigation measures (below) shall be implemented as described in such document: 3a. BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the project shall implement the following measures: i. Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until construction activities are initiated. ii. If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the CDFW. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub. iii. Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest. 3b. MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 3c. MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the proposed project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. i. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC. ii. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. 3d. MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, construction noise would be reduced to a less than significant level: i. Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code). ii. Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration for school activities and hours: iii. Schedule high noise generating construction activities (such as the use of the concrete saws) that are located directly adjacent to school structures during periods when school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks, weekends, and after school dismissal. Coordination of construction activity times with school officials may be necessary. iv. Construct portions of the museum located directly adjacent to the school first, where practical, in an effort to provide shielding to the school from construction activities located further to the west and south. v. Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on-site construction and demolition noise from the school. To be most effective, the barrier should be placed as close as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor. Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing for specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets. vi. Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. vii. Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical. viii. Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. ix. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. x. Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from businesses or noise- sensitive land uses. xi. Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in writing. xii. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences or the school bordering the project site. xiii. Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and made available to noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the construction site 4. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "New Construction Junior Museum & Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road,” stamped as received by the City on September 6, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 5. LANDSCAPE PLAN REFINEMENTS: The following additional modifications to the landscape plan and civil plans for further refinements shall be addressed prior to City Council review: a. For auxiliary pathway consider a material modification in the area between Lucie Stern and Middlefield; b. Employ rounded curb corners (small radius) at angled curb areas adjacent to traffic to save the curbs from future chipping; c. Update plan sheets as needed to reflect relocation of gates so they do not block pedestrian and bike connectivity from parking lot to JMZ, and from Rinconada Park to Middlefield; d. Update plan sheets to reflect sheet A2.0 sidewalk width to ensure a minimum sidewalk width of at least five feet between the bus drop-off and planter; e. Consider a vegetative swale instead of an 18” berm and consider placing step stones or access paths to minimize trampling of Carex grass; f. Provide step stones or access path between Girl Scout House front yard and parking lot, to minimize pedestrian damage to new plantings or alter plant material; g. Adjust plantings at the Lucie Stern loading area (Texas Redbuds will not have enough clearance to avoid being damaged by delivery trucks) to more columnar trees to reduce canopy interference with loading activities; h. Adjust width of the raised crosswalk (10 feet) to allow a more gradual ramp (at least five feet wide); i. Add a street tree in the planter strip at Middlefield at the front of the JMZ building; j. Reconfigure driveway approaches slightly to be more aligned and aesthetically pleasing (at Middlefield and at Hopkins). k. The tunnel area will need to include signage to advise bicyclists to walk their bikes through the tunnel (or otherwise direct bicyclists) to avoid conflict with pedestrians. 6. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 7. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: TBD 8. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 9. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: TBD 10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. 11. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No additional freestanding signs are approved at this time. The wall sign at the front of the JMZ is not approved at this time, and shall be subject to separate architectural review and may be in a different location if public art is proposed on that façade. The existing, previously approved freestanding ‘whimsical’ sign installed per PCE Director’s amendment September 13, 2004), and located approximately 12 feet from the back of sidewalk on Middlefield Road, may be reinstalled at a similar setback as indicated on Sheet A1.1. All other signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. Fire 12. Fire The building permit plans shall include installation of a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe system, NFPA 24 underground fire service and NFPA 72 fire alarm system. Public Art 13. Public Art. The project will incorporate public art. Artist Charles Sowers has been selected as the project artist and approved by the Public Art Commission. The artist was scheduled to being design development process in the summer of 2017, and anticipates completing design development prior to the issuance of a building permit. Public Works – Engineering Conditions 14. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. The qualified third-party reviewer the applicant has retained shall submit certification that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 15. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 16. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 17. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 18. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 19. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 20. SWPPP: The applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 21. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650- 496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 22. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. Please also call out City standard details as applicable and include those details within the plan set. 23. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 24. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to grading and building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 25. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of- way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. 26. PAVEMENT: Hopkins Ave and Embarcadero Rd were resurfaced in 2011 and 2015 respectively. These streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Hopkins Ave and Embarcadero Rd based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 27. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 28. The applicant shall continue to work with Public Works and Utilities toward a long term solution for relocation of utilities out of the corridor prior to construction of the JMZ project. 29. Due to the lack of storm drain infrastructure on Hopkins and the historical storm drainage issues on that street, please revise DMA VI to drain elsewhere. 30. Civil plans should clearly call out where details 1 and 2 as shown on sheet C2.3 apply. 31. Proposed new trash enclosure should drain to sanitary sewer. 32. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 33. Building and Grading Permit plans should only include work proposed for this project. Urban Forestry 34. Silva cells shall be included in the design to ensure the project will meet the city’s goal for no net loss of canopy and 50% shading of parking lot area. The planting strategy submitted with the building permit describes the following: a. Total number of replacement trees to be planted and shown on a table with removals b. Attributes (for each area or grove) that will be used for selecting species such as native, large stature at maturity, drought-tolerant, and complementary to established trees that are retained c. Soil volume and distance to nearest impervious area/obstacle to growth d. Projected canopy diameter of each planted tree in 15 years 35. TREE PROTECTION REPORT (TPR). Provide a construction level report for building permit plan check. 36. If City Council formally designates as Landmark Trees, Pecan #330 and Dawn Redwood #327, they shall be retained and protected during construction and shall be subject to the same tree ordinance provisions as the oaks, with a mitigation measure providing for their retention or replacement if lost. 37. Civil engineering and grading plans. Plans shall show finish grade (FG) and the lower limit of excavation. Engineer shall receive from the project arborist for each tree root zone to be preserved, a spot grade of the lowest excavation depth for new driving surface, landscape area or other activity. 38. Ensure that the existing Utility Easement that bisects the site shall not in any event allow for excavation via an open trench thru the root zone of (Designated Landmark) Pecan Tree # 330. 39. Add Project Arborist contact information to the Project Directory. If CPA-LA, list direct contact information for construction-phase contact ability. Utilities Electrical 40. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 41. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 42. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 43. The new pad-mount transformer is shown on plan sheet E1.00 located in the landscaped area just north of the electrical room. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). The proposed transformer pad appears to meet the 3- feet minimum clearance on the non-operable sides and 8’ feet clearance on the operable side. 44. Plan sheet E1.00 shows the electrical room adjacent to the padmount transformer and appears to provide the location for electrical panel/switchboard. 45. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on building permit plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 46. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards. 47. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 48. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. Public Works Watershed Protection 49. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. The trash area must meet these requirements as well as the Zero Waste sizing requirements. 50. Include Construction best management practices (BMP) sheet in plans. Prior to building permit approval: 51. Disconnect downspouts and allow to drain to landscaping (outward from building as needed). (C 2.1 mentions connecting roof leader to storm drain). 52. New storm drain/drop inlets in parking lots and high visitor areas should include a trash capture device. Inlets should also be labeled with a ‘flows to Bay’ message. 53. Permeable concrete a. County-wide design specs should be followed (ensure pg. C 2.3 is appropriate specs.) b. Installation specs per company should be followed c. Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent Departments (Public Works, Parks). d. Set up meeting with parties before project is approved by City Council. e. Funding for maintenance needs to be approved. 54. Ensure all interior and exterior drainage from zoo/animal area is piped to sanitary sewer system. 55. Stormwater treatment measures a. Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details c. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines- sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. 56. Stormwater quality protection a. At a minimum, follow the BMP sheet that must be submitted with plans for entitlement. b. Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. Have clear maintenance plan for trash and recycling containers to not allow overflow. SECTION 6. Term of Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney MEMORANDUM 455 Lambert Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ARCHITECTS www.cawarchitects.com 650 328 1818 DATE August 21, 2017 PROJECT NAME Palo Alto JMZ CAW PROJECT NO. 11011 SUBJECT ARB Comments and Corresponding Revisions DISTRIBUTION Amy French, Friends Planning Committee, JMZ Staff PREPARED BY Sarah Vaccaro SUMMARY OF ARB COMMENTS – AUGUST 3RD MEETING: 1. Create an Architecture of its Place: instead of agricultural/warehouse aesthetic, reinforce Palo Alto aesthetic (specific to exhibit gallery building), proposed items to study: a. Distinct material or color on roof verses siding, AND/OR b. Add taught eave to create separation between roof and siding c. Reference residential and Lucie Stern context 2. Break-up the Middlefield Elevation: a. Raise the roof for a portion of the elevation, AND/OR b. Create modulation along this elevation 3. Add Back the Bridges 4. Address Maintenance Concerns: a. Durability, finish, maintenance, life cycle of metal standing seam roofs b. Durability, finish, maintenance, life cycle of wood siding, wood slats and wood fences 5. Child Scale Portal: like this playfulness of this concept at the rainbow tunnel – are there other places to play with this concept? 6. Signage and Artistic Wind Façade Revisions a. Artistic wind façade to fill gable end (note: this is a placeholder for the public art component – final location and aesthetic will be determined by artist) b. Off-center signage at entrance is preferred 7. Drawing Scale and Legibility Comments: shadows on plans too dark, elevations too small of scale PROPOSED REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO ARB COMMENTS: 1. Create an Architecture of its Place: instead of agricultural/warehouse aesthetic, reinforce Palo Alto aesthetic (specific to exhibit gallery building) Proposed Revisions: • Change exterior finish material on walls to be light cement plaster and wood siding – both distinct from the metal standing roof material. • Add a taught roof eave on the lower and taller buildings to create shadow line between roof and wall transition. • Extend the roof over the exhibit gallery (taller building) over the entry porch to create a covered gathering area. Modified the wood slats along the sides of the entry porch to create interesting openings and views. • Add playful square clerestory windows along the exhibit gallery wall facing the dawn redwood courtyard. 2. Break-up the Middlefield Elevation: Proposed Revisions: • Pop-up the ridge along a portion of the roof along Middlefield to create clerestory windows down into the classroom, offices and collections hub. • Shift the section of windows, wood siding accent and popped-up roof closer to the rainbow tunnel entrance to modulate the long façade more. • Increase the contrast of the wood siding/fence accents and rainbow tunnel red entrance portal with light cement plaster finish to modulate this façade. 3. Add Back the Bridges Proposed Revisions: • The bridges will be included in the revised drawings as an add alternate. JMZ staff will seek grant money for the educational opportunities associated with the bridges along the bio-swale to fund the bridges. CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | MEMORANDUM | Page 2 of 2 4. Address Maintenance Concerns: Proposed Revisions: • CAW will provide specifications and research on the durability, finish and maintenance of metal standing seam roofs and wood siding, wood slats and wood fences. 5. Child Scale Portal: like this playfulness of this concept at the rainbow tunnel – are there other places to play with this concept? Proposed Revisions: • CAW will further develop the playful tunnel and portal experience at the Rainbow tunnel. We would like to focus on this area for this experience. 6. Signage and Wind Façade Revisions Proposed Revisions: • Artistic wind façade will be shown filling the end gable. (note: this is a placeholder for the public art component – final location and aesthetic will be determined by artist) • Signage will be shifted off-center at entrance plaza. 7. Drawing Scale and Legibility Comments Proposed Revisions: • The shadows on plans will be lightened to improve legibility. • Elevations will be enlarged to 1/8” scale for legibility. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 455 Lambert Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ARCHITECTS www.cawarchitects.com 650 328 1818 DATE August 31, 2017 PROJECT NAME Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo SUBJECT Formal Planning and ARB Review Submittal: Project Description Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo Background As the Bay Area’s only children’s science center and zoo, the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) is a place where children and families explore, wonder and make discoveries about the natural world. Our mission is to engage a child’s curiosity for science and nature. For visiting children, especially toddlers and preschoolers, we provide multi-sensorial, kinesthetic and play-based exhibits, authentic artifacts, hands-on programs, and live animal encounters designed to connect children to early science concepts. Our exhibit messaging is designed to cultivate empathy for the natural world and introduce conservation issues and solutions. For school-aged children, the museum offers annually 1,100 in-depth and hands-on science classes to 4,000 students in local elementary schools, at the museum, and in local open space preserves where students gain concrete experience and practice with scientific methods and theory, and conservation practice. The JMZ is a unique and highly valued resource for children. Child development research shows that the physical experiences offered here foster the development of abstract reasoning skills and improve learning. Research also shows that engagement with zoo animals helps children cultivate empathy for the natural world and to support conservation of wildlife and wild places. The JMZ’s intimate and approachable scale and consistent staffing has helped us forge rich and long-term relationships with our community—relationships that have allowed us to broaden and deepen the impact of our work. As the Junior Museum and Zoo approaches its 80th year, the museum and zoo are constrained by a facility that no longer reflects the needs of its visitors, collections, and operations. Due to inadequate storage and support spaces, accreditation options for both the Museum and Zoo are unobtainable. While the Educators continue to deliver outstanding educational programs, they are severely limited by lack of office, preparation and storage spaces. In addition, there are many accessibility and safety concerns in the existing facility and the surrounding site. The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum engaged the architectural firm of Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects, Inc. to work with a broad array of stakeholders to complete a facilities master plan in 2011 and 2012 evaluating program and operational needs, inadequacies of the existing facility, and options for renovation or new construction. During the master plan process, the following criteria was developed: Visitor Experience • Tailor spaces for experiences to specific audience segments, including early childhood audiences and children with special needs. • Develop safe and effective ways to connect children with live animals. • Develop classrooms that improve student engagement and learning impact. • Improve access, safety, restrooms and way finding. • Create opportunities for outdoor “play in nature” experiences. • Improve access from the JMZ to Rinconada Park amenities: playground; Children’s Library; Children’s Theatre; Stern Community Center; Art Center; Walter Hays Elementary. Collections • Provide facilities for animal health and quarantine to meet the standards of the American Zoological Association (AZA). • Improve the care and storage areas for the non-living collections--held in public trust by the Museum—to meet the standards of the American Museum Association (AMA) standards. Operations • Improve storage, access, and work areas to ensure staff safety, efficiency and effectiveness of operations. • Implement green building practices. The overarching goal of the master plan is to “right size” the JMZ facilities to properly support the progressive and innovative educational and science based programs they provide to the community. Due to the limitations of the existing facilities and infrastructure, the facility master plan culminated in a recommendation to demolish the existing museum and zoo buildings and replace with a new facility sized to adequately support the educational mission, outreach, and public programs for Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 2 of 6 Project Description and Scope The proposed design for the Junior Museum & Zoo Project includes constructing a new museum and education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosure, and perimeter site improvements on the site of the current facilities. The project scope also includes the reconfiguration of the existing shared parking lot, fire access and coverage, accessible parking stalls and pathways, storm drainage and site lighting. The proposed project scope has been and will continue to be developed in coordination with the Rinconada Master Plan for the surrounding park improvements, parking lot reconfiguration and adjacent public facilities. The Junior Museum & Zoo is located on one contiguous city-owned parcel of land which includes the historic Lucie Stern Community Center, Children’s Library and Theater, Girls Scout Building, Rinconada Park, Rinconada Pool, Fire Station, Power Substation, shared-use parking lot and the JMZ. The existing JMZ building is located directly on the shared property line with Walter Hays Elementary School. The existing JMZ exterior zoo is located within the Rinconada Park boundary. The buildable area of the site is further constrained by the parking lot, multiple heritage and mature specimen trees and an existing utility corridor running underneath the existing exterior zoo. The challenge of this project is to design a museum, education center and zoo adequately sized to accommodate the program while working within the multiple layers of site goals and constraints. Goals and constraints include minimizing the impact and improving the interface with Rinconada Park, reconfiguring the parking lot to clarify circulation and increase safety, protecting heritage and mature feature trees, improving visibility and way finding along Middlefield, and integrating a new public building within the adjacent residential neighborhood context. Design Approach: Site Organization Our design approach strives to clarify site circulation and connections within the 18-acre public site, establish a civic presence for the Junior Museum & Zoo by referencing the adjacent history Lucie Stern complex and Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout building, and create a pedestrian scaled approach from Middlefield Road. In referencing the formal procession and organization of the Lucie Stern complex around central courtyards, the main entrance to the JMZ is centered within a gracious entry courtyard fronting the main approach from the parking lot. Perpendicular to this formal approach is a promenade connecting Middlefield Road to the JMZ entry plaza to the Park Arrival Plaza. This promenade defines the more intimate courtyards encircling the existing feature Dawn Redwood and Pecan trees. The site design approach is to create a layered effect of the formal approach and promenade, clean and orthogonal plan, and variety of scaled courtyards and establish a civic presence for the JMZ facilities that reflects the importance of its programs and experiences to the Palo Alto community. Design Approach: Promenade Experience The JMZ mission is to engage a child’s curiosity for science and nature. This mission statement is the organizing design principle for the site, building and zoo design. The promenade connecting Middlefield Road to the JMZ entry plaza to the Park Arrival Plaza is a journey through interactive exhibits, installations, and landscapes with science and nature. These experiences are tied to the principles of physical, life, earth and space, and applied sciences and allow children to play, explore, self-direct, and use all their senses. Starting on Middlefield, a tunnel through the building allows children to play with rainbows and light created by skylight prisms and filters. The tunnel opens as a larger portal on Middlefield signifying entrance for pedestrians and facets into a smaller child- scaled portal leading into the Jurassic Garden courtyard. There are multiple experiences in the Jurassic Garden courtyard for both the public and JMZ visitors. The public experience is bridging over a bio-swale highlighting earth science concepts of storm water treatment and ecological systems of native planting and animals. Children will have the opportunity to branch off from the bridge and hop along a boulder path through the bio-swale. The public experience is mirrored by the JMZ visitor experience (entered from the exhibit gallery and classrooms) of Jurassic themed plants, rocks, fossils and dinosaur sculptures encircling the Jurassic-era Dawn Redwood tree. Children will also be able to climb down into the bio-swale from the JMZ visitor side. The entry plaza is the intersection of the main approach from the parking lot and the promenade and is themed around concepts of physical science. Children can stand at the center of the sundial, cast their shadow onto markings in the pavement, to learn about time, movement of the sun and shadows. The structure of the building extrudes out into the plaza creating an entry portico. This structure creates a framework for a public art installation, designed to showcase the natural features of the site such as wind patterns or physical science concepts of gravity. The portico also creates a flexible area for JMZ exhibits to spill out of the exhibit gallery into the public plaza. The Pecan Tree courtyard creates a sheltered play area for children to hop, jump, crawl, climb like animals over a stump maze and obstacle course. Animal footprints in the paving and resilient surfacing will lead children to kid-scaled view portals into the CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 3 of 6 “loose-in-the zoo” beyond. During the first phase of this project, the walled outdoor classroom will open to both the Pecan Tree plaza and loose-in-the zoo allowing for public events and zoo themed programs. The Park Arrival Plaza is the intersections of four main pathways of the site calling for a radial configuration. At the center of this plaza will be the sun and the rest of the scaled solar system will radiate into Rinconada park extending the themes of science and nature into the park. The concepts of scale and mathematical patterns are integrated into the zoo wall along the park, paving along the promenade and fence along Middlefield Road and Walter Hays. The experience of science and nature in these exterior spaces directly links with the experiences of science, nature and animals as visitors move into the exhibit hall, classrooms and loose-in-the zoo. Design Approach: Building and Zoo Program The JMZ main entrance centered on the exterior entry plaza ushers visitors into an intimate lobby that opens into the higher volume space of the exhibits gallery. Three skylights, north-facing curtain wall, and playful punched window openings allow natural daylight to fill the exhibits gallery. Clear circulation and lines of site will allow visitors to proceed into the exhibit gallery, out to the loose in the zoo or out to the Jurassic Garden courtyard. The higher volume of the exhibit gallery steps down to lower volume spaces for more intimate baby spaces, temporary exhibits, views into the back-of house spaces and connections to the multi-use room. The exhibit gallery, multi-use room, classroom, staff office area and collections storage spaces encircle and are connected by the Jurassic Garden courtyard. The multi-use classroom has direct access to the exhibit gallery and Jurassic Garden courtyard, creating a flexible space for classes, evening events, birthday parties, board meetings and more. The JMZ educators will be able to leverage the exterior courtyard space to enrich and expand the indoor classroom experiences. The concept for the zoo is a completely netted enclosure where birds, small mammals and children can roam about freely - loose in the zoo! Within the larger netted enclosure, there will be enclosed exhibits for larger animals - bobcats, raccoons, tortoises, meerkats along with a flamingo and waterfowl pond and raised turtle pool with “crawl-thru” opportunities. The central feature of the loose in the zoo will be the large artificial tree, where children will be able to crawl around the root zone. In a future phase, children will be able to climb up to a tree-fort experience in the canopy (see more about phase two below). The loose in the zoo netted enclosure forms a spider-like web overhead. The loose-in-the zoo enclosure will have a wall around it’s perimeter to meet zoo accreditation requirements. This wall creates opportunities for educational and interactive exhibits, gathering spaces, and play areas for visitors in the park beyond the zoo enclosure as well. The exterior zoo support area located beyond loose in the zoo houses the zoo animals when they are not in loose in the zoo as well as space to store zoo maintenance materials. The area will have a wall around it’s perimeter and netting over the top. An exterior service corridor accessed from Middlefield will connect the exhibits workshop, program animal support spaces, trash enclosure and zoo service spaces. Design Approach: Massing and Materiality The architectural massing, organization and form create the setting, the stage, the framework for the child’s engagement with interactive science and nature exhibits while also referencing the historic and residential context of the site. The architectural materials, systems and details reflect the contemporary language of today while taking cues from the site, historical context and Palo Alto aesthetic. The building is a simple gabled roof form with tight eaves referencing the form of the historic Lucie Stern Complex and Lou Henry Hoover House as well as many residential neighbors. The building is organized into long bars that break, wrap and step to create tunnels, courtyards, shorter and taller volumes. These forms create the stage for the JMZ experience based on site specific and program needs. The architecture then circles back to further reinforce the concepts of science and nature through material, structure, systems and details. The taller mass houses the exhibit gallery and expresses a simple structural system of rigid steel frames on the interior of space as well as the exterior entry plaza portico. Exposing the structure allows the building to be used as an educational example of physical and applied scientific concepts. The steel structure and standing metal seam roof extends beyond the exterior wall of the lobby and exhibit gallery to create the sheltered roof over the entry portico. The entry porch ceiling and “walls” are wrapped in wood slats creating playful sunlight patterns and infusing the space with warm, natural materials. The wood slats continue into the interior of the exhibit gallery connecting the outdoor and indoor experiences visually. An intentional skylight opening and picture window opening frame views to the Pecan tree and Jurassic Garden courtyard experiences beyond the entry porch. The lower masses along Middlefield and property line with Walter Hays step down to respect the residential neighborhood scale. The exterior walls are clad in vertical cedar planks and the roof is the same standing metal seam material serving to further break down the scale of these masses. A taught eave line on the lower mass further references the tight eaves and transition from plaster walls to clay tile roofs on the Lucie Stern buildings. The building eave, skin and structure extends three CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 4 of 6 feet beyond the exterior wall along a portion of the Middlefield facade to provide shade protection for the storefront windows facing south east. The accent color and material (as shown in red standing metal seam in renderings and elevations) used on awning serves as a wayfinding to highlight the main building entrance and rainbow tunnel portals. The sloped curbed skylights into the exhibit gallery and along the Middlefield façade are clad in the same accent color and material allowing natural daylight to fill the interior spaces and creating a visual feature on the exterior of the gabled roofs. The architectural details of the building and site invoke whimsy and child-like scale into the simple massing contemporary materials. Square punched windows of various sizes and sill heights create fun places for children and parents to look into or out of the exhibit and classroom spaces. The variation and rhythm of the standing metal seam ribs and vertical wood slats on the entry portico and fencing articulate mathematical and colorful patterns for children to discover. Sconces have uplights and downlights to illuminate the wood slats of the entry portico to create a playful pattern of light above the entrance. A concrete seat wall along the promenade is topped with wood planks referencing the exterior building material and creating warmer benches. Corten steel raised planters in the Jurassic Garden courtyard will naturally rust and weather similar to the weathering of clay tile roofs and brick walkways. In-ground up lighting will softly feature the JMZ sign, Dawn Redwood and Pecan Trees. The concrete pathways and resilient surfacing will have animal tracks and human footprint paths allowing children to discover and explore. The Jurassic Garden courtyard will be layered with fossils and dinosaur prints cast into various geological rock specimens. Design Approach: Landscape Materials and Planting Existing Tree Protection Plan: existing trees along Middlefield, in the adjacent parking lot, and in the JMZ landscape areas are to be protected during construction and pruned to improve health and form. High profile and sensitive trees such as the Dawn Redwood and the Pecan tree will receive pre-construction mitigation measures in addition to protection during construction. Bridge over Bio-swale along Middlefield Road: the bridge is made of colored and textured concrete paving and it crosses a planted storm water swale that includes sedge grasses and other appropriate water loving plants. The existing JMZ sign is to be relocated to a planted area adjacent to the bridge. Edge of Promenade Along New Parking Lot: adjacent to the parallel vehicle parking and drop-off zone there will be a 4’ wide access sidewalk behind curb. A planted berm with small trees and ground cover shrubs separates these areas from JMZ promenade. Jurassic Garden (Dawn Redwood) Courtyard: the bridge over bio-swale continues from Middlefield to the edge of this courtyard, continuing the public promenade. A low concrete bench seat wall defines one side of the bridge. A planted storm water swale similar to along Middlefield is accessible for children by means of large stepping stones that provide an adventurous path and protect sedge grasses and other sensitive hysdrophylic plants in the swale. A decorative barrier screen meanders through this area separating the public promenade from the JMZ visitor experience. The JMZ visitors have access by means of a sloped walkway down into a geology play area within the planted storm water swale. The feature Dawn Redwood tree is encircled by raised wood decking with a wood curb edge. The decking is supported on wood framing and concrete micropiles to limit impact on the Dawn Redwood Tree roots. The edges of the decking are defined by raised planters made of corten steel. The raised planters will allow for a lush and interesting collection of Jurassic era plants with minimal disturbance in the Dawn Redwood root zone. The surface grade at Dawn Redwood remains unchanged with only shallow rooted planting in this area. Foot traffic discouraged by elevated perimeter walkway and curbs. Additional geology exhibits and dinosaur sculpture are possible in this area. Entry Plaza: includes a stand-on sundial partially enclosed with a circular bench similar in design to other bench walls on site. Paving includes a variety of concrete colors and textures and dinosaur and animal footprint impressions. Bike parking is provided at the primary entry from the parking lot and is located outside metal fabric barrier fence and gate. Pecan Tree Courtyard: the public promenade is defined by a concrete walkway that slopes gently toward the Rinconada Park arrival plaza and Girl Scout Building. Walkway paving is embellished with color and texture and walkway is flanked by bench walls. This courtyard is an active play area that includes resilient surface play with “How far can a jack rabbit, a deer, a child, a ___ jump?” graphics. Engineered wood fiber is used on surface under existing Pecan tree. This area includes an adventure play area with stumps and large wood pieces and blocks salvaged from Cedar trees removed for construction. A “Fallen Tree” and “Stick Hut” are landscape features that allow views and visual connections into the loose-in-the zoo area beyond. Park Arrival Plaza: the paving for this area is embellished with color and texture. The plaza includes astronomy themed inserts, a large circular bench wall, and a new park entry sign. The plaza edges are defined by raised planters to manage grade change and storm water drainage. Additional bike parking will be provided as well. Future Phase 2: Program and Experience CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 5 of 6 The JMZ Staff, City of Palo Alto and Friends are considering a future phase 2 addition to the JMZ to further enrich children’s experiences with animals, nature and science. In the location and footprint of the outdoor classroom, a future two story building is proposed with a classroom on the first floor and butterfly/insect exhibit on the second floor. The building will have one interior staircase and elevator, second floor walkways overlooking the zoo and Pecan tree canopy, and an exterior stair within loose in the zoo. Possibly the most exciting part of phase 2 is the addition of a tree-fort to the central artificial feature tree in loose in the zoo with play opportunities, small animal exhibits, and the experience of being in the trees! The massing and material of the future phase 2 building echoes the simple gabled roof form and height of the main exhibit gallery building. Portions of the west, south and east facades will be curtain wall to allow daylight to create a greenhouse experience in the Butterfly exhibit. Standing metal standing seam roofing and exterior cladding will wrap the core spaces on the northern side of the building. The accent color metal standing seam zoo wall will wrap the lower story of the building similar to the wall enclosing the outdoor classroom in phase 1. The design for phase 2 is currently conceptual as this scope is not funded at this time. The conceptual floor plan, renderings, elevations, zoo site plan, and zoo sections are included at the end of the drawing package for reference and to build excitement for the future build out of phase 2. Design Approach: Surrounding Site Improvements In addition to the proposed JMZ Building and Zoo, the proposed design includes reconfiguring the shared-use parking lot and improving the pathways connecting site facilities and the park to the surrounding neighborhoods. The JMZ design team, the Rinconada Park long range master plan team, and Palo Alto City Staff are working together to reconfigure the parking lot to create safe pedestrian and bicycle pathways through the site, clarify vehicular circulation, provide fire access and maintain the existing parking stall count. The reconfigured shared-use parking lot includes the following improvements: • Dedicated bike and pedestrian entrance at intersection of Kellogg and Middlefield (separated from vehicular entrance), raised pathway through the parking lot and direct connection to pathways in the park • Safe pedestrian pathway through parking lot leading to JMZ entry plaza defined by colored concrete • New, single vehicular entrance mid-block on Middlefield Road and new vehicular entrance onto Hopkins • Fire truck and bus access through the parking lot with dedicated driveway onto Hopkins (no standard vehicular use) • Two-way circulation through the parking lot with dedicated drop-off and loading zone near JMZ entrance and park arrival plaza • Efficient stormwater treatment system: pervious paving, shallow treatment area, and connection to storm drainage line in utility corridor • 50% shading requirement met by existing and new trees • No net increase or decrease of parking stall count; Increase number of accessible parking stalls • Increase in bicycle parking (including racks at the entrance to JMZ and the park); Increase in long-term bicycle storage for staff We are requesting careful review and collaboration with the City’s Transportation department to ensure the intersection of Kellogg, Middlefield and improved vehicular entrance to the parking lot is safe and effective. The landscape area in front of the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout Building will be reconfigured with the new parking lot edge. The design approach will be to maintain existing mature trees and add new oak trees to further encourage the ‘cottage in the park’ like setting. An organic concrete path will meander through a native planting landscape connecting the park arrival plaza to the building entrance to the accessible parking stalls. Vehicular access to the existing garage will be maintained along with storm water diversion improvements. While not included in the scope of the JMZ project, we are collaborating with the Rinconada Park long range master plan team to coordinate the connection of the JMZ promenade experience and park arrival plaza into the rest of Rinconada park – specifically focusing on the integrated concepts of the new play area and the edge of the park along the zoo. Project Process Update CAW Architects and the Friends presented to the ARB in January of this year with an earlier design of this project. Based on the thoughtful comments from the board, we revised the design to clarify the site organization, establish a civic presence for the Junior Museum & Zoo, reference the context of the site and create a pedestrian scaled approach from Middlefield Road. We presented this design concept at an ARB study session in March of 2017. The Board was very positive of the revised direction. This submittal package is a further development of the concept presented in March. The footprint of the proposed zoo design within the Rinconada park boundary has not changed since last presented to the Parks and Recreations Commission in April 2016. At that meeting, the commissioners unanimously provided a vote of support for the project and relationship with the park. CAW ARCHITECTS, INC. | PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Page 6 of 6 The JMZ design team are continuing to work with the Rinconada Park long range plan team to ensure compatibility between the two design efforts. The environmental review through the CEQA process for both the JMZ project and Rinconada Park long range plan is underway with the following technical studies nearing completion: air quality, cultural resources, transportation and traffic elements, arborist reports, and historic review. The findings of the historic review were that the existing JMZ building does not contribute to the significance of the adjacent Lucie Stern Cultural Center, nor is it eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, nor the National Register of Historic Places. There is currently a historic review of the site context surrounding Lucie Stern and of the Lou Henry Hoover House underway. The findings of this review will be available prior to the presentation of this project at a Formal ARB hearing. The CEQA document is scheduled to be released to the public in summer of 2017 and go before council for approval by fall of 2017. This formal submittal will go before the Historic Review Board in June 2017 and Architectural Review Board in August 2017. We are seeking formal review and approval at this time. Architectural Review Board   Staff Report (ID # 8155)           Report Type:  Action Items Meeting Date: 8/3/2017  City of Palo Alto     Planning & Community Environment      250 Hamilton Avenue       Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650) 329‐2442  Summary Title:  1451 Middlefield: Junior Museum and Zoo (1st Formal)  Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road  [17PLN‐00147]: Consideration of an Application for  Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Junior  Museum and Zoo Building and Construction of a New 15,033  Square Foot, One‐Story Museum and Education Building,  Outdoor Zoo with Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of  and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots including Fire  Access, Accessible Parking Stalls, Multi‐Modal Circulation,  Storm Drainage Infrastructure, and Site Lighting.  Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared  in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act.  Zone District: PF (Public Facilities).   For More Information  Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at  amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org  From: Hillary Gitelman    Recommendation  Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):  1. Consider the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) project and continue the public hearing to a  date certain, to allow publication and circulation of a Draft Initial Study (IS/MND) in  accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for public comments  prior to a second formal ARB meeting.  Architectural Review (AR) findings and  conditions will be presented in the following report, when the ARB may provide  comments on the Draft IS/MND and make a recommendation on the project application  based on AR findings.    Report Summary  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 2      This is the first formal ARB review; the applicant revised the project design following ARB and  HRB preliminary reviews of concept plans in early 2017.  Staff is seeking the ARB’s comments on  the JMZ project design.  The project scope was developed in coordination with the Rinconada  Park Long Range Plan (RPLRP), which will also be reviewed in the Draft IS/MND at a  ‘programmatic’ level. The RPLRP concept site plan is provided with the JMZ plan set but no  formal application has been submitted for ARB review and recommendation of that project.   Implementation of the RPLRP is anticipated to take place over a period of 25 years. Public  comments on the Draft IS/MND prepared for the JMZ project and the RPLRP program will be  considered during the JMZ project review process. The City Council will make the final decision  on the JMZ project AR application, together with action on the IS/MND.     Background  Project Information  Owner:  City of Palo Alto  Architect:  Sarah Vaccaro, Cody Anderson Wasney  Representative:  John Aiken, Community Services Sr. Program Manager  Legal Counsel:  City Attorney     Property Information  Address: 1451 Middlefield Road (JMZ)  Neighborhood: Community Center  Lot Dimensions & Area: JMZ/ Stern Center site has 800’ frontage on Middlefield Rd (JMZ key  frontage), 245’ on Melville Av, 215’ on Harriett St, and 245’ of shared  property line with Walter Hayes School; parcel:795,841 sf (18.3 acres)  Housing Inventory Site: No  Located w/in a Plume: No  Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes  Historic Resource(s): Lucie Stern Community Center is a Category 1 Resource (includes CSD  Administrative offices, Community Center, Children’s Theatre, Stern  Theatre, Boy Scout facility, Children’s Library); JMZ is not on National  or California historic register; city parcel includes Rinconada Park,  Pool, Fire Station, Substation, and the Lou Henry Hoover House aka  Girl Scout House (GSH)  Existing Improvement(s): JMZ: 9,000 sf, 2‐stories, built in 1941  Existing Land Use: Community Center  Adjacent Land Uses &  Zoning:  North of parcel: Residential (R‐1 zone)  West of parcel: Residential (R‐1)  East of parcel: Public Elementary School (Walter Hays, PAUSD)  adjacent, and Art Center and Rinconada Library across Newell Road  South of parcel: Residential (R‐1)  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 3      Aerial View of Property:  Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans  Zoning Designation: Public Facilities  Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institutions/Special Facilities  Context‐Based   Design Criteria: Not applicable  Downtown Urban   Design Guide: Not applicable  South of Forest Avenue Coordinated  Area Plan: Not applicable  Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable  El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 /  2002): Not applicable  Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts  (150'): Yes, across from single family residences  Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable  Special Setback 24 feet on Middlefield Road  Utility Easement/Corridor Water, sewer and storm drain main lines  Prior City Reviews & Action  City Council: Study session conducted on 11/21/16; Staff Report link:  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54681  PTC: None  HRB: Study session conducted on January 26, 2017; Historic Resources  Board (HRB) report noted a link to the January 19th ARB report that  contained the JMZ‐specific HRE (Attachment D); Verbatim minutes @  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56819  June 22, 2017, HRB conducted a formal review; HRB report:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58347  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 4      Video: http://midpenmedia.org/historic‐resources‐board‐39/  6/22/17 meeting minutes are attached to this report (Attachment F)   ARB: Preliminary reviews conducted on January 19 and March 16, 2017   Verbatim Minutes are available, respectively, at   http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55690  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56819   PRC:  Two Study Sessions in 2015; One session April 26, 2016; Report link:   http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52063  The PRC supports reconfigured relationship with Park; Minutes:  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52999     HRB Review  Because the project site is part of an 18.3‐acre parcel that contains an identified historic  resource (Lucie Stern Center, Inventory Category 2) and an eligible historic resource (Lou Henry  Hoover Girl Scout House), the HRB was tasked to review the project.  HRB concerns of June 22,  2017 are briefly discussed in this report. In summary, the HRB found:   (1) the project is in substantial compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards,   (2) the project meets Architectural Review Finding 2b, in that the project preserves, respects  and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively the site and historic  character/resources, with the provision that the applicant work with an HRB subcommittee to  find a solution to the roofing issue the HRB raised prior to ARB review, and   (3) the HRB members are supportive of a listing the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House as a  historic resource.    Project Description  The JMZ project includes:   Removal of the 1941 JMZ building and construction of a new JMZ building with gabled  roofs of varying heights, and an outdoor zoo with netted enclosures, and   Significant improvements to the site: multi‐modal circulation, access, storm drainage  facilities, and parking lots designed to meet City standards to better serve users of the  current and new facilities on the city’s 18.26‐acre parcel (with the City’s bicycle master  plan improvements as context).    A location map is Attachment A.  Project plans may be viewed as directed in Attachment G.  The  applicant’s updated project description (Attachment C) includes:   Description of the architect’s design approaches to site organization, promenade  experience, building and zoo program, massing and materiality, landscape materials and  planting, and surrounding site improvements;   Background as to the process and goals;   Description of a future phase 2 project: construction of a two‐story classroom and  exhibit building in the location of the proposed outdoor classroom, and addition of a  tree fort to the zoo; and notes phase 2 is unfunded and only shown on plans for  reference (it is not part of the project under evaluation at this time); and  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 5       Criteria, developed during a 2012 Master Plan process, for (a) Visitor Experience, (b)  Collections and (c) Operations goals.    The revised plans for the JMZ project, submitted July 25, 2017, are viewable online at the  project address; https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning.      1. Project Type and Review Process  The project application type is Architectural Review (AR). No other planning entitlement  applications are required. The process for evaluating an AR application is set forth in PAMC  18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB, as well as by the HRB in the case of  development on designated historic sites.  Typically, the HRB’s and ARB’s recommendations are  forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action which is appealable to  the City Council. In this case, the PCE Director intends to forward the HRB and ARB  recommendations to City Council. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All  findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one  finding requires project redesign or denial.    2. Historic Resource Evaluations (HRE) and Site History  The HRE prepared for the JMZ was included in staff reports for the January 2017 ARB and HRB  study sessions.  A second HRE, the draft Rinconada HRE (Attachment E), was presented to the  HRB in June for consideration related to the JMZ project scope. As noted earlier, the long range  park improvements are not part of the JMZ project scope.     A. JMZ  The zoo was established in 1934 (before the construction of the building) and belongs to a  nation‐wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The HRE  determined that the 1941 JMZ building, remodeled and expanded in 1969, is ineligible for  listing under any criteria as a historic resource on the National Register of Historic Places and  California Register of Historic Resources, due to significant alterations resulting in a loss of  historic integrity.      B. Lou Henry Hoover House  The Rinconada HRE provides information regarding the National Register Eligible Girl Scout  House (GSH) aka Lou Henry Hoover House, which is the closest historic building to the JMZ site  on the City’s parcel; it is located approximately 45 feet to the north.  The GSH was built in 1925  by local craftsman and laborers who donated their skills. Designed by Birge Clark, this structure  is the oldest active scout meeting house. The building predates Clark’s Lucie Stern Community  Center (comprised of the main theater, Boy Scout facility, children’s theater, and children’s  library and listed on the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 1 Historic Resource). The GSH,  relocated from elsewhere on site in 1936 to the current site (to make way for the Children’s  Theater), then modified by an addition in 1945, is eligible for listing on both the California and  National Historic Registers.  The Rinconada HRE also provides information about Lou Henry  Hoover, including the below image of the GSH is from 1939.  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 6        The Rinconada HRE provides historical information about these existing landscaped areas:   (1) picnic/landscaped area west of the JMZ parking lot (circa 1940s, designer unknown),   (2) landscaped area southwest of JMZ parking lot (circa 1940s, designer unknown),    (3) the open lawn area west of Lucie Stern Center (circa 1936 – 1940, Clark), and   (4) paved area and garden west of GSH (circa 1936, designer unknown).     3. Parking Lot Reconfiguration/Features  The existing parking lot at Lucie Stern/JMZ is similar to the original design (by an unknown  designer) as shown on a 1941 Public Works drawing shown below (an image from the  Rinconada HRE).      The reconfiguration of the existing shared parking lots will improve fire access, provide  accessible parking stalls and pathways, necessary drainage improvements, and site lighting.   Key components are as follows:   Elimination of the vehicular driveway opposite Kellogg Avenue and creation of a bicycle  and pedestrian path within a park‐like setting with protection of existing oak trees, to  provide multi‐modal circulation through a forested ‘street side yard’ of the Stern center,   City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 7       Westward adjustment of the driveway entrance to the JMZ, as the only Middlefield  Road entrance to the parking lot serving the complex of facilities (Lucie  Stern/GSH/JMZ/Rinconada Park),   Creation of standard 90 degree parking spaces replacing the inefficient diagonal parking  spaces in the existing lots. Some of the existing parking spaces are not striped; there  would be no loss of striped parking spaces within the project site; 98 stalls would be  provided in the reconfigured parking lot, plus loading spaces, whereas there are only 95  striped spaces currently; the number of accessible spaces would be increased by one  space (from 7 to 8),   Provision of a landscaped buffer area between the GSH and parking spaces, and  landscaped pathway at the rear of the Stern theater shop,    Creation of two‐way vehicle circulation throughout the parking lot, with restrictive gates  at one of two Hopkins Avenue driveways to allow only emergency egress,   Establishment of a new raised pedestrian and bicycle crosswalk connecting the new  Kellogg Avenue access path to the Rinconada Park pathway,   Installation of new parking lot trees and stormwater drainage infrastructure (storm  water treatment areas are proposed within both lots shown on plan sheet C2.1),     Provision of parking lot and pathway site lighting, and lower, pedestrian‐level lighting,   Creation of concrete seat walls provided near the GSH (semi‐circular) and along the JMZ  entry and in the Jurassic Garden courtyard (straight‐line benches), and   An increase in the number of bicycle parking spaces (25 short term bike parking spaces  representing an increase of five spaces, located both at the JMZ entry and next to the  outdoor classroom, and 10 long term parking spaces, located near Middlefield (there  are no long‐term bicycle spaces currently).    4. Proposed JMZ Building and Fences  The main building is a modified ‘U’ shaped building designed to preserve existing, mature Pecan  and Dawn Redwood trees.  The new, one‐story building would house the museum as well as  zoo support functions. Museum components include exhibit rooms, multi‐use room,  entry/lobby, offices, collection hub and storage rooms, shop, conference rooms, classroom,  restrooms, animal care and supply rooms, and zoo work room, and other building support areas  (trash, plumbing, data, electrical, and bike storage; the last three rooms are joined, separated  from the main building by a ‘tunnel’.)  The zoo uses would include animal control/program and  storage rooms.  Plan sheets A4.0 through A4.7 provide building renderings, elevations, and  sections. Sheet A5 shows colored images of the exterior materials and colors.     A. Building Height, Site Coverage, Floor Area, and Heights  An 18‐foot ridge height is proposed near Middlefield Road. The height of the attached, vaulted  one story building (the JMZ entrance) would be 27 feet. The height of the central supportive  column for the netting over the zoo would be 36 feet.      The existing buildings cover approximately 81,400 square feet (sf) of the 18.3 Acre site; of this  coverage, 72,900 sf of coverage is from buildings other than the JMZ building, which covers  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 8      8,500 sf. The proposed JMZ buildings would cover an additional 6,533 sf, for a JMZ coverage of  15,033 sf (a total coverage of 87,933 sf on the site). The lot coverage after construction would  be 11% of the site where 30% maximum lot coverage is allowed.      The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the 18.3 acre site would be 0.11:1 (given current Fire Station #3  building footprint of 3,469 sf), where a 1.0:1 FAR is allowed for PF zoned sites.  The Fire Station  #3 footprint will be reduced by 79 sf, to 3,390 sf.    B. Fence Types/Heights: Two types of fences or wall enclosures are proposed:   Horizontal Wood Plank: With hidden posts and artistic pattern, this fence would be eight  feet tall and located:  o around the zoo management area that begins near the raccoon exhibit,  o along the common property line with the Addison School, and  o enclosing the service yard, facing Middlefield Road, eight feet in height.   Vertical Wood Plank: Though this fence type is listed, it is not indicated in the plan.   CMU Walls with integral color plaster skim coat: This wall type would be either eight  feet or ten feet tall and located at the outdoor classroom area, facing the parking lot  and Rinconada Park.      5. Outdoor Zoo Design  The proposed outdoor zoo area includes an outdoor classroom, separated from the building by  the ‘pecan tree plaza’.  Several ‘bridges’ would lead pedestrians from Middlefield Road sidewalk  to the tunnel, and connect to the other entry plazas (promenade entry plaza, pecan tree plaza,  and park arrival plaza).  The ‘Jurassic Garden Courtyard’ would be sheltered in the ‘U’ of the  building.  The netted enclosure area, “Loose in the Zoo”, would contain various zoo exhibits.    The outdoor area east of zoo would provide an animal management area, and would also be  covered with netting, at a lower level.    6. Site Lighting, Landscaping, and Trees  A. Lighting Design   The two “E” sheets of the project plan set show proposed site lighting, proposed as follows:    LED Parking lot lights manufactured by Bega (shown on plan sheet E1.00, with  photometrics shown on plan sheet E1.0P), with the following specifications:  o 14‐foot tall, single‐head pole lights (type B1, flush‐base mounted, lower‐wattage  (14 Watts)) next to Middlefield Road (3), lining the JMZ sidewalk (3), and the  raised walkway marking the ‘two’ parking lots (3);  o 14‐foot tall, double‐head pole lights (type A1, flush‐base mounted, lower‐ wattage (14 Watts)) near Lucie Stern (2), and GSH (3);  o 17‐foot tall, double‐head pole lights (type A, mounted on 36‐inch base, higher  wattage (39Watts)) in the center aisles of the parking lot (7);  o 11‐foot tall, single‐head pole lights (type B, mounted on 36‐inch base, higher  wattage (26 Watts)) alongside the edge of Stern ‘park side yard’ and back of  Stern (6), and  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 9       LED pedestrian‐level lighting (by an as‐yet unknown manufacturer) in the JMZ garden  and sidewalk under benches and lattice, on the low fence, and up‐lighting (of trees,  signage, and the flagpole).     B. Landscape Design  Plan sheet A1.1, the proposed site plan, provides an overview of the landscape plan for the  reconfigured parking lot and JMZ site. Plan sheet L1.1 shows a landscape plan around the  proposed JMZ building perimeter and images of the proposed landscape character. Plan sheets  L1.2 – L1.4 show landscape sections, and sheet L1.5 provides a planting plan.  The applicant has  worked with the City’s Landscape Architect to ensure the selected plant materials will meet the  Architectural Review approval finding that requires regionally indigenous and drought tolerant  plant materials.      C. Tree Protection and Plantings  A tree protection plan is provided as Plan sheet T‐2.  The applicant’s proposal is to retain most  of the trees on the site.  The below bulleted list provides specifics about tree retention and  plantings:   The heritage Pecan and Dawn Redwood near the new JMZ building would be retained.   All trees in the Lucie Stern ‘side yard’ would be retained.     Only two street trees on Middlefield would be removed; one to make way for the new  driveway and another to allow free passage and visibility of the JMZ tunnel gateway.   The Arborist Report indicates that 23 of the 49 assessed trees would be removed, and  all protected trees (oaks) would be retained.  The Tree Protection Plan (Attachment D) and Draft Arborist Report provide more detailed  information regarding the condition of existing trees and proposed tree removals.  The Arborist  Report is being finalized and will be included as a source document with the Draft IS/MND.     The planting plan indicates planting of 51 new 24” box sized trees, for a net increase of 28 trees  on the JMZ and parking lot site.  Bullets below provide specifics:  o Many of the new trees would be located within the parking lot (most of the 27 Texas  Redbuds and six of nine new Gingkos, meeting the shade requirements.    o Three Gingkos and two Texas Redbuds would line the Middlefield Road elevation.  o Three additional Redbuds would be placed on PAUSD property, and likely screen the  southwesterly corner of the new building.   o Two London Planes would be planted at the Hopkins parking lot entrance.   o Two Coast Live Oaks would be planted in the ‘front yard’ of the GSH.    o Seven Vine Maples would be planted along the parking lot edge of the JMZ walkway.  o  Two of four Persian Ironwoods are proposed as accent trees in the parking lot and  the other two Ironwoods would be located elsewhere (to be clarified).   The new trees list from the planting plan is excerpted below.  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 10         Analysis1   1. Post HRB Review Changes  A. Roof color  At the June 22, 2017 HRB meeting, the HRB noted concern regarding the roof material color. At  the writing of this report, staff was working toward having a three‐member HRB subcommittee  review of alternative roof colors prior to the August 3rd ARB meeting.  The HRB had reviewed  project plans showing the bird’s eye image of roof colors, and formed the subcommittee to see  alternative colors before the ARB review.  The applicant will present the alternative colors and  renderings to the ARB; the colors have been forwarded to the HRB subcommittee.     Staff anticipates hearing back from HRB subcommittee members about three options:   a dark bronze anodized color metal roof and walls of exhibit gallery mass;   a taupe/pewter color metal roof and walls of exhibit gallery mass; and   a taupe/pewter color metal roof and feature red metal walls/roof of exhibit gallery  mass.                                                          1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public  hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony  may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A  change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this  report.  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 11         B. Site Revisions  The applicant also modified the plans after the June 22nd HRB review to address cost issues:   Reduced site concrete, removed seat walls/benches, and removed metal deck/bridges  along the entrance promenade and Dawn Redwood courtyard and replaced with  concrete pathways.   Changed material and design of fences around zoo (facing the park), service corridor  (facing Walter Hays) and the fence at the corner of Middlefield and Walter Hays. New  fencing materials are horizontal wood and CMU with plaster finish.  Though chain‐link  fence with vertical wood privacy slats is listed as a fence type, the plans don’t indicate  where such fencing would be used.    Reduced the amount of fencing around the Phase 1 outdoor classroom and removed  low toddler fence around entrance promenade.    C. Plan Revisions    Removed the building SF for stroller parking between the Exhibit Gallery and Zoo.   Removed the mechanical loft (above restrooms). Moved mechanical rooftop equipment  to service yard, or on top of roof, or into reduced mechanical well open to above.     D. Elevation/Facade Revisions   Changed skylight monitors to be flat curb mounted skylights.    Changed all extruded picture windows (window seats) to be regular in‐plane windows.    Modified/simplified the rainbow tunnel materials.   Changed the exterior facade material along Walter Hays and Zoo elevations to be  cement plaster.   Removed the awning/pop‐out between the Exhibit Gallery and the Zoo.   Removed the louvers at the mechanical loft.  2. AR Findings  City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 12      This project is subject to meeting the AR approval findings. AR finding 2b is likely of particular  interest to the HRB. The project is not subject to Context Based Design Criteria, nor to any  interim ordinances or moratoriums. The project was evaluated to ensure adequate  infrastructure provisions such as meters and transformers, backflow prevention devices, and  trash and recycling facilities, to meet other AR findings.    The project plans indicate conformance with lot coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks and height  development standards within the Public Facilities Zone District.  The additional 6,033 sf of floor  area proposed for the JMZ is not intended to increase the need for parking spaces on the site.  Community Center use has an open‐ended parking requirement – the Planning and Community  Environment Director can determine how many spaces are required to meet the need. No  Director’s Parking Adjustment is required associated with the increased building area, given the  proposed parking lot reconfiguration and accompanying transportation and parking alternatives  (Transportation Demand Management Plan).     3. Zoning Compliance2 and Consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan3  A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has  been performed. The proposed project complies with all applicable zoning codes.      With 150,000 annual visits, JMZ provides a strong start for children; JMZ is integral to  Rinconada Park and the park is integral to the JMZ. The Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ)  works closely with researchers and professionals to provide a rich environment that stimulates  children’s natural curiosity and creativity. The proposed project is consistent with Policy C‐26 of  the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park  facilities as safe and healthy community assets; and Policy C‐22 that encourages new  community facilities to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community.     4. New Building Design Character and Neighborhood Setting/Character  The preliminary review staff reports described the context, proximity to the one‐story Walter  Hayes School and public facilities, and one‐ and two‐story residential neighborhood.  These  reports noted the significance of the Birge Clark designed Lucie Stern Community Center, circa  1932‐ 1940, with its Spanish Colonial Revival style and status as a historic category 1 building, as  well as the likely significance of the Lou Henry Hoover House. The report noted the historic  buildings on the site as primarily one‐story with some two story components.  The HRB viewed  a two‐story project at that time, and the ARB then viewed a conceptual one‐story project and  provided input. The proposed gabled, one‐story JMZ building appears to have greater  compatibility with the existing older buildings on the site.  On June 22, 2017, the HRB found  that the project met Architectural Review Finding 2b, with a caveat that the roof color options  would be reviewed by the HRB members, who had raised concerns about the roof color.                                                            2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo‐alto_ca   3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp   City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 13      5. Rinconada HRE  The Rinconada HRE dated June 8, 2017, includes an analysis of the proposed JMZ project with  respect to the Secretary of Interiors’ Standards for Rehabilitation.  The HRE concludes, “the JMZ  project does not cause a significant impact to historic resources at Rinconada Park”.  Staff is in  agreement with this finding.  Additionally, staff supports the relocation of the bird bath (circa  1925) to the Boy Scout Building as appropriate, and the enhancement of the picnic area.    The Rinconada HRE notes that the Girl Scout House (GSH) is eligible for California Register of  Historic Resources under Criterion 1 for its early role in Scouting and Criterion 2 for association  with Lou Henry Hoover. Staff intends to work with members of the HRB and Girl Scouts  organization to prepare a nomination form for the HRB to review and recommend that Council  place the GSH on the City’s Historic Inventory.     6. Modifications to the Lucie Stern Center Site  The existing parking lot design from 1941 (when the JMZ was built) was not part of Birge Clark’s  Lucie Stern Center and the designer is unknown, according to the Rinconada HRE. The proposed  project would not adversely impact the significant features at the Lucie Stern Center.  The  modifications will provide organized, efficient circulation for automobiles and safe, continuous  circulation for bicycles and pedestrians.  The proposed pavement removal to establish a  forested “street side yard” of Lucie Stern Center would result in an appearance more closely  resembling the original design of the Center.     A. Stormwater Design  The site plan indicates storm water system connections and treatment infrastructure.  The lot  reconfiguration is designed to meet storm‐water discharge requirements of the provision C.3 of  the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional  Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11).   C.3 regulations apply to the project, since the project would replace 10,000 sf or more of  impervious surface, and the parking lot would create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more  of impervious surface.  Permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment  controls to protect storm water quality are subject to the approval of the Public Works  Department.  Landscape‐based treatment controls (bio‐swales, filter strips, and permeable  pavement) are proposed to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” prior to discharge to  the municipal storm drain system. Public Works requires applicants to contract with a qualified  third‐party reviewer during the planning review process to certify that the proposed permanent  storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto  Municipal Code Chapter 16.11.  The applicant is working toward obtaining this certification.    B. Parking Lot Shade and Tree Planting Requirement  The revised project appears to meet the City’s requirement for 50% shading of parking lots and  a requirement for one parking lot tree for every ten parking spaces in a row.  The project  architect has worked with the City’s landscape architect to balance the requirements for shade  and tree numbers with pedestrian wayfinding and storm water drainage needs.    City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 14      C. Compliance Review and Logistics  The parking lot design has been evaluated to ensure it meets standards for driveways, curbs  and sidewalks.  Building permit applications would involve further disclosures, including  submittal of a logistics plan(s). Logistics plans include pedestrian and vehicle traffic controls,  truck routes and deliveries, contractor parking, on site staging and storage areas, concrete  pours, crane lifts, noise and dust control.  Conditions of approval and other measures can be  designed to minimize adverse, temporary impacts of construction on residential  neighborhoods.     7. Multi‐Modal Access, Parking and TDM  The City’s Transportation staff reviewed and guided development of the revised plans with  respect to addressing the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and Safe Routes to School. The  traffic study and TDM plan are being reviewed by the City’s CEQA consultant, and included as  source documents for the CEQA document.  The Parks and Recreation Commission will review  the TDM plan as well as the Initial Study following publication of those documents.   Staff has  confirmed the revised plan is likely to result in efficient and safe circulation and minimization of  conflicts. The project would improve facilities for bicycle and pedestrian routes, including  bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding and accessibility enhancements on and off‐site. The revised  project features a passenger drop off area at the new JMZ entry, and other improvements for  safety related to the longer‐term Rinconada Plan.  Transportation Division staff had provided  comments during the preliminary review phase of the project, regarding the need for coverage  over bike parking, secured parking provisions, and the disadvantages of wall‐mounted bike  parking. The revised plans address these comments.    The applicant has prepared a transportation demand management (TDM) plan, which is a  source document for the CEQA document currently being prepared.  The TDM plan is intended  to not only reduce parking demand, but also to provide clear transportation options to  residents and visitors.     8. Green Building  Earlier this year, City Council adopted the new Green Building and Energy Reach so that  compliance with the 2016 building code requirements will satisfy the City’s LEED Silver  equivalent alternative for City buildings.    Environmental Review  The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is anticipated to be published August 4, 2017.  The City’s consultant (Powers) is preparing the Initial Study. The Initial Study covers both the  JMZ project and the Rinconada Park Long Range Master Plan. Technical reports that were  prepared for this project cover several subjects. The Initial Study is supported by these  documents: Air Quality Report, Arborist Assessment, Noise Assessment, Traffic Assessment,  and Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE). The ARB members will be invited to comment on the  IS/MND, particularly on the Aesthetics and Cultural Resources sections of the CEQA document.     City of Palo Alto  Planning & Community Environment Department  Page 15      Public Notification, Outreach & Comments  The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper  and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least  ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto  Weekly on July 14, 2017, which is at least 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing  occurred on July 14, 2017, which is 10 days in advance of the ARB meeting.     Public Comments  As of the writing of this report, no project‐related, public comments were received.  Public  comments have been provided in public hearings of the City’s Parks and Recreation  Commission. Public comments related to the IS/MND are due within 30 days of the anticipated  August 3, 2017 publication.    Next Steps  The project will be scheduled for a future ARB hearing. Following ARB recommendation at that  hearing, the Director will review the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board and  forward the application to Council for action on the CEQA document and project application.    Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information  Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager  (650) 329‐2336 (650) 329‐xxxx  Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org    Attachments:   Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)   Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)   Attachment C: Revised Project Description (PDF)   Attachment D: Tree Assessment Plan ‐ JMZ June 2017 (PDF)   Attachment F: Excerpt JMZ HRB June 22 2017 (DOCX)   Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX)   Attachment E: June 8 Rinconada HRE Draft (PDF)                                                          4 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org   Rinconada Park Long Range Plan & Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo Initial Study Architectural Review Application #17PLN-00147 August 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ i Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Page SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................ 3 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 4 2.1 PROJECT TITLE ............................................................................................. 4 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................... 4 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT .......................................................................... 4 2.4 APPLICATION NUMBER .............................................................................. 4 2.5 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT ............. 5 2.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................... 5 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 9 3.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 9 3.2 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY ................................................................. 13 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ................ 18 4.1 AESTHETICS ................................................................................................ 18 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................. 22 4.3 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................. 24 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES........................................................................ 31 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 40 4.6 GEOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 51 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................. 54 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................... 59 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................... 64 4.10 LAND USE .................................................................................................... 71 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 74 4.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................ 75 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................. 86 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................................... 88 4.15 RECREATION ............................................................................................... 90 4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ......................................................... 92 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ..................................................... 113 4.18 ENERGY CONSERVATION ...................................................................... 119 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 127 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS ............................................................... 130 TABLE OF CONTENTS Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ ii Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Page Figures Figure 2.0-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2.0-2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2.0-3: Aerial Photograph and Proposed Project Site ............................................................... 8 Figure 3.0-1: Rinconada Park LRP Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................ 14 Figure 3.0-2: Palo Alto JMZ Conceptual Site Plan .......................................................................... 15 Figure 3.0-3: Palo Alto JMZ Elevations ........................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.0-4: Palo Alto JMZ Elevations ........................................................................................... 17 Figure 4.16-1: Study Intersections ...................................................................................................... 96 Figure 4.16-2: Existing Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................... 97 Figure 4.16-3: Existing Transit Facilities ........................................................................................... 98 Tables Table 4.12-1: Summary of Long and Short-Term Noise Measurement Data ................................... 77 Table 4.16.1: Level of Service Definitions ..................................................................................... 100 Table 4.16-2: Existing and Background Conditions Levels of Service .......................................... 100 Table 4.16-3: Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation .................................................................... 102 Table 4.16-4: Existing and Estimated Weekday Trip Generation ................................................... 104 Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................ 104 Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service .......................................... 105 Table 4.16-7: Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................. 107 Table 4.16-8: Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... 108 Appendices Appendix A: Air Quality Analysis Appendix B: Arborist Reports Appendix C-1: Archaeological Literature Review Appendix C-2: Historic Resources Evaluation – Palo Alto JMZ Appendix C-3: Historic Resources Evaluation – Rinconada Park Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix E: Noise Assessment Appendix F: Transportation Impact Analysis Appendix G: Rinconada Park Long Range Plan Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 3 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The City of Palo Alto proposes two projects: 1) a long-range plan to guide the development of Rinconada Park, and 2) the rebuilding of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ). Rinconada Park is a regional destination for a variety of passive and active recreational activities and is co-located near the JMZ and other City facilities. The purpose of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (LRP) is to make park improvements based on current and future community needs. In this respect, the LRP provides guidance on changes anticipated over the next 25 years. The current JMZ building (built in 1941) and zoo area (built in 1969) are not adequately designed or sized to accommodate the JMZ’s various educational programs, nor do they meet current State building code requirements for accessibility and seismic safety. The goal of the proposed re-build is to construct a new JMZ facility that would provide adequate space for its educational programs while meeting all State building code requirements along with standards for zoo accreditation and museum accreditation. In addition, the project aims to improve circulation within the JMZ to allow universal access for children with disabilities to all exhibits and areas of the facility, which requires considerably more space than allowed for in the existing facility. The proposed JMZ facility is intended to better serve its current local visitors and schools while still maintaining an intimate experience for children to explore science and nature. This Initial Study (IS) of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of Palo Alto. This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed Rinconada Park LRP and Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) project. Although the proposed LRP and JMZ are separate development projects, they are located adjacent to one another within a larger City-owned parcel, and will have overlapping timeframes for development. For these reasons, the LRP and JMZ projects are being evaluated as one project under CEQA. The City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Initial Study to address the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 4 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE Rinconada Park Long Range Plan and Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The project site consists of the 11.8 acre Rinconada Park, located at 777 Embarcadero Road, the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ), located at 1451 Middlefield Road, and a paved parking lot located adjacent to the JMZ. The site is located within an 18.3-acre City-owned parcel (APN 003- 46-006) with frontage on Hopkins Avenue, Newell Road, Melville Avenue, Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road in the City of Palo Alto. In addition to Rinconada Park and the JMZ, the parcel includes Fire Station #3 located at 799 Embarcadero Road, the Girl Scout House (aka Lou Henry Hoover House) located at 1120 Hopkins Avenue, the Children’s Library located at 1276 Harriet Street, the Lucie Stern Community Center located at 1305 Middlefield Road, and an electric substation located at 1350 Newell Road. The parcel is bordered primarily by single-family residential uses. Walter Hays Elementary School is located on the northern corner of Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, adjacent to Rinconada Park and the JMZ. The Palo Alto Art Center and Rinconada Library are located east of the parcel across Newell Road. Regional and vicinity maps of the site are shown on Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0-2, and an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding area is shown on Figure 2.0-3. 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT Amy French, Chief Planning Official Department of Planning and Community Development 250 Hamilton Avenue 5th Floor- City Hall Palo Alto, CA 94301 2.4 APPLICATION NUMBER A Formal Architectural Review application was submitted for the JMZ redevelopment on April 27, 2017 (File Number 17PLN-00147). No application has been filed for the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan. Revised JMZ plans dated July 24, 2017 are on file and viewable via this webpage https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning by searching the address “1451 Middlefield Road” and clicking on the green dot to review the record details, opening the “more details” option, using the “Records Info” drop down menu and selecting “Attachments” and opening the attachment named “Revised Plans July 2017”. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 5 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 2.5 EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DISTRICT General Plan: Public Parks, Major Institutions/Special Facilities Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF) 2.6 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The project site is comprised of two areas within the 18.3-acre City-owned parcel: Rinconada Park and the Palo Alto JMZ. Rinconada Park is a multipurpose park offering a variety of recreational amenities, including: two children’s playgrounds, turf area for activities, nine tennis courts and backboard, picnic area with barbecues, municipal swimming pool and children’s pool, restroom and pool buildings, redwood grove, heritage oak tree stand, multipurpose concrete bowl, benches, and jogging/walking paths. The JMZ site includes the JMZ facility and a paved parking lot adjacent to the facility that extends northward between the Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center. The JMZ is situated adjacent to the southwest portion of Rinconada Park, and consists of a two-story, 9,000 square-foot (sf) museum building and a 13,000 sf fenced, outdoor zoo area. The remainder of the City-owned parcel, which includes Fire Station #3, the Girl Scout House (aka Lou Henry Hoover House), the Children’s Library, the Lucie Stern Community Center, and an electric substation, is not a part of the project site. REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.0-1 Fremont Newark Santa Clara MountainView Sunnyvale Los Altos Palo Alto Menlo Park San Carlos Belmont Foster City Fremont Newark Santa Clara MountainView Sunnyvale Los Altos Palo Alto Menlo Park San Carlos Belmont Foster City Redwood City 238 237 880 880 680 85 82 84 84 82 101 101 101 Project Site San Francisco Bay Pacific Ocean Monterey Bay San José Fremont Oakland San Francisco Santa Cruz Mountain View Morgan Hill San José Fremont Oakland San Francisco Santa Cruz Mountain ViewPalo AltoPalo Alto Morgan Hill Project SiteProject Site VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.0-2 Channing Avenue Walter Hays Drive Lois Lane Iris Way Newell Road Newell Road Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Guinda Street Fulton Street Middlefield Road Middlefield Road E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Cowper Street Waverley Street Webster Street Webster Street Fulton Street Seale Avenue Louis Road Barbara Drive Northampton Drive Southampton Drive Lowell Avenue Tennyson Avenue Byron Street Hopkins Avenue Melville Avenue Melville Avenue Channing Avenue Walter Hays Drive Lo i s L a n e Iris Way Ne w e l l R o a d Ne w e l l R o a d Greenwood Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Gui n d a S t r e e t Fult o n S t r e e t Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Mid d l e f i e l d R o a d Embarcad e r o R o a d Embarcad e r o R o a d Co w p e r S t r e e t Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t We b s t e r S tre e t We b s t e r S tree t Fult o n S t r e e t Seal e A v e n u e Lou i s R o a d Bar b a r a D r i v e Nort h a m p t o n D r i v e Sout h a m p t o n D r i v e Low e l l A v e n u e Tenn y s o n A v e n u e Byr o n S t r e e t Hopkins Avenue Melv i l l e A v e n u e Me l v i l l e A v e n u e Project Site 0 100 500 750 1000 Feet AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.0-3 Parkinson AvenueParkinson Avenue Community LaneCommunity Lane Harriet Street Ha r r i e t S t r e e t Cedar Street Ce d a r S t r e e t Pine Street Pi n e S t r e e t Newell Road Ne w e l l R o a d Coleridge Avenue Cole r i d g e A v e n u e Byron Street By r o n S t r e e t Guinda Street Gu i n d a S t r e e t Middlefield Road Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Hopkins AvenueHopkins Avenue E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Embarca d e r o R o a d Fulton Street Fu l t o n S t r e e t Project Boundary Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, July 28, 2016.Photo Date: Apr. 2016 0 50 200 400 Feet Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Rinconada Library Palo Alto Art Center Lucie Stern Community Center Walter Hays Elementary School Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 9 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 SITE DEVELOPMENT 3.1.1 Project Description The proposed project includes two components: 1) implementation of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (LRP) and 2) redevelopment of the JMZ facility and reconfiguration of the adjacent parking lot, including provision of landscaping, storm drainage system, and lighting. The two project components are described in detail below. 3.1.1.1 Rinconada Park Long Range Plan The LRP was developed by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department to guide the future development and renovation of Rinconada Park. Implementation of the plan is anticipated to take up to 25 years. The LRP includes the following components: Entry Plazas, Internal Pathways, Access, and Alternative Transportation Improvements Two main pedestrian entry plazas would be developed at the west and east entrances to the park. The west entrance to Rinconada Park, north of the proposed JMZ building, would be improved with an entry plaza that would showcase the large existing trees and provide elements such as an enhanced entry noting the point of arrival, way-finding signage, and pedestrian scale art work. A formalized entry would be located at the east edge of the park on Newell Road, north of Fire Station #3, and would include improvements such as an enhanced entry, reduction of turf with accent drought tolerant plantings, and way-finding signage. The existing pathways in the park are asphalt and in need of renovation. Pathways within the park would be expanded and enhanced. The project includes multimodal circulation improvements to connect the site to the surrounding neighborhood. Perimeter sidewalks and on-street parking would be expanded and enhanced along Hopkins Avenue and Embarcadero Road. Bike racks would be provided throughout the park. An enhanced shuttle stop would replace the existing stop on Newell Road to promote the use of alternate forms of transportation to the park. Fourteen (14) non-protected trees are proposed to be removed as part of the pathway improvements to provide space for a larger and more direct main circulation route through the park and to maintain the openness of the main active turf area. Trees removed will be replaced with native trees located in the area between the path and the school fence. West Playground Area/Girl Scout Picnic Area/Large Turf Area The two existing playgrounds in Rinconada Park are proposed to be combined into one playground located in a defined children’s play area at the west end of the park in close proximity to the JMZ and Walter Hays School access points. An expansion of the existing picnic area would be part of the new playground configuration. Adult exercise equipment would be provided at the eastern edge of the playground. The existing trees in this area would be protected and maintained. The area next to the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House would serve public use but cater to use by the Girl Scouts, with a fire pit, food preparation table, benches and picnic tables in a small gathering area. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 10 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 The existing turf area in the central portion of the park, south and east of the picnic areas, is highly used and would be maintained in its current condition to the extent possible. This area is currently utilized for community gatherings such as outdoor performances, movies and concerts and is used by the City’s community services department for youth activities and camps. The turf area will continue to maintain the current schedule of use and programming. A new restroom is proposed to accommodate this western area of the park. Street and Access Improvements on Hopkins Avenue, Newell Road, and Embarcadero Road New sidewalks and crosswalks aligning with adjacent sidewalk curb cuts are proposed along Hopkins Avenue. Additionally, new head in parking stalls are proposed to be installed along Hopkins Avenue, west of the tennis courts. The City is also exploring shifting the sidewalks along Embarcadero Road northward to provide additional street parking and a turning lane. The 12 topped redwood trees along Newell Road would be replaced with small scale trees that would not interfere with the overhead power lines. In the area where the redwoods will be removed, new plantings and a meandering pathway pulled away from Newell Road will provide a connection from the park’s main east entry to the crosswalk at the corner of Hopkins Avenue and Newell Road. An enhanced shuttle stop would also be located along this new pathway. Artwork panels are proposed to replace the existing fencing currently screening the electric substation located at the northeast corner of the park when replacement of the fence is required. Tennis Courts The existing tennis courts on Hopkins Avenue would be shifted to the west to allow for a pedestrian access route along the east side of the courts. The proposed shifting of the courts would occur when the tennis courts paving receive full renovation and replacement. Magic Forest The Magic Forest area consists of over 60 mature redwoods which will be retained. Minimal improvements to this area would include a lighted access path to the existing ball wall and into the park, a new sidewalk at the curb edge to provide pedestrian access along Hopkins Avenue, picnic tables and benches, and a proposed children’s natural play area. Pool Area Improvements The existing pool deck areas would be expanded on the east and west sides for lounging, supervision, and aquatic events. The area east of the pool and adjacent to the electric substation would include a new picnic area, and seating. Other amenities such as a bocce ball court will also be considered when the area is renovated. On the south side of the pool building, a plaza with thematic paving, shaded seating areas, and artwork to support the pool area activities and concessions, would be installed. The LRP includes a full renovation of the existing 4,700 sf pool building, which includes locker rooms, offices, and pool storage. In addition to the renovated building, a 2,300 sf wing would be added to the west end to include a public restroom, activity room and possible concession area. The restroom would replace the existing restroom building currently located in the same area. Arboretum The priority of this area in the LRP is to maintain the native and heritage oak trees for years to come. The current pathways would be upgraded throughout this area with a permeable material and new oak trees will be planted to preserve the oak stand. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 11 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Multi-Use Concrete Bowl The existing concrete bowl space south of the pool area will maintain its current use as a small multi- use space for outdoor activities and performances with the same seating capacity. Outdoor events are currently programed for the bowl; therefore, this is not a new use on the site. The hours of operation and number of events scheduled for the bowl would continue and be consistent with its current use. The project proposes to install a new stage to reduce sun glare for spectators. The stage would be oriented to the southwest, away from the nearest residential uses, approximately 20 feet from its current location. Coordination with Walter Hays Elementary School to utilize the bowl for educational gatherings is also proposed as part of the LRP. 3.1.1.3 Junior Museum and Zoo As described in further detail below, the proposed JMZ redevelopment would occur in two phases. The majority of the proposed improvements would occur during Phase I, construction of which is anticipated to last 18 to 24 months. Improvements associated with Phase II may not be completed for up to 10 years. Phase I JMZ Building and Outdoor Zoo The project includes the demolition of the existing 9,000 sf, one- and partial two-story museum building and construction of a new one-story 15,033 sf museum and educational building in the same location as the existing building. The new building would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum height of 27 feet. Amenities in the building would include educational classrooms and educational courtyard, a teacher area, general storage area, a small exhibit maintenance shop, indoor exhibits, and restroom facilities. The main JMZ entrance plaza would lead into the lobby and reception area of the JMZ building. New walkways near the new JMZ building would connect with parking lot improvements, Middlefield Road, and the Rinconada Park. The project would also construct a new open-air netted enclosure and supporting outdoor animal management area in the location of the existing 13,000 sf outdoor zoo area. The 17,415 sf, 36-foot tall netted enclosure would be accessible from the JMZ building. The netted enclosure, referred to as “Loose in the Zoo”, would feature animal exhibits with landscaped features. The netting would allow for exhibition birds to fly about the enclosure. Parking Lots Redesign The existing parking lots located adjacent to the JMZ and between the Lucie Stern Community Center and Girl Scout House would be reconfigured to improve traffic flow, maximize parking spaces, improve landscaping and lighting, and increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Vehicular access to the Girl Scout House’s existing garage would be maintained, and the bird bath dedicated to a Boy Scout leader is anticipated to be relocated near the Boy Scout building in the Lucie Stern Complex. One of the existing driveway curb cuts on Middlefield Road to the parking lot would be eliminated and replaced with a bike and pedestrian pathway connection to Rinconada Park, and a bus drop off zone in front of the JMZ would be provided. The reconfigured parking lots would be connected for automobile traffic and provide improved pedestrian pathways to the many surrounding facilities Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 12 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 while incorporating a relocated vehicular driveway entrance on Middlefield Road and a new entrance onto Hopkins Avenue. The components include:  Dedicated bike and pedestrian entrance at intersection of Kellogg Avenue and Middlefield Road (separated from vehicular entrance), raised pathway through the parking lot and direct connection to pathways in the park;  Safe pedestrian pathway through parking lot leading to JMZ entry plaza defined by colored concrete;  New, relocated single vehicular entrance mid-block on Middlefield Road and new, relocated vehicular entrance on Hopkins Avenue;  Fire truck and bus access through the parking lot with dedicated driveway onto Hopkins Avenue (no standard vehicular use);  Two-way circulation through the parking lot with dedicated drop-off and loading zone near JMZ entrance and park arrival plaza;  Efficient stormwater treatment system: pervious paving, shallow treatment area, and connection to storm drainage line in utility corridor;  50 percent shading of the paved area (as required per the Parking Facility Design Standards, Chapter 18.54 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code) would be met by existing and new trees; and  Increase in bicycle parking (including racks at the entrance to JMZ and the park) and increase in long-term bicycle storage for staff. The current demonstration garden on the west side of the Girl Scout House would be relocated within the park near Walter Hays Elementary School as part of the parking lot renovations. A total of 42 trees are proposed to be removed for the JMZ project. None of the trees proposed for removal are protected trees. Two protected trees (a coast live oak and a coast redwood) are proposed to be relocated within the project boundary. A total of 57 new trees will be planted to replace trees removed. Phase II Outdoor Zoo Building The JMZ project includes a proposed future two-story 3,600 sf building adjacent to the zoo area. The building, which would have a gabled roof reaching a maximum height of 25 feet, would consist of a classroom on the first floor and a butterfly/insect exhibit on the second floor. The massing and material of the future Outdoor Zoo Building would be similar to the proposed JMZ building. With construction of both Phase I and Phase II of the JMZ redevelopment, the project would result in a net increase of 9,633 sf of floor area and 4,415 sf of outdoor zoo area compared to the existing JMZ facility. The overall lot coverage of the JMZ facility would increase by 12,748 sf. 3.1.1.4 Temporary Relocation Plan During demolition, building construction and modifications on the JMZ site, JMZ services would continue without interruption at a temporary location at the Cubberley Community Center, located at 4000 Middlefield Road in Palo Alto. The Cubberley Community Center is housed on the campus of the former Ellwood P. Cubberley High School, which opened in the fall of 1956 and closed in 1979. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 13 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 It has been home to organizations that provide many services to the community in areas education, health, childcare, arts, dance and music instruction including Foothill College, and was home to animal rescue operations for many years. The old high school classrooms meet the JMZ needs for education staging and classrooms. The Auditorium is suited to a temporary Junior Museum, indoor animal housing, education and program areas, collections management, and offices. A fenced temporary exterior animal holding area would be constructed to contain a few of the animals and would meet regulatory requirements and animal husbandry needs. These JMZ animals would not be on view for the public. No construction involving substantial ground disturbing activities would be required as part of the temporary relocation of JMZ services. The five parking zones at the campus would provide parking for staff and visitors to the temporary museum. 3.1.2 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan designates Rinconada Park as Public Parks and the JMZ property as Major Institutions/Special Facilities. Both properties are located within the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The project does not propose a Comprehensive Plan amendment or rezoning. 3.1.3 Access, Circulation, and Parking Access to Rinconada Park is provided by Embarcadero Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue. Access to the JMZ and surface parking lot is provided by Middlefield Road. The JMZ is also accessible by bicycle and pedestrian pathways connecting it to Rinconada Park. 3.2 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study (IS) provides decision-makers in the City of Palo Alto (the CEQA Lead Agency), responsible agencies, and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering the project. This IS may also be relied upon for other agency approvals necessary to implement the project. RINCONADA PARK LRP CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-1 Source: Verde Design, July. 16, 2013. 0 50 100 150 Feet PALO ALTO JMZ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-2 Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017. EENTRY LOBBY R D HERPRACK(DRY) HERPRACK (DRY)HERPRACK(WET) HERP UNIT MEDIUMHERP UNITHERPRACK(DRY) HERP UNIT ANIMALSUPPLY 'DIRTY' 'CLEAN' D/W MW ABOVE JAN. SHOP STORAGE HERP ZONE PROGRAM ANIMAL ROOM TRASH ENCLOSURE GIRL'S RESTROOM BOY'S RESTROOM QUARANTINE EST 188 SF 700 SF 76 SF 160 SF L ANIMAL ENCLOSURES 0TRENCH DRAIN TRENCH DR ANIMAL CARE 10 0 77 SFDRY STORAGE 8 10 ZOO WORK SPACE 267 SF 200 SF W/ x 5 x 8 5 x 8 TRENCH DN xx 10 DRY STORAG OUTDOOR CLASSROOM +0 -24" +0 +18 -24" +0" DN 32 FH ((N) FH FIRE RISER UTILITY COORIDOR RECONFIGURED PARKING LOT DROP-OFF HOPKINS AVENUE GROUP PICNICAREA OPEN GREENSPACE UTILITY COORIDOR SHADED GROUP PICNIC AREA GIRL SCOUT FIRE PIT BIKE PARKING EXTE R I O R NE T T E D ENC L O S U R E TRASH ENCLOSURE (E) TRASH ENCLOSURE (E) BRICK PATH LP LP (E) BRICK PATH (E) LOADING ZONE (E) BOBCAT EXHIBIT PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY A PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY B PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY A PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY B RAISED PEDESTRIANCROSSWALK PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK BBIIOOSSWWAALLEE BIKE PARKING DRIVEWAY FOR BUS AND FIRETRUCK ONLY BIKE PARKING PECAN TREE PLAZA DN SCHOOL PARKING LOT LUCIE STERN COMMUNITY CENTER GIRLSCOUT BUILDING CHILDREN PLAY AREA MID D L EFIE L D R O A D K E LL O G G A V E N U E SHARED TOT PLAY OLDER CHILDREN PLAY OUTDOOR ANIMALMANAGEMENT AREA PARK ARRIVALPLAZA JURASSIC GARDEN COURTYARD PROPOSED MUSEUM & EDUCATION BUILDING OUTDOOR CLASSROOM RINCONADA PARK ADULT EXERCISE WALTER HAYS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SECONDARY ENTRY EXTERIOR NETTEDENCLOSURE PROPOSED LOOSE IN THE ZOO EXTERIOR NETTEDENCLOSURE MAIN ENTRANCE SE R V I C E L O A D I N G +0 SLOP E D O W N +0" -18" -12" BRID G E TUN N E L BRID G E PRO M E N A D E ENT R Y PLA Z A 20'-0" 39 30 29 19 25 40 21 26 2320 25 2928 19 17 22 32 32 31 27 37 28 32 17 27 1 17 1 34 33 1 1 32 31 35 36 35 36 31 41 24 41 37 12 32 17 32 31 32 12 14 13 16 37 1515 2 35 13 1332 2 32 4 5 5 6 22 34 32 35 3 332 8 8 11 7 10 3 31 31 31 16 25 42 9 38 RINCONADA PARK BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINE STREET SETBACK UTILITY CORRIDOR FIRE ACCESS LANE (20' WIDE MIN.) PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY B PROJECT SCOPE BOUNDARY A NEW TREE: REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS LLEGEND: EXISTING PARKING COUNT: 95 STALLS (7 ACCESSIBLE) PROPOSED PARKING COUNT: 93 STALLS (8 ACCESSIBLE) GENERAL NOTES: KEYNOTES: PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1 PALO ALTO JMZ ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-3 Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017. 18’-0” 27’-0” 36’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0” 18’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0” -4’-0” 18’-0” 27’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0”-4’-0” 18’-0” 27’-0” 36’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0” -4’-0” PALO ALTO JMZ ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-4 Source: Cody Anderson Wasney Architects, April 27, 2017. 18’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0” -4’-0” 18’-0” 27’-0” 10’-0” 0’-0” -4’-0” 18’-0” 27’-0” 0’-0” -4’-0” Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 18 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project area, as well as environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, identifies environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of this section. Mitigation measures are identified for all significant project impacts. Mitigation Measures are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guideline 15370). 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Aesthetics Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1-3 b. Significantly alter public viewsheds or view corridors or scenic resources (such as trees, rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings) along a scenic highway? 1-3 c. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1-2 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? 1-2 4.1.2 Existing Setting Rinconada Park is an 11.8-acre park that contains mature trees and landscaping. There is a six- court tennis facility on the northern portion of the site bordering Hopkins Avenue. The interior of the park consists of various recreational amenities, including two children’s playgrounds, turf area for activities, picnic areas, backboard, picnic area with barbecues, a municipal swimming pool and children’s pool, shuffle board and horse shoe pit, redwood grove, multipurpose concrete bowl for outdoor events, benches, and jogging/walking paths. Palo Alto Fire Station 3 is located at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road, at the site’s southeastern corner. Walter Hays Elementary School is located directly south of the Park at the intersection of Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 19 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road, adjacent to the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ). The JMZ is housed in a one- and partial two-story wood frame building located at 1451 Middlefield Road. The JMZ includes a fenced-in outdoor area containing various animal exhibits. The building and the zoo grounds border the southwestern boundary of Rinconada Park and are located adjacent to a complex of one-and two-story buildings consisting of the Lucie Stern Community Center, the Children’s Library, and the Girl Scout House. The surrounding area consists mainly of one- to two-story single family residences across the roadways bordering the site which include Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue. The immediate area also contains community facilities including the Girl Scout House (also known as Lou Henry Hoover House), the Children’s Library and Theater, and Lucie Stern Community Center located northwest of the site. Other public uses in the vicinity include the Rinconada Main Library northeast of the Park across Newell Road, the Art Center located east of the Park across Newell Road, three additional tennis courts across Hopkins Avenue, and community gardens. 4.1.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The improvements proposed by the LRP would enhance the visual character and quality of the site through increased landscaping throughout the park, in addition to infrastructure improvements including repaving of sidewalks and pathways. A total of twenty six (26) trees are proposed to be removed from Rinconada Park as part of proposed park improvements identified in the LRP. Twelve (12) of the trees proposed to be removed are Coast Redwood trees growing along Newell Avenue that are protected trees under the Municipal Code. Currently the redwoods are growing under high voltage power lines and are continuously topped to maintain clearance. Native trees of more appropriate size under the power lines are proposed to replace the redwood trees at a 4:1 ratio, and per the city of Palo Alto technical manual on tree replacement requirements. The remaining fourteen (14) non-protected trees identified by the LRP for removal are adjacent to the main pathway and open turf area and have all been planted recently. Removal of these trees will allow for a wider, more prominent pathway that connects the park to the surrounding facilities and provide a larger open active turf area, which is currently limited in Rinconada Park. New native trees will replace these non-native trees at a 2:1 ratio between the pathway and the school. The proposed JMZ buildings would be larger in size and scale than the existing JMZ building. The new JMZ building would be approximately 27 feet in height, while the netted enclosure would be approximately 36 feet in height. The Outdoor Zoo Building proposed during Phase II would be approximately 25 feet in height. The heights of the proposed buildings would be similar to existing houses located across Middlefield Road in proximity to the JMZ, many of which are two stories in height. The netted enclosure for the zoo would appear to be “open-roofed”. The proposed JMZ buildings would be constructed with gabled Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 20 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 roofs, and the southern façade would be set back approximately 24 feet from Middlefield Road. Additionally, the building would be built with variations in color and exterior texture on the facades to provide visual interest. Ornamental landscaping is proposed on the exterior of the facility and in the parking lots to be reconfigured, in addition to indoor exhibit designs. While 42 trees are proposed to be removed in the JMZ project area, approximately 57 trees would be added, for a net increase of 15 trees. No heritage or protected trees will be removed, and tree removal and replacement will comply with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance, as further discussed in section 4.4.3(e). The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Architectural review approval findings require improvements and structures to be compatible with the architecture and massing of surrounding uses. Additionally, the project would be consistent with City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies, including Policy P-48: “Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.” For these reasons and those described above, construction of the project would not substantially degrade the character or quality of the site or the surrounding area. [Less Than Significant Impact] b. Would the project significantly alter public viewsheds or view corridors or scenic resources (such as trees, rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings) along a scenic highway? The project site is not located along, or visible from, a state scenic highway. The project, therefore, would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. Embarcadero Road is identified as a “scenic route” and “major view corridor” in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The JMZ project is not visible from this view corridor, but the Rinconada Park has frontage on the corridor. Due to the flat nature of the site and the presence of mature trees, views of the project site are limited to the immediate area. Implementation of the LRP and construction of the proposed JMZ would not modify identified scenic resources or views of scenic resources in Palo Alto. For these reasons, the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor. [Less than Significant Impact] c. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? As part of the LRP implementation, new security lighting to illuminate pathways may be installed throughout different portions of Rinconada Park. The proposed JMZ building would include minimal outdoor lighting (i.e. security lighting) and indoor lighting that would generate similar amounts of light to the existing JMZ. Lighting would be controlled to minimize spillover light beyond the property lines, and would be required to meet the City’s standards (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.23.030), which restrict light levels to minimize visual impacts of lighting on nearby residential sites. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 21 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 d. Would the project 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? The LRP does not propose any structures that would create substantial new shadows compared to existing conditions. The proposed JMZ buildings would have a maximum height of 27 feet. Based on the project’s location in the northern hemisphere, shadows created by the building would extend west, north, and east, depending on the time of day. The area to the west of the proposed JMZ building would consist of a paved entrance area and parking lot, while the area to the east would continue to consist of buildings and a parking lot associated with the existing Walter Hays Elementary School. Neither of these areas would be considered public open space. The area to the north of the proposed JMZ building would consist of the 36-foot tall netted enclosed area referred to as “Loose in the Zoo”. Shadows from the JMZ building would not extend beyond this area. The netting proposed for the “Loose in the Zoo” area would allow light to filter through and would not create shadows. The proposed JMZ development, therefore, would not substantially shadow open space, including nearby portions of Rinconada Park. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.1.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant adverse visual or aesthetic impacts. [Less than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 22 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 4.2.1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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? 1-4 b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1-4 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)? 2,3 d. Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1-3 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? 1-4 4.2.2 Existing Setting The project site is not designated as farmland or forest land. According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, meaning that the land contains a building density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel or is used for industrial or commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, or other utilities. 4.2.3 Impacts Evaluation a. - b. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The project site is not designated, used, or zoned for agricultural purposes. The project site is not part of a Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in impacts to agricultural or forest resources. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 23 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 c. - d. Would the project 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))? Would the project result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site is not zoned or used for agriculture. The surrounding area is not used or zoned for timberland or forest land. The project would not impact timberland or forest land. [No Impact] e. Would the project 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? According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2012 map, the project site and surrounding area are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. The development of the project site would not result in conversion of any forest or farmlands. [No Impact] 4.2.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an impact to agricultural or forestry resources in the area. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 24 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.3 AIR QUALITY This section is based in part on an air quality assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in April 2015. The report analyzed the impacts of a larger JMZ facility based on previous site plans than the proposed site plans analyzed in this Initial Study. Therefore, air quality impacts described below represent a conservative analysis. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix A. 4.3.1 Air Quality Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (such as the 2017 Clean Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan)? 1-3, 5 b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 1-3, 5 c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? 1-3, 5-6 d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1-3, 5-6 e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1-3, 5-6 4.3.2 Existing Setting Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of a pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for what are commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants,” because they set the criteria for attainment of good air quality. Criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM). Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 25 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.3.2.1 Regional Air Quality The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act require that the CARB, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standard are not met as “nonattainment areas.” Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The Bay Area is designated as an “attainment area” for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The region is classified as a “nonattainment area” for both the federal and state ozone standards, although a request for reclassification to “attainment” of the federal standard is currently being considered by the U.S. EPA. The area does not meet the state standards for particulate matter; however, it does meet the federal standards. Clean Air Plan Regional air quality management districts such as BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans specifying how state air quality standards would be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two closely-related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the plan describes how the BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining all State and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of the air pollutants that are most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone, and toxic air contaminants; to reduce emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion. BAAQMD Guidelines As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air emissions and/or health effects developed by the BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other factual data prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds. The BAAQMD Guidelines have largely survived a legal challenge brought by the California Building Industry Association. While the litigation is not yet concluded, and while there is a limited portion of the Guidelines being set aside following the most recent appellate decision (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Quality Management District (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1067), that limited portion does not impact the City’s use of the Guidelines for the purpose of the current Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 26 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 project. The court only set aside a portion of the Guidelines which suggest that CEQA mandates evaluation of impacts to future new occupants of a project. 4.3.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer or serious illness) and include, but are not limited to, criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a highway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level. The identification, regulation, and monitoring of TACs is relatively new compared to that for criteria air pollutants that have established ambient air quality standards. TACs are regulated or evaluated on the basis of risk to human health rather than comparison to an ambient air quality standard or emission-based threshold. Diesel Particulate Matter Diesel exhaust, in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM), is the predominant TAC in urban air with the potential to cause cancer. It is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State’s Proposition 65 or under the federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program. The U.S. EPA and the CARB have adopted low-sulfur diesel fuel standards in 2006 that reduce diesel particulate matter substantially. The CARB recently adopted new regulations requiring the retrofit and/or replacement of construction equipment on-highway diesel trucks and diesel buses to lower fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions and reduce statewide cancer risk from diesel exhaust. 4.3.2.3 Sensitive Receptors There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The sensitive receptors nearest to the project site are students of Walter Hays Elementary School which is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the JMZ and the southern boundary of Rinconada Park. The closest residences are approximately 115 feet south of the project site across Middlefield Road. Additional residences are located at farther distances south and north of the project area. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 27 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.3.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (such as the 2010 Clean Air Plan or the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan)? Because the project proposes to make improvements to existing land uses and, therefore, would not support substantial additional jobs or cause an increase in the population, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plan. Additionally, the would not result in a substantial increase in vehicle trip generation. [Less Than Significant Impact] b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Implementation of the LRP would not result in a substantial increase in project operations compared to existing conditions. The proposed project would increase the footprint of the JMZ facility by roughly 12,748 sf (including Phase II Outdoor Zoo Building). A net increase in developed space typically results in an increase in traffic and an associated increase in local and regional pollutant emissions. BAAQMD screening levels were developed to assist lead agencies in identifying projects that would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air pollution and air quality impacts. According to BAAQMD thresholds, a project that generates more than 54 pounds per day (or 10 tons per year) of ROG (reactive organic gases), NOx, or PM2.5; or 82 pounds per day (or 15 tons per year) of PM10 would be considered to have a significant impact on regional air quality. Although no screening threshold exists that specifically applies to museums or zoos, the screening threshold for libraries would be the most applicable to the proposed project. Libraries are a land use where patrons arrive throughout the day, stay for a period of time and utilize the facilities for education and recreation, then depart. The BAAQMD screening threshold for libraries is 78,000 sf. The proposed 12,748 sf expansion of the JMZ would fall well below this screening threshold. Additionally, as described in Section 4.16 Transportation, the proposed project would result in minimal net new vehicle trip generation. Since the project size is well below these BAAQMD screening levels and projected net trip generation is relatively low and would not impact the LOS of nearby intersections, it can be assumed that the project would result in a less than significant operational impact from criteria pollutant emissions and from construction air quality impacts. The proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to any existing or projected air quality violations. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 28 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? The long-term operation of the proposed projects would not substantially increase the number of vehicle trips in the area or increase regional emissions, and therefore would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in any pollutant. [Less Than Significant Impact] d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Predicted Cancer Risk and Hazards The maximum modeled diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 concentrations would occur at a receptor at Walter Hays Elementary School adjacent to the project site. Increased cancer risks for a school child were calculated using the maximum modeled DPM concentrations and BAAQMD-recommended risk assessment methods for a child exposure (two to 16 years of age). For residential exposures, infant (third trimester through two years of age), child, and adult exposures were included.1 The cancer risk calculations were based on applying the BAAQMD-recommended age sensitivity factors to the DPM exposures. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs. BAAQMD-recommended exposure parameters were used for the cancer risk calculations.2 Infant and child exposures were assumed to occur during the entire construction period. Results of this assessment indicate that for project construction the incremental school child cancer risk would be 1.1 in one million, the maximum residential child increased cancer risk would be 2.3 in one million, and the incremental residential adult cancer risk would be 0.1 in one million. The maximum increased cancer risks for a school child and residential exposures would be lower than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million or greater. The maximum modeled annual PM2.5 concentration would be 0.09 μg/m3, occurring at the same location where the maximum DPM concentration would occur. This PM2.5 concentration is lower than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 μg/m3 used to judge the significance of health impacts from PM2.5. Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to DPM were also evaluated. Non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). California’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazards (OEHHA) has defined acceptable concentration levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May. 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines. January. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 29 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The chronic inhalation REL for DPM is five μg/m3. The maximum modeled annual DPM concentration was 0.08 μg/m3, which is much lower than the REL. The maximum computed hazard index based on this DPM concentration is 0.016 which is much lower than the BAAQMD significance criterion of a hazard index greater than 1.0. Construction Dust Nearby residential uses and students of the Walter Hays elementary school may be exposed to short-term construction emissions during construction. Construction activities, particularly during demolition, site preparation, and grading would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of respirable particulate matter (PM10) and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less than significant if best management practices are employed to reduce these emissions. The project would be required to implement BAAQMD measures recommended for all projects as City of Palo Alto conditions of approval, further reducing any short-term construction impacts. These measures are as follows;  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day if water is available due to drought and water shortage conditions.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly turned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Palo Alto’s Department of Public Works regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic associated with the LRP would generate diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. However, construction of the LRP is anticipated to be substantially less intensive than construction of the zoo and museum. As Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 30 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 discussed above, and based on dispersion modeling using BAAQMD-recommended methodology, construction of the JMZ would have a less than significant impact with regards to community risk. Therefore, based on the relatively limited magnitude of LRP construction, it is anticipated that excess cancer risk and non-cancer impacts would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds during construction of the LRP. Implementation of best management practices below, would further reduce impacts from fugitive dust associated with LRP construction. Based on the relatively small size of the project and the implementation of BAAQMD dust control measures as standard conditions of approval, as described below the project would result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors from pollutant concentrations. [Less Than Significant Impact] e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The project does not include any odor-causing operations, and any odors emitted during construction would be temporary and localized. [No Impact] 4.3.4 Conclusion The projects would result in less than significant air quality impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 31 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The discussion in this section is based in part on arborist reports prepared by Hort Science in June 2015 and updated in June of 2017. The reports are included in this Initial Study as Appendix B. 4.4.1 Biological Resources Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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? 1-3, 9 b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1-3, 9 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? 1-3 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, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1-3 e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1-3, 7-8 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? 1-3, 9 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 32 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.4.2 Existing Setting The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the construction of a new JMZ facility. The project is within the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ facility boundaries. There are no waterways, wetlands, or other sensitive habitats on or adjacent to the project site. The Park contains various tree and animal species that are commonly found in parks throughout the San Francisco south bay area. The JMZ contains native and non-native animal species that are under the care and supervision of zoo staff. 4.4.2.1 Regulatory Background Federal and California Endangered Species Acts The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered without prior approval. “Take” is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. Special status species in California include plants or animals that are listed as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as California Species of Special Concern, as well as plants identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)3 as rare, threatened, or endangered. The CDFW has jurisdiction over state-listed species and regulate activities that may result in take of individuals. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment, a violation of the MBTA. California Fish and Wildlife Code The California Fish and Wildlife Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts on, many of the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. Certain sections of the Fish and Wildlife Code describe regulations that pertain to certain wildlife species. Fish and Wildlife Code Section 3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in 3 The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit organization that maintains lists and a database of rare and endangered plant species in California. Plants in the CNPS “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California” are considered “Special Plants” by the CDFW Natural Diversity Database Program. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 33 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the CDFW Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan There are two adopted Habitat Conservation Plans in Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (SCVHP), which encompasses a study area of 519,506 acres (or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County) and the Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan. The project sites are outside of the covered areas of both Habitat Conservation Plans. 4.4.2.3 Tree Resources A tree survey was completed by Hort Science in June 2015 for both Rinconada Park and the JMZ. The tree surveys, including a detailed description of the size, health, and preservation suitability of each tree surveyed is included as Appendix B of this Initial Study. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Chapter 5 (Natural Environment) of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (1998) includes policies, programs and implementing actions to ensure the preservation of biological resources, including trees. The following policies and programs would apply to the proposed project: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Relevant Policies Policy Description Policy N-14 Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest. Policy N-15 Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Policy N-17 Preserve and protect heritage trees. Program N-16 Require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development. Program N-17 Develop and implement a plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of trees. Program N-19 Achieve a 50 percent tree canopy for streets, parks, and parking. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City’s Planning and Community Environment Department or Public Works Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 34 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Department. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees (PAMC Chapter 8.10), public trees (PAMC Section 8.04.020), and designated trees (PAMC Chapter 18.76, when so provisioned to be saved and protected by a discretionary approval). Section Chapter 8.10 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, “Tree Preservation and Management Regulations,” (referred to as the “Tree Preservation Ordinance”), protects categories of trees on public or private property from removal or disfigurement. These categories of regulated trees include:  Protected Trees. Includes all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees 11.5 inches or greater in diameter, coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees 18 inches or greater in diameter (PAMC Section 8.10.020), and heritage trees designated by the City Council according to any of the following factors: it is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species; it is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; or it possesses distinctive form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance (PAMC Sections 8.10.020(j) and 8.10.090).  Street Trees. Also protected under Chapter 8.04 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code “Street Trees, Shrubs and Plants” are City-owned street trees (all trees growing within the street right-of-way, outside of private property). A permit is required for work that would in any way damage, destroy, injure, or mutilate a street tree. The excavation of any ditch or tunnel or placement of concrete or other pavement within ten feet from the center of any street tree trunk also requires a permit. Street trees require special protection by a fenced enclosure, according to the City’s Standard Tree Protection Instructions, before demolition, grading or construction.  Designated Trees. Designated trees are established by the City when a project is subject to discretionary design review process by the Architecture Review Board that under PAMC Section 18.76.020(d)(11) includes as part of the findings of review, “whether natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project.” Outstanding tree specimens or groups of trees that function as a screening buffer or have other value may contribute to an existing site, neighborhood or community, and may have a rating of “High” suitability for preservation. Palo Alto Tree Preservation Guidelines For all development projects within the City of Palo Alto, discretionary or ministerial, a Tree Disclosure Statement (TDS) is part of the submittal checklist to establish and verify trees that exist on the site, trees that overhang the site but originate on an adjacent property, and trees that are growing in a City easement, parkway, or publicly-owned land. The TDS stipulates that a Tree Survey is required (for multiple trees), when a Tree Preservation Report is required (when development will occur within the dripline of a Regulated Tree), and who may prepare these documents. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (Tree Technical Manual) describes acceptable procedures and standards to preserve Regulated Trees, including:  The protection of trees during construction;  If allowed to be removed, the acceptable replacement strategy; Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 35 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  Maintenance of protected trees (such as pruning guidelines);  Format and procedures for tree reports; and  Criteria for determining whether a tree is a hazard. 4.4.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project 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 (CDFW) and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is currently developed and consists of disturbed urban habitat. Given the site’s urban setting, isolation from larger areas of natural lands, and high level of human disturbance, the value to wildlife is limited. Therefore, redevelopment of the site would not result in a significant impact to wildlife habitat. The proposed project would not affect federally protected wetlands, riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community. The project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted state or federal conservation plan. No special status species are expected to occur on the project site, given the lack of suitable habitat and highly developed nature of the site. Due to the presence of large trees, urban- adapted bird species could occur on the project site as occasional transients. Because the project site represents only a very small proportion of the suitable habitat available for bird species regionally, the proposed project would not have a measurable effect on regional populations of any species. Nesting Birds The mature trees on the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds, including tree nesting raptors, such as small hawks. Construction-related disturbances have the potential to “take” nests, eggs, or individuals, and otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests, which would be considered a violation of the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or destruction of nests would be a significant impact. Impact BIO-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in disturbance to active migratory bird nests. [Significant Impact] Mitigation Measures: The proposed project shall implement the following measures to reduce construction-related impacts to nesting migratory birds and their nests to a less than significant level, as construction activities proceed: Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 36 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the project shall implement the following measures:  Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until construction activities are initiated.  If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the CDFW. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub.  Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility. There are no riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities within Rinconada Park or within the JMZ facility property. [No Impact] c. Would the project 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? The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility and does not support any wetlands. [No Impact] d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The proposed project site is an existing park and JMZ facility and does not support migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 37 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? The proposed project will retain the majority of the trees on the project site, including all of the identified heritage trees within the project boundaries. There are two heritage trees on the project site, both of which would be unaffected by project implementation. A total of 12 protected trees are proposed to be removed from Rinconada Park and two (2) protected trees are proposed to be transplanted as part of the JMZ redevelopment associated with the reconfigured parking lot. All tree removals would follow the public tree removal process, including adequate neighborhood notification. Below, the trees proposed for removal are broken down per both projects and divided into Protected Tree, Street Trees and Public Trees categories. Arborist reports for the project with the specific tree information can be found in Appendix B. Construction of the proposed project would require new sidewalks, which may require the additional removal and replacements as determined by the Public Works Department. The project would be required to replace street trees in such a way as to avoid existing underground utilities and infrastructure, and also to follow the Palo Alto Tree Preservation Guidelines. Protected Trees to be Removed: LRP: Twelve (12) protected Sequoia sempervirens, Coast Redwood trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP Improvements. The redwoods currently exist under high power electrical lines and are being continuously topped at approximately 20 feet in height. New native trees of appropriate size for the high voltage line will be planted in the locations of the redwoods at a 4:1 ratio. JMZ: No protected trees are proposed to be removed as part of the Junior Museum and Zoo Project. Two protected trees, one Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak and one Sequoia sempervirens, Coast Redwood are proposed to be transplanted within the boundries of the project site as part of the proposed parking lot reconfiguration. Street Trees to be Removed: LRP: No street trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP. JMZ: Two (2) street trees are proposed to be removed as part of the Junior Museum and Zoo project. One (1) Tilian cordata, Little Leaf Linden along Middlefield Avenue will be removed for the new driveway apron for the reconfigured Rinconada parking lot. One (1) Plantanus, London Plane Tree along Hopkins Avenue will be removed for the new fire access lane into the reconfigured parking lot to service the surrounding facilities. New street trees will be added to the project in the locations of the old driveway aprons to replace the removed street trees. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 38 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Public Trees to be Removed: LRP: Fourteen (14) public trees are proposed to be removed as part of the LRP. All the trees occur along with main park walkway and will be removed to realign the walk. All trees removed will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio of native trees, and would be located in more suitable planting areas outside the larger open turf space or small paving cut-outs as do the majority of the trees being proposed for removal. JMZ: Forty two (42) public trees are proposed to be removed as part of the JMZ project none of the trees are native or protected. Six (6) of the trees proposed for removal are being done so for the parking lot reconfiguration in the area adjacent to the Girl scout House. Fifteen (15) trees that currently exist in the Zoo area will be removed as part of the zoo reconfiguration. Thirteen (13) trees will be removed as part of the new JMZ building. One (1) tree will be removed along Middlefield for the new driveway apron/approach. Six (6) trees in poor condition will be removed from the natural oak grove stand adjacent to Lucie Stern to improve the growing conditions for the native oak trees and one (1) tree will be removed from Rinconada Park for the new entry plaza into the park and connection to the main park pathway. New trees and landscaping would be installed in compliance with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, and, therefore, the removal of these trees would not be considered a significant impact. Although not considered a significant impact under CEQA, the following Conditions of Approval, as required by City ordinances, would be included in the project to protect trees to remain on site, and to replace removed trees. Tree Protection Measures: CONDITION BIO-2.1:  A Tree Preservation Report (TPR) shall be prepared for trees to be preserved and protected, consistent with Policy N-7 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City Urban Forester. The TPR shall incorporate the following measures, safeguards, and information:  The TPR shall be based on the latest plans and amended as needed to address activity or improvements within the dripline area, including but not limited to incidental work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, patio material, leveling, etc.) that may affect the health of the trees. The project shall be modified to address TPR concerns and recommendations identified to minimize below ground or above ground impacts.  The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the Tree Preservation Ordinance, PAMC Section 8.10.030 and the City’s Tree Technical Manual, Sections 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban_canopy.asp. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 39 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of the trees, the TPR shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure that patio flat work, irrigation, planting or potted plants are consistent with the Tree Technical Manual. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to the City Urban Forester. CONDITION BIO-2.2:  Provide optimum public tree replacement for loss of one or more public street trees. Publicly owned trees are growing in the right-of-way along Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road. Provide mitigation in the event of a public tree removal. The new frontage should be provided maximum streetscape design and materials to include the following elements:  Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program. Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume resources.  Create conflict-free planting sites by locating tree sites and underground utility services at least 10-feet apart (electric, gas, sewer, water, fiber optic, telecom, etc.).  Utilize City-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base, and generous planter soil volume (800 to 1,200 cubic feet) to sustain a medium to large tree. [Less than Significant Impact] f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project site is located outside of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and the Stanford University Habitat Conservation Plan. [No Impact] 4.4.4 Conclusion The project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 40 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based in part on an archaeological literature search by Holman & Associates, Inc. in June 2015, and on historic resource evaluations prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in July 2016 and June 2017. The archaeological literature search and historic resources evaluations are included in this Initial Study as Appendices C-1, C-2, and C-3 respectively. 4.5.1 Cultural Resources Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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? 1-3, 11- 12 b.Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1-3, 10- 12 c.Cause damage to an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? d.Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1-3 e.Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? 1-3, 10 f.Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1-3, 10- 12 g.Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either: 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 or 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 tribe. 1-3, 10 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 41 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.5.2 Eligibility Criteria for Historic Resources 4.5.2.1 National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is a comprehensive inventory of known historic resources throughout the United States. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological or cultural significance at the national, state or local level. A historic resource listed in, or formally determined to be eligible for listing in, the National Register is, by definition, included in the California Register (Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(d)(1)).4 National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, describes the Criteria for Evaluation as being composed of two factors. First, the property must be “associated with an important historic context.” The National Register identifies four possible context types, of which at least one must be applicable at the national, state, or local level. As listed under Section 8, “Statement of Significance,” of the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, these are: A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. C. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Second, for a property to qualify under the National Register’s Criteria for Evaluation, it must also retain “historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance.” While a property’s significance relates to its role within a specific historic context, its integrity refers to “a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.” To determine if a property retains the physical characteristics corresponding to its historic context, the National Register has identified seven aspects of integrity: 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing standards for all programs under the Department of the Interior’s authority, and for advising federal agencies on the preservation of historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Standards for Rehabilitation (codified in 36 CFR 67 for use in the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program) address the most prevalent treatment. “Rehabilitation” is defined as “the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible 4 See Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(d)(1) Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 42 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.” The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and interior of the buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified for federal tax purposes, a rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s), and where applicable, the district in which it is located. As stated in the definition, the treatment “rehabilitation” assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building's historic character. Similarly, exterior additions that duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure, will fail to meet the Standards. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy, and encompass the exterior and the interior, related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 4.5.2.2 California Register of Historical Resources and CEQA Specific guidelines for identifying historic resources during the project review process under CEQA are set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). These provisions of CEQA create three categories of historical resources: mandatory historical resources; presumptive historical resources; and resources that may be found historical at the discretion of the lead agency. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the listed criteria of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and hence in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California and National Registers, and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 43 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.5.2.3 Palo Alto Historic Inventory The City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of individual designers and architectural eras as well as buildings associated with local, state, or national historic events. The inventory identifies buildings on the California and/or National Registers, whether a building is in a recognized historic district, and lists categories related to architectural style and stylistic development. Development incentives, such as reduced parking requirements and bonus floor area, are allowed for in the Palo Alto Municipal Code in exchange for historic rehabilitation of Category 1 and 2 buildings.5 The specific categories in the Historic Inventory include:  Category 1: An “Exceptional” Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.  Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.  Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion, or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden façades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. In accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code), the Historic Resources Board (HRB) is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council on proposed additions to the Historic Inventory and on reclassifications of existing Historic Inventory buildings.6 For properties that are considered eligible for listing in the City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory and to be designated as either a “Historic District,” or “Historic Structure/Site,” the property must meet the following criteria: 1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state, or nation; 2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state, or nation; 5 The City’s incentive program for preservation and rehabilitation of historic buildings is provided for in the PAMC (Title 16 and Title 18), and in Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policy and programs. 5 City of Palo Alto. Historic Preservation. Accessed: July 26, 2017. Available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 44 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; 4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; 5. The architect or building is important; 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. All properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. In general, Category 1 and 2 resources are defined as “significant” buildings, subject to local regulations, while Category 3 or 4 resources are defined as “contributing” buildings. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.060 requires Historic Resources Board review and Council action on applications for demolition of significant buildings in the downtown area. The existing JMZ building is not listed as a significant building nor as a contributing building, and is not located in the downtown. 4.5.3 Existing Setting Cultural resources are evidence of past human occupation and activity and include both historical and archaeological resources. These resources may be located above ground, underground or underwater and have significance in history, prehistory, architecture or culture of the nation, State of California, or local or tribal communities. Paleontological resources are fossils, the remains or traces of prehistoric life preserved in the geological record. They range from the well-known and well publicized fossils (such as mammoth and dinosaur bones) to scientifically important fossils (such as paleobotanical remains, trace fossils, and microfossils). Potentially sensitive areas with fossil bearing sediments near the ground surface in areas of Santa Clara County are generally in or adjacent to foothill areas rather than the younger Holocene age deposits on the valley floor. 4.5.3.1 Prehistoric Resources The site is located in downtown Palo Alto, and is fully developed and previously disturbed. The site is located in an area of “moderate sensitivity” for archaeological resources, based on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report (2014), although areas of “extreme sensitivity” are located nearby in the downtown area. An Archaeological Literature Review that was conducted by Holman & Associates at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information system (NWIC) did not identify prehistoric resources on or adjacent to the project site. 4.5.3.2 Tribal Cultural Resources Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was signed into law in 2014, creating a new category of environmental resources (tribal cultural resources), which must be considered under CEQA. A tribal cultural resource is defined under Public Resources Code Section 21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. AB 52 also requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified of projects proposed within that Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 45 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 area. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource or when it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached. 4.5.3.3 Historic Resources History of Development on the City-Owned Parcel Rinconada Park has developed into its current form over a period of 95 years, with improvements that reflect a variety of civic and park design influences. Prior to development of the park, the location that is now Rinconada Park was used as the City’s first waterworks and power plant. An electricity-generating unit in the water plant was installed in 1914. The cooling pool of the power plant was converted into a public swimming pool around 1918, and drew crowds of both local residents and out-of-town tourists. The park was officially named Rinconada Park in 1924, after the City sponsored a public contest for its official name. Development plans were created in 1924 for the entire park. Because bond measures to finance the development of the park were defeated, however, the full 1924 development plan appears to have gone unfinished. Despite delays and cuts to the extensive development plan, four tennis courts, a baseball diamond, and a children’s playground were constructed. The Girl Scout House was completed in 1925, following designs by prolific Palo Alto architect Birge Clark. Funding for the Girl Scout House was provided in 1922 by Lou Henry Hoover, wife of President Herbert Hoover, and two other board members of the Palo Alto Girl Scout chapter. Hoover established the first West Coast troop in Palo Alto and served as president of Girl Scouts of the USA from 1922 to 1925 and again from 1935 to 1937. The building is the oldest active scout meeting house in the country. In the early 1930s, Lucie Stern, widow of Louis Stern who was a nephew of Levi Strauss, and her daughter Ruth gifted the city with money to build the Lucie Stern Community Center. The theater was the first part of the Lucie Stern Community Center to be completed in 1934. Construction of the Lucie Stern Community Center was completed in 1940, and included the main theater, Boy Scout headquarters, Children’s Theater, and the Children’s library. The library is the oldest freestanding children’s library in the county, and was designed by Birge and David Clark in the Spanish Colonial Revival style to match the Lucie Stern Community Center. The JMZ building was constructed in 1941, and has since been used solely used as a museum and zoo facility. The institution of the Palo Alto JMZ was founded in 1934 and belongs to a nation-wide pattern of children’s museums established in the early 20th century. The paved parking lot and adjacent landscaping between the JMZ and Lucie Stern Community Center was installed in the 1940s. The existing JMZ building has undergone significant alterations since its construction, including a remodel and expansion in 1969. Throughout the 1940s, various park improvements were made, including the addition of park benches around the swimming pools and an addition to the Girl Scout House. The Fire Station, located at the corner of Embarcadero and Newell Road was constructed in 1948. Additional park Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 46 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 improvements were made through the 1950s, namely an activities house to store recreational sports gear. In 1957, plans for a modernized park were produced by the landscape architecture firm Eckbo, Royston, and Williams of San Francisco. Later in 1964, the park was expanded to include a half- block piece of land the City owned across Hopkins Avenue. In 1970, three more tennis courts were constructed across Hopkins Avenue at Newell Road, and the Magic Forest was officially dedicated as such in 1971. The walkways were renovated in 1973 and the pools were renovated in 1978. Renovations to existing park facilities including the adult swimming pool and tennis courts were renovated in 1986 and 1989, respectively. During the 1990s, more facilities underwent additions including the children’s theater and children’s pool. The children’s library was renovated and expanded in 2005, with work completed in 2007. Historic Resources on the City-Owned Parcel The entire City-owned parcel is designated in City of Palo Alto records as a Category 1 property because of the Lucie Stern Community Center. The Category 1 designation does not apply to any other building or facility within the parcel. The Lucie Stern Community Center is considered a historic resource under National Register Criterion A/California Register Criterion 1 for its role in providing community gathering spaces and amenities, National Register Criterion B/California Register Criterion 2 for its association with benefactors Lucie and Ruth Stern, and National Register Criterion C/California Register Criterion 3 for its Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings and integrated landscape design. A historic evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in July 2016 evaluated the JMZ building for its historic significance based on national and state criteria. The report concluded that due to significant modifications made to the building, it is not eligible for listing on the National Register or California Register under any criteria. A subsequent historic evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc. in June 2017 evaluated the remaining development on the City-owned parcel. The Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House site was found to be significant under Criterion A/1 for its early role in scouting and Criterion B/2 for its association with Lou Henry Hoover. No additional historic resources were identified on the City- owned parcel. 4.5.4 Impacts Evaluation a., b., f. Would the project 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? Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposed project includes two components: 1) implementation of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan (LRP) and 2) redevelopment of the JMZ facility and reconfiguration of the adjacent parking lot. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 47 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 As described above, Rinconada Park and its existing features are not considered a historic resource. Implementation of the LRP, therefore, would not result in impacts to historic resources. The Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center, which are located north and northwest of the JMZ facility, respectively, are both considered historic resources. The existing JMZ building, however, was determined not to be a historic resource. The JMZ building and site are sufficiently separated from the Girl Scout House across a paved and planted “park arrival plaza” that the new construction will not directly affect the character of the historic building. Demolition of the existing JMZ building and construction of a new JMZ facility, therefore, would not result in impacts to historic resources. The project includes reconfiguration of the parking lot that is located adjacent to the Girl Scout House and Lucie Stern Community Center. The redesigned parking lot would not affect the Lucie Stern Community Center site; the pavement would occupy a smaller footprint compared to the current paving at the south side of the complex, adding more lawn and plantings to the building’s setting. While the driveway approach would be removed from Middlefield Road to the south, a pedestrian circulation approach would replace the driveway. Thus, the view on approach to the south courtyard would remain. The historic building complex and landscaped courtyards and lawn to the west would not be affected. The parking lot would be enlarged at the northeast, coming closer to the primary façade of the Girl Scout House. The space of the “front yard” of the Girl Scout House would change, as the paving would extended across the full length of the building’s façade and the area would be paved with an organic concrete pathway, new oak trees, bark mulch ground cover, and native grass plantings. While the proposed project includes alteration of some contributing landscape/hardscape features at the “front yard,” these features will be altered but not eliminated. Additionally, the bird bath would be moved to a location near the Boy Scout Building at the Lucie Stern Community Center, which is an appropriate treatment for this feature. While the proposed project includes removal of some landscape features, particularly the demonstration garden in the front yard area of the Girl Scout House, the significance of the historic building (National Register Criteria A and B/California Register Criteria 1and 2) would continue to be represented through the building. The building’s T- shaped form, board and batten siding, multi-lite wood sash windows, solid and board-and- batten wood doors, stone chimney, and cross-gable roof would not be altered and would continue to be the primary conveyance of the building’s significance. Overall, the project does not significantly impact the historic character of the Girl Scout House and the building continues to convey its historic significance, which justifies its eligibility for listing in the National and California Registers. Thus, the reconfiguration of the parking lot would not result in impacts to historic resources. [Less than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 48 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 c., d. Would the project cause damage to an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Although existing development has altered the project site, there is always the potential to discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. In the event any archaeological or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant. Impact CR-1: Construction activities could result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources. [Significant Impact] Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50- feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the proposed project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 49 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation] e. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? The proposed project is located in an urban area on alluvial soil materials. There are no known paleontological resources in the vicinity of the proposed project site. [No Impact] g. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either: 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 of 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? In May 2016, the City of Palo received a single request from the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians to be contacted in accordance with AB 52. Through subsequent correspondence with Tribal Representatives, however, it was concluded that the Tribe had contacted the City of Palo Alto in error and did not wish to be contacted regarding future projects within the City’s jurisdiction. The Tribe is not traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area within the City of Palo Alto; rather, the area they are affiliated with lies over 400 miles southeast of the project site. Because no other tribes have requested to be contacted, no notices in accordance with AB 52 were sent. The project site is located in a fully developed area and no tribal cultural resources have been listed or determined eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register of historical resources. As described previously, An Archaeological Literature Review that was conducted by Holman & Associates at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resource Information system (NWIC) did not identify prehistoric resources on or adjacent to the project site. The project would improve existing development on the site and would not substantially change the character of the site or its surroundings compared to existing conditions. To date, no California Native American tribes that are or have been traditionally culturally affiliated with the project vicinity have requested notification from the City of Palo Alto regarding projects in the area and their effects on a tribal cultural resource. The project, therefore, is not anticipated to result in a substantial adverse effect on a tribal cultural resource. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 50 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.5.5 Conclusion With implementation of the mitigation measures included in the project, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on cultural and historic resources. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 51 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.6 GEOLOGY This discussion is based in part on a Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering in January 2015. A copy of this survey is attached to this Initial Study as Appendix D. 4.6.1 Geology and Soils Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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 described 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.) 1-3 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1-3 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1-3 iv. Landslides? 1-3 v. Expansive soils? 1-3 b. Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 1-3 c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1-3 d. Cause substantial soil erosion or siltation? 1-3 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? 1-3 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 52 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.6.2 Existing Setting 4.6.1.1 Background and Topography The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, an alluvial basin, bound by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Hamilton/Diablo Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the north. The Santa Clara Valley was formed when sediments derived from the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Hamilton/Diablo Range were exposed by continued tectonic uplift and regression of the inland sea that had previously inundated this area. Bedrock in this area is made up of the Franciscan Complex, a diverse group of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks of Upper Jurassic to cretaceous age (70 to 140 million years old). Overlaying the bedrock in the vicinity are alluvial fan and fluvial sediments of Quaternary age. 4.6.1.2 Expansive Soils Based on lab testing results, near-surface soils on the site have a high potential for expansion. 4.6.1.3 Faults and Seismicity The project area is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area, which is classified as Zone 4, the most seismically active zone in the United States. The San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults are significant regional active faults that could produce earthquakes affecting the proposed project during its anticipated life span. No known faults cross the project site, and the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. The San Andreas fault is approximately 6.8 miles southwest of the site, the Hayward fault is approximately 12.3 miles northeast of the site, and the Calaveras fault is approximately 16.9 miles east of the site. With the relative proximity of these faults, the site is likely to be subject to ground shaking during moderate to large earthquakes produced along these active fault zones. 4.6.1.4 Liquefaction Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose, water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are many variables that contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil density, and ground water level. No liquefiable soils were detected in soil borings taken on the site, and the potential for liquefaction is minimal. 4.6.3 Impacts Evaluation a., b., c. Would the project 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, ii) strong seismic ground shaking, iii) seismic-related ground failure, iv) landslides or v) expansive soils? Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 53 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 The project site is located within the seismically-active San Francisco Bay region, but are not located within a mapped fault zone. There are no known earthquake faults crossing the sites; therefore, the likelihood of primary ground rupture is low. [Less Than Significant Impact] The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has reported that the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2007) has estimated that there is a 63 percent probability that one or more major earthquakes would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between before 2038. An earthquake occurring on any of the fault lines in the region may induce seismic ground shaking at the project site. The proposed JMZ building would be designed and constructed in accordance with state and City of Palo Alto building codes and standards, as well as the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation prepared for the site, to reduce damage from seismic activity. These conditions would require a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any grading and building permits. [Less Than Significant Impact] d. Would the project cause substantial soil erosion or siltation? The project site is generally flat and not adjacent to any steep slopes. Park redevelopment and construction of the JMZ facility would not result in soil erosion, the loss of topsoil, or in substantial siltation. Construction of the proposed JMZ building would require excavation for building foundations. The project would be required to comply with the City of Palo Alto’s conditions of approval to reduce erosion during demolition, grading, and excavation. The soils on site have a relatively low potential for expansion, and construction of the new JMZ facility in conformance with the California Building Code and City of Palo Alto requirements would avoid risks associated with soil conditions. [Less Than Significant Impact] e. Would the project 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? The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. [No Impact] 4.6.4 Conclusion The project would not result in significant geology and soil impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 54 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.7.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1-3 b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1-3 4.7.2 Existing Setting 4.7.2.1 Background Information Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which are discussed in Section 4.3, and have local or regional impacts, emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) have a broader, global impact. Global warming associated with the “greenhouse effect” is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere over time. The principal GHGs contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors. An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global warming is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California could be adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise could increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. The potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 55 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.7.2.2 Regulatory Information California Assembly Bill 32 The Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill (AB) 32) was passed in California in September 2006 to address the State’s contribution to global climate change. Assembly Bill 32 requires that GHG emissions in California be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the state’s first Climate Change Scoping Plan in 2008. It proposed a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. In May 2014, CARB adopted an updated Scoping Plan document. The 2014 Update defines CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to start the transition to the post-2020 goals set forth in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012 (see below). The 2014 Update highlights California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan and evaluates how to align the State’s longer-term greenhouse gas reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, waste, natural resources, agriculture, clean energy, and transportation and land use. Executive Orders In addition to AB 32, Executive Order S-3-05 (EO S-3-05) established a reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and Executive Order B-16-2012 established benchmarks for increased use of zero emission vehicles and zero emission vehicle infrastructure by 2020 and 2025. On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Executive Order B-30-15, setting a new interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target. The purpose of establishing the interim target is to ensure California meets its previously established target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005. Under Executive Order B-30-15, the interim target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. California Senate Bill 375 Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035 in comparison to 2005 emissions. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013 as part of SB 375 implementation. The strategies in the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs, Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 56 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by local jurisdictions. Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan The Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) focuses on two closely-related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. Consistent with the GHG reduction targets adopted by the state of California, the 2017 CAP lays the groundwork for the BAAQMD’s long-term effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2017 CAP includes a wide range of control measures designed to decrease emissions of methane and other “super-GHGs” that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term; and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion. BAAQMD Guidelines As discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Palo Alto and other jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin often utilize the thresholds and methodology for greenhouse gas emissions developed by the BAAQMD. City of Palo Alto Plans and Programs At the local level, the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a number of goals and policies to reduce its impact on global climate change through promoting energy efficiency and/or conservation, alternative modes of transportation, water efficiency, and specific building standards. In addition, the City adopted a Climate Protection Plan in December 2007 and a Green Building Ordinance on June 2, 2008. The Green Building Program applies to residential and non-residential private development projects (PAMC 16.14). 4.7.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? The proposed project would generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction and normal park and JMZ operations. BAAQMD does not provide GHG screening thresholds for museums or zoos. A similar land use, based on visitation rates and duration of patron visits are libraries. Based on the established screening thresholds for libraries, the project would be under the BAAQMD thresholds for GHG emissions, and additionally would comply with the City’s green building requirements. The BAAQMD guidelines and the City of Palo Alto do not suggest a threshold of significance for short-term construction-related GHG emissions. Based on the size of the project and the amount of construction-related activities necessary to complete the project, and implementation of Basic Construction Measures discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution of greenhouse gas Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 57 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 emissions to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, and, therefore, would result in a less than significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions. [Less Than Significant Impact] b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed in Section 4.7.2.2, Regulatory Information, the State of California has adopted a Climate Change Scoping Plan. Greenhouse gas emissions are also addressed in the adopted 2017 CAP and Plan Bay Area. The CARB-approved Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines a comprehensive set of actions intended to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan includes recommended actions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While the Scoping Plan focuses on measures and regulations at a statewide level, local governments play a key role in implementing many of the strategies contained in the Scoping Plan, such as energy efficient building codes, local renewable energy generation, and recycling programs. The project includes green building measures as required by the City of Palo Alto’s green building program. These measures include, but are not limited to: Non-residential Development:  Must comply with the California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements,  Must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code (CBC);  Must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months;  Must comply with potable water reduction Tier 2;  Must be designed and installed to reduce irrigation water;  Must install recycled water infrastructure and meters;  Must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2; and  Must comply with the City’s Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance. For these reasons, the project would be consistent with recommended actions in the Scoping Plan and 2010 CAP measures, and would not conflict with implementation of recommended actions in these plans intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 (and ultimately 2050). Given that demolition and construction materials would be salvaged or recycled in conformance with City of Palo Alto requirements, and the project would meet Title 24 standards to reduce energy usage, construction and operation of the project would not contribute substantially to local or regional GHG emissions that have a cumulative significant effect on the global environment. [Less than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 58 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.7.4 Conclusion The proposed project would not generate substantial new greenhouse gas emissions considered to have a significant impact on global climate change. Voluntary implementation of BAAQMD’s recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Guidelines and compliance with green building requirements would further reduce impacts to greenhouse gas emissions to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 59 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.8.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1-3 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? 1 c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1-3 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 location on listed hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5? 1-3 e. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? 1,2,18 f. Result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or working within the project area? 1 g. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 h. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 60 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.8.2 Background Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of which are naturally-occurring and some of which are man-made. Examples include motor oil and fuel, metals (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic), asbestos, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical compounds used in manufacturing and other activities. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or physical properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. Determining if such substances are present on or near project sites is important because exposure to hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds can result in adverse health effects on humans, as well as harm to plant and wildlife ecology. Hazardous waste generators and hazardous materials users in the City are required to comply with regulations enforced by several federal, state, and county agencies. The regulations are designed to reduce the risk associated with human exposure to hazardous materials and minimize adverse environmental effects. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require protective measures during construction activities where workers may be exposed to asbestos, lead, and/or other hazardous materials. 4.8.3 Setting 4.8.3.1 Regulatory Setting Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to find information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. Government Code section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop an updated Cortese List at least annually. The Cortese List includes lists maintained by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The DTSC, SWRCB, and CIWMB do not list the site as containing hazardous materials. Within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site, there are three sites identified by the SWRCB as having leaking underground storage tanks. All three sites have received case closure status from the SWRCB and are considered fully remediated.7 4.8.3.2 Existing Setting There are no known hazardous material concerns on the project site. Land uses in the project area consist mainly of single family residences and public facilities (Girl Scout house, Lucie Stern Community Center, Children’s Library and Theater, Walter Hays Elementary School, Fire Station, Main Library, Art Center). There are no industrial uses near the project site that pose a hazardous materials concern. 7 Cal State Water Resources Control Board, August 17, 2015. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 61 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.8.4 Impacts Evaluation a., b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? The proposed JMZ would have similar operations as the existing JMZ, including the minor use, storage, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials such as janitorial, landscaping, and maintenance chemicals. Future JMZ maintenance staff would be required to comply with federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous materials. These materials would be used in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, as required by the City of Palo Alto. Project construction would require the temporary use of heavy equipment, including excavation equipment. Construction would also require the use of hazardous materials including petroleum products, lubricants, cleaners, paints, and solvents. These materials would be used in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws, as required by the City of Palo Alto. If used as directed, these materials would not pose a hazard to the environment or workers or persons in the vicinity. [Less Than Significant Impact] Asbestos-containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint Demolition of the existing JMZ could expose asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint. These materials, if present could pose a risk to construction workers and adjacent uses during building demolition within the JMZ. To reduce the potential for construction workers and adjacent uses to encounter hazardous materials contamination from ACMs and lead-based paint, the following measures are included in the project as conditions of approval to reduce hazardous materials impacts related to ACMs and lead-based paint. CONDITION HAZ-1.1:  In conformance with local, state, and federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the JMZ. The surveys shall be completed prior to demolition work beginning on these structures.  If found, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 62 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. [Less Than Significant Impact] c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Walter Hays Elementary School is located adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste during operation. The project does not propose construction of a school. [No Impact] d. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users to the site to contamination either in excess of ground soil and groundwater cleanup goals developed for the site or from location on listed hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5? The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and none of these sites are adjacent to the site (refer to Appendix D).8 The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from contamination in excess of soil and groundwater cleanup goals. [Less Than Significant Impact] f., g. Would the project result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or working within the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? The project sites are located approximately 2.1 miles west of the Palo Alto Airport, and are not within the Palo Alto Airport’s Comprehensive Land Use Planning area. Implementation of the projects would, therefore, not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. [No Impact] h., e. Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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? The development of the proposed project would not impair or interfere with implementation of the City’s emergency response plans or any statewide emergency response or evacuation plans. The sites are located in a developed area of Palo Alto, and therefore not subject to hazards from wildland fires.9 [No Impact] 8 State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 8, 2016. 9 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php. Accessed July 8, 2016. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 63 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.8.5 Conclusion The project do not propose new hazardous materials uses and are not located on a site contaminated with hazardous materials. Implementation of the required City of Palo Alto conditions of approval would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant hazards and hazardous materials impact. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 64 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 4.9.1 Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1-3 b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there will 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 will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1-3 c. Substantially increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1-3 d. Result in stream bank instability? 1 e. Significantly increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff in a manner which would result in new or increased flooding on-or off-site? 1-3 f. Create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1-3 g. Provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1-3 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? 1,16 i. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? 1,16 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 65 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) j. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding by placing housing or other development within a 100-year flood hazard area or a levee or dam failure inundation area? 1,2 k. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,19 4.9.2 Existing Setting 4.9.2.1 Regulatory Background Federal Emergency Management Agency In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that has a one in one hundred (one percent) chance of being flooded in any one year based on historical data. Portions of the City are identified as special flood hazard areas with a one percent annual chance and two percent annual chance of flooding (also known as the 100-year and 500-year flood zones) as determined by the FEMA NFIP. As noted previously, the developable portion of the site is located in the 100-year flood zone. Water Quality (Nonpoint Source Pollution Program) The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the Palo Alto area is the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)/C.3 Requirement The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit Number CAS612008) (MRP). In an effort to standardize stormwater management requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 66 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area municipalities, including the City of Mountain View. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, redevelopment projects that create or replace more than 10,000 sf of impervious surfaces are required to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. 4.9.2.2 Water Quality The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain. Stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. Locally, the NPDES program is administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit (Regional Permit). This Regional Permit identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permittee, must require of new development and redevelopment projects within the City limits. Compliance with the NPDES Regional Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes. The project site is the existing Rinconada Park with JMZ, which is located in a developed suburban area. Stormwater runoff from the project site currently drains into the Palo Alto storm drain system, which eventually empties into the San Francisco Bay10. 4.9.2.3 Flooding The project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain or a groundwater recharge area.11 4.9.2.4 Dam Failure The Association of Bay Area Governments compiled the dam failure inundation hazard maps submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services by dam owners throughout the Bay Area. The project site is located in the Searsville inundation area.12 10 City of Palo Alto, Storm Drain Master Plan. Accessed: July 8, 2016. Available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org. 11 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Community-Panel Number 06085C0010H, May, 18 2009. 12 San Mateo County, Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Accessed on August 11, 2015. Available at: http://planning.smcgov.orgf. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 67 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.9.2.5 Seiches, Tsunamis, and Mudflows A seiche is an oscillation of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea varying in period from a few minutes to several hours. There are no landlocked bodies of water near the project site that, in the event of a seiche, will affect the site. A tsunami or tidal wave is a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume of water in a large body of water, such as an ocean or a large lake. Due to the immense volumes of water and energy involved, tsunamis can devastate coastal regions. There are no large bodies of water near the project site and the site does not lie within a tsunami inundation area.13 A mudflow is the rapid movement of a large mass of mud formed from loose soil and water. The project area is relatively flat and there are no mountains near the site that in the event of a mudflow, will affect the site. 4.9.3 Impacts Evaluation a., g. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The City’s standard conditions of approval include a requirement that a project develop and implement best management practices (BMPs) to control erosion during construction and permanent features to treat stormwater runoff, such as swales. Such BMPs include, but are not limited to the following measures:  Implement site-specific erosion and sediment control methods during demolition and construction periods.  Cover soil, equipment, and supplies that could contribute non-visible pollution prior to rainfall events.  Cover stockpiles and disturbed surfaces with secure plastic sheeting or tarp.  Clean sediments from streets, driveways, and paved areas using dry sweeping methods.  Dispose of all wastes properly and keep site clear of trash and litter. Clean up leaks, drips, and other spills immediately. Implementation of Construction BMPs and compliance with the City’s standard conditions of approval and compliance with provisions of the NPDES permit would ensure that adverse effects on water quality associated with stormwater runoff during construction and operation of the project area avoided and/or reduced to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact] 13 California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning San Francisco Bay Area, < http://www.conservation.ca.gov> June 15, 2009. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 68 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there will 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 will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? The project is the implementation of the Rinconada Park LRP and the construction of a new JMZ facility in the same location as the existing JMZ facility. The amount of pervious surfaces on the project site after buildout of the project would be similar to existing conditions. Implementation of both the LRP and proposed JMZ would not result in the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. [Less Than Significant Impact] c., d. Would the project substantially increase the rate, volumes, or flow duration of stormwater runoff or alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Result in stream bank instability? San Francisquito Creek is approximately 0.9 miles northeast of the project site; however, the project area is not in the floodplain of the creek and does not propose any alterations or impacts to the creek. The projects would not cause stream bank instability in or near San Francisquito Creek. [No Impact] e. Would the project significantly increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of storm water runoff in a manner which would result in new or increased flooding on-or off-site? The proposed project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area and does not include any alterations to a waterway. Implementation of Construction BMPs and erosion control measures would reduce surface runoff impacts during construction and project operation to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact] f. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surface or increase stormwater runoff such that it would have the potential to exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage systems. The project would be required to comply with Section 16.11.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which mandates permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures for new development projects. Applicable measures to the proposed project include:  Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates other appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs such as bay-friendly landscaping; Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 69 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  Efficient irrigation systems;  Conservation of natural areas, including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils;  Minimization of impervious surfaces;  Minimization of stormwater runoff by implementation of one or more of the following site design measures: o Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. o Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. o Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. o Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. o Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. Compliance with Section 16.11.030 of the Municipal Code would ensure that any runoff generated from project implementation would not be a substantial source of pollution. [Less Than Significant Impact] h. - k. Would the project 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? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows? 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? Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project area is not located in a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the one percent chance flood. The one percent annual flood (100- year flood), is the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.14 [No Impact] Reservoirs whose failure would affect the City of Palo Alto include Felt Lake, Searsville Lake, Lagunita Reservoir, and Foothills Park. Based on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services, the project site is not within a dam failure inundation area.15 [No Impact] There are no landlocked bodies of water nor large bodies of water near the project site that, in the event of a seiche or tsunami, would affect the site. The project area is relatively flat and there are no mountains near the site that in the event of a mudflow, will affect the site. [No Impact] 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009. 15 City of Palo Alto, Office of Emergency Services. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report. August 2014. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 70 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.9.4 Conclusion With implementation of the best management practices and conformance with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, the project would result in a less than significant impact to hydrology and stormwater quality. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 71 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.10 LAND USE 4.10.1 Land Use Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Physically divide an established community? 1,2 b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1-3 i. Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area? 1,2 ii. Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1,2 iii. Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1,2 c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1-3,9 4.10.2 Existing Setting The project site is located centrally in the City of Palo Alto in an area developed with residential and public facility uses. The site consists of the Rinconada Park and JMZ properties. The 11.8-acre Rinconada Park is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as Public Park and currently contains various recreational amenities, including two children’s playgrounds, turf area for activities, picnic areas, nine tennis courts, backboard, picnic area with barbecues, municipal swimming pool and children’s pool, shuffle board and horse shoe pit, redwood grove, multipurpose concrete bowl, benches, and jogging/walking paths. The Public Park land use designation is defined as open lands whose primary purpose is active recreation and whose character is essentially urban. These areas have been planted with non-indigenous landscaping and are regularly maintained by City Park’s staff. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 72 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 JMZ is designated in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as a Major Institutions/Special Facilities and is currently used for community education and recreational activities. This land use designation is defined as institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities. The entire project site is located within the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The PF public facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Rinconada Park is bounded by Hopkins Avenue to the north, Newell Road to the east, Embarcadero Road to the southeast. The JMZ is located adjacent to the southwest corner of Rinconada Park and is bounded by Middlefield Road to the southwest. Walter Hays Elementary School is located on the eastern boundary of the JMZ and the southern boundary of Rinconada Park. Palo Alto Fire Station 3 is located adjacent to Rinconada Park at the intersection of Embarcadero Road and Newell Road. Surrounding land uses consist primarily of single family residences and public use facilities. An aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 3.1-3. 4.10.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the construction of the JMZ at the site of the existing JMZ. The project would not change the existing uses of Rinconada Park or JMZ and would, therefore, not physically divide an established community. [No Impact] b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed uses and intensity of the project is consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation for the sites, and it would replace, modify, and expand existing sites’ uses with similar uses. [No Impact] bi). Would the project substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use patterns in the area? Implementation of the Rinconada Park LRP would guide future development and renovation of Rinconada Park. Proposed renovations and improvements would maintain the type and intensity of existing uses in the park. The proposed JMZ building would be slightly larger than the existing facility; however, it would maintain the uses of the existing facility. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 73 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 For these reasons, the proposed projects would not substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area. [Less Than Significant Impact] bii – iii.) Would the project be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? Would the project conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? The proposed JMZ facility would be consist of a one-story JMZ building (Phase I) reaching a maximum height of 27 feet, and a two-story Outdoor Zoo Building (Phase II) reaching a maximum height of 25 feet. The highest point of the combined museum and zoo facility would be 36 feet at the netted enclosure. The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. The proposed project would maintain the existing land uses and would be compliant with the activities and building densities of each respective General Plan designations and zoning district. For these reasons, implementation of the project would not result in incompatible land uses or conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of the surrounding area. [Less Than Significant Impact] c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is outside of the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Stanford Conservation Plan, or any other adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. [No Impact] 4.10.4 Conclusion The proposed projects would not result in a significant land use impact. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 74 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES 4.11.1 Existing Setting The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There are no known locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. 4.11.2 Mineral Resources Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1-3 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? 1-3 4.11.3 Impacts Evaluation a. – b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state or 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? The project is in eastern Palo Alto, and is not located in an area containing known mineral resources. There are no known mineral recovery sites in the vicinity of the project site. [No Impact] 4.11.4 Conclusion The project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 75 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.12 NOISE The following discussion is based upon the noise assessment prepared for the proposed project by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., noise consultants, in June 2015. The report analyzed the impacts of a larger JMZ facility based on previous site plans than the proposed site plans analyzed in this Initial Study. Therefore, noise impacts described below represent a conservative analysis. This report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix E. 4.12.1 Noise Environmental Checklist Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 1-3,21 b. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1-3,21 c. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,2 d. 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, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1,2 e. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 4.12.2 Background Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Acceptable levels of noise are relative to the designated land use. In any one location, the noise level will vary over time, from the lowest background or ambient noise level to temporary increases caused by traffic or other sources. State and federal standards have been established as guidelines for determining the compatibility of a particular use with its noise environment. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 76 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level or dBA.16 This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Typical noise descriptors include maximum noise level (Lmax), the energy-equivalent noise level (Leq), and the day-night average noise level (Ldn). The Ldn noise descriptor is commonly used in establishing noise exposure guidelines for specific land uses. For the energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor called Leq the most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration. Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening hours, 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn (sometimes also referred to as DNL), is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of 10 dB to noise levels measured in the nighttime between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour A-weighted noise level from midnight to midnight after the addition of five dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. 4.12.3 Existing Setting An ambient noise monitoring survey was conducted by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. on March 17, 2015 and included three long-term (120-hour) and three short-term (10-minute) measurements. Measurement locations are shown in Figure 4.12-1. A summary of the long-term and short-term measurement results are shown in Table 4.12-1. Long-term measurement LT-1 was located across from 1290 Cedar Street roughly 55 feet north of the center of Hopkins Avenue. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic on Hopkins Avenue. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 52 to 56 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 37 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at this location ranged from 55 to 56 dBA Ldn. Measurement LT-2 was situated in front of 1108 Fulton Street, roughly 60 feet southeast of the center of Embarcadero Road. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic along Embarcadero Road, although the loudspeaker at the adjacent school was occasionally audible during the attended portion of this measurement. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 61 to 64 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 50 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at this location ranged from 63 to 66 dBA Ldn. 16 The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. All sound levels in this discussion are A-weighted, unless otherwise stated. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 77 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Long-term noise measurement LT-3 was situated across from 685 Kellogg Avenue, roughly 50 feet southwest of the center of Middlefield Road. The predominant noise source at this location was traffic along Middlefield Road. Daytime hourly average noise levels typically ranged from about 60 to 64 dBA Leq, with nighttime noise levels as low as 42 dBA Leq. The day/night average noise level at this location ranged from 61 to 63 dBA Ldn. Short-term noise measurement ST-1 was located across from 12808 Pine Street, roughly 30 feet north of the center of Hopkins Avenue. Traffic along Hopkins Avenue was the predominant noise source at this location. The 10-minute average noise level, measured from 11:30 AM to 11:40 AM on Thursday, March 17th, 2015 was 52 dBA Ldn. Noise measurement ST-2 was situated in front of 1249 Harriet Street, roughly 20 feet from the center of the roadway and across the street from the library. The primary noise source at this location was local traffic, which generated a 10-minute average noise level of 55 dBA Leq from 11:20 AM to 11:30 AM on Thursday, March 17, 2015. Measurement ST-3 was located across from 1722 Newell Road, near Embarcadero Road. The primary noise source at this location was traffic on Embarcadero Road, with some jet noise occurring during the measurement interval. The 10-minute average noise level, measured from 11:50 AM to 12:00 PM on Thursday, March 17, 2015 was 61 dBA Leq. Table 4.12-1: Summary of Long and Short-Term Noise Measurement Data Noise Measurement Location Daytime Measure Leq Ldn* Primary Noise Sources LT-1: Front of 1290 Cedar St (3/12/15 to 3/15/15) 52-56 55-56 Traffic on Hopkins Avenue LT-2: Front of 1108 Fulton St (3/12/15 to 3/15/15) 61-64 63-66 Traffic on Embarcadero Road LT-3: Front of 685 Kellog Ave (3/12/15 to 3/15/15) 60-64 61-63 Traffic on Middlefield Road ST-1: Front of 1280 Pine St (3/17/15, 11:30 AM – 11:40 AM) 52 57 Traffic on Hopkins Avenue ST-2: Front of 1249 Harriett St (3/17/15, 11:20 AM – 11:30 AM) 55 55 Local Traffic ST-3: Front of 1722 Newell Rd (3/16/15, 11:50 AM – 12 PM) 61 64 Traffic on Embarcadero Rd * Ldn for short-term noise measurements calculated by comparing short-term data to data collected during a corresponding time period at long-term measurement site. NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.12-1 Parkinson AvenueParkinson Avenue Community LaneCommunity Lane Harriet Street Ha r r i e t S t r e e t Cedar Street Ce d a r S t r e e t Pine Street Pi n e S t r e e t Newell Road Ne w e l l R o a d Coleridge Avenue Cole r i d g e A v e n u e Byron Street By r o n S t r e e t Guinda Street Gu i n d a S t r e e t Middlefield Road Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Hopkins AvenueHopkins Avenue E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d Embarca d e r o R o a d Fulton Street Fu l t o n S t r e e t LT-3ST-2 LT-3ST-3 LT-3ST-2 LT-3LT-1 LT-3ST-1 LT-3LT-3 Photo Date: Apr. 2016 Short-Term Noise Measurement Location Project Boundary Long-Term Noise Measurement Location Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, July 28, 2016. 0 50 200 400 Feet LT-# ST-# Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 79 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.12.4 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project result in the exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction of the LRP would occur over a period of 25 years. Construction of the proposed JMZ would include the demolition of the existing museum and zoo to construct a new, larger museum and zoo facility over a period of 18 to 24 months. The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) are used in areas adjacent to developed properties. A significant impact would be identified if the construction of the project would expose persons to groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) because of the potential to result in cosmetic damage to buildings of normal conventional construction. Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. The closest residences are located approximately 80 feet north of the tennis courts and approximately 120 feet from the proposed JMZ building. Construction of the JMZ would be as close as 25 feet from Walter Hays Elementary School structures. During construction of the JMZ, vibration levels at the nearest Walter Hays Elementary School structures could reach 0.21 in/sec PPV during the use of heavy equipment (vibratory rollers, clam shovel drops), but would not exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold for architectural damage. At a distance of 80 feet, approximately at the location of residences across Middlefield Road, vibration levels would be expected to be less than 0.06 in/sec PPV, which is well below the significance threshold. Vibration levels would be less as activities move further from the school. Vibration generated by construction activities near the common property lines would at times be perceptible, however, would not be expected to result in architectural damage to these buildings. [Less than Significant Impact] b. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Project Exposure to Noise The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan designates Rinconada Park as Public Park and the JMZ as Major Institution/Special Facilities. Current uses of Rinconada Park include outdoor sports and recreation areas (pool area, tennis courts, bocce court), neighborhood parks and playgrounds (park, picnic areas, children play areas, fire pit, paths), and an outdoor multi-use performance area and stage (concrete bowl). The JMZ includes museum and outdoor recreational uses (i.e., the zoo). Based on standards established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, a significant noise and land use compatibility impact would be identified if exterior noise levels at new project Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 80 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 development areas would exceed 65 dBA Ldn at outdoor sports and recreation, neighborhood parks and playgrounds; 60 dBA Ldn at schools, museums, libraries, hospitals, personal care, meeting halls, and churches; or 75 dBA Ldn at auditoriums, concert halls, and amphitheaters. Based on a review of the traffic volumes prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., traffic noise levels at the project site are anticipated to increase by one dBA Ldn above existing levels under cumulative plus project conditions.17 With this one dB increase, cumulative traffic noise levels are calculated to exceed 60 dBA Ldn within 180 feet of the center of Embarcadero Road and within 80 feet of the center of Middlefield Road. Cumulative traffic noise levels are calculated to exceed 65 dBA Ldn within 80 feet of the center of Embarcadero Road. Portions of the proposed JMZ would be located within 80 feet of the center of Middlefield Road and would therefore be exposed to exterior noise levels that exceed the exterior noise and land use compatibility guideline for museum uses. Noise levels at the exterior façade of the museum facing Middlefield Road, at a distance of 60 feet from the center of the roadway, would reach 66 dBA Ldn. It should be noted that the existing JMZ building is currently exposed to these noise levels. There are no unshielded outdoor use areas associated with the museum in this area. A typical museum structure would provide 25 to 30 dBA of noise reduction from exterior noise sources with windows in the closed position. Interior noise levels would, therefore, be below 45 dBA Ldn throughout the museum and would be considered compatible with the proposed use. A small portion of Rinconada Park located within 80 feet of the center of Embarcadero Road would exceed the 65 dBA Ldn guideline for parks under cumulative conditions. The project would not introduce new recreational land uses in this area. All other uses on the site would have noise levels that are considered compatible with their land use. [Less Than Significant Impact] Project Generated Noise Existing operational noise sources at the site include vehicular traffic noise and recreational activity noise. Future usage is anticipated to be similar to the existing usage. A significant impact would occur if project operations or traffic would increase noise levels at noise sensitive receptors by three dBA Ldn or greater where exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard or by five dBA Ldn or greater where exterior noise levels would remain at or below the normally acceptable noise level standard with the project. 17 It should be noted that the projected noise levels of future traffic conditions were based on a report prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in May 2015. Since completion of the noise report, an updated traffic report was prepared to reflect changes in the site plans of the JMZ (July 2017). Such changes do not affect the results of the original noise report, thus results and conclusions made in the noise report are still applicable to the updated project. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 81 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Project Traffic Noise The traffic report analyzed traffic volumes at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project. The report found that traffic noise levels are anticipated to increase by less than one dBA at all study intersections with project implementation. Project Operational Noise Improvements to the JMZ, outdoor playground areas, concrete multi-use bowl, and sports and recreation areas on the site are not anticipated to change the noise generation of these facilities because the general layout and programming would not change. The relocation of the tot-lot adjacent to the children’s play area to the west would not result in detectable changes to noise levels at the nearest residences, which are located across Hopkins Avenue and more than 100 feet north of the playground areas. The addition of picnic tables and group picnic areas would not generate substantial noise at residences north of the site across Hopkins Avenue. The shifting of the tennis courts to the west would bring the courts slightly closer to some residences and slightly further from others. During extensive measurements of noise levels generated by tennis that were conducted for a facility in Palo Alto, tennis generates an hourly-average noise level of about 48 dBA Leq at a distance of 40 feet from the end of the court. Noise levels during volleying are lower. Based on the data collected at sites LT-1 and ST-1 during the noise monitoring survey, the primary noise source at these residences is currently traffic on Hopkins Avenue, which generated noise levels in the range of 55 to 57 dBA Ldn at the residences. The closest residences are located about 140 feet from the center of the nearest tennis court. At this distance, tennis would generate noise levels of about 37 dBA Leq. Maximum noise levels generated by tennis would continue to be audible during lulls in traffic, but would not generally be measurable above the existing ambient noise environment. Programming for the concrete bowl is regulated to 10:00 PM, which eliminates any increase in nighttime hourly average noise levels and thus, will not result in a noise impact. Noise levels generated by proposed uses are not anticipated to change substantially from existing noise levels and will comply with the City’s Municipal Code. [Less Than Significant Impact] d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Construction is limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction permitted on Sundays or holidays. Project-generated construction noise is required to meet the following standards established in the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10): 1) no individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 110 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the piece of equipment or, when applicable, outside the equipment housing structure; and 2) the noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 110 dBA. Temporary noise increases from construction activities would be considered significant if hourly average noise levels received at noise sensitive residential land uses would be 60 dBA Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 82 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Leq and at least five dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment when the duration of the noise-generating activities last for more than one year. Construction equipment noise varies greatly depending on the construction activity performed, type and specific model of equipment, and the condition of equipment used. Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors, any shielding provided by intervening barriers or structures, and existing ambient noise levels. Each construction activity would include a different mix of equipment operating. Construction noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and location where the equipment is operating. LRP Construction of the LRP would occur over a 25-year period. However, construction activity would be very limited with the main noise generating components coming from the expansion of the existing pool building by 2,200 sf, shifting the tennis courts over by removing roughly 6,000 sf on one side and adding 6,000 sf to the other side, and repaving internal pathways and plazas. The only construction near existing residences would be at the tennis courts. Residences are located as close as 80 and 300 feet to the north of the proposed tennis court and pool building improvements, respectively. At a distance of 80 feet, tennis court construction activities are calculated to generate noise levels in the range of about 65 to 80 dBA Leq. Pool building construction activities are calculated to generate noise levels in the range of about 52 to 68 dBA Leq at the nearest residences. Construction noise associated with the LRP improvements could exceed 60 dBA Leq and at least 5 dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment at adjacent residences. However, the overall construction period would be less than 12 months at any one location and predicted construction noise levels are not anticipated to exceed the Municipal Code limits of 110 dBA at the property line of the park. JMZ Construction of the proposed JMZ project would include the demolition of the existing zoo to construct a new, larger zoo facility over a period of 18 to 24 months. Construction phasing would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, exterior building construction, interior building construction, and paving. Walter Hays Elementary School is located directly adjacent to the JMZ with structures as close as 25 feet, and the closest residences are roughly 120 feet from proposed construction activities. Construction activities are anticipated to generate hourly average noise levels of 74 to 86 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during busy construction periods. Maximum instantaneous noise levels would be roughly 78 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels would typically drop off at a rate of approximately six decibels per doubling of distance from the Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 83 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 construction noise source. At the school, noise levels would be about six dBA higher when activities are located adjacent to the school, resulting in hourly average noise levels of about 80 to 92 dBA Lmax and maximum instantaneous noise levels of about 84 to 96 dBA Lmax. At the closest residences, located 120 feet from construction activities, construction noise levels would be about eight dB lower, generating hourly average noise levels of about 66 to 78 dBA Leq and the maximum instantaneous noise levels of roughly 70 to 82 dBA Lmax. At the school, which is located directly adjacent to construction activities, interior noise levels could be as high as 65 to 72 dBA Leq with windows open (assumes a 15 dB noise reduction) and 55 to 62 dBA Leq with windows closed (assumes a 25 dB noise reduction). These noise levels are likely to be disruptive to the learning environment. As construction moves away from noise sensitive receptors or into shielded locations, noise levels would be reduced. Construction noise is not anticipated to exceed the Municipal Code limits of 110 dBA at the property lines of the JMZ. However, construction noise could exceed 60 dBA Leq and at least five dBA Leq above the ambient noise environment at adjacent residences and the school for a period of greater than 12 months. Impact NOI-1: Construction activities associated with the JMZ could result in significant noise impacts. [Significant Impact] Mitigation Measures: MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level:  Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code).  Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration for school activities and hours:  Schedule high noise generating construction activities (such as the use of the concrete saws) that are located directly adjacent to school structures during periods when school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks, weekends, and after school dismissal. Coordination of construction activity times with school officials may be necessary.  Construct portions of the museum located directly adjacent to the school first, where practical, in an effort to provide shielding to the school from construction activities located further to the west and south. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 84 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017  Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on- site construction and demolition noise from the school. To be most effective, the barrier should be placed as close as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor. Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing for specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets.  Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.  Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.  Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.  Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.  Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from businesses or noise-sensitive land uses.  Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in writing.  Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences or the school bordering the project site.  Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and made available to noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the construction site. [Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 85 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 e-f. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not yet been adopted, within two miles of a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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? Palo Alto Airport is located roughly 1.8 miles northeast of the project area. There are no private airstrips in the site vicinity. Although aircraft-related noise is occasionally audible at the project site, the project site does not lie within the land use plan area, or within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of the airports. Noise levels resulting from aircraft would be compatible with the proposed project. The project site is located in a developed area of Palo Alto, and there are no reasonably foreseeable projects in the site vicinity which, when considered together, are anticipated to compound or increase the noise impacts resulting from the project. A review of the data contained in the traffic report indicates that cumulative traffic noise levels without the project would be increased by zero to one dB above existing levels by the year 2035. Cumulative plus project traffic noise levels are not calculated to be substantially increased over cumulative no project conditions (increase would be less than one dBA). Construction noise impacts or operational noise impacts resulting from the project would not combine with noise from other projects in the vicinity, or increased noise levels resulting from the general growth of the area, to increase the severity of project noise impacts as discussed above. [No Impact] 4.12.5 Conclusion With compliance with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-1, noise impacts would be less than significant. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 86 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.13.1 Population and Housing Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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)? 1,2 b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,2 c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,2 d. Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1,2 4.13.2 Existing Setting According to the California Department of Finance, the 2015 population of Palo Alto was 66,932 residents18. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the population of Palo Alto will increase to 73,700 residents by 2025 in 30,370 households19. 4.13.3 Impacts Evaluation a.,d. Would the project 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)? Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? The proposed project is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP and the demolition and construction of a new JMZ facility in the existing facility’s area. The project does not propose residential uses. The projects would have staffing needs similar to that of existing uses (i.e. park grounds staff, JMZ maintenance and zoo staff, etc.). The project, therefore, would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area or create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs. [No Impact] 18 California Department of Finance, E-1 Data Population Estimates for the City, County, and the State January 1, 2014 and 2015. July 18, 2016. 19 Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Plan Projections 2013, 2013. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 87 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 b., c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would occur within the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ site, which do not contain housing or other residential uses. The project would, therefore, not result in the displacement of a substantial number of residences and would not result in the need to construct replacement housing. [No Impact] 4.13.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would not induce unplanned growth or result in significant adverse impacts to the existing housing supply. [No Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 88 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.14.1 Public Services Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional school facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 b. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional fire protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 c. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional police protection facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 d. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional parks and recreation facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 e. Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional library facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? 1,2 4.14.2 Existing Setting 4.14.2.1 Fire Services The City of Palo Alto Fire Department is located at City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. The nearest fire station to the project site is Fire Station #3, located adjacent to the park’s southeastern border. 4.14.2.2 Police Services The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) provides law enforcement services within the City limits. The PAPD headquarters is located adjacent to City Hall at 275 Forest Avenue, roughly one mile west of the site. 4.14.2.3 Public Schools All public schools in Palo Alto are operated by the Palo Alto Unified School District. The nearest public school is Walter Hays Elementary School, adjacent to the site’s southern border. The nearest middle school is Jordan Middle School (0.5 miles southeast), and the nearest high school is Castilleja High School (0.7 miles southwest). Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 89 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.14.2.4 Parks The City of Palo Alto has 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres, including the 11.8-acre Rinconada Park. The project site is the implementation of Rinconada Park’s LRP, within the existing 11.8-acre park. 4.14.3 Impacts Evaluation a.-e. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of construction of new school, fire protection, police protection, parks and recreation, or library facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards? The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police and Fire Departments. The projects would not cause an increase in population that would demand additional services. Given that the projects would include renovations to an existing park and the construction of a new JMZ facility to replace the existing facility, the projects would not generate new or increased demands upon City services. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.14.4 Conclusion The proposed projects would result in a less than significant impact to public services. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 90 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.15 RECREATION 4.15.1 Recreation Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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 will occur or be accelerated? 1,3 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? 1 4.15.2 Existing Setting The City of Palo Alto has 29 neighborhood and district parks that total approximately 190 acres. These parks vary in size and features, but recreational facilities generally include playground and grass areas. The City also owns and manages several open space preserves, including Foothills Park, Baylands Preserve, and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. Other parkland managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is also located within the city limits. The project site is Rinconada Park, an existing City park that was established in 1922. 4.15.3 Impacts Evaluation a., b. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? 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 proposed project would renovate the existing Rinconada Park over the course of 25 years, and construct a new JMZ facility in place of the existing one. The planned future development of the park could increase the use of the park because of new and improved facilities; however, this increase would not accelerate physical deterioration of the park. [Less Than Significant Impact] The project itself includes recreational facilities, the effects of which are identified in this Initial Study. Mitigation measures are included in the project and impacts are therefore, less than significant. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 91 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.15.4 Conclusion The projects would not adversely impact recreation facilities within the City of Palo Alto. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 92 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC The discussion in this section is based in part on a transportation impact analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in July 2017. This report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix F. 4.16.1 Transportation Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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? 1,2,24 b. Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1 percent of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1,2,24 c. Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1,2,24 d. Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that cannot be met by current or planned services? 1,2,24 e. Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? 1,2,24 f. Create demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services? 1,2,24 g. Create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets? i. Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1,2,24 h. Create an operational safety hazard? 1,2,24 i. Result in inadequate emergency access? 1-3,24 j. 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? 1-3 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 93 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.16.2 Existing Setting 4.16.2.1 Roadway Network Regional Access Regional access to the project site is provided via US 101 and SR 82 (El Camino Real). These facilities are described below: US 101 is a primarily north-south freeway extending north through San Francisco and south through San Jose and Gilroy. In the vicinity of the project area, US 101 provides four travel lanes (with one HOV lane) in each direction. Access to the site from US 101 is provided via Embarcadero Road. SR 82 (El Camino Real) is a six-lane, north-south arterial street that extends south towards Mountain View and Santa Clara and north towards Redwood City, Millbrae, and San Bruno. El Camino Real provides access to local and regional commercial areas. Access to the site, from El Camino Real is provided via its intersections at Page Mill Road and Embarcadero Road. Local Access Local access to the site is provided via Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road, Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road, University Avenue, Alma Street, Louis Road, Newell Road, and Hopkins Avenue. These roadways are described below. Oregon Expressway is a four-lane, east-west expressway that extends from US 101 to El Camino Real. Oregon Expressway becomes Page Mill Road west of El Camino Real. Page Mill Road is a four- lane, east-west divided arterial road that extends west to Los Altos Hills. Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway is part of the County expressway system and provides access to local residential areas as well as freeway access. Embarcadero Road is a four-lane east-west arterial street that extends from the vicinity of the Palo Alto Municipal Airport to El Camino Real. Embarcadero Road becomes Galvez Road west of El Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) k. 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 spill back queues on ramps. 1,2,24 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 94 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Camino Real. Embarcadero Road provides access to local residential areas as well as access to US 101 from the project site. Middlefield Road is an east-west arterial that runs parallel to US 101. It begins at the intersection of Central Expressway in Mountain View and traverses west through Redwood City. Within the vicinity of the project site, Middlefield Road is two to four lanes wide, with sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking on Middlefield Road varies within the study area, with parking permitted on both sides of the street near the project site. University Avenue is a two- to four-lane, east-west, road that extends from Bayfront Expressway to El Camino Real, where it becomes Palm Drive. Bicycle lanes and on-street parking are present for most of the section between US 101 and Middlefield Road. University Avenue is the main street through downtown Palo Alto. Alma Street is primarily a four-lane, north-south, roadway that extends from San Antonio Road to Lytton Avenue. It continues north of Lytton Avenue as a two-lane roadway and terminates at its intersection with Oak Grove Avenue. Alma Street is located west of the project site and provides access to residential and commercial uses. Louis Road is a two-lane local collector in the vicinity of the project. It extends from Embarcadero Road southeast to Charleston Road, where it changes designation to Montrose Avenue. Louis Road has bicycle lanes and on-street parking for its full length. Newell Road is a two-lane local collector adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site. It extends from Woodland Avenue south to California Avenue. Newell Road features bicycle lanes and limited on-street parking for its full length Hopkins Avenue is a short local street adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site. It includes a significant amount of on-street parking. Hopkins Avenue also provides access to the parking lot that serves the Lucie Stern Community Center and the JMZ. 4.16.2.2 Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities Transit Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the VTA and the City of Palo Alto. The transit service is described below and shown on Figure 3. There are local bus and/or free shuttle stops on Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, and Newell Road within walking distance of the project site. Route 35 provides service between the Downtown Mountain View Transit Center and Stanford Shopping Center via Middlefield Road, with 20-minute commute hour headways. The nearest stops to the project are located on Middlefield Road at the intersection with Embarcadero Road. The City of Palo Alto operates two free shuttle routes to serve commuters and visitors within the study area. All shuttles are wheelchair accessible and are equipped with bicycle racks on the exterior of the vehicle that can accommodate up to two conventional bikes. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 95 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 The Crosstown Shuttle (Line C) operates with 40- to 60-minute headways from 7:40 AM to 5:26 PM Monday through Friday. The Crosstown Shuttle provides service between Downtown Palo Alto and numerous libraries, schools, recreation centers, and commercial districts. Line C also provides direct service to Caltrain. In the vicinity of the project site, the Crosstown shuttles operates on Newell Road. The nearest stops to the project site are adjacent to Rinconada Park, on Newell Road at the intersection with Hopkins Avenue. The Embarcadero Shuttle operates with approximately 15-minute headways from 6:51 AM to 9:49 AM and 3:10 PM to 6:48 PM Monday through Friday. The Embarcadero Shuttle provides service between Downtown Palo Alto and numerous libraries, schools, recreation centers, and commercial districts. Line E also provides direct service to Caltrain. In the vicinity of the project area, the Embarcadero shuttle operates on Embarcadero Road. The nearest stops to the JMZ are located on Embarcadero Road at the intersection with Middlefield Road, less than 500 feet from the project area. The nearest stops to Rinconada Park are located on Embarcadero Road at the intersection with Newell Road, at the southeast corner of the park. Pedestrian Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks and crosswalks. Sidewalks are found along all previously described local roadways in the study area. Crosswalks are located across all of the legs of the study intersections. Pedestrian signal heads are present at all signalized intersections in and around the study area. Bicycle According to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) Bikeways Map, there are numerous bike lanes in the vicinity of the project site. The following roadways have either bike lanes or shared lane bicycle markings:  Newell Road, between Woodland Avenue and California Avenue  Channing Avenue, between Addison Avenue and California Avenue  Addison Avenue, between Alma Street and Channing Avenue  Coleridge Avenue, between Middlefield Road and Bryant Street  California Avenue, between Alma Street and Louis Road  Louis Road, between Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road  Bryant Street (Bike Boulevard), between Palo Alto Avenue and East Meadow Drive While there are numerous bicycle facilities in the vicinity of Rinconada Park, neither Middlefield Road nor Embarcadero Road have bike lanes, making these roadways a less than ideal route option for bicyclists traveling around the perimeter of Rinconada Park. STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 4.16-1 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc. EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITATES FIGURE 4.16-2 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc. EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITATES FIGURE 4.16-3 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consults, Inc. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 99 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.16.2.3 Existing Intersection Operations Methodology The potential transportation impacts of the project were evaluated following the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Palo Alto. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) administers the County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The following intersections in the project area were evaluated: 1. Middlefield Road and University Avenue 2. Middlefield Road and Melville Avenue 3. Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road 4. Newell Road and Embarcadero Road 5. Newell Road and Hopkins Avenue (unsignalized) 6. Louis Road and Embarcadero Road 7. Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway (CMP)* * Denotes a VTA CMP Intersection Traffic conditions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The AM peak hour of traffic is generally between 7:00 and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average weekday. All study intersections are located in the City of Palo Alto and are therefore subject to the City of Palo Alto level of service standards. The City of Palo Alto evaluates level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology using TRAFFIX software. This method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. Since TRAFFIX also is the CMP- designated intersection level of service methodology, the City employs the CMP default values for the analysis parameters. The City of Palo Alto level of service standard for signalized non-CMP intersections is LOS D or better. For CMP intersections, the City’s level of service standard is LOS E or better. The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on the 2000 HCM. This method is applicable for both two-way and all-way stop-controlled intersections. For the analysis of stop-controlled intersections, the 2000 HCM methodology evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles on the stop-controlled approaches. For the purpose of reporting level of service for one- and two-way stop-controlled intersections, the delay and corresponding level of service for the stop-controlled minor street approach with the highest delay is reported. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, the reported average delay and corresponding level of service is the average for all approaches at the intersection. The City uses a minimum acceptable level of service standard of LOS D for unsignalized intersections, in accordance with its adopted threshold of significance in its Guidelines for Preparation of Transportation Impact Reports. Table 4.16-1 shows the intersection level of service definitions. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 100 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Table 4.16.1: Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec) A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 15.0 F Extreme traffic delays Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2. Existing LOS of Study Intersections Table 4.16-2 below, shows the LOS of study intersections under existing conditions. Background traffic conditions are defined as traffic conditions in the area when the project construction is near completion. The background scenario predicts the traffic conditions which would occur as approved but not yet constructed development gets constructed and occupied. The results of the existing intersection operations analysis show that six of the seven study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service under existing conditions. Table 4.16-2: Existing and Background Conditions Levels of Service Existing Background Intersection Peak Hour Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS 1. Middlefield Rd & University Ave AM 28.8 C 29.9 C PM 29.4 C 30.1 C 2. Middlefield Rd & Melville Ave AM 15.4 B 15.3 B PM 8.4 A 8 A 3. Middlefield Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 49.9 D 52.3 D PM 54.6 D 60.4 E 4. Newell Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 15.4 B 15.5 B PM 20.2 C 20.5 C 5. Newell Rd & Hopkins Ave (unsignalized) AM 10.7 B 10.9 B PM 10.6 B 10.7 B 6. Louis Rd & Embarcadero Rd AM 25 C 25.4 C PM 25.1 C 25.5 C 7. Middlefield Rd & Page Mill Rd/Oregon Expwy* AM 39.5 D 40.6 D PM 58.1 E 59.8 E Notes: * Denotes a VTA CMP Intersection Bold denotes an unacceptable level of service under City of Palo Alto LOS standards. 4.16.2.4 Observed Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic conditions in the field were observed to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purpose of this effort was (1) to identify Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 101 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of services, and (2) to identify any locations where the level of service calculation does not accurately reflect level of service in the field. Overall, the study intersections operate adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic, and the level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions. While no significant traffic-related problems were observed during field observations, some operational issues do occur as described below. Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway During the AM peak hour, most movements operate adequately. However, the northbound left turns on Middlefield Road and eastbound left turns on Oregon Expressway do not always clear the intersection in one signal cycle. During the PM peak hour, southbound traffic on Middlefield Road is heavy and occasionally queues back to California Avenue. All other movements operate adequately. Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road During the AM peak hour, all approaches of this intersection carry heavy traffic volumes. As a result, none of the approaches clear the intersection in one signal cycle. During the PM peak hour, traffic on Middlefield Road is heavy in both directions. The southbound vehicle queues on Middlefield Road at Embarcadero Road occasionally back up just past Melville Avenue (about 0.25 miles northwest of the intersection of Middlefield and Embarcadero Road) affecting traffic operations at that intersection as well. As a result of the long queue, if often takes two signal cycles for all of the queued vehicles on southbound Middlefield Road to clear the intersection. Middlefield Road and University Avenue During the PM peak hour, the intersection generally operates adequately. However, the westbound vehicle queues on University Avenue were observed to extend all the way to US 101. 4.16.2.5 Existing Freeway Operations According to CMP guidelines, an analysis of freeway segment levels of service is only required if a project is estimated to add trips to a freeway segment equal to or greater than one percent of the capacity of that segment. Since the number of project trips added to the freeways in the area is estimated to be well below the one percent threshold, a detailed analysis of freeway segment levels of service was not performed. A simple freeway segment capacity evaluation to substantiate this determination is presented in Table 4.16-3, below. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 102 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Table 4.16-3: Freeway Segment Capacity Evaluation Freeway Segment Direction # of Mixed Flow Lanes Capacity1 (vph) Peak Hour 1% of Capacity Project Trips US 101 San Antonio Rd. to Oregon Expwy. NB 3 6900 AM 69 1 PM 1 US 101 Oregon Expwy. to Embarcadero Rd. NB 3 6900 AM 69 1 PM 1 US 101 Embarcadero Rd. to University Ave. NB 3 6900 AM 69 0 PM 1 US 101 University Ave. to Willow Rd. NB 3 6900 AM 69 0 PM 2 US 101 Willow Rd. to University Ave. SB 3 6900 AM 69 1 PM 1 US 101 University Ave. to Embarcadero Rd. SB 3 6900 AM 69 1 PM 1 US 101 Embarcadero Rd. to Oregon Expwy. SB 3 6900 AM 69 0 PM 2 US 101 Oregon Expwy. to San Antonio Rd. SB 3 6900 AM 69 0 PM 2 Notes: 1 Capacity was based on the ideal capacity cited in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 4.16.2.6 Background Intersection Operations Background peak-hour traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing peak hour volumes the projected growth in traffic due to approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments. The projected annual growth in traffic due to most of the approved development in the City of Palo Alto was obtained from the Santa Clara County VTA Travel Demand Model (2035) and was applied over three years. In addition, a list of more recently approved developments was obtained from the City of Palo Alto. That list includes recent developments that have been approved within approximately the last year and, therefore, were not included in the VTA model growth estimates. Trips associated with the more recently approved developments were estimated and were also added to existing peak hour volumes in order to develop background peak hour traffic volumes. The results of the intersection LOS analysis under background conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-2. The results show that all but one of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service. The intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road would operate at an unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour under background conditions. 4.16.3 Impacts Evaluation a.. Would the project cause an intersection to drop below its level of service standard, or if it is Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 103 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 already operating at a substandard level of service, deteriorate by more than a specified amount? 4.16.3.1 Project-Generated Traffic The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear are estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, an estimate is made of the directions to and from which the project trips would travel. In the project trip assignment, the project trips are assigned to specific streets. These procedures are described below. Trip Generation Existing trip generation for Rinconada Park and JMZ were derived based on counts conducted on March 31 and April 1, 2015. Based on the counts, Rinconada Park is generating 29 trips during the AM peak hour and 65 trips during the PM peak hour. The JMZ is generating five trips during the AM peak hour and 21 trips during the PM peak hour. The existing trip generation is shown in Table 4.16- 3. The proposed LRP for Rinconada Park involves expanding the existing pool deck area and adding a 2,200 sf building on the west end of the pool for a new public restroom, food concession and supplies, as well as increasing the seating capacity of the existing outdoor multi-use concrete bowl and stage. Several other improvements to park facilities are planned, including the addition of group picnic areas, playgrounds, exercise areas, shaded areas, picnic tables, and bike racks, as well as renovations to the existing tennis courts on Hopkins Avenue. Numerous pedestrian access improvements, including crosswalk and ADA improvements are also planned as part of the LRP. The proposed expansion of the JMZ would increase the total lot coverage of the facility from 21,500 sf to 34,248 sf. New trips generated by the museum and zoo expansion were estimated based on the proportional increase in square footage. The expansion project would generate three trips during the AM peak hour and 12 trips during the PM peak hour.20 New trips generated by the proposed improvements to the Rinconada Park were estimated based on population forecasts provided by the City of Palo Alto. Population in the City of Palo Alto is projected to increase by approximately 10 percent by the year 2030. Based on the projected growth in population, improvements to Rinconada Park would produce three new trips during the AM peak hour and seven trips during the PM peak hour. When the two components of the project are combined, the JMZ and Rinconada Park LRP would generate six new trips during the AM peak hour and 19 new trips during the PM peak hour. Applying the inbound/outbound splits (based on existing counts), the project would produce four inbound trips 20 Please note that the trip generation estimates in the TIA are based on a previous site plan which resulted in an increase in lot coverage of 11,950 sf for the JMZ facility compared to existing conditions. The current site plan results in a lot coverage increase of 12,478 sf. While the proposed lot coverage increase is slightly larger than what is described in the TIA, the 528 sf difference is not large enough to affect the trip generation estimates. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 104 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 and two outbound trips during the AM peak hour, and nine inbound trips and 10 outbound trips during the PM peak hour compared to the existing museum, zoo and park. The project trip generation estimates are presented in Table 4.16-4, below. Trip Distribution The trip distribution pattern for Rinconada Park was developed based on existing traffic patterns and the locations of complementary land uses, most notably the surrounding neighborhoods. The trip distribution pattern for the JMZ was developed based on JMZ visitor survey data provided by the City of Palo Alto. The peak hour trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system in accordance with the trip distribution pattern. 4.16.3.2 Existing Plus Project Conditions The results of the intersection LOS analysis under existing plus project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-5, below. The results show that all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service under existing plus project conditions. [Less Than Significant Impact] Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Existing Existing + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS 1 Middlfield Rd. & University Ave. AM 28.8 C 28.8 C PM 29.4 C 29.4 C 2 Middlefield Rd. & Melville Ave. AM 15.4 B 15.4 B Table 4.16-4: Existing and Estimated Weekday Trip Generation Land Use Existing Trip Generation Project Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total Trips In Out Total Trips In Out Total Trips In Out Total Trips Rinconada Park (and associated uses)1 17 12 29 39 26 65 2 1 3 4 3 7 Palo Alto JMZ 2 4 1 5 9 12 21 2 1 3 5 7 12 Totals: 21 13 34 48 38 86 4 2 6 9 10 19 Notes: Existing site trip generation based on counts conducted on March 31 and April 1, 2015 (highest counts were used). The AM peak hour is 7:45-8:45AM and the PM peak hour is 4-5 PM, based on the count data. 1New trips associated with the improvements to Rinconada Park were calculated based on applying a growth factor of 10% to the existing trips. This increase in trips is consistent with the projected population increase of 10% that is being used for the current Comprehensive Plan update 2New trips associated with the improvements to the Junior Museum and Zoo were calculated based on the total increase in lot coverage square footage of 11,950. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 105 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Table 4.16-5: Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Existing Existing + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS PM 8.4 A 8.4 A 3 Middlefield Rd. & Embarcadero Rd.1 AM 49.9 D 49.2 D PM 54.6 D 53.6 D 4 Newell Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 15.4 B 15.4 B PM 20.2 C 20.3 C 5 Newell Rd. & Hopkins Ave. (unsignalized) AM 10.7 B 10.8 B PM 10.6 B 10.6 B 6 Louis Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 25.0 C 25.0 C PM 25.1 C 25.2 C 7 Middlefield Rd. & Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy* AM 39.5 D 39.5 D PM 58.1 E 58.1 E Notes: * Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection Bold denotes an unacceptable level of service under City of Palo Alto LOS standards. 1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right-turn lane on Embarcadero Road. 4.16.3.3 Background Plus Project Conditions The net project trips were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under background plus project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-6, below. Using City of Palo Alto standards, the results show that none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. While the intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E during PM peak hour under background plus project conditions, none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. [Less Than Significant Impact] Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Background + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Incr. In Crit. Delay (sec) Incr. In Crit. V/C 1 Middlefield Rd. & University Ave. AM 29.9 C 29.9 C 0.0 0.001 PM 30.1 C 30.1 C 0.0 0.001 2 Middlefield Rd. & Melville Ave. AM 15.3 B 15.3 B 0.0 0.001 PM 8.0 A 8.0 A 0.0 0.001 3 Middlefield Rd. & Embarcadero Rd.1 AM 52.3 D 51.1 D -0.1 -0.050 PM 60.4 E 59.2 E 0.3 0.002 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 106 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Table 4.16-6: Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Background + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Incr. In Crit. Delay (sec) Incr. In Crit. V/C 4 Newell Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 15.5 B 15.5 B 0.0 0.001 PM 20.5 C 20.5 C 0.0 0.000 5 Newell Rd. & Hopkins Ave. (unsignalized) AM 10.9 B 10.9 B 0.0 0.001 PM 10.7 B 10.8 B 0.1 0.003 6 Louis Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 25.4 C 25.4 C 0.0 0.001 PM 25.5 C 25.6 C 0.1 0.002 7 Middlefield Rd. & Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy* AM 40.6 D 40.6 D 0.0 0.000 PM 59.8 E 59.8 E 0.0 0.000 Notes: * Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection 1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right- turn lane on Embarcadero Rd. 4.16.3.4 Saturday Conditions At the request of City of Palo Alto staff, a discussion of Saturday peak traffic conditions at and around the JMZ and Rinconada Park is provided for informational purposes. The evaluation of Saturday conditions includes a description of existing traffic conditions along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, a discussion of general parking conditions at the JMZ during a typical Saturday afternoon, and Saturday peak hour trip generation estimates due to the expansion of the JMZ and planned Rinconada Park improvements. Existing Saturday Traffic Conditions Existing Saturday traffic conditions along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road were observed in the field on a typical Saturday between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, which is considered the peak hour for park and JMZ uses. Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road Intersection Operations Vehicles traveling northbound or southbound were able to clear the intersection in one signal cycle. Westbound vehicles on Embarcadero Road consistently queued back to Fulton Street, with some vehicles unable to clear the intersection in one signal cycle. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 107 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Eastbound vehicles on Embarcadero Road queued past the eastbound left-turn pocket taper. As a result, the queue often blocked one or two vehicles from entering the left-turn pocket. All vehicles traveling eastbound on Embarcadero Road cleared the intersection in one cycle. Existing bicycle traffic along Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road was relatively low. Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates Based on visitor data in February and March 2016, weekend visitation at the JMZ is approximately 2.3 times greater than a typical weekday visitation. To provide the most conservative trip estimate, Saturday peak trip generation due to the JMZ expansion was calculated by applying this factor to the weekday PM peak hour trips, which are three times higher than the weekday AM peak hour trips. Similar to the increase visitation at the JMZ facility on Saturdays, Rinconada Park was assumed to experience a similar increase in weekend visitors, thus the same factor of 2.3 was applied to determine Saturday peak trip generation at Rinconada Park. Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the JMZ and Rinconada Park LRP would generate 44 new trips during the Saturday peak period of traffic. Implementation of the proposed projects would result in an additional 21 inbound trips and 23 outbound trips during the Saturday peak period of traffic compared to the existing park and JMZ. The trip generation estimates are provided in Table 4.16-7, below. Table 4.16-7: Saturday Project Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Saturday Peak Hour In Out Total New Trips Rinconada Park (and associated uses) 9 7 16 JMZ 12 16 28 Totals: 21 23 44 4.16.3.5 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Cumulative Traffic Volumes Cumulative conditions represent traffic conditions that are expected to occur in the future year 2035. The cumulative no project peak hour traffic volumes were obtained from the Santa Clara County VTA Travel Demand Model. Cumulative traffic volumes with the project were estimated by adding to cumulative no project peak hour traffic volumes the additional traffic generated by the project. Cumulative plus project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions in order to identify whether the project’s contribution to any potential cumulative impacts would be significant. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 108 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service The results of the intersection level of service under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-8, below. The result shows that, measured against the City of Palo Alto standards, none of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project. However, the intersections of Middlefield Road/Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the PM peak hour under cumulative conditions both with and without the project. As shown in the above analysis, the project would not 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. [Less Than Significant Impact] Table 4.16-8: Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service Cumulative Cumulative + Project Study Number Intersection Peak Hour Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Avg. Delay (Sec) LOS Incr. In Crit. Delay (sec) Incr. In Crit. V/C 1 Middlefield Rd. & University Ave. AM 28.6 C 28.6 C 0.0 0.001 PM 46.1 D 46.2 D 0.2 0.001 2 Middlefield Rd. & Melville Ave. AM 16.6 B 16.6 B 0.0 0.001 PM 9.4 A 9.4 A 0.0 0.001 3 Middlefield Rd. & Embarcadero Rd.1 AM 51.3 D 50.2 D -0.3 -0.043 PM 203.1 F 192.4 F 0.9 0.002 4 Newell Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 15.5 B 15.6 B 0.0 0.001 PM 24.2 C 24.2 C 0.1 0.002 5 Newell Rd. & Hopkins Ave. (unsignalized) AM 11.9 B 11.9 B 0.0 0.002 PM 11.6 B 11.7 B 0.1 0.002 6 Louis Rd. & Embarcadero Rd. AM 28.1 C 28.2 C 0.0 0.001 PM 28.3 C 28.4 C 0.1 0.002 7 Middlefield Rd. & Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy* AM 50.6 D 50.6 D 0.1 0.001 PM 87.4 F 87.5 F 0.1 0.000 Notes: * Denotes a VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection BOLD indicates a deficient level of service. 1 The average vehicle delay at this intersection will improve with the project due to the planned addition of a westbound right- turn lane on Embarcadero Rd. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 109 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 b. Would the project cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? The proposed project would not result in impacts to freeway segments as shown in Table 4.16-3. [No Impact] c., d. Would the project impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? Would the project increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that cannot be met by current or planned services? The Rinconada Park LRP proposes numerous improvements to pedestrian facilities, including updated sidewalks, new and improved crosswalks, and expanded bus access and shuttle stops. The project will improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. A new crosswalk is already planned to be added on Middlefield Road at Kellogg Avenue, and an improved crosswalk is proposed on Newell Road at Hopkins Avenue. Other pedestrian improvements include updating and retrofitting park paths and sidewalks to be ADA compliant, and improved crosswalks across Hopkins Avenue. Bicycle racks would be provided at key locations. These improvements would help to accommodate all existing and future park visitors who walk, bike or take transit. Crosswalks would be provided on-site between the JMZ entry plaza and the reconfigured parking lot. A raised pedestrian crossing also would be provided through the parking lot providing a direct connection between the Lucie Stern Community Center and Rinconada Park. A new pedestrian path would connect the sidewalk on Middlefield Road to the entry plaza. The project also includes a new pedestrian path that would bisect the JMZ and Walter Hays Elementary School, providing a direct connection between Middlefield Road and Rinconada Park. Additional paths would provide pedestrian connections between the JMZ and Hopkins Avenue and Rinconada Park. There are no bicycle facilities along Embarcadero Road or Middlefield Road. The City of Palo Alto’s Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (adopted July 2012) includes proposed bicycle facilities in the study area. Planned future bicycle facilities within a one mile radius of Rinconada Park include the following:  Rinconada Park- Class I pathway between the intersection of Middlefield Road and Embarcadero Road through Rinconada Park, connecting to Newell Road in the vicinity of Newell Road and Hopkins Avenue.  Middlefield Road – Class II bike lanes between Loma Verde Avenue and Moreno Avenue, and Sharrows between Moreno Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue  Greer Road – Bike Boulevard between Louis Road and Edgewood Drive  Ross Road – Bike Boulevard between Louis Road and Oregon Expressway  Webster Street – Bike Boulevard between California Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue  Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenue – Bike Boulevard between W. Bayshore Road and Middlefield Road  Seale Avenue – Bike Boulevard between Embarcadero Road and Alma Street  Kingsley Avenue – Bike Boulevard between Guinda Street and Embarcadero Road  Guinda Street – Bike Boulevard between Melville Avenue and Homer Avenue  Boyce Avenue & Chaucer Street – Bike Boulevard between Guinda Street and Palo Alto Avenue  Center Drive – Sharrows between Channing Avenue and University Avenue Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 110 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with planned bicycle facility improvements, as described in the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan or other programs regarding public bicycle or pedestrian facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact] e., f. Would the project impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? Would the project create demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services? As described previously, the project would not result in the generation of substantial new vehicle trips, nor would it result in impacts to nearby intersections. The project, therefore, would not result in congestion that would impede the operation of a transit system, nor would it decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The project site is well-served by existing transit facilities in the project area. No improvements beyond those already planned as part of the LRP would be necessary to serve the demand created by the project. [Less Than Significant Impact] g., h. Would the project create the potential demand for through traffic to use local residential streets? Would the project cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? Vehicles coming to and from the site would primarily utilize major thoroughfares such as Embarcadero Road and Middlefield Road, and are not expected to spillover onto nearby residential streets. Based on the minimal amount of trip generation resulting from the project, as well as the anticipated distribution of those trips, the proposed project would not increase the TIRE index by 0.1 or more. [No Impact] i., j. Would the project create an operational safety hazard? Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Site Access and Circulation The project proposes reconfiguration of the parking lot that currently serves the JMZ and Lucie Stern Community Center. The existing parking lot configuration, which includes mostly one-way drive aisles and diagonal parking, will be reconfigured to include two-way drive aisles and 90-degree parking. The existing driveway on Middlefield Road located adjacent to Walter Hays Elementary School will be closed to make room for the new JMZ Education Wing and entry plaza. Additionally, the driveway at the Kellogg Avenue intersection will be removed and replaced with a new bicycle and pedestrian entry pathway, providing an entrance for cyclists and pedestrians separate from motorized vehicles. A new 24-foot wide driveway for motorized vehicles will be located approximately 50 feet north of the closed driveway adjacent to Walter Hays Elementary School. A striped pedestrian crosswalk will be included at this driveway. The existing driveway on Hopkins Avenue will remain in place and a second driveway will be added on Hopkins Avenue approximately 40 feet east of the existing driveway. The eastern driveway will be gated and will provide emergency vehicle access (EVA) and Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 111 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 bus access only. Both driveways will be 20 feet wide, measured at the throat. Striped pedestrian crosswalks will be added at both driveways. The reconfigured JMZ parking lot will be an improved design over the existing lot, though the new layout will result in one less parking space. The redesign includes removing the raised curb that currently serves as a barrier between the northern and southern portions of the parking lot, and realigning all the drive aisles in a north-south orientation. The realignment will significantly improve vehicle ingress and egress at the Hopkins Avenue driveway location. An on-site passenger drop-off area would be located adjacent to the new entry plaza. The drop-off lane is shown to be approximately 90 feet in length, which will provide enough queuing space for four average length passenger vehicles. Overall on-site circulation will be efficient with no dead-end drive aisles within the parking lot. School Bus Parking and On-Site Circulation Due to the JMZ expansion project, City staff anticipates an increase in field trip buses at the JMZ during the weekday midday period. An on-site passenger drop-off area would be located adjacent to the new entry plaza. The drop-off lane would be approximately 90 feet in length, which will provide enough space for two school buses parked end to end. Thus, field trip buses will have an adequate area to park for loading and unloading of passengers and are not expected to have a negative effect on parking conditions or circulation within the JMZ parking lot. School buses will enter the parking lot via the Middlefield Road driveway, utilize the on-site drop-off lane, and ultimately exit the parking lot via the gated Hopkins Avenue driveway. Use of the gated exit will require coordination with JMZ staff. The project does not include any other roadway improvements, modifications, or changes, and would not increase hazards due to design features or incompatible land uses. Parking Weekday AM and PM peak hour observations of existing parking conditions at the JMZ and along the roadways surrounding Rinconada Park show that the existing parking supply is adequate to accommodate weekday JMZ and park visitors. The weekday parking surveys included observations of the JMZ parking lot and street parking along Hopkins Avenue, Embarcadero Road, and Middlefield Road. The total available parking in the area, including the JMZ lot and all the streets surrounding the park that provide parking, was never more than approximately 50 percent occupied during both the weekday AM and PM peak hour observation periods. The project proposes several improvements to parking facilities that serve the site. First, the parking lot on Middlefield Road will be reconfigured to eliminate one driveway, simplify circulation, and provide accessible parking stalls that meet current standards. As a result of the reconfiguration, two standard parking stalls will be eliminated and one accessible parking stall will be added. The 90- degree parking on Hopkins Avenue also will be expanded to add 10 new parking stalls, increasing the total there to 39 standard stalls and three ADA stalls. In addition, the City is exploring shifting the sidewalk along Embarcadero Road into the park between Middlefield Road and the fire station. This would create a new parking lane with 17 stalls. Based on existing weekday field observations, it can be concluded that the proposed parking facilities, in combination with existing parking facilities, Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 112 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 would be sufficient to accommodate any additional weekday parking demand generated by the project. Saturday Parking The existing parking lot on Middlefield Road serves Rinconada Park patrons, and visitors of the JMZ and Lucie Stern Community Center. Based on the traffic report observations, the parking lot provides adequate parking to accommodate weekend visitors of the park, JMZ, and community center. Between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM, there were consistently three to eight vacant parking spaces in the JMZ parking lot. The Walter Hays Elementary School parking lot was also being utilized during this time period, with approximately four to 14 vehicles opting to park there. Street parking along Middlefield Road adjacent to the JMZ and Rinconada Park was approximately 50 percent occupied during the Saturday observation period. Based on existing Saturday field observations, it can be concluded that the proposed parking facilities, in combination with existing parking facilities, would be sufficient to accommodate any additional Saturday parking demand generated by the project. Emergency Access As described previously, the existing driveway on Hopkins Avenue will remain in place and a second driveway will be added on Hopkins Avenue approximately 40 feet east of the existing driveway. The eastern driveway will be gated and will provide emergency vehicle access (EVA) and bus access only. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. [Less Than Significant Impact] k. Would the project 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? Palo Alto Airport is located approximately 2.3 miles east of the project site. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns or obstruct airport operations. [No Impact] 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 spill back queues on ramps. Based on the limited number of new vehicle trips generated by the project (six AM peak hour trips and 19 PM peak hour trips), and the distribution of those trips (refer to Figure 7 in Appendix F), the project would not result in significant queuing impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.16.4 Conclusion The project would not result in a significant impact to transportation or traffic. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 113 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.17.1 Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a. Need new or expanded entitlements to water supply? 1-3 b. Result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities due to increase use as a result of the project? 1-3 c. Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1-3 d. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1-3 e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1-3 f. Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1-3 g. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1-3 h. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1-3, 25 i. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1-3 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? 1-3 Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 114 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.17.2 Existing Setting The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is the only municipal utility in California that operates city- owned utility services that include electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water, and sewer services. The project site is currently developed and electricity, gas, water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste collection services are provided to the site. 4.17.2.1 Water Services The City’s drinking water is provided by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) and is purchased from the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, which obtains most of its water from the Hetch Hetchy system. The City also owns five groundwater wells, three of which are currently operational. The wells are available in case the Hetch Hetchy system cannot meet the City’s needs in times of drought or emergency. Water lines are available in the area to serve the project site. The City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance incorporates a set of standards that are applied to any new or renovated landscape for commercial, industrial, multi-family common area, or City Facility projects with 1,000 sf or more of landscaped area. The ordinance requires projects to meet the requirements of the City’s water efficiency standards before a building or grading permit is issued. 4.17.2.2 Wastewater Services The CPAU is responsible for the existing wastewater collection system. There are existing sanitary sewer lines in the area that serve the project site. The City of Palo Alto operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. The RWQCP is on the shore of San Francisco Bay in Palo Alto adjacent to the Palo Alto Baylands Preserve. The RWQCP discharges treated wastewater effluent to a man-made channel, which empties into the southern reach of San Francisco Bay. In 2013, the plant treated an average of 18 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater during the dry season, well below its permitted dry-weather capacity of 39 MGD.21 4.17.2.3 Storm Drainage The City’s Department of Public Works is responsible for approval, construction and maintenance of the storm drain system in Palo Alto. The system consists of approximately 126 miles of pipe, 5,684 nodes (manholes, inlets and outfalls) and nine pump stations. Local storm drains are designed to convey the runoff from a 10-year storm.22 21 Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan. 2015 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1527&TargetID=65. Accessed July 29, 2015. 22 City of Palo Alto. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. Accessed July 30, 2015. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 115 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Stormwater runoff from the existing site flows into catch basins throughout the park and drains into storm lines in the surrounding roadways. The site is within the San Francisquito Creek storm drain watershed of Palo Alto, which flows to San Francisco Bay.23 4.17.2.4 Solid Waste Solid waste collection and disposal services are provided under exclusive franchises overseen by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department. The majority of the City’s solid waste is taken to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT® Station) where recyclables and yard trimmings are recovered, processed, and marketed. The remaining solid waste is sent to the Kirby Canyon Landfill, or several secondary landfills. The City has an agreement with Waste Management, Inc. to dispose of waste at Kirby Canyon until 2031. In 2013, residents of Palo Alto generated an average of 3.9 pounds of solid waste per person per day, with a diversion rate of 78 percent.24 The City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance (Chapter 5.24 of the PAMC) requires the diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills. Under this ordinance, project-related construction and demolition waste shall be diverted to an approved recycling/transformation facility or by salvage. The City passed the Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance in 2004, and updated the ordinance in 2009.25 The ordinance requirements are currently enforced through the City’s Green Building Program and require projects to salvage, and/or divert at least 75 percent of project debris from landfills. 4.17.2.5 Electricity and Natural Gas Electricity The electricity supply in California involves a complex grid of power plants and transmission lines. In 2016, California produced approximately 93 percent of the electricity it consumed and the rest was imported. California’s non CO2-emitting electric generation (from nuclear, large hydroelectric, solar, wind, and other renewable sources) accounted for 50 percent of total in-state generation for 2016, compared to 40 percent in 2015.26 Electricity supplied from out-of-state, coal-fired power plants has continued to decrease since 2006, following the enactment of a state law requiring California utilities to limit new long-term financial investments to power plants that meet California emissions standards.27 23 City of Palo Alto. Watersheds Map. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2816. Accessed July 14, 2016. 24 City of Palo Alto. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Accessed July 14, 2016. 25 City of Palo Alto. Construction and Demolition Debris. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/whatgoeswhere/debris.asp. Accessed July 14, 2016. 26 CEC. “Total System Electric Generation”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html. 27 EIA. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates Profile Analysis”. Accessed July 13, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA#40. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 116 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 California’s total system electric generation was 290,567 gigawatt-hours (GWh), which was down 1.6 percent from 2015’s total generation of 295,405 GWh. California's in-state electric generation was up by approximately one percent at 198,227 GWh compared to 196,195 GWh in 2015, and energy imports were down by 6,869 GWh to 92,341 GWh.28 In 2016, total in-state solar generation increased 31.5 percent from 2015 levels and wind generation increased 10.8 percent. Growth in annual electricity consumption from traditional power plants declined reflecting increased energy efficiency and higher self-generation from solar photovoltaic power systems. Per capita drops in electrical consumption are predicted through 2027 as a result of energy efficiency gains and increased self-generation (particularly for photovoltaic systems).29 Due to population increases, however, it is estimated that future demand in California for electricity will grow at approximately one percent each year through 2027, and that 319,256 GWh of electricity would be utilized in the state in 2027.30 Electricity usage for differing land uses varies substantially by the type of uses in a building, the type of construction materials used, and the efficiency of the electricity-consuming devices. Electricity in Santa Clara County in 2015 was consumed primarily by the commercial sector (77 percent), with the residential sector consuming 23 percent. In 2015, a total of approximately 16,812 GWh of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County.31 Natural Gas In 2016, approximately three percent of California’s natural gas supply came from in-state production, while 97 percent was imported from other western states and Canada.32 California’s natural gas is supplied by interstate pipelines, including the Mojave Pipeline, Transwestern Pipeline, Questar Southern Trails Pipeline, Tuscarora Pipeline, and the Baja Norte/North Baja Pipeline.33 As a result of improved access to supply basins, as well as pipeline expansion and new projects, these pipelines currently have excess capacity. In 2016, approximately 32 percent of the natural gas delivered for consumption in California was for electricity generation, 37 percent for industrial uses, 19 percent for residential uses, 11 percent for commercial uses, and less than one percent for vehicle fuel. As with electricity usage, natural gas usage depends on the type of uses in a building, the type of construction materials used, and the efficiency of gas-consuming devices. In 2016, California consumed approximately 2.03 billion 28 CEC. “Total System Electric Generation”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html 29 CEC. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-IEPR- 05/TN214635_20161205T142341_California_Energy_Demand_Updated_Forecast.pdf. 30 Ibid. 31 CEC. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County”. Accessed July 13, 2016. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. 32 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2016 California Gas Report. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-BSTD- 06/TN212364_20160720T111050_2016_California_Gas_Report.pdf. 33 Ibid. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 117 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 MBtu of natural gas (or 2.03 quadrillion Btu); a decrease from 2015 when 2.12 billion MBtu were consumed.34 In Santa Clara County, a total of 41.1 MBtu of natural gas were consumed in 2015.35 Natural gas demand in California is anticipated to continue to decrease approximately one percent per year through 2035. This decline is due to on-site residential, commercial, and industrial electricity generation; aggressive energy efficiency programs; and a decrease in demand for electrical power generation as a result of the implementation of state-mandated RPS targets (as the state moves to power generation resources that result in less GHG emissions than natural gas).36 The CPAU is responsible for electricity and natural gas service in the City of Palo Alto. Electric lines and gas lines are present in the project area that currently serve the site. 4.17.3 Impacts Evaluation a. Would the project need new or expanded entitlements to water supply? The proposed project would not require new or expanded entitlements to water supply, since the increase in water use and wastewater generation would be minimal, if at all. [Less Than Significant Impact] b., c., Would the project result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities due to increase use as a result of the project? Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased use? The proposed project would be similar in size to the existing JMZ facility and would have similar operations. The proposed project would not require new or expanded utility facilities for project construction or operation, and therefore, would not result in adverse impacts resulting from new or expanded utility facilities. Since the proposed project would be similar to the existing JMZ facility, the project would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increase use by the project. [Less Than Significant Impact] d. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The proposed project is the renovation of an existing park and redevelopment of the existing JMZ. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase the generation of wastewater on the project site, and would not exceed existing wastewater treatment requirements. [Less Than Significant Impact] 34 EIA. “Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers in California”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_sum_lsum_dcu_SCA_a.htm. 35 CEC. “Natural Gas Consumption by County”. Santa Clara County 2015 Data. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. 36 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2016 California Gas Report. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/16-BSTD- 06/TN212364_20160720T111050_2016_California_Gas_Report.pdf. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 118 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 e. Would the project 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? The RWQCP would have sufficient capacity to serve the project, since the increase in wastewater generation would be minimal, if at all. [Less Than Significant Impact] f. Would the project 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 stormwater drainage facilities that serve the existing Rinconada Park and JMZ facility would be adequate in serving the future LRP developments and the proposed JMZ facility. No other storm drains would be required for project implementation. [Less Than Significant Impact] g., h. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Solid waste generated by the proposed project would continue to be hauled to the City’s designated recycling facility in Sunnyvale. Unrecoverable refuse would be transported to Kirby Canyon Landfill in San José for disposal. The proposed project would not generate additional solid waste beyond the capacity of the existing disposal facilities and would comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes related to solid waste. [Less Than Significant Impact] i. Would the project 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? The proposed project is the renovation of an existing park and redevelopment of the existing JMZ. The project would maintain similar operations as the existing park and JMZ facility, and would therefore not result in substantial increase in natural gas and electrical service demand. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.17.4 Conclusion The project would not result in any utility or service facility exceeding its current capacity or require the construction of new infrastructure or service facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 119 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.18 ENERGY CONSERVATION 4.18.1 Energy Conservation Environmental Checklist Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may include: i. Impacts resulting from amount and fuel type used for each stage of the project 1-3 ii. Impacts on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity 1-3 iii. Impacts on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy 1-3 iv. Impacts to energy resources 1-3 v. Impacts resulting from the project’s projected transportation energy use requirements 1-3 4.18.2 Existing Setting 4.18.2.1 Regulatory Setting Federal At the federal level, energy standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) apply to numerous consumer and commercial products (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation. State Renewable Energy Standards In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010. In 2006, California's 20 percent by 2010 RPS goal was codified under Senate Bill (SB) 107. Under the provisions of SB 107, investor‐owned utilities were required to generate 20 percent of their retail electricity using qualified renewable energy technologies by the end of 2010. In 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed into law and required that retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 120 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 (PG&E’s) is the electricity provider to the project site. PG&E’s 2016 electricity mix was 33 percent renewable; thus, they have already met the requirements of Executive Order S-14-08.37 In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals. A key provision of SB 350 for retail sellers and publicly owned utilities, requires them to procure 50 percent of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030. Building Codes The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years, and the 2016 Title 24 updates went into effect on January 1, 2017.38 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.39 In January 2010, the state adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which established mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was also updated and went in to effect on January 1, 2017. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. 4.18.2.2 Existing Conditions Energy consumption is analyzed in Initial Studies because of the environmental impacts associated with its production and usage. Such impacts include the depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g., oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) and emissions of pollutants during both the production and consumption phases of energy use. Energy usage is typically quantified using British thermal units (Btu).40 As points of reference, the approximate amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, a cubic foot of natural gas, and a kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity are 123,000 Btu, 1,000 Btu, and 3,400 Btu respectively. Utility providers measure gas usage in therms. One therm is approximately equal to 100,000 Btu. Electrical energy is expressed in units of kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt hour (kWh). One kW, a measurement of power (energy used over time), equals one thousand joules41 per second. A kWh is 37 PG&E. “Exploring Clean Energy Solutions”. Accessed July 13, 2017. https://www.pge.com/en_US/about- pge/environment/what-we-are-doing/clean-energy-solutions/clean-energy-solutions.page. 38 California Building Standards Commission. “Welcome to the California Building Standards Commission”. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.bsc.ca.gov. 39 California Energy Commission (CEC). “2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards”. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/index.html. 40 A Btu is the amount of energy that is required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. 41 As defined by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, the joule is a unit of energy or work. One joule equals the work done when one unit of force (a Newton) moves through a distance of one meter in the direction of the force. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 121 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 a measurement of energy. If run for one hour, a 1,000 watt (one kW) hair dryer would use one kWh of electrical energy. Other measurements of electrical energy include the megawatt (1,000 kW) and the gigawatt (1,000,000 kW). Total energy usage in California was approximately 7,300 trillion Btu in the year 2015 (the most recent year for which this specific data was available).42 The breakdown by sector was approximately 18 percent for residential uses, 19 percent for commercial uses, 24 percent for industrial uses, and 39 percent for transportation.43 Existing energy use associated with operation of the structures and uses at the project site primarily consists of fuel for vehicle trips to and from the site, electricity for lighting and cooling, and natural gas for operations within the existing buildings. Gasoline for Motor Vehicles California crude oil production levels have been declining over the last 30 years; however, the state still accounts for six percent of the United States’ crude oil production and petroleum refining capacity.44 In 2016, 143.4 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed in the United States (setting an annual gasoline consumption record) and 15.5 billion gallons were consumed in California.45,46 The United States has seen low gasoline prices and high demand in the last few years, though forecast growth in demand is expected to slow as retail prices begin to increase.47 The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and SUVs) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles-per-gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 22.0 mpg in 2015.48 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by the year 2020, applies to cars and light trucks of Model Years 2011 42 United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). California Energy Consumption Estimates 2015. Accessed July 13, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. 43 EIA. “California Energy Consumption by End-Use Sector, 2015”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/sum_btu_1.html&sid=CA. 44 EIA. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates Profile Analysis”. Accessed July 13, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA#40. 45 EIA. Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed July 14, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10. 46 California State Board of Equalization. Taxable Gasoline, Diesel Fuel, Jet Fuel Ten Year Reports. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.boe.ca.gov/sptaxprog/reports/MVF_10_Year_Report.pdf. 47 EIA. “Short-Term Energy Outlook, U.S. Liquid Fuels”. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm. 48 EPA. Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles. Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_2 3.html. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 122 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 through 2020. 49,50 In 2012, the federal government raised the fuel economy standard to 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025.51 4.18.3 Impacts Evaluation a. i-v) Would the project have an energy impact? Impacts include the amount and fuel type used for each stage of the project, impacts on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity, impacts on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy, impacts to energy resources, and impacts resulting from the project’s projected transportation energy use requirements. Construction Construction activities related to the JMZ would take approximately 18-24 months and would consist of demolition of the existing building and landscaping, site preparation, grading, construction of the new facility, and installation of landscaping. Implementation of the LRP would occur over 25 years, and construction would occur intermittently depending on the project component under construction. Energy would be consumed during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site (e.g., demolition and grading), and the actual construction of the building. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy for these tasks. The overall construction schedule and process for the JMZ is already designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. That is, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully on the site because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for efficiency gains during construction are limited. The proposed project does, however, include several measures that will improve the efficiency of the construction process. Implementation of the BAAQMD BMPs, as described in Section 4.3 Air Quality would restrict excessive equipment use by reducing idling times to five minutes or less and would require the applicant to post signs on the project site reminding workers to shut off idle equipment. There will be adverse effects caused by construction because the use of fuels and building materials are fundamental to construction of new buildings; however, with implementation of BMPs, the short-term energy impacts of construction, including impacts to energy resources, would be less than significant. [Less than Significant Impact] 49 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed December 7, 2016. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa. 50 Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Page 1449. Accessed December 7, 2016. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf. 51 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standards. Accessed July 14, 2017. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/obama-administration- finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standards. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 123 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Operation The proposed project would be constructed to conform to CALGreen guidelines, which include design and operational and efficiency provisions to minimize wasteful energy consumption. Though the proposed project does not include on-site renewable energy resources, the proposed JMZ building would include orientation of the buildings and windows to optimize daylight to interiors, low-emissivity glazing, and use of energy-efficient LED lighting. The project would also comply with existing Title 24 state energy standards. Thus, the project would not waste energy as part of normal operations and any impact would be less than significant. Additionally, the proposed project would provide at least 25 short term bicycle parking spaces and 10 long term spaces which would incentivize the use of an alternative transportation method. Since the proposed JMZ facility would be similar in size to the existing facility and would offer a comparable experience (i.e. zoo tours, classroom visits etc.) as the existing facility, the proposed project would result in only a minor increase in vehicle trips, and the transportation impacts would be similar to existing conditions. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that fuel or energy would be used in a wasteful manner, and potential impacts related to operational energy use and transportation energy use would be less than significant. [Less Than Significant Impact] The size and operations of the proposed JMZ facility would be similar to that of the existing JMZ facility. Since the design of the proposed facility would include CALGreen measures that would help reduce the amount of energy the building would consume during routine operation. The proposed facility would have comparable if not reduced peak and base demands on energy as the existing JMZ and would not, therefore, result in significant energy impacts related to peak and base demands, supply, capacity, or resources. [Less Than Significant Impact] 4.18.4 Conclusion Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to energy resources. [Less Than Significant Impact] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 124 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 4.19.1 Mandatory Findings Environmental Checklist Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Checklist Source(s) 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? 1-25 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 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)? 1-25 c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1-25 4.19.2 Impacts Evaluation 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? The project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities or service systems. With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the proposed project and described in the biological resources, cultural resources, and noise and vibration section of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 125 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a 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)? As identified elsewhere in this Initial Study, the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project are primarily limited to the construction period. The construction projects associated with the LRP are expected to occur over a 25 year period, and the demolition and construction of the JMZ would take approximately 18 to 24 months. Given the size and duration of the projects, the projects would not significantly contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. As described in Section 4.16, project implementation would not degrade future level of service of intersections in the project area. [Less than Significant Impact] c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if it would cause substantial adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals. While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include air quality and noise. Due to the short construction schedule, limited areal extent of the project, and mitigation measures included in the project, impacts to human beings resulting from construction-related air and noise impacts would be less than significant. No other direct or indirect adverse effects of the project on human beings have been identified. [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation] Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 126 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Checklist Sources: 1. CEQA Guidelines - Environmental Thresholds (Professional judgment and expertise and review of project plans). 2. Palo Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan. 1998-2010. 3. Palo Alto, City of. Municipal Code. 4. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2012. Map. August 2014. 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. 6. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Construction TAC Assessment. April 27, 2015. 7. Hort Science. Arborist Report, Junior Museum & Zoo, Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017. 8. Hort Science. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed, Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017. 9. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP)). 10. Holman & Associates. Results of an Archaeological literature search for Rinconada Park and Junior Museum & Zoo Project at 777 Embarcadero, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (APN: 003- 46-006). February 17, 2015. 11. Page & Turnbull. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Historic Resource Evaluation. July 20, 2016. 12. Page & Turnbull. Rinconada Park Historic Resource Evaluation. June 8, 2017. 13. Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. Geotechnical investigation. January 2015. 14. State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 8, 2016. 15. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Palo Alto Airport. November 19, 2008. 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009. 17. San Mateo, County of. Planning and Building. Dam Failure Inundation Areas. Available at: <http://planning.smcgov.org/documents/san-mateo-county-hazards-dam-failure-inundation- areas> August 2014. 18. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County. October 8, 2008. 19. California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning San Francisco Bay Area, < http://www.conservation.ca.gov> June 15, 2009. 20. Palo Alto, City of. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. 21. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan, Environmental Noise Assessment, Palo Alto, California. June 3, 2015. 22. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Police. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/ 23. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Fire Department. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/. 24. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 27, 2017. 25. Palo Alto, City of. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 127 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. California Building Standards Commission. 2013 California Green Buildings Standards Code (CALGreen). California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. Available at: http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/2013California/13Green/13Green_main.html Effective Date: January 1, 2014. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2012. Map. August 2014. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php. Accessed July 28, 2015. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Santa Clara County. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed June 21, 2015. California State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. Accessed July 29, 2015. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – Santa Clara County. October 8, 2008. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_santaclara.php. Accessed July 28, 2015. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). The CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/. Accessed July 30, 2015. County of Santa Clara, City of San José, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. August 2012. Available at: <http://www.scv-habitatplan.org/www/default.aspx. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060850010H. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. July 27, 2017. Holman & Associates. Results of an Archaeological literature search for Rinconada Park and Junior Museum & Zoo Project at 777 Embarcadero, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County (APN: 003-46-006). February 17, 2015. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Construction TAC Assessment. April 27, 2015. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 128 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 Hort Science. Arborist Report, Junior Museum & Zoo, Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017. Hort Science. Arborist Inventory: Trees to be removed, Long-Range Plan Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, CA. June 2017. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Junior Museum, Zoo, and Rinconada Park Long Range Plan, Environmental Noise Assessment, Palo Alto, California. June 3, 2015. One Bay Area. “Plan Bay Area.” 2012. Available at: http://onebayarea.org/regional-initiatives/plan- bay-area.html#.USz_lKK-qzk . Accessed July 30, 2015. Page & Turnbull. Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Historic Resource Evaluation. July 20, 2016. Page & Turnbull. Rinconada Park Historic Resource Evaluation. June 28, 2017. Palo Alto, City of. City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, City of Palo Alto. June 2001. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6436 Palo Alto, City of. Comprehensive Plan. 1998-2010. Palo Alto, City of. Historic Preservation website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/preservation.asp Accessed July 30, 2015. Palo Alto, City of. Municipal Code. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Police. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pol/ Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Fire Department. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/fir/. Palo Alto, City of. Palo Alto Green Building Program. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. Accessed July 28, 2015. Palo Alto, City of. Rinconada Long Range Plan Report. July 2017 Palo Alto, City of. Storm Drain System Facts and Figures. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2806. Accessed July 30, 2015. Palo Alto, City of. Office of Emergency Services. Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Report. August 2014. Palo Alto, City of. Zero Waste Program, Progress Report. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/zerowaste/about/progress.asp. Accessed July 29, 2015. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan. 2015 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1527&TargetID=65. Accessed July 29, 2015. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 129 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 PAST Consultants, LLC. “Re: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Review (SISR) for 411 Lytton Ave., Palo Alto, CA, APN. 120-014-076.” March 13, 2015. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Shoreline Areas Potentially Exposed to Sea Level Rise: South Bay. 2008, updated 2012. Map. Available at: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/pdf/bayplan/Plan_Map_7.pdf. Accessed July 28, 2015. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Palo Alto Airport. November 19, 2008. Available at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/Commissions/ALUC/Pages/ALUC.aspx. Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. Geotechnical investigation. January 2015. Rinconada Park LRP & Palo Alto JMZ 130 Initial Study/Draft MND City of Palo Alto August 2017 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS LEAD AGENCY City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Jodi Starbird, Principal Project Manager Mike Lisenbee, Project Manager Caroline Weston, Assistant Project Manager Zach Dill, Graphic Artist MMRP Page 1 of 6 Exhibit 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project Name Junior Museum and Zoo Project Application Number 17PLN- 00147 Applicant Agreement Signed by applicant before final approval action Date Approved by Signed by Director after MND approval action by Council Date Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Impact BIO-1: Construction of the proposed project could result in disturbance to active migratory bird nests. MM BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the project shall implement the following measures:  Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until construction activities are initiated.  If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the CDFW. Project applicant, contractors, and qualified ornithologist Within 30 days of the start of construction activities and prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or Demolition Permit City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, and CDFW (if a nest is found) MMRP Page 2 of 6 Impact CR-1: Construction activities could result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub.  Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest. MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Project applicant, contractors During grading and excavation activities City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment MMRP Page 3 of 6 MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the proposed project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items Project applicant, contractors During grading and excavation activities City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, Santa Clara County Coroner, and NAHC MMRP Page 4 of 6 Impact NOI-1: Construction activities associated with the JMZ could result in significant noise impacts. associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, construction noise would be reduced to a less than significant level:  Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code).  Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration for school activities and hours: o Schedule high noise generating construction activities (such as the use of the concrete saws) that are located directly adjacent to school structures during periods when school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks, weekends, and after school dismissal. Coordination of construction activity times with school officials may be necessary. o Construct portions of the museum located directly adjacent to the school first, where practical, in an effort to provide shielding to the school from construction activities located further to the west and south. Project applicant, contractors During all phases of construction City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment MMRP Page 5 of 6 o Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on-site construction and demolition noise from the school. To be most effective, the barrier should be placed as close as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor. Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing for specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets.  Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise- sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.  Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical.  Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.  Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and equip all internal combustion engine- driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.  Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air compressors and portable power MMRP Page 6 of 6 generators, as far away as possible from businesses or noise-sensitive land uses.  Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in writing.  Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences or the school bordering the project site.  Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and made available to noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the construction site. Attachment K Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1451 Middlefield Road” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Revised Plans September 2017”. 1 French, Amy From:Jean Pressey <jean.pressey@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:37 PM To:French, Amy Subject:JMZ Building Project Dear Ms. French, I attended the meeting on April 10 at the Junior Museum where the new plans were discussed. I want to enthusiastically endorse the decision to use a metal roof on the new building. It is both cheaper and longer-lasting than other alternatives. I live in a condo at 449 Homer and we installed a metal roof two years ago and are very happy with it. There are a number of houses in the Downtown North area that have metal roofs, and other people simply are not aware of them. So I think the words might inspire negative reactions divorced from reality. I also want to commend your staff for the new Rinconada Park plan. I attended one of the early planning meetings (and was somehow dropped from communication) and I know that there were a lot of wild ideas suggested. That the final design maintains the Rinconada Park that we have loved for so long is very positive. Jean Pressey 449 Homer Ave. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Peter Baltay, Robert Gooyer, Absent: Board Member Wynne Furth Action Items PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [17PLN-00147]: Consideration of an Application for Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Junior Museum and Zoo Building and Construction of a New 15,033 Square Foot, One-Story Museum and Education Building, Outdoor Zoo with Netted Enclosure, and Reconfiguration of and Improvements to the Existing Parking Lots including Fire Access, Accessible Parking Stalls, Multi- Modal Circulation, Storm Drainage Infrastructure, and Site Lighting. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Lew: We can move onto the first item which is number two. It’s a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter for 1451 Middlefield Road. Consideration of an application for architectural review to allow the demolition of the Junior Museum and Zoo Building and construction of a new 15,033-square foot, one- story museum and education building, outdoor zoo with netted enclosure, and reconfiguration of site improvements to the existing parking lots including fire access, accessible parking stalls, multi-modal circulation, storm drainage infrastructure, and site lighting. The environmental assessment is an initial study has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA and the zone district is public facilities. Welcome, we have our Chief Planning Official Amy French here today. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, good morning. Amy French, and I am here to present the project that is returning to you after several preliminary meetings. I just have some -- a couple of fun photos. This I showed to the HRB on June 22nd, when we last appeared before them and they recommended approval of this. The Lucie Stern Complex dates back to 1937 and here’s an old photo that shows that along Middlefield it was pretty much a park. Then it took sometime after the original Stern Complex, in a matter of 3 or 4-years, to come in with the Junior Museum and Zoo and the library and the Girl Scout House in its current location. Here’s what it looks like today with our crazy parking lot that is to be rectified with this project. The context is one to two, two-story buildings; it feels one-story but there are two-story elements on the Junior Museum and Zoo and the Lucie Stern. The Lucie Stern Center is a Category One resource and many buildings are included in that. We’re interested in having the Girl Scout House become one of the listed items; it is not currently today. There is an interest in moving a bird bath from the Girl Scout House over to where the Boy Scouts are located. The Lou Henry Hoover House was mentioned in the last meeting. Since the last HRB meeting, there was a study done for Rinconada Park Long Range Master – Long Range Plan - a Historic Resource Evaluation, and that determined that this Girl Scout House is eligible for listing as a historic resource. Here are some other images of the area behind the Girl Scout House and the parking area behind the Stern Theater and scene shop there. So, back in January the ARB and the HRB reviewed in study sessions some concept plans. These concept plans were then changed and the ARB looked at that version and provided some support as far as that ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: August 3, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 approach, and the applicant is going to summarize what you said back in March in their presentation. The revised plans were shown to the HRB, then there’s been slight revisions since then that the applicant will provide. The HRB, on June 22nd, requested an HRB subcommittee review of the roof colors in their effort to look at compatibility. They were pleased with the gable – the switch to gables roofs. They just had a question about the color, and asked for alternatives to come to an HRB subcommittee. The initial study is being prepared and finalized this week and will be available on Friday. So, that will be circulated to the HRB and the ARB for any comments there. Then today, we’re going to be asking you to continue this item either to a date certain or a date uncertain, so that the CEQA document can run its course for public comments. We’ll back before you with findings and conditions set for approval and when I say approval, its recommendation to the City Council. The HRB subcommittee has weighed in - two out of three so far - via email to me, they have not met as a Board, but the question came up about the taupe roof that was proposed; the charcoal roof was an alternative and red roof was another. I don’t think either of the ones that I spoke with so far preferred the red roof altogether. Here is an image that one of the HRB Members, Margaret Wimmer, was saying that if you went with charcoal, which she thought blended better with the red as far not contrasting as much, then it’s a little bit too dark in the court yard. She suggested maybe pulling down the red to make it more whimsical there. So, that’s our presentation from staff and let me introduce again, John Aiken, while I load the other presentation and then the architect will present. Mr. John Aiken: Let me quickly review the goals of the project, which are to right size the building for our current programs and audience, to seek accreditation with the American Alliance of Museums and the Associations of Zoos and Aquariums, as well as tailor the spaces to better suit visitors and make it safe for kids to interact with animals. With that, let me introduce Cody Anderson Wasney who has Brent McClure and Sarah Vaccaro here, and I’ll let them take it away. Mr. Brent McClure: Thanks John, Brent McClure CAW Architects. Board, thank you very much for having us back again to present this exciting project - we’re going to just get this – we‘ve got a short PowerPoint. We wanted to briefly recap what we had shown you – I think, we had talked about before at the last meeting. This is the site plan, a little to nothing has changed with the horseshoe shaped building around the dawn redwood court. What we talked about a lot last time was this sort of strong pedestrian promenade that links you into the park and established a lot of these connecting points; thinking about the context, thinking about this as a civic project, and having much stronger presences both within its surrounding neighbors and public use. Then we spent a lot of time with you talking about this exterior experience along the way and how do we engage a child’s curiosity as we move through these spaces. If you recall, we talked about before they even – the experience starts on Middlefield or it starts at the park itself as you drawn and kind of pulled into the museum itself. With a lot of experiences that are open to the public outside the building which is along the promenade. These included – we talked about things of scale, areas where kids can play, establishing a water shed, can we illustrate wind in a creative way and also play with lights and sort of just also the elements as well. Then the massing model that we showed you at that study session was in essences – I think it was this image that you see before you now and so a lot has – we’ve maintained this form and this overall concept but lots has developed since then. The comments that we had heard at the meeting was – there’s a lot with this design that we heard positive feedback, which was terrific, on the focus of the site and scale and the civic context and whatnot. Comment that we had noted where can we rethink the promenade on how it intersects and connects with the Girl Scout building and how does it turn to kind of go into the park and can we shove something back 20-feet or magically figure out a way to do that? Oh, one comment that we had noted – I think it was comment from Board Member Baltay about modulation and really kind of trying to think about that elevation along Middlefield. I think all the elevations that we brought forward to you before were kind of more of a clean, modern lengthy aesthetic and there was encouragement to explore that this is a residential neighbor. Can we break the scale down in different ways and how can we animate that façade? Then another comment was, really you all wanted to see more obviously and the details and sense of scale and looking some more at the fine grade elements that we didn’t have obviously with this model here. To walk your around the building, this is an overall rendering as to sort of where we are to date. I think the best way to kind of – what I would like to do is walk around the site and maybe start from the Middlefield approach and talk about the building. Not so much elevation by elevation and City of Palo Alto Page 3 massing and whatnot but really how you would then experience the facility. So, what we’ve done is – this is a long – this perspective is along Middlefield Road. The program that is inside this wing here consists of classrooms, zoo exhibit – museum archives and storage back and other here and then office space as well; this is the elevation and then this is that entry portal. Before we just had this open slot and what we’ve wanted to do was really kind of punctuate that and make it fun and whimsical and actually working towards designing a rainbow kaleidoscope tunnel, if you will. So, that as you pass through, you go from light to dark and we get light in all different types of colors coming in from different skylights. We’ve looked to sort of break this down to kind of have more – some solid here, a punctuated window that could have some display and then classroom and office windows that are modulated back in here that you can kind of see more in this elevation. As you enter through the – one of the other things that we’re looking to do is also think about thresholds and that experience. So, as you even leave the sidewalk, we’re exploring ways and looking to have this read as a bridge so there would be a little bit of a watershed, if you will, kind of in and around with plants and whatnot. So, as you enter into the kaleidoscope tunnel, you would be walking along this bridge element here to enter into the building. We’re looking to face the inside of this space, (inaudible) ceiling down to kind of pull the walls in. We’re looking to do this economically and we’ll be looking to maybe probably even do some mock ups to make sure that we can the effect that we are looking for but in essences, solar tubs would either have prisms and/or diagrammatic film within in them to get that kind of effect. So, this is a plan section and this is an elevation section through that space. As you then emerge through the tunnel, you are then on that walk way into this dawn redwood court yard and there’s two different zones to this that we are having to address. One is that there is a space that the users are looking to kind of contain and have be fenced in and then there’s an area just open to the public which is the promenade along this edge. So, this is where you enter into the watershed and a bridged sidewalk with depressions and raised areas of plantings. Then we have a red fence that you can kind of see in this elevation back in here so we’re looking to playfully separate and design fencing that isolates the public area from the paid experience. Then back in over here is a series of walkways around the building of natural materials and then some planter areas where – as part of the exhibit design, they will be looking to bring in really exciting and different and unique plants, have it themed as a Jurassic garden so that it becomes this educational opportunity to leverage outdoor space within this court yard. The thing is, as you might recall when we talked about this project, every square inch is precious because we’re so – we’re very, very budget constrained. Finishes in and around here – I’ll talk about finishes in a minute and we can come back to the renderings. Then here’s another section through that space looking at some of the plantings. Then the view overall from the parking is this entry piece in through here so here’s the courtyard. We’ve kind of quit – there’s the entrance tunnel as you walk along this edge but the building reads somewhat quiet so that the entrance is really played up and focused. What we’ve done is we’ve taken the end gable concept and thinking of doing it economically and so we’re basically using almost like a barn like or a butler building kind of concept in construction. Then using some natural materials as far as the wood and metal and then it almost becomes this extrusion as this comes out so that you don’t have this hard, sharp face. We’re creating this court yard that’s partially enclosed with a trellis. Then this artist wind screen that will be part of the art’s or artist and residences that will be part of this project. That is to design this wind sculpture that will actually become part of the façade of the building. So, we’re trying to get as much into this space as possible. Here are some sample images of what section that are would look like. Then as you move down the way and around the pecan tree, there will be some outdoor play areas and whatnot. Here’s a section through the portico that I was just describing in some representative images of the aesthetic that we’re looking for and it’s the sort of bent steel with the zegers that extrude out. Up lighting and down lighting and then some little punctuated window view spots onto either side here. As well as a little trellis piece, over there so this is a section through that portico that’s out at the front of the street or at the main entrance before you enter the building. Then a sample wall section through the building here; we’re looking to get some thickness and some heft as your kind of express that main form of the dominant form of the museum itself but clean, taught eaves and detailing and whatnot. To kind of talk more about that, this kind of represents the finishes. We’re using a combination – we’ve got a sample board that we’ll hand out. A combination of wood siding and then standing seam roof, the whole building would be roofed with standing seam and then at the – to differentiate it a little bit, we were looking to kind of have this playfulness of that the museum – the main museum piece, that is a story and half, would then have that finish wrapped down. There would be those deep recesses over here that I was City of Palo Alto Page 4 just talking about. Out in the trellis area there’s this punctuated view window that looks out into the watershed zone with the wind screen above. So, that – we’re trying to have this processional effect as you move and kind of draw you in and then pull – and simultaneously pull you out. Site finishes is kind of echoing the same materials with a combination of concrete and wood finishes, to soften the space. We talked about the view netting before and then as you move into the park, those boundaries would consist of integral color stucco plaster walls and wood fencing. We’ve done that for economic reasons but then having those nest in and around each other. Let’s go to the next slide. There we go, so this is a rendering kind of illustrating some of that. So, as you are in the park area, this is not – this is kid flying a kite, that’s not part of the building. There’s a – we’re looking at having that rust red color plaster wall here and then wood fencing that would kind of nest and wraps in and around. Then in some key moments like along this one section here, we’re looking at having some graphics on the fencing to illustrate a sense of scale and patterning and what not to suggest that hey, this is a children’s museum and there are exciting things that are happening within it. Then just a couple of footnotes, we talked I think at the last meeting about this Phase Two portion of the site. The Phase Two of this two-story building is not part of the review. The client has made a decision as to kind of differ that I think at this time so it’s more of just one fine day and not part of the application at this point. The zoo, we haven’t changed anything at this point with what’s inside other than that there’s the netting and the columns that spring off of the walls themselves; then imagery of the Phase Two building that I just mentioned and that’s it. Chair Lew: Great, thank you very much, Brent. Mr. Mcclure: Thank you. Chair Lew: If there are members of the public that want to speak at this item, now would be the time. Otherwise, I’ll bring it back to the Board for questions. No questions? Ok. Oh, yes, Peter? Board Member Baltay: Yes, for the applicant I guess. I noticed in your write up about the project that you’ve talked extensively about the concept of a tunnel from Middlefield and then a bridge at the dawn court yard. On the plans I see a concrete sidewalk so can you explain what’s really the presentation and why? Mr. Mcclure: We’ve been going through in real time in the last couple of month here from the application submittal and the narratives to where we are today looking at costs. One of the things that the clients looked at is a reduction at that spot. I think what we’ll look to do is the contractor has indicated that to do something that’s a complete and true bridge through there is more cost effective than to have it be more of a solid piece. What we would be looking to do is to (inaudible) some edges that cantilever out and maybe there could be some sections that could tunnel through so that we could give the implication that you’re still up and above to create that same effect. That’s kind of where we are at with that piece. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Lew: Why don’t we have Board Member comments; Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for coming back to the Board with this project. It’s a very exciting project and overall, I’m very pleased with the direction that it’s been heading in. I think the amount of work that you’ve put into this project in this amount of time is actually quite impressive. I have some very minor comments but overall, I’m very pleased with most everything, from the design of the site plans and the actual building itself, even down to the materials. Why don’t I pick up on the materials and as far as the roof material, I can see and understand perhaps some of the concerns that the HRB has brought up but for me, I think this building wants to be as environmentally friendly as possible and in tune with the surrounding and the site. To me, I think going with that darker roof color is actually creating more of a heat on effect and that would be my primary concern with the darker color. I think the taupe here in correlation with the more red color actually looks quite handsome. I think it would work fine and I appreciate the fact that your kind of accenting the skylights with that red color as well. One of the newer changes that I’m seeing with this set of plans as it’s developed from the last time that you presented to City of Palo Alto Page 5 us, is that tunnel connection from Middlefield to the main entrance to the museum. I’ve been kind of going back and forth with this. I think that way that it was originally presented it almost looked like a transparent area or section of that gable that became the tunnel and I thought from a simplicity standpoint that actually worked very well. It looked kind of interesting in the fact that you were changing from perhaps an opaque kind of roof to a more transparent kind of roof but I see that you’ve presented this gable scheme and this tunnel that goes from a larger opening towards Middlefield to a smaller opening towards the main entry to the museum. I was kind of thinking back to architectural history and a lot of the Chinese, Japanese, Korean gardens actually had these smaller portals that you would enter into. Not because of any height difference but really more so that you were creating this gesture of bowing as you enter and I really like that you are making this tunnel larger on Middlefield and smaller towards the entry of the museum. It’s kind of this similar experience of – even adults being kind of transformed into being a child again and I thought that was very nice. So, I think I’m ok with this new gable but the primary concern that I have is that how often is it going to be used? I think the majority of the people that are going to visit the museum are going to park in the parking lot and to have them go through the reverse process so going out to Middlefield and back in seems a little bit like a missed opportunity. I wonder if people are actually going to experience it in the desired manner. So, that was a comment on that but I think the idea and the concept of that tunnel is actually quite impressive and it’s too bad that we can’t maybe perhaps or perhaps we can even think about moving that somewhere to the main entry of the museum. Looking at the main entry of the museum, I’m glad that you’re showing us a little bit of a different placement in the signage. I was a little disappointed in the original yellow signage that was directly in the middle of the gable. I like that you’ve pushed it off to the side and that the art piece, the wind screen, becomes more of the feature there. I would just question if that wind screen has to be so rectangular and so plain as a shape? Perhaps it can follow the gable shape up and become more triangular at the top. Then I guess we’ll hold off any comments on the future two-story building since it’s not a part of this proposal. Looking through this set of plans, thank you for providing so much information, even these concept diagrams, just a minor comment on the Phase One proposed floor plan; you have these very dark shadow lines I think. It took me a while to understand that they were shadow lines but they kind of obscure the drawings so much that it becomes more of a distraction but it’s a very minor comment as we’re just picking up on the drawings. I think that’s really it for me. I like the depth and richness of the materials that are combined with a simple gable forms and I appreciate the amount of thought that’s been put into it. I understand that it’s a difficult challenge trying to balance out all these wonderful concepts along with the budget so I applaud your efforts. I am interested to hear what my fellow Board Members think, thank you. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Yeah, I agree, I think it’s a great step forward. I really like what you’ve done. The biggest concern I have and it was also in your presentation, you keep talking about the economy, trying to make it cost effective and everything else. I mean that – I understand what the reality of life is but you can also – a building like this is intended to be around for a while so I don’t want to see it where you constructed to cheaply that you end up with a maintenance nightmare for the next 50-years or whatever. We all know one of these buildings is going – whether they intend to or not, seem to stick around for 50 or so years; that is just the reality of it. It’s interesting that you mentioned the term butler building because that’s what I had in mind. Note also that it looks like a modified butler building and I don’t really want to push that too much. The biggest concern here is going to be, as with any metal building like this, is you’re going to probably have to spend a few bucks on making sure that the metal is covered. Meaning either a powdered coating type situation or whatever the case is and not just painting it and hoping that in 10-years the maintenance Staff at the museum will repaint it or whatever the case is. The elevation on – I think the elevation on Middlefield is a big improvement. The only thing that might be, if anything, is that possibly -- that middle section that is the darker color, possibly if you kick the roof up a couple feet just to break up that enormous continuous roof. That’s the only thing that I have a bit of a problem with. To bring the… Mr. Mcclure: Which section? I’m sorry. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Gooyer: This one, the top one you’ve got there, that very long uniform roof line. I’m saying this section in the middle where the windows are the dark red color. Possibly kick that (crosstalk) section up a couple of feet or something just to break up that very long elevation. Mr. Mcclure: So, maybe the roof (crosstalk)(inaudible)… Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) that kind of construction. You could just kick it up a couple of feet and it’s fine so that the cost issue is not that tremendous of difference. As to the – this whole difference of opinion as far as color - I personally prefer the taupe color, I think it works better than the charcoal and I think you ought to stay with that. I do like the entry, I’ve been involved in a couple of projects that – over years that deal with kids. I mean, I’d love to see that entry, which I know now a day are code infested design process that wouldn’t allow it but I would love to see that entry to drop down to about 5- foot 6 where the parent has to duck down. Which means it becomes sort of the haven of the children and the parent's sort of have to work at it to get into that same – but we both know that the building official would laugh at that. Anyway, be that as it may, it – I think I like or I should say I think that whole entry concept -the whole idea that this is for the kids, not for the parents. As far as the bridge, I can see it. I would have been nice and maybe it’s the kind of thing that’s sometime in the feature you get some generous donor that you can turn it into the whatever; ABC’s bridge that they donated or whatever. All and all I think it’s a big improvement and I can vote for it like this with a few minor modifications. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. More or less I echo the comments of my colleagues perhaps not quite ready to completely support it but I would like to comment that I looked at your drawing A-1.3 and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a drawing that more clearly explains an architectural concept. I was sort of thinking back over the process and I really would like to compliment that it’s been a pleasure to see good architects really work to come up with a concept and push it forward. This is really nice to you grasping what a kid’s museum should be like and then trying to give form to that and this notion of a tunnel and a bridge and then shelter leading to the park is really powerful. I say in that in part because I want you to feel good about it and partly because I’d like to see you push harder to keep that bridge. The idea of a bridge and of seeing water underneath you and having that explain why we have a bio-swell and retention system is really, really powerful. That’s education for kids and for adults and for the community. It’s a new thing that we’re trying to accomplish throughout and it seems to me that’s something that’s worth fighting for. So, I would just like to encourage you to get it as much as a push as you can and to go on the record that it’s an intricate part of your very strong concept. This is award winning stuff, this kind of concept and executing it is great. Ok, but, there’s always a but, I agree that we want to make it an architecture of our time. I’d like you to encourage thinking about making it of our place as well. I am troubled by this – what is essentially - what is an agricultural building. You’ve used the term butler building but it really is a metal shed and I think you’re not quite getting away from that enough. This is the heart of Palo Alto is a very important civil building and I think has the risk of looking like a farm shed. Especially the main part, where you choose to run the metal roofing down as siding, right down the edge; that’s exactly what a farmer does out in Stockton and that’s not where we are and that’s not really appropriate. I don’t – I think that we’ve missed that takes away from the Birge Clark design where you have a distinct roof and a wall that are very different. Different textures, colors, materials and I don’t want to tell you what the architecture should be but I’d almost prefer to see it all be the same with just a wood siding and a roof than having that metal roll down the side. I think that would look just to industrial, to agricultural and then Robert’s concerns about the painting it very real with that metal siding. The paint will eventually start to flake off no matter what you do and you’ll never have enough money to maintain that. It’s an expensive kind of thing to paint and you set them up for a long-term failure with that very, very inexpensive idea to begin with so again, I think it needs just a little bit more there. I keep saying that it may be of our time but it’s not yet of our place, which is equally important. Another concern that I have is the Middlefield elevation. I’ve expressed this before and I think you’re making steps towards doing things. It’s really nice to see the gable end picking up the motif of the building coming out on Middlefield but overall, it’s one long straightforward low building on a street that’s quite long. So, I did go out there again just to check and it is about the only place where you have this long of the building that is this continuous and I think Robert is absolutely correct. That changing the roof is City of Palo Alto Page 7 probably the way to break it up but I’d really like to see you get some more modulation on that façade if you could, and in and out or a breakup or some sense of another utility entrance. I was hoping that the trees and the fact that you’re driving by quickly would break it up but at least in my judgment when you go out there, that’s really not the case. It’s quite visible and it really will be the frontage, the face of the building, to most of the public as we drive by it every day and it’s not quite there. It’s come a long way with your first concept but if you could put half of the energy that you put into the creativity on figuring out how to make this for a kid and figure out how to make it for Palo Alto as well. How do we build next to Birge Clark? Where we see both of these in the same space of 30-seconds as we drive by; that would really be appreciated, so I don’t think it’s quite there yet on those two factors. The façade along Middlefield is still to uniform and I’m concerned about the overall gable form where the siding drops down the side giving it too much of an agricultural look. On a detail, I do share Kyu’s sense that the metal screen over the entry would be better served if it followed the gable on the inside. I’m just putting that out there in detail but Middlefield elevation and rethink the agricultural look. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Peter. I don’t have a lot to add to this particular – to the other Board Member’s comments. I think the project to me, looks great. It seems to me that I could meet the findings for this project. In my notes, I just have some nitpicky details. One is like the wood slats at your – at the entry porch. I guess I was curious about the finish of those if it was like a stain that would be applied to the wood and the maintenance – long term maintenance of them. It’s a high maintenance item and it’s a City project so that’s a concern. If you have a transparent stain that’s only going to last maybe 2-years before it would need to be touched up so that’s a concern. That’s a concern that the Board has had on other City project’s as well and on the other projects they’ve been changed too – like on Mitchell Park Library, I think the architect changed it to metal. I think they considered EPAY so I would – I’d like to see more information on that. On the – also on the building you’re showing – I guess it’s like an 8-foot wood and stucco fence along the park side, along that and I did see that in the perspective and I think I understand the details. I would like to just have a detail in the set. It seems to me – whenever I’ve done those wood slats, it – the size of the boards and the spacing of the boards is really important and it was an issue at the –with the Board on the Art Center project -also, just the species of the wood and the grade of the wood. On your landscaping plan, I think you’re showing small cape rush along the Middlefield Road planter strips and so those are like 2-3-feet high and I guess I would ask to consider having something within the door zone that’s lower. I mean typically you’re in a car – if there’s – there are typically lots of cars parked along that section of Middlefield so when they open the door usually they will damage – if a plant is a 3-feet high, it will get damaged by somebody opening the door. I would ask – consider something smaller along the curb. I think the plant is fine otherwise, outside of the door opening zone. On the colors, I did want to sort of echo the comments about the maintenance of it and I would just say like an example of what went wrong was there’s the CVS store on Middlefield Road which has the metal – red metal kind of like a (inaudible) and it looked terrible when it was faded. People were complaining and they weren’t repainting it and stuff and I don’t want that to happen on this particular project. It seems like the – I’ll differ to the other Board Members but it seems like you were mentioning that it could have a coating or the Kynar finishes that are much more durable than the painted finish. I don’t know how long those last but it seems like the Kynar lasts longer than powdered coating, I would think. Board Member Gooyer: But that lasts longer than painting so that’s what I was basically – something over and above painting. Chair Lew: Yeah and I guess it could but I don’t know how long and then we have to factor in – this is like a City – yeah, a City project and let’s say it should last, ideally, last 50-years? Board Member Baltay: We have Kynar 500 coated roofs and after about 20-years they look faded. That’s the honest truth. Chair Lew: So, then that gets to my next point, is if you have the red – I really do actually like the red color but it seems to me like faded red looks pretty terrible. It looks pink after a while and it seems to – if it’s a taupe or charcoal and it fades, nobody is going to notice the difference. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Gooyer: Well the other thing is like a Core 10, something like that. Board Member Baltay: The guys on the firehouse went to, wasn’t it Zinc (inaudible) or something? Board Member Gooyer: That’s very cost-prohibitive. Chair Lew: It’s expensive. Board Member Baltay: Well, it’s cost-prohibitive now but over 50-years, it’s probably the most cost- effective solution. Well, (crosstalk)(inaudible)… Board Member Gooyer: The Board on something like that isn’t going to say yes but it’s going to save our maintenance for the next 50-years. Board Member Baltay: Yeah but if we get a pink looking building 20-years from now. Chair Lew: Ok, so I think that’s where we are at. I think we want to see some more information and I wasn’t quite sure – actually, could I ask a clarification maybe from the architect or maybe Amy. Is the HRB’s concern about the – it was mentioned that they were concerned about the roof color. Are we saying that their recommendation is that the roof should be one color and the siding – the metal siding be a different color? Ms. French: No, I think what one Member on the subcommittee thought that is if you were going to go with the darker, she liked the darker charcoal I guess, but didn’t – thought it was too somber for that court yard. So, she suggested that you could pull the red down and have that providing some whimsy - but the other Member liked the taupe. Chair Lew: Ok, I think I get it. I think my other comment then would be if there where – if anybody ever foresees photovoltaics on the roof, I think charcoal is a better fit for that. Also, if – you’ve got skylights showing on there and again, I think generally a charcoal color works better with all of those aluminum skylights and the frame and the dark glass and what not. Then for all of the roof penetrations like plumbing vents and all the fans and all of that stuff, generally taupe looks better. I mean red could work but generally, a dark color is a little bit more forgiving and so that’s all that I have. We don’t have – I think we’re – the recommendation is to continue it. We don’t have… Board Member Gooyer: Can I just… Chair Lew: Yeah, yeah. Just one more thought is that we don’t have draft findings that we’re not going to comment on that yet. Vice Chair Kim: It’s the CEQA that we’re waiting for (inaudible). Chair Lew: Right. Board Member Gooyer: I just have one concern and you can see that I think more than one of us has that concern that the whole thing about the whole concept of it being metal. That there may need – that you may need to look at doing something other than metal or at least if it is metal, main framing metal but either cover it or something that – to get away from the whole butler – not even so much appearance but the concept. I don’t have a problem with the shape but it’s just I have a fear that, like you said, it’s going to turn into a pink building with rust all over the place. So, I think you need to at least possibly address the concept of using something other than that or a different framing system or something. Board Member Baltay: Are we as a Board willing to give them more clear direction on that? I really think it’s often really helpful if we come out and say it. To me, the concept of the Kynar 500 coating or any City of Palo Alto Page 9 kind of painted standing seam metal, as I listen to our comments, probably is just not the right solution. If you’re going to use metal, it really should be something like the zinc aluminum which is really expensive. So, maybe metal is the wrong choice for a civic building that we expect to last a long time. Chair Lew: Can we clarify maybe – could we differentiate or separate this – your comment into the roof and the siding because I think – because, in my mind, the siding needs to last longer than the roof. The roof isn’t going to last forever anyway, right? In theory, the siding should last longer than the roof. I mean normally we think the roof is going to last 25… Board Member Baltay: The roof takes more abuse. Chair Lew: Right, (inaudible)(crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible) you don’t typically paint a roof. You don’t typically paint metal roofing, siding, the standing seam. Once it’s manufactured, you don’t repaint it typically. It’s very hard to do that. Chair Lew: So, then you have another issue is that say the roof – typically the roof would be replaced before the siding and so if it’s all the same, then there’s the potential problem of matching the colors; you’re going to have to replace everything. Board Member Baltay: Do you think Birge Clark built Lucie Stern thinking the roof would be replaced after 25-years? We’re building to make timeless architecture, this is a civic –this is a public museum. Chair Lew: Yes, you know but they had the – I don’t know what the right word is. They built during the depression and they were under very different circumstances and they also built all of those buildings one at a time because she couldn’t solve her (inaudible) stock. I mean that was coming out of her income fund. Board Member Baltay: There’s fascinating history behind it all but when we’re creating civic architecture… Chair Lew: Right, we want it to last… Board Member Baltay: … (inaudible) corporate building and we know full well that maintenance is a real issue over time. It’s really hard to find the budget to keep these things up so now is the time to encourage to push – for the Architecture Board just to come out and say, standing seam metal on siding certainly and roofing is really not appropriate for a building like this when it’s painted or when its… Chair Lew: Ok, I think my take on this is just slightly different in that I think it’s fine for the roof and then I think the siding I think I’m more in agreement. Board Member Gooyer: At least if that’s the case then, unfortunately, if you do it for the roof you need to do a color that even if it fades, it really doesn’t change that drastically as compared to a pink or a red that’s goes to a pink. A beige is going to be – say a beige, not that I’m saying that it needs to be beige but something like that. That you end up with that sort of criteria. Chair Lew: I am in agreement with you about – on that. Any other – Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Just another minor comment, I thought the scale of the elevations was much too small for us to read. I just they would show up a little bit larger on a full-size set but for us, on the half size sets, they’re a little bit small. Then on sheet A-4.2, drawing number four, the elevation A, maybe it was a slightly – previously reiteration but to me, I think that gable should be shown on the right side of the building toward Middlefield and I don’t see that there so just a minor comment. Chair Lew: I have one last question for staff. On our favorite topic of parking, it seems like there’s no – there’s not a requirement – generally, there’s a net reduction in maybe two spaces but there are loading City of Palo Alto Page 10 zones. I was wondering just how the City was thinking about the parking requirement and the reason why I am asking today is that the – I was just at the site yesterday and it’s the peak of the summer and the park was in maximum use yesterday and the parking lot was pretty full. It wasn’t completely full but I was just wondering if the City had any thoughts about adding parking or are we trying not – are we trying to just keep everything as is? Ms. French: Yeah, I think conceptually with the bicycle circulation, the bus drops off, providing bike racks when they aren’t as many today, that’s key. We want to encourage people to drive less and we know that in the Rinconada Park plan, there is going to be some changes down the road over a long Hopkins. There’s a lot of street parking too. I know for a commercial business we don’t consider that but this is a Civic Center/Community Center and street parking is something that is also on public property. I think there’s a little bit of different thinking for this type of a use. Again, there’s an increase in zoo area, the animals will have a better experience and more place to reside. I don’t think that necessarily results in more cars. Again, we’re – and John can weigh in on programmatic aspects of this but we’re looking at – and you’ll – when you do get the CEQA document, you can see a description of this. We had opened to have that in your packet last week but it did get pushed a week so we can have more conversation about that in the next report. Chair Lew: Ok, thanks. Vice Chair Kim: Just a quick comment on the zoo area. I saw that in the central tree stump you have this glow in the dark type of thing, right? Could you explain that perhaps a little bit and if it’s a reasonable thing considering how early public facilities in Palo Alto and the effect – possible detrimentally effect towards the environment and animals in that area. Ms. Sarah Vaccaro: That’s the tree fort and that’s actually part of the future Phase Two. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, so that’s not technically a part of this project? Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Yeah, I have a question for Staff, Jodie? So, if we can continue this to date certain, is there a date in particular? Ms. French: September 21st would be preferable. Yeah, I think September 21st, we’ll stick with that and if they are able to beat that, we can always advertise it for earlier. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you, that’s – so… MOTION Board Member Baltay: I’d like to move that we continue this project to September 21st subject to the comments that we’ve made. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: Great, so we have a motion to continue it by Baltay and seconded by Gooyer. All in favor? Opposed? None and Board Member Furth is absent. Great, thank you. The project is looking good and we’ll look to see this back in September. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER FURTH ABSENT 1 French, Amy From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:30 PM To:French, Amy; Aikin, John; Architectural Review Board Subject:Junior Museum re-send with better formatting Attachments:P1170916.jpg; P1170918.jpg; IMG_0984.jpg; IMG_0992.jpg; IMG_0991.jpg   To     Ms. French, Mr. Aikin, and the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board,              Please accept my apology for this re‐send of an email conveyed to you earlier today.            The below version should have better formatting for your screen.            One sentence was added here, suggesting that perhaps the long massive roof facing Middlefield might be broken  up, architecturally.            The rest is the same.   Thank you.  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐        Thank you for your time to read concerns sent to you in August about the proposed design for the Junior Museum.    Below are additional comments on how the proposed design appears to not comply with the required findings for  Architectural Review:    In section 2  a. “The design is to create an internal sense of order and a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the  general community”         Comment:  The tall airy windows and internal spaces of the proposed design are great. However, the overall  design is utilitarian and barn‐like in        appearance, employing metal roofing and walls which appear uncomfortably cold,  harsh and inappropriately  rustic for the center of town.           This does not promote a comfortable environment, nor a sense of order.    b. “The design is to preserve, respect and integrate natural features that contribute positively to the site and the  historic character including historic    Resources of the area”             Comment:  Although some trees are included in the landscape plan, more incorporation of trees and natural  landscaping might enhance this            nature museum’s setting in this tree‐lined neighborhood.            Historically:  the proposed building does not blend in with the adjacent elegant, historic Mediterranean style  Community Center or the nearby            established neighborhood.                                       Part of Palo Alto’s Spanish history (El Palo Alto, El Camino Real) and charm revolve, at least in part, around its  traditional Spanish style            architecture.  While a different style of building for a nature museum may be appropriate,  the Junior  Museum is part of the Community            Center, and should at least reflect the elegance and permanence of nearby classically styled buildings.  2   d. “ Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and … designations”             Comment:   the massive, industrial character of the proposed building is not harmonious with the character of  the adjacent Community Center,            which is an architectural jewel of the city, nor is the proposed building compatible with the elegant, small‐ scale style of the neighborhood.    e. “Enhances living conditions….in adjacent residential areas”                      Comment:  the proposed design is industrial looking, and does not blend in with the adjacent residential area  in terms of style or character.                     Perhaps breaking up the massive design of the long roof facing Middlefield would add more interest to the  building, and scale it down.    In Section 3            “The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction  techniques, and incorporating textures,              colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area”                Comment:  the proposed design does not appear to utilize high‐quality materials or rich architectural  detailing.  More use of natural, quality               materials would be better.              The use of metal appears harsh and cold.  Painting metal in colors may not soften it or make it any more elegant.    In Section 6:  … “sustainability”                       Comment: although this section refers to energy efficiency,   in regard to architectural style, the idea of  “sustainability” could apply to the concept                     of timelessness.  The city of Palo Alto should not spend valuable resources erecting a trendy industrial  structure, but instead should wisely invest                     in a more timeless, elegant architecture befitting the historic Community Center and charming neighborhood  surrounding it.    Having recently been in Oregon, attached for you are some photos taken at the High Desert Museum near Bend,  which  includes many live animal exhibits as well as cultural and historic exhibits.  When asked how this spectacular museum could look so new when it is actually decades old, the museum associate  immediately responded to me:  “because the design is timeless.”    Thank you,      Kim Atkinson       1753 Middlefield Road       Palo Alto   94301              Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8252) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2120 Staunton: New Duplex (1st formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2120 Staunton Ct [16PLN- 00419]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Two Existing Dwelling Units and Construction of a new 3,124 Square Foot Duplex. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: RMD(NP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at APetersen@m- group.us From: Madina Klicheva K Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The proposed duplex is two stories in height with a basement under each unit and attached one car garage. The project also involves the demolition of two existing single family homes and a shed and other modifications to the site. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.10.140(a) of the Zoning Code, architectural review is required because the project is located in the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District. Background Project Information Owner: Zachary Trailer & John E McNellis Architect: Natalie Hyland, Hyland Design Group, Inc. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Representative: Natalie Hyland, Hyland Design Group, Inc. Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 2120 Staunton Court Neighborhood: College Terrace Lot Dimensions & Area: 54.60 ft. along Staunton Court x 107.34 ft. along Oxford Avenue 5,865 square feet (sf) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, a protected redwood on an abutting property located at 2130 Staunton Court Historic Resource(s): The site has not been identified as an historic resource. Existing Improvement(s): Two single story homes and a shed; built in 1940 Existing Land Use(s): Multi-Family residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northeast: PC-5609 (mixed-use development) Northwest: RMD(NP) (multi-family) Southeast: CN (single family residential) (commercial land uses) Southwest: RMD(NP) (two story single family) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps – may not represent current conditions on the property Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District, Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (RMD(NP)) Comp. Plan Designation: Multiple-Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant requests approval of an Architectural Review application to construct a new duplex. The proposed duplex is 24-feet 2-inches in height, and consists of two floors above a basement. Each unit includes a covered porched located at the front of the unit, one covered parking space in a garage for each unit, and one parking space in a separate driveway located at the southern end of the site. Table 1 below provides a summary of the floor area for each of the units. Table 1: Project Area Summary in Square Feet Unit A Unit B Street Level 697 684 Second Level 661 648 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Garage 217 217 Total FAR 1,575 1,549 Covered Porch 21 21 Basement Area 908 890 Total Project sf 2,504 2,460 The proposed duplex mirrors the property dimensions, with a longer façade along Oxford Avenue and shorter façade along Staunton Court. The second floor of the duplex is setback from the first floor along Oxford Avenue, but incorporates gabled dormer window projections. Roof eaves on the second and third floor include rafter tails. Materials from the proposed duplex consists of board and batten siding, aluminum clad windows with wood casings, standing seam metal roofs that separate the first and second floor, and a composition roof on the second floor. The project proposes multiple site modifications to implement the project. This includes the demolition of two existing single story homes, measuring a total of 1,284 square feet, and a shed that is 153 square feet. The project includes site modifications that comprise construction of two new curb cuts, two driveways, grading and drainage modifications and installation of fencing. Fencing in the front yard of the building facing Staunton Court proposes to be four-feet in height, while a six-foot high fence is proposed approximately 30-feet from Oxford Avenue towards the rear of the site. The project also proposes to remove three street trees and replace them with three new purple ash street trees. A walnut and privet tree located onsite will be removed as well. A large redwood tree that is considered protected is located on a separate parcel to the southeast of the project site. The project is designed to not affect this tree. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.10.140(b)(2). PAMC 18.10.140(b)(2) states that design review and approval is required by the ARB for properties on which two or more residential units are developed. The design review is required pursuant to procedures listed in PAMC 18.76.020, which refers projects to the ARB. The process for evaluating this type of application is further set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Development Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B.  Individual Review (IR) – The project is subject to the provisions of PAMC 18.10.040(i). PAMC 18.10.040(i) states that the Individual Review provisions of Section 18.12.110 of the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Zoning Ordinance are applicable to two-family residences in the RMD district to those sides of a site that share an interior side lot line with the interior side or rear lot line of a property zoned for or used for single-family or two-family dwellings. The individual review criteria are applied only to the project’s effects on adjacent single-family and two-family uses. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is surrounded by a mixture of development patterns with similar uses. Uses are primarily residential in nature and consist of a single-family residence to the east and south of the site. Similar multi-family uses, comprised of two story buildings, are located to the northwest, west, and southwest of the site. The project is similar in height, scale and massing as buildings located two parcels to the east and south of the site, as well as those buildings located to the west, northwest, and southwest. Large scale mixed-use development (College Terrace Centre at 2100 El Camino Real) is finishing construction to the north-northeast of the site as well. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre. The project has a density of 14.85 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the intended multiple-family residential density. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Zoning Compliance3 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. The proposed project complies with applicable development standards, contained in Attachment D, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) The NP Combining District (PAMC 18.10.140) is intended to foster retention of existing single- family structures, to foster additions to existing properties without demolition of sound residential structures, and to assure compatibility of design of new residential units with existing structures on the same or surrounding properties. Its purpose is further clarified, which is to achieve compatibility of scale, silhouette, façade articulation, and materials of new construction with existing structure on the same property or on surrounding properties within a combining district. Staff evaluated the proposed project subject to the historical significance of the existing homes and relative to the projects compatibility with the scale, silhouette, façade articulation, and materials. The site contains homes constructed in the 1940s that meet the age criterion to warrant further evaluation on whether they could be eligible for listing as historic structures. The applicant submitted a Historic Resource Evaluation, which was peer reviewed by staff (Attachment G). Both the Historic Resource Evaluation and the peer review determined that the existing homes do not meet the standards for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Further, the applicant notes that the homes have deteriorated in quality, with severe deferred maintenance throughout. Therefore, the structures are not sound and do not warrant additions. The applicant designed the proposed duplex to be compatible with the surrounding properties. The proposed duplex uses similar siding as the units found on Staunton Court. The unit immediately east of the project contains horizontal wood siding, while the second structure to the east contains vertical siding. The projects vertical wood board and batten siding would be similar to the vertical siding on the second structure east of the project. Additionally, the adjacent structures along Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue contain composition roofing, as does the proposed project. The project’s standing seam metal roof that separates the first floor from the second floor covers a small area of the structure, and provides a contrast in materials, but is also compatible with the composition roofing because it consists of a durable roof material. Given these design features, the project contains similar and compatible materials as the existing structures surrounding the site. The project is also consistent with the requirements for compatible scale, silhouette, and façade articulation. The scale of the different buildings along Staunton Court is inconsistent. A three-story building measures approximately 38 feet in height and 48 feet wide, while a single- family home, which is located between the three-story building and the proposed project, is approximately 16 feet in height and 20 feet wide. The proposed duplex is 24 feet two-inches tall, which is in the height range of the two structures on Staunton Court. Further, the plate heights are similar between the duplex and the single-story home. The subfloor of the second floor of the duplex is at the top of ceiling of the first floor of the single-story home. The width of City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 the duplex is also in the range of the structures as the width measures approximately 36 feet. While the scale appears undetermined along Staunton Court, the proposed project is within the range of the height and width. Given the variety of dimensions of the structures along Staunton Court, the project would also have a silhouette that is similar in profile as the existing structures. Image 1 below depicts the compatible scale, silhouette and façade articulation along Staunton Court. Image 1 – Staunton Court Streetscape The scale of the duplex is also compatible to those homes along Oxford Avenue. Homes along Oxford Avenue are approximately 26 feet and 23 feet high and measure up to 54 feet in width. The project’s height of approximately 24 feet and a width of approximately 60 feet represent similar dimensions to the existing building along this side of the block. Additionally, the two adjacent buildings along Oxford Avenue are two-story structures, which matches the project. Image 2 below depicts the compatible scale, silhouette and façade articulation along Oxford Avenue. Image 2 – Oxford Avenue Streetscape Individual Review Guidelines The project has been reviewed by the City’s consulting architect for conformance with the five Individual Review Guidelines as detailed in Attachment H. In keeping with this review, draft conditions have been added to the project’s conditions of approval (Attachment C). Staff would appreciate the ARB’s review of the eight (8) conditions that may be necessary to ensure the project’s conformance with the Individual Review Guidelines. The project in general complies with the IR Guidelines as follows: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8  Site Planning – The IR review notes that the proposed house would maintain the pattern of site development in the neighborhood relative to footprint location, building orientation, and yard areas. However, there are minor improvements that have been conditioned to improve the site planning and context. These include: o Project the roof edge at the front porch entries an additional foot and enlarge the wood brackets. o The applicant could use an alternative paving surface for the driveway. o The applicant could plant 24 inch box trees and/or 8 foot tall screening shrubs, consisting of fast growing evergreen species along the interior side and rear lot lines.  Neighborhood Compatibility for Height, Mass and Scale – The proposal’s height, mass, and scale fit the neighborhood conditions fairly well and are generally consistent with nearby structures.  Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing and Rooflines – Conditions could be added to include widening the bay window along Staunton Court, and alter the roof pitch to a lower 5:15 for all building roof edges, to better conform with this Guideline.  Visual Character of Street Facing Façades and Entries – Generally, the design of the façades, materials and detailing are consistent with the intent of the IR Guidelines. However, the following conditions could be added to enhance the design: o The garage doors could be stained wood with stile and rail construction, and a panel design that coordinates with the entry doors. o Provide 24-inch overhangs at eaves and rakes. o Extend the head trim four to six inches from the jamb trim.  Placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks for Privacy – Privacy impacts appear limited. There are large windows at the stairs facing the side lot line. Since these locations have movement there would be less impact than if the windows were at a room. At the rear elevation, high sill windows are used at the master bedroom and bathroom. Privacy impacts, therefore, should be minimal on the 575 Oxford Street property. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to Architectural Review Findings as further discussed in Attachment B. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(b) (New Construction). The project consists of a proposal to demolish two existing 1940s homes and develop a new duplex in its place. The proposed exemption allows for a new duplex, totaling no more than six units in an urbanized area. The applicant submitted a Historic Resource Evaluation, which was peer reviewed by staff (Attachment G). It was determined the existing homes do not meet the standards for listing on the California Register of Historic City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Resources (CRHR) or on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Therefore, the project is consistent with the subject exemption. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on September 8, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 8, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments A neighboring resident provided comments early in the project concerning potential impacts to the redwood tree located offsite. The applicant addressed these comments and designed the project to ensure it respected and protected the redwood tree. Specifically, the applicant submitted a letter (Attachment F) that responded to the resident’s concerns. The project includes a condition of approval that requires all landscaping and trees to be maintained, watered, fertilized and pruned. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Adam Petersen, Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 106 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description (DOCX)  Attachment F: Resident Correspondence and Response (PDF)  Attachment G: Historic Evaluation and Peer Review (PDF)  Attachment H: Individual Review Evaluation (DOCX)  Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2120 Staunton Court 16PLN-00419 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.  The design of the two-unit development is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the site is designated Multiple Family Residential and the Comprehensive Plan Table indicates compliance with the applicable policies.  The project promotes medium density residential development The proposed project is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan, including the following goals and policies: Land Use and Community Design Element The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multiple-Family Residential. The project continues the multiple-family land use. Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The project maintains the scale and character of the surrounding development. The project consists of a two story duplex unit with the second floor setback from the first. Three story and two story developments encompass the project site. These complexes are located to the northwest, north, northeast, south, southeast and southwest of the project. Therefore, the project is similarly in size and scale as other developments and the project represents a well-designed building because of its consistency with the existing development size of scale of the neighborhood. POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Goal L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct Character and Within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places. The project is consistent Policies L-12 and L- 14, and therefore implements Goal L-3. The project provides direct connections from the entrances to the sidewalk and street. These features establish a defined primary frontage along Oxford Avenue. The project preserves the character of the residential neighborhood by providing a residential use that is similar in scale, silhouette and materials as the adjacent structures. Further, the project is located across the street from a new mixed-use development with commercial and service type uses along El Camino Real. Therefore, the project fulfills Goal L-3 of creating safe, attractive residential neighborhoods in walking distance of shopping and services. POLICY L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. POLICY L-14: Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces, so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The project is a high-quality design that is compatible with the surrounding development. The project is similar in scale, silhouette and materials as the surrounding buildings. The project employs board and batten siding, composition roofing and metal roofing on a mid-story roof. These high- quality materials are found in the surrounding structures. Similarly, the dimensions of the building, including the height, are representative of buildings on the adjacent sites. The project provides entry ways that are human scaled along the Oxford Avenue frontage with covered porches, and all facades are articulated and incorporate windows. These features avoid blank walls and create a building with human-scaled details and massing. Therefore, the project creates a coherent development pattern and enhances City streets and public spaces. POLICY L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. POLICY L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. The project supports a pedestrian-friendly design by providing direct connections from the sidewalk to the front door. The project POLICY T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. also enhances the pedestrian environment by providing new street trees that buffer the sidewalk from the street. The project also contains locations for bike parking, on-site parking, and architectural details. Providing these features encourage and promote walking and bicycling, and therefore fulfill Goal T-3 of the Comprehensive Plan. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. The project is not subject to any coordinated area plans. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The existing structures onsite are in poor condition and do not warrant repair. Construction of a new duplex project will upgrade the quality of development in the area. Therefore, the two-unit townhome building will provide a more desirable environment for the resident’s and the passersby. An internal sense of order is inherent in the design. The windows are positioned to naturally illuminate the interior. The two units are mirrored forms that embrace the street frontage along Oxford Avenue by providing direction connections from the street via pathways that lead to porch entrances. The circulation for pedestrians is a clear path from the street. The resulting exterior spaces are clear in their functions. Backyards provide gathering spaces for the occupants, which can be accessed from side yards. The project is not subject to the context- based design criteria. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the building is located within a low-density residential zone district where other buildings of similar size and scale are common. The design is a reflection of its residential use. Individual entries and detailed materials reinforce a pedestrian scale. The forms are informal and varied reflecting a residential character. The design concentrates the bulk at the middle of the site. The stepping design creates a harmonious transition between the street and the building. The design is compatible with the sidewalks, roadway, utilities and other existing improvements. The proposed front landscaping will enhance the improvements both on and off site. The design is of high aesthetic quality, with high quality materials that integrated into the building, with appropriate textures, colors, and details. The project includes high quality materials represented by the board and batten siding, illuminated garage doors and entries, rafter tails, standing seam metal roofs and composition roofing. Further, the project as conditioned, is consistent with the Individual Review design guidelines, which ensures a high aesthetic quality. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The design is functional allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and cyclist traffic. The project includes parking in the driveway for the units and an additional parking space located at the southern end of the site. Gated backyards provide secured bicycle parking with pathways that lead to the street. All types of parking are easily accessible. Storage for waste and recycling has been accommodated. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The applicant has designed the project to respect natural features by designing a project that will adversely impact with the adjacent protected redwood tree. Drought tolerant landscaping is proposed throughout the project site and efficient irrigation systems are to be provided as reflected in the proposed irrigation plans. Natural features will not be displaced. As conditioned, landscaping along the side and rear property lines and adjacent to the duplex softens views of the site from the adjacent residential units. Additional trees are provided along the street edge to create separated sidewalk that buffers pedestrian users. Each of these proposed features creates a desirable habitat for plants that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. Page 1 of 14 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2120 Staunton Court 16PLN-00419 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "A Proposed Duplex, 2120 Staunton Court, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on June 21, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 6. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Given the proposed building will replace existing square footage, no additional impact fees are due. Page 2 of 14 8. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90- DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 9. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MAY BE NEEDED TO ENSURE THE PROJECT’S CONFORMANCE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES. ARB RECOMMENDATION IS REQUESTED ON THE FOLLOWING EIGHT CONDITIONS. 10. The applicant shall project the roof edge at the front porch entries an additional foot (two-foot eave) and enlarge the wood brackets. 11. The applicant shall use an alternative paving surface for the single car parking space. 12. The applicant shall plant 15 gallon trees and/or tall screening shrubs, consisting of fast growing evergreen species along the interior side and rear lot lines. 13. The applicant shall widen the bay window at the master bedroom that it faces street to the full width of the bedroom’s sleeping area and to extend it forward one foot more out from the building wall. 14. The applicant shall alter the roof pitch to a lower 5:15 for all building roof edges. 15. The garage doors shall be stained wood with stile and rail construction and a panel design that coordinates with the entry doors. 16. The applicant shall provide 24-inch overhangs at eaves and rakes. Page 3 of 14 17. Extend the head trim four to six inches from the jamb trim. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 11. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 12. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650- 496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 13. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 14. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written Page 4 of 14 permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 15. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Applicant shall install a water station for the reuse of dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed next to the right-of-way and shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station shall also be sued for onsite dust control. Applicant shall meet with Public Works to coordinate the design details. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 16. WATER FILLING STATION: Due to the California drought, applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 17. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the Page 5 of 14 house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 18. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 19. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 20. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 21. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 22. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 23. RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: Page 6 of 14  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 24. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. The applicant shall provide a calculation of the amount of impervious surface area being created or replaced. If the new or replaced impervious surface area is greater than or equal to the regulatory threshold, then the City’s regulations require that the project incorporate a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality. The applicant will be required to identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavers rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a specified “water quality storm” prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. The applicant must designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently an $360 C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 25. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $350 C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 26. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of- way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” Page 7 of 14 PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 27. Design Plan Changes. The following conditions are required to be incorporated into a revised plan set prior to Planning entitlement approval: a. Protected redwood #1 Restrictions. Provide an enlarged Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) [15’ minimum to preserve more root area] from the trunk perimeter scaled to the nearest excavation and laterally expanding. Stipulate vertical cut and all attendant shoring precautions to be executed outside that restriction area. Detail exact fencing placement for each phase, root buffer extension and foot traffic access zones. Show all side yard grading, drainage or improvements with a soil cut limit of 4” or less. b. Minor end-weight and perimeter pruning under supervision of the project arborist is supported. c. Pervious area required in TPZ. Specify a permanent soaker irrigation system to offset root loss over the long term [beneath decking, decomposed granite or modest landscape plantings]. d. Civil & Landscape Plans. Change to conform to new street tree configurations defined below. 28. Building permit--Submittal Review. Prior to submittal for staff review, the plans submitted for City of Palo Alto building permit shall be reviewed by the Project Arborist to certify by letter the following: (a) that all of their recommendations have been incorporated into the final plan set; (b) affirms that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner; (c) understands revisions (site, plan design or construction changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for written clearance prior to approval from City and, (d) the plan set has incorporated the following information: a. Updated Tree Preservation Report (TPR) with design changes and updated preservation measures resolving grading proximity, basement or line trenching, minimize root and branch cutting conflicts, etc. b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Arborist Certification form letter is available at the City Development Center. 29. Plan Set Requirements. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on the relevant plan sheets: a. Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!). Applicant shall complete the following sections on numbered Sheet T-1: Tree Disclosure Statement, Inspections, and Monthly Reporting. Page 8 of 14 b. Updated Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of a 100% construction level TPR approved by the City to be executed shall be printed on numbered Sheets T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. c. Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on civil plans, demolition plans, grading plans, foundation plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans the applicable, Type I, Type II or Type III, fencing around each Regulated Tree as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Preservation Report) per instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans). 30. All other Plan Notes. Each civil plan sheet, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans, basement and foundation, utility plans and relevant sheets shall include the below relevant notes applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees. a. “Note #1: Tree Protection. All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be executed in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans” b. “Note #2: Regulated Tree—before working in this area contact the Project Arborist at 415-_______, email, ________” (applicant to insert correct information) c. “Note #3: Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape installation. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” Utility Sheets (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain). d. “Note #4. Basement or foundation Sheets. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496- 5953.” e. “Note #5. Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” f. “Note #6: Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification to the City. The LA shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for the following: i. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. ii. Final grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger removed. iii. A turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) has been established for best tree performance. Page 9 of 14 iv. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. 31. Tree Removal & Replacement—Right-Of-Way Trees. Plans shall show three existing publicly- owned declining trees along Oxford and replaced with three new trees. An additional fourth tree shall be shown in a grated sidewalk planter along the Staunton frontage. An Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit shall be processed separate from any other building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions will be issued. Contact (650-496-5953).” 32. New Right-Of-Way Trees—Performance Measures. a. New trees shall be shown in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. b. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” c. Landscape Plans shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and planting Std Dwg. #603, #603a, #604 or #604A (reference which), and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. i. Species for new RoW trees: 24” box size, Fraxinus p. ‘Autumm Purple’, Autumn Purple Ash (consistent with new streetscape in the area). d. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513A shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two drip loop lines or bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. 33. New Trees—Soil Volume. Plans shall label sidewalk or asphalt base underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] and clearly locate each special treatment area using the Sidewalk Root Channel Planter Design. a. Unless otherwise approved, each of the four new right-of-way trees shall be provided with a minimum of 800 cubic feet of rootable soil. CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603A & 513A shall be added to the relevant civil drawings and landscape sheets and index. Note: this expectation requires coordination with the engineer, arborist and landscape architect. b. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). When approved, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base or channeling to a landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use. Designated areas will be identified by cross-hatch or other symbol, and specify a Page 10 of 14 minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. DURING CONSTRUCTION 34. Tree Protection Verification. Prior to any site work the contractor shall ensure that the required protective fencing is in place, informing the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required weatherproof warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 35. Excavation Restrictions Apply (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 36. Plan Changes. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (Ray Morneau, 650.964.7664), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 37. Tree Protection Compliance. The owner and contractor shall execute all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall photo document and provide monthly activity monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 38. Tree Damage. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 39. General. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 40. Urban Forestry Digital File & Inspection. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public Page 11 of 14 property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). 41. Landscape Certification Letter. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 42. Final Arborist Inspection Letter. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 43. Planning Inspection. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650- 329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 44. Maintenance. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 45. The applicant shall include a product specification for the long term bicycle parking facility on plans submitted for a building permit. UTILITIES - WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 46. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 47. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet per parcel/lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the Page 12 of 14 information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 48. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 49. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 50. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 51. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 52. Single and multi-family up to 4 unit residences that have fire sprinklers served off the domestic water service shall have an approved double check assembly (DCA) installed on the main water service connection. DCAs shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the point of service within 5 feet of the property line. 53. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 54. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, PE or VCP meeting CPAU video inspection criteria) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 55. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. Page 13 of 14 56. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 57. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 58. A new water service line installation for fire system usage may require. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 59. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 60. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. 61. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 62. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 63. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 64. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer backwater valve at the front of the building. This is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. Page 14 of 14 65. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. FIRE DEPARTMENT 66. Install a NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 67. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2120 Staunton Court, 16PLN-00419 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.10 (RMD DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 5,000-9,999 sf area, 50-foot width, 100-foot depth 5,865 square feet (sf) 54.60 feet along Staunton Court x 107.34 feet along Oxford Avenue 5,865 square feet (sf) 54.60 feet along Staunton Court x 107.34 feet along Oxford Avenue Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet PAMC 18.10.050(a)(3), eaves are permitted to encroach four feet into a required front-yard Approximately 12.5 feet 21 feet consistent with PAMC 18.10.050(a)(3), eaves encroach approximately one- foot into the required front yard Rear Yard 20 feet PAMC 18.10.050(a)(3), eaves are permitted to encroach four feet into a required rear-yard Approximately 12 feet 20 feet 10 inches pursuant to 18.10.050(a)(3), eaves encroach one-foot into rear yard Interior Side Yard 6 feet 6 feet 9 feet 8 inches Street Side Yard 16 feet Approximately 5 feet 16 feet; pursuant to 18.10.050(a)(3), eaves encroach one-foot into street side yard Special Setback N/A N/A N/A Max. Building Height 35 feet as measured to the peak of the roof Approximately 16 feet 24 feet 2 inches Side Yard Daylight Plane 15 feet at interior side lot line then 45-degree angle N/A Project does not protrude into daylight plane Rear Yard Daylight Plane 15 feet at rear setback line then 45-degree angle N/A Project does not protrude into daylight plane Max. Site Coverage 40% (2,346 sf) 25.1% (1,477 sf) 31.6% (1,857 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 50% for first 5,000 sf lot size and 50% for lot size in excess of 5,000 sf, plus 200 sf additional area permitted for the covering of one parking space (4) = Total Allowed is 3,132 sf 21.8% (1,284 sf) 53.2% (3,124 sf) Complies given 200 sf bonus to allowable FAR ratio. Max. House Size 6,000 sf (5) 1,477 sf 4,964 sf Minimum Usable Open Space 450 sf per unit 622 sf. 682 sf. Light Well Screening All proposed light wells and below-grade basements shall be screened to minimize visibility from public rights-of-way or other public properties. No existing light wells Light wells along Oxford Avenue are screened with wrought-iron guardrails to obscure views from the right- of-way. Residential Density, minimum site area permitting two units 5,000 sf 5,865 sf 5,865 sf (4) Exemption from Floor Area for Covered Parking Required for Two-Family Uses: In the R-2 and RMD districts, for two-family uses, floor area limits may be exceeded by a maximum of two hundred square feet, for purposes of providing one required covered parking space. (5) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached second dwelling units are included in the calculation of maximum house size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation. This provision applies only to single-family residences, not to duplexes allowed in the R-2 and RMD districts. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.10.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Two-Family Residential Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1.5 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. Tandem Parking Allowed, with one tandem space per unit, associated directly with another parking space for the same unit 1 space in a garage 2 spaces uncovered 2 spaces in a garage – one each per unit 2 spaces in a driveway – one each per unit 1 space in a separate uncovered driveway Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) None 2 spaces, with 1 space per unit DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 2120 STAUNTON COURT RE: PROPOSED NEW DUPLEX On the corner of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue one block west of El Camino exists a 5,865 sf corner lot with two small single family structures. The first structure (536 sf) located at 2120 Staunton Avenue and the second structure (642sf) is located at 567 Oxford Avenue are surrounded by a mixture of single family residences, multi-family units and commercial buildings. The proposed project is a new 2 story Duplex that includes 2690 sf of living, 1790 sf of basement, 424 sf of garage and 42 sf of covered porch which would replace the two existing structures that currently sit on the property. The 2- Unit duplex will house up to 2 families and be for rent. The Main Level will consist of a Living Room, Dining room, Kitchen and Powder Room. The upper level includes the Master Suite a bedroom bath and stacked laundry closet. The Basement includes a Recreation Room, bedroom and bath. The Architectural style of the building is farm house with Paint Grade Board and Batten siding, a Standing Seam Roof at the Covered Porches and lower roof contrasted with a Composition Roof at the upper level. The garage door is framed in Oil Rubbed Bronze with glass panels. There are farm house style exterior lights and paint grade front doors. The intent of the design is to attract a fresh modern but classic look that matches the recently build condos across the street that are similar in color and style. The body of the house and all trim work and casing will be painted white. The white will be contrasted with the Front Door, Garage Door, windows and exterior light fixtures which will all be black. The enclosed area map depicts the adjacent structure usage. As you will find there is a mixture of styles, uses and sizes. We believe the proposed project will fit into the neighborhood better than the current existing structure which over the years has become dwarfed by all the new development in the area. From:Pria Graves To:Adam PetersenCc:Dave Dockter Subject:Re: 2120 Staunton - What is the status? Date:Monday, May 29, 2017 4:38:14 PM Hi Adam, Thanks for sending these along. I’m pleased that the designer seems to have paid close attention to my comments and that steps are being taken to improve the protection of the redwood. I’m very pleased by the changes outlined in their summary on page 3 of the response. I think these will go a long way to allowing the redwood to survive. We do need to remain vigilant, however, to ensure that at any sign of distress to the tree, remedial steps are taken promptly. I am, however, mystified by Ms. Hyland’s response to my comment #1 on page 1. She states that “we jogged the lower basement wall in, eliminating one bedroom to allow more room for tree roots”. Comparing the Lower Level plan (Sheet A2.2) in the new plans with that in the plans from last December, the outline and measurements of the basement level appear to be practically identical. So I cannot see the improvement in root space that she is referring to. Could you please clarify? I could also make some comments regarding the arborist’s rather dismissive response but it’s probably safer not to. Suffice it to say that while I am not an arborist, I do have some training in the area. Regards, Pria Graves On May 26, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us> wrote: Good Afternoon Pria, 2120 Stuanton has resubmitted. Attached are the plans and response letter. Sincerley, Sincerely,   ADAM PETERSEN | SENIOR PLANNER M-GROUP  A NEW DESIGN ON URBAN PLANNINGPOLICY  ·  DESIGN  ·  ENVIRONMENTAL  ·  HISTORIC  ·  ENGAGEMENT  ·  STAFFING CAMPBELL | SANTA ROSA | NAPA | HAYWARD307 ORCHARD CITY DR. SUITE 100 | CAMPBELL | CA | 95008 | 408.340.5642 ext. 106 | c. 530.574.0857 M-LAB: A THINK TANK FOR CITIES: JOIN THE CONVERSATION! From: Pria Graves [mailto:priag@birketthouse.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 3:11 PM To: Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us>Cc: Dave Dockter <Dave.Dockter@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: 2120 Staunton - What is the status? Many thanks for being vigilant! As I’ve mentioned to you and to Dave I am really worried about their proposal to undermine the lovely redwood tree! Pria On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us> wrote: Good Morning Pria, I'll continue to keep you posted if I hear anything from the applicant. Last week, I requested that the applicant inform me of a date when they plan to resubmit. I have not received a response. Sincerely, ADAM PETERSEN | SENIOR PLANNER M-GROUP  A NEW DESIGN ON URBAN PLANNING POLICY  ·  DESIGN  ·  ENVIRONMENTAL  ·  HISTORIC  ·  ENGAGEMENT  ·  STAFFING CAMPBELL | SANTA ROSA | NAPA | HAYWARD 307 ORCHARD CITY DR. SUITE 100 | CAMPBELL | CA | 95008 | 408.340.5642 ext. 106M-LAB: A THINK TANK FOR CITIES: JOIN THE CONVERSATION! From: Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 6:20:52 PM To: Adam PetersenCc: dave Dockter Subject: Re: 2120 Staunton - What is the status? Hi Adam - I’m glad to be on your radar. And on Dave Docktor’s! Please do let me know if the developers submit any new plans. I’m worried that they talked with Dave but didn’t apparently include you. Best, Pria On Apr 11, 2017, at 11:53 AM, Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us> wrote: Good Morning Pria, I have not received information about the project being resubmitted. I'll let you know when it is. Also, please feel free to contact me at this email address as I do not have readily available access to my city email. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, ADAM PETERSEN | SENIOR PLANNER M-GROUP  A NEW DESIGN ON URBAN PLANNING POLICY  ·  DESIGN  ·  ENVIRONMENTAL  ·  HISTORIC  ·  ENGAGEMENT  ·  STAFFING CAMPBELL | SANTA ROSA | NAPA | HAYWARD 307 ORCHARD CITY DR. SUITE 100 | CAMPBELL | CA | 95008 | 408.340.5642 ext. 106M-LAB: A THINK TANK FOR CITIES: JOIN THE CONVERSATION! From: Petersen, Adam <Adam.Petersen@CityofPaloAlto.org>Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:52 AMTo: Adam Petersen Subject: FW: 2120 Staunton - What is the status? -----Original Message----- From: Pria Graves [mailto:priag@birketthouse.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:23 AM To: Dockter, Dave; Petersen, Adam Cc: Passmore, Walter Subject: Re: 2120 Staunton - What is the status? Thanks Dave. Adam????? Any new news? Pria > On Mar 30, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Dockter, Dave <Dave.Dockter@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: > > Hi Pria: > > Yes, I have been involved and--at a recent site visit with applicant & team-- instructed the project to provide updated information to the planner, Adam [copied herein]; including specifics on the redwood, basement and requested changes for new street tree design based on TBD curb cut configurations. > > So, I changed the title of the subject line a bit. Keep in touch with Adam for the latest. > > Regards, > > Dave Dockter > Urban Forestry Group, ASCA, ISA, APA > City of Palo Alto Public Works - Urban Forestry Section > Phone: 650.496-5953| > Email: dave.dockter@cityofpaloalto.org > > http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pria Graves [mailto:priag@birketthouse.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 4:03 PM > To: Dockter, Dave > Subject: Re: 2120 Staunton - What the hell? > > Hey Dave - > > Did you ever get a chance to look at this project? > > From what I understand, the developer has gone “silent” but I really worry about what the proposal would do to the poor redwood. Somehow building a basement wall inside the drip line doesn’t bode well in my book. > > Pria >> On Dec 14, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Dockter, Dave <Dave.Dockter@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: >> >> Ooops, sorry, Pria. >> >> I am forwarding to Jodie, copied herein, who is covering things in her absence. >> >> Dave Dockter >> Urban Forestry Group, ASCA, ISA, APA City of Palo Alto Public Works - >> Urban Forestry Section >> Phone: 650.496-5953| >> Email: dave.dockter@cityofpaloalto.org >> >> http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pria Graves [mailto:priag@birketthouse.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 4:19 PM >> To: Dockter, Dave >> Cc: Hernandez, Victoria >> Subject: 2120 Staunton - What the hell? >> >> >> >> Hi Dave - >> >> At some point ,about 10 days ago, I was able to retrieve and print info on this proposed project. Now I want to look at it again, but it seems to have vanished. I hope that means they’ve gone away, but somehow I doubt it. Victoria Hernandez is NOT answering her phone, so I’m left in the dark. >> >> This is an egregious project, with a huge likelihood of killing a mature redwood. Hope you’re watching. >> >> I do intend to submit comments but without being able to look again at the plans, that’s really hard. >> >> Best, >> >> Pria > > <2120 STAUNTON PORTFOLIO.PDF><2120 Staunton RESPONSE LETTER.PDF><NEIGHBOR CONCERN RESPONSE LETTER.PDF><Plan Check Response 4-20-17.pdf><Staunton Ct 2120 tree report 170409 suppl.pdf> 1 585 Quarry Road San Carlos * Hylanddg.com * 650-331-1870 PLAN REVIEW REPLY: No. #: BLD2017-00034 DATE: 4.26.17 REPLY BY: Natalie Hyland PROJECT NAME / DESCRIPTION: 2121 STAUNTON PLAN CHECK BY: Adam Petersen PLAN REVIEW REPLY ROUTING: PLANNING RE: NEIGHBOR COMMENTS COMMENT #1 "This tree is a neighborhood landmark and damage to it would have a negative effect on nearby property values (including mine) as well as reducing our enjoyment of the sight lines from our property. RESPONSE We agree that the Redwood Tree is a beautiful landmark and only adds to our property and proposed project. For those reasons we carefully designed the project around this tree. In our original schematics our lower level aligned with the rest of the East walls allowing a 2nd bedroom below. With the arborist input we jogged the lower basement wall in, eliminating 1 bedroom to allow more room for the tree roots. COMMENT #2 The City’s Tree Protection ordinance specifies a Tree Protection Zone of 10 times the diameter of the tree or a minimum of 10’, whichever is greater. According to the arborist’s report and the drawings, this tree has a TPZ with a 41-foot diameter! Yet he immediately starts talking about allowing construction to within 10 feet of the trunk, less than half the full area of the tree! He acknowledges that this will result in the vast majority of the tree’s roots being removed yet seems not to care. If we have continued drought, such major devastation is very likely to compromise the health and safety of the tree. And he offers no rationale other than “realistic” need to get things built. As if this were not enough, the plans tell an even worse story. 2 RESPONSE Palo Alto’s Tree Protection Zone of 10 feet min is only a threshold. It is used to trigger an Arborist. Once the arborist is on board the TPZ is superseded by this arborist. COMMENT #3 Examining the lower level plan (Sheet A2.2), the basement wall is shown to be located right at the 10’ line. Even if this were the farthest extension of building, the excavation would need to extend even closer to the trunk to allow for the forms etc. But that’s still not the end of it. Section B-B, a cross section of the building near the tree, and the Wall Section (both on Sheet A4.1), make it clear that the base of the wall extends more than 2’ further out. A similar drawing on Sheet C-2.0, the grading plan, also shows this extension. So the actual finished construction would be within 8’ of the trunk! The Grading Plan also fails to make any mention of requiring vertical excavation in the vicinity of the tree (as opposed to the typical “outward slant” approach). If the excavation slants outward, it will result in even more root loss. RESPONSE We do not intend to encroach in the tree protection zone with footings or foundation. Although the preliminary section does show a footing, there has already been discussion and approval with our Structural Engineer that a shot-Crete foundation is feasible and appropriate for this project. Therefore the foundation will not encroach into the 10 TPZ. (See Updated Sheet A4.1 + C2. COMMENT #4 And as if this were still not enough, the Site Plan shows a fence running immediately adjacent to the trunk of the tree and a concrete path running between the basement and the tree (providing sole access to the back door of the unit). This will necessitate further disruption of the root area! The paving will also prevent the roots from regrowing in that area in future should the tree manage to survive. RESPONSE The Proposed Fence has been removed and the existing fence will remain. Existing fence is in good shape and is already on outer edge of the trunk. The concrete path was also removed and replaced with DG a more forgiving surface COMMENT #5 The main and second level plans extend the building even closer to the tree, well inside the full extent of the foliage on that side. It seems as if the designer took this 10’ distance as the full extent of the tree which is simply not true. Due to the growth habit of redwoods, any branches damaged or removed during the construction will not simply “regrow” even if the meager amount of residual root structure could support it. The tree will be permanently maimed. Please reject this project as designed. A complete rethink is needed in order to ensure that this lovely redwood is protected. 3 A final note: if this project is depending upon an exception or variance under the RMD-NP zoning, it should be remembered that the zoning is intended to preserve existing structures and/or neighborhood character. This proposal does neither and must not be granted any exceptions." RESPONSE 1. The main canopy does not encroach into the building. Base on site meetings, measurements were taken to prove this. There will be end weight pruning to bring the tree back to it’s main canopy but that pruning will be minor impose no danger onto the tree. In summary the following changes have been made to the TPZ to ensure protection of the tree: 1. Sheet A2.0 Exterior kitchen wall has been brought in to the clear the TPZ. 2. Concrete path has been removed and replaced with decomposed granite 3. Existing fence has been put back. 4. Shot Crete foundation is proposed. See Sections A4. - A4.1 5. Site Visit with Dave Doktor, owner, designer and arborist was held on 3/16/17 to ensure protection of the tree. See Supplement to Certified Arborist’s Pre-Construction Tree Inventory Prepared by Ray Morneau for more details. In conclusion we respect and appreciate Ms Graves concerns and believe we want the same things. We want the tree to thrive. We do not want our project to endanger the Redwood Tree. We have been designing this project around the tree from day one by working very closely with our Arborist to do so. Palo Alto’s Tree ordinance states that the project expert arborist will set the TPZ and mitigate all things in that zone. m-group a new design on urban planning policy planning  urban design  environmental review  historic preservation  community engagement  staffing solutions February 16, 2017 Jodie Gerhardt, AICP City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Historic Resource Evaluation Peer Review 2120 Staunton Court and 567 Oxford Avenue Palo Alto, CA Dear Ms. Gerhardt, Attached is the peer review of the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared for 2120 Staunton Court and 567 Oxford Avenue. M-Group’s review included consideration of whether the evaluation followed standard industry practice to inform methodology and whether appropriate sources of data, records, and documentation were utilized to fully capture available information to result in an informed and comprehensive evaluation of the potential resources. M-Group verified information and considered the validity of conclusions and resulting determination of significance for the two buildings. The peer review was prepared by M-Group Preservation Specialist, Lilly Bianco and overseen by M-Group Principal, Heather Hines, who both meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications for Architectural History and are listed on the California Historic Resource Information systems (CHRIS) list. As detailed herein, M-Group concurs with the findings of the Garavaglia HRE which determined that neither 2120 Staunton Court nor 567 Oxford Avenue qualify as historic resources eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources or National Register of Historic Places. Sincerely, Heather Hines Lilly Bianco, MHP M-Group | Principal M-Group | Preservation Specialist HRE PEER REVIEW 2120 STAUNTON CT AND 567 OXFORD AVE | CITY OF PALO ALTO FEBRUARY 16, 2017 PAGE | 2 M-GROUP PEER REVIEW OF HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION FOR 2120 STAUNTON COURT AND 567 OXFORD AVENUE, PALO ALTO The City of Palo Alto has contracted with M-Group to perform a Peer Review of the Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Garavaglia Architecture on October 21, 2016 and for two residential buildings located at 2120 Staunton Court and 567 Oxford Avenue in Palo Alto, California. The following memorandum outlines the findings of our review which are organized to follow the progression of the Garavaglia Report to promote ease of reference. Ultimately, M-Group concurs with the findings of the HRE which determined that neither 2120 Staunton Court nor 567 Oxford Avenue are historic resources eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources or National Register of Historic Places. METHODOLOGY M-Group performed a systematic review of Garavaglia Architecture’s Historic Resource Evaluation of the residential buildings located at 2120 Staunton and 567 Oxford in Palo Alto and dated October 21, 2016. M-Group’s review focused on the adequacy of research and soundness of conclusions drawn by the author. The review was supported by a site visit performed by M-Group Preservation Specialist, Lilly Bianco, on February 3, 2017. EVALUATION CRITERIA National Register Eligibility Criteria The National Register of Historic Places, maintained by the National Park Service, serves as the master inventory of historic resources important in the history, architectural history, archaeology, engineering and culture of the United States at the national, state and local levels. A historic resource can be a building, structure, object, site or district that is 50 years or older or is of an age where sufficient time has passed necessary to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. Historic resources are considered eligible if they meet at least one of the following criteria as listed in the table below and retain sufficient integrity (i.e. its ability to communicate its significance). HRE PEER REVIEW 2120 STAUNTON CT AND 567 OXFORD AVE | CITY OF PALO ALTO FEBRUARY 16, 2017 PAGE | 3 M-GROUP NATIONAL REGISTER SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION Criterion A That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or Criterion B That are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or Criterion C That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or Criterion D That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory The California Register of Historic Resources The California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Historical Resources Commission. The California Register encourages recognition of the State’s historical resources and provides a modicum of protection under the California Environmental Quality Act. Buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts are eligible for listing on the register. For properties to be eligible for listing on the CRHR they must have reached 50 years or a sufficient amount of time must have passed necessary to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. To be listed, a property must display significance at the local, state, or national levels under one or more or more of the following criterion listed in the table below and retain sufficient integrity. CALIFORNIA REGISTER SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION Criterion 1 Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion 2 Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion 3 Displays distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, work of a master, high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion 4 Yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. PEER REVIEW The following review evaluates the content and conclusions of each section of the HRE completed by Garavaglia Architecture: HRE PEER REVIEW 2120 STAUNTON CT AND 567 OXFORD AVE | CITY OF PALO ALTO FEBRUARY 16, 2017 PAGE | 4 M-GROUP Introduction: The HRE introduction provides a project overview (purpose of the HRE) and details the methodology employed to prepare the evaluation. Under “project overview” it is stated that, “since these buildings are being considered for demolition, they are being evaluated to determine whether they meet the criteria necessary to qualify as a historic resource, for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),” it continues, “the HRE will address the subject properties eligibility for listing as a historic resource for the California Register of Historic Resources, as well as National Register of Historic Places.” To clarify, for the purposes of CEQA, and as detailed under CEQA Section 15064.5, “generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852)…” As such, the resources needed only be evaluated under the California Register to determine if the property is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The concurrent evaluation of resources for both the CRHR and NRHP can be problematic. The reason being that, the National Register is often understood to demand a greater level of relative significance and integrity, whereas the California Register offers a modicum more flexibility in how one reconciles the relative importance of a resource and considers the level of alteration. Certain stringent standards that apply to National Register eligible properties do not necessarily apply to those resources considered for listing on the CRHR. As such, the concurrent evaluation of eligibility on both the CRHR and NRHP can result in the evaluator inadvertently applying more stringent guidelines applicable to evaluation of NR properties to CR properties and result in erroneous findings. That is not to say that has resulted here, but going forward, we would suggest more explicit recognition of the nuances between the two lists. Under this section, the author provides a list of references utilized. While the list is generally comprehensive, reference of broader contexts would have helped to further inform the understanding of the resource in the context of early twentieth century suburban development. The following may have provided a helpful frame of reference to understand more modern/ vernacular residential resource types: • Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places by David L. Ames, University of Delaware and Linda Flint McClelland, National Park Service, 2002 Resource Description: Appears adequate. HRE PEER REVIEW 2120 STAUNTON CT AND 567 OXFORD AVE | CITY OF PALO ALTO FEBRUARY 16, 2017 PAGE | 5 M-GROUP Historical Background: The historical background appears thorough in that it provides locally relevant contextual information related to the development of College Tract and interwar development in Palo Alto. However, a more detailed discussion that addressed some of the larger trends related to inter-war housing would be helpful to support the significance findings. In addition, the existing conditions of the larger tract and setting are relevant to the understanding of the properties significance and integrity, as such; a discussion of the current development trends and existing conditions of the immediate neighborhood would be a more appropriate place to conclude. Last, vernacular interwar (and postwar) housing is a particularly difficult resource type to evaluate given the paucity of standard terminology and historic contexts to inform evaluations. In the absence of comprehensive local or regional contexts, it would be prudent to rely more heavily on broader contexts and guidance related to suburban development and the bungalow and minimal traditional housing type which would provide an appropriate basis to support the findings of the evaluation. Site Evolution and Construction History: Appears adequate. Ownership History: Appears adequate. Evaluation Framework: Appears adequate. This section outlines the criteria employed to evaluate the potential significance of resources for the CRHR and NRHP and to determine integrity. This section does specify that, “Properties that do not meet the threshold for the National Register may meet the California Register Criteria.” This is an important fact to acknowledge, however; given the nuances of the two, a more detailed discussion related to why this is and in what circumstances this differentiation may matter would be useful to more fully support the determination. Findings: This section evaluates the two resources (2120 Staunton and 567 Oxford) for eligibility on the CRHR and NRHP and as detailed below. The evaluation of significance is followed by an evaluation of integrity. National Register Eligibility/ California Register Eligibility Criterion A/1: Contribution to broad patterns of history/ associated with the broad patterns or with events that have made a significant contribution to the local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California. The HRE indicates that to determine significance under this criterion requires further investigative study and research; it then goes on to conclude that the respective buildings do not qualify for listing on the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion A/1. It is unclear how the HRE PEER REVIEW 2120 STAUNTON CT AND 567 OXFORD AVE | CITY OF PALO ALTO FEBRUARY 16, 2017 PAGE | 6 M-GROUP author was able to reach this conclusion given that it was previously stated that, to determine significance under this criterion, further investigative study is needed. In the absence of a comprehensive local context it would be appropriate to perform a greater level of background research so as to obtain the minimum level of information needed to understand the themes or patterns associated with the College Terrace and/or the bungalow or minimal traditional styles. This is a situation in which a broader context may provide a helpful frame of reference (e.g. Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places). The Dames and Moore study referenced in the evaluation does provide an abbreviated context for the “Cottage Courts of College Terrace”. Of the contexts and trends called out in the Dames and Moore Study, the subject buildings most closely align with the Cottage Courts. The Dames and Moore study details that, “Beginning in the 1920’s, numerous properties were built with two or more small separate rental cottages, each property called a cottage court.” It continues on to state that, “Ruth Sloan (evaluator) has defined the cottage courts of College Terrace as two or more free-standing cottages each with a maximum of two bedrooms, built at the same time by one owner.” And last, it specifies that, “the first was built in 1926, the largest number was built in the late 1930s.” When considering the resources within the “cottage court” context, it appears that, although the subject property includes two small cottage-like buildings on one lot and within College Terrace, the subject property would not be eligible based on association with the trends related to college courts given that the residences were built separately (in 1925 and 1940) and outside of the period of significance. Given that the resources do not exhibit an obvious nexus to broad patterns of history, namely with suburban development within Palo Alto or College Terrace, no further consideration is warranted and the finding of ineligibility appears valid. Criterion B/2: Association with a person important in National History or associated with the lives of persons important to local, state, or national history. The HRE finds that no important persons were associated with either property to such an extent as to deem it significant based on that association. M-Group concurs with the HRE finding that no person associated with either residence exhibited a level of significance so as to deem either one significant under Criterion B/2. The HRE references appropriate sources to identify ownership chronology and establish whether or not any important persons were strongly associated with the subject property. It is adequately shown that the most notable person associated with the property was not so important as to deem the property significant simply based on their association with it. HRE PEER REVIEW 2120 STAUNTON CT AND 567 OXFORD AVE | CITY OF PALO ALTO FEBRUARY 16, 2017 PAGE | 7 M-GROUP Criterion C/3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, method of construction or style of architecture, or represents the works of a master or represents a distinguishable entity under whose components have individual distinction. The significance evaluation indicates that 2120 Staunton is considered a simplified version of a bungalow, whereas 567 Oxford most closely aligns with the minimal traditional style. The analysis concludes that because 2120 Staunton is such a restrained and simple example of the bungalow style it does not serve as a particularly good example of building or architectural practices for any specific period in history. Similarly, the evaluation found that, while 567 Oxford is illustrative of the minimal traditional style, the minimal traditional style is not recognized as a significant building type in Palo Alto and furthermore, the building is not exemplary of the minimal traditional style in the area. M-Group concurs with the author’s findings that the subject properties are not eligible for listing on the National or California Register based on architectural merit. It is most common for buildings to be determined eligible under this criterion based on architectural merit and in that they embody distinctive characteristics of a type. Given that the two subject buildings are such simplified and restrained examples of their respective styles, they do not appear to embody the distinctive characteristics of a type at a level to be eligible for either listing on the CRHR or NRHP. However, we do disagree with the consultant’s reliance on the fact that 567 Oxford would not be eligible given that the minimal traditional style is not a recognized resource type in Palo Alto. Resource types, even those less than 50 years old, may be considered eligible for listing on the CRHR if a sufficient amount of time has passed for there to be a scholarly perspective on them. There exist a number of contexts and standardized guidelines for evaluating the minimal traditional style and therefore, reference and consideration of the resource within a larger context and/or more general framework would have provided a more robust justification for the significance finding. Nevertheless, while we disagree with some of the assumptions, M-Group concurs that neither building is eligible for listing based on architectural merit. Criterion D/4 Yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The HRE concludes that because the evaluation related to above ground resources, no informed determination could be made related to the properties ability to yield important information. M-Group concurs that the above conclusion is appropriate. Integrity: HRE PEER REVIEW 2120 STAUNTON CT AND 567 OXFORD AVE | CITY OF PALO ALTO FEBRUARY 16, 2017 PAGE | 8 M-GROUP The author of the HRE specifies that the property does not exhibit integrity of location, materials, workmanship, setting, or, association; it was determined that it retained integrity of design and feeling, albeit diminished integrity. Overall it was found that the properties exhibit low to marginal integrity. Historic Integrity is important in that is helps determine whether or not a building is able to convey its historic significance. The analysis of integrity is integrally tied to an understanding of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. For properties that are determined not to be significant there is no value in evaluating its integrity. As specified in the National Register Guidelines for evaluating Historic Properties, “To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant.” Accordingly, it is not possible to evaluate integrity if a property is not significant due to the fact that you have no “why,” “when,” or “where” to rely on. Last, it should be clarified that properties either retain integrity or they do not and the determination that the properties have marginal integrity is not particularly informative. When integrity is of consequence it should be clearly stated that the subject property either retains or does not retain integrity based on the findings of the analysis Conclusion: In general, M-Group concurs with the author’s determination that the subject properties do not meet the criteria for eligibility under the CRHR or NRHP. As detailed above, the justification for the determination did appear weak at times and would benefit from a more detailed discussion of broader historic contexts related to suburban development and mid-twentieth century housing types. Nevertheless, we concur with the overall determination and the conclusions appear valid. Page 1 of 5 Development Review - Department Comments City Department: Planning Staff Contact: Arnold Mammarella (Consulting Architect) 510-763-4332 arnold@mammarellaarchitecture.com Date: 9/11/2017 Project Address/File #: 2120 Staunton Court INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES — GENERAL INFORMATION: The Individual Review Guidelines are broadly intended to preserve the unique character of existing individual Palo Alto neighborhoods and maintain privacy between adjacent properties. There are five specific guidelines that must be met for a project to be approved. Each guideline has an approval criterion as well as “key points” that staff reviews the proposal against. Illustrations are also provided to provide visual clarification of intent and examples of situations, which would or would not meet the guideline. For additional information about the goals and requirements of the guidelines, the property owner and designer are directed to review the updated Palo Alto Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines booklet dated June 10, 2005. Please note that neighbors may comment at any time during an open application. INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES — EVALUATION Staff has reviewed the proposed plans filed on June 21, 2017 for a new two-story 2-home development with attached one-car garages. This evaluation focuses on the five IR guidelines. The proposal is subject to the IR Guidelines as it is two unit structure bounded on two sides by single-family homes. Additional comments follow. Site and Neighborhood Context The lot is a 54.5 foot wide by 107 foot deep corner lot. Its front lot line faces Staunton Court and its street side lot line faces Oxford Avenue. Presently the subject lot has a small one-story home with minimal landscape. Across the interior side lot line is a one-story cottage at 2130 Staunton Court. This house sits on a lot only 35 feet wide and 107 feet deep. This lot also has a large redwood tree with it trunk partially crossing the shared lot line and two side-facing windows at the first floor as shown on the site plan. Just to the south of this lot is a multistory, multifamily development at 2152-2166 Staunton Court. On the Oxford Avenue side the adjacent home across the rear lot line at 575 Oxford Avenue is a two-story newer residence with Craftsman style architectural details. Other nearby buildings are mostly moderately sized two-story structures and a mix of single family houses, multi-family housing, and commercial use structures. G1 — Basic Site Planning: Placement of Driveway, Garage, and House Approval Criterion: The driveway, garage, and house shall be placed and configured to reinforce the neighborhood’s existing site patterns (i.e. Building footprint, configuration and location, setbacks, and yard areas) and the garage and driveway shall be subordinate to the house, landscaping and pedestrian entry as seen from the street. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Minimize the driveway’s presence and paving; 2. Locate the garage to be subordinate to the house; 3. Configure the house footprint to fit the neighborhood pattern; 4. Create landscaped open spaces between homes; 5. Locate the upper floor back from the front facade and/or away from side lot lines when next to one-story homes; and 6. Do not place the second floor so that it emphasizes the garage.] Comments: The proposed house would maintain the pattern of site development in the neighborhood relative to footprint location, building orientation, and yard areas. The garage is located between the living areas/entries of the duplex with 20-foot wide shared driveway. Each unit has an individual one-car garage door that is blended with the façade. The adjacent entries could be more developed to better subordinate the garage doors to the unit entries but the narrow site width and the 16-foot street side yard setback makes it difficult to adjust the location of the porch entry. The roof edge could project another foot forward at the entry porches and the wood brackets at the side of the entry could be enlarged in size and detailed with more distinction to emphasize the unit entries. The driveway is not too large in area but decorative material treatment should be used rather than standard gray concrete to relate it to the landscape and diminish the paving’s impact. The uncovered parking space is an issue in that it requires a second curb cut on this side of the lot and adds an extensive amount of concrete to this side of the house. If an alternative location cannot be provided for the uncovered parking space, using brick paving and treating the space like an exterior garden space or using turf block to treat it like yard area should be explored to limit the perception of extensive driveway paving on this side of the lot. There should also be screening trees/tall shrubs planted along the interior side yard (along the fence) and in the rear yard (a grouping near the lot rear corner of the lot and/or along the fence) to create landscaped open space between homes. Trees and tall screening shrubs should be note by botanical name and trees should be planted at 24 inch box size or a minimum height of 10 feet, which should be noted on the site plan, while tall shrubs should be planted at 15 gallon size or a minimum height of 8 foot. Fast growing evergreen planting is preferred and planting should be coordinated with the needs of the redwood tree. Trash and recycle bins should also be located so that they do not interfere with planting along the fence line. They could be placed at the fence between the two units and the air conditioners moved a few feet. The landscape plan should be updated to address this planting. G2 — Neighborhood Compatibility for Height, Mass, and Scale Approval Criterion: The scale (perceived size), mass (bulk or volume) and height (vertical profile) of a new house or upper story addition shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern with special attention to adapting to the height and massing of adjacent homes. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Do not overwhelm an adjacent one-story home; 2. Do not accentuate mass and scale with high first floor level relative to grade, tall wall planes, etc.; 3. Minimize height offsets to adjacent neighbors’ roof edges, including adjacent one-story roof edges; 4. Place floor area within roof forms to mitigate mass and scale; 5. Locate smaller forms forward of larger forms to manage perceived height; and 6. Use roof volume rather than wall plate height to achieve interior volume.] Comments: The proposal’s height, mass, and scale fit the neighborhood conditions fairly well and are generally consistent with nearby structures, except the cottage at 2130 Staunton Court. The roofline at the building corner adjacent 2130 Staunton Court has been stepped so that a one-story roof edge would be present at the front corner of the building on the side that faces the cottage. The lowered roof edge at the sidewall is fairly effective at softening the height transition between the structures, but the massing of the Staunton Court facing elevation could have been articulated with one-story roof edges, eave sides of gables and/or less vertically oriented forms to adapt to the cottage height and scale better. This is discussed more under guideline three. G3 — Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing, and Rooflines Approval Criterion: The architectural form and massing shall be carefully crafted to reduce visual mass and distinguish the house’s architectural lines or style. Roof profiles shall enhance the form, scale, and proportion of primary and secondary house volumes, while rendering garage and entry forms subordinate in mass and scale to principal building forms. Upper floor additions shall also be balanced and integrated with the existing building. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Adjust floor plans to work for building form; 2. Use the vocabulary of a particular style to compose forms and rooflines; 3. Avoid awkwardly placed additions; 4. Use a few well- proportioned masses to avoid a cluttered appearance of too many elements; and 5. Adjust roof layouts, ridge orientations, eave lines, etc. to reduce mass and enhance form.] Comments: Overall the comments on form, massing and rooflines are limited to how to fine tune these elements to reduce height, mass, and scale as noted under guideline two next to the one story cottage and to make the massing more stylistically refined. The massing, as well as the façade, at the front wall facing Staunton Court is composed but treated somewhat like a building side rather than a street facing elevation. One option to address this would be to widen the bay window at the master bedroom that it faces street to the full width of the bedroom’s sleeping area and to extend it forward one foot more out from the building wall (i.e. to the 20 foot front setback line) so that it is a wider form that overhangs and cradles the dining room window below. The roof of this form could have its eave side facing the street (i.e. not be a nesting gable) and the form could be treated like a large glazed bay with three windows with posts between across the front and narrow windows at the sides. Brackets could be used to visually support the bay form and relate the upper and lower forms. At the Oxford Avenue side the 10:12 pitch roof forms at the bathrooms punch up the elevations but seem out of character with the architecture. While altering a roof pitch is not always disruptive to the massing using the lower 5:15 pitch would be better for these forms, especially if used in combination with increasing the rake and eave overhangs from the proposed 12 inches to 24 inches. This comment would apply for all building roof edges. Additionally, a small shed dormer with a low pitch could be place at the gable of the master bedrooms so a shallow dormer window faces Oxford Avenue to elaborate the massing/roof form. G4 — Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries Approval Criterion: Publicly viewed facades shall be composed with a clear and cohesive architectural expression (i.e. The composition and articulation of walls, fenestration, and eave lines), and include visual focal point(s) and supportive use of materials and detailing. Entries shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern and integrated with the home in composition, scale and design character. The carport or garage and garage door shall be consistent with the selected architectural style of the home. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Compose facades to have a unified/cohesive character; 2. Use stylistically consistent windows and proportion and adequate spacing between focal points; 3. Add visual character with architecturally distinctive eaves, window patterns and materials; 4. Do not use monumental entries/ relate entry type and scale to neighborhood patterns; and 5. Design garage openings and door panels to be modest in scale and architecturally consistent with the home.] Comments: Generally the design of facades, materials and detailing are moving in the right direction; however, the architecture is not that specific, it seems vaguely Craftsman or a rustic similar style, the front façade could use better composition and a focal point, and some clarifications or refinements are needed elsewhere.  The garage door material and design are required to be consistent with the home’s architectural style per this guideline. The aluminum garage doors with obscure glazing look rather modern given the building’s traditional appearance. The garage doors should be stained wood with stile and rail construction and a panel design that coordinates with the entry doors or something similarly compatible.  As noted before a 24 inch overhang at eaves and rakes would be preferred, or at least 18 to 21 inches. The exposed rafter tails and half round gutters are effective, but it might be more distinctive to do something more with shape at the ends of the rafter tails or having the end rafters at the rakes larger and more expressively shaped.  Extending the head trim or head and sill trim at windows 4 to 6 inches out from the jamb trim would make more expressive detailing and is suggested.  As noted under guideline three a larger glazed bay at the master bedroom facing Staunton Court would be one way to create a strong but well proportioned focal point on this second front façade. Other options may be possible, but this elevation needs refinement.  The wood board and batten siding is generally attractive and seems to fit the intended look of the building, but the building’s proportions and material usage and facades would be improved if board and batten siding were used at one level and a second siding, perhaps shingles, would be used at the other level. This approach would be more beneficial than using two roofing materials although there is no objection to using two roofing materials.  Provide elevation design drawings/details for street facing fencing. It should reflect the architecture or landscape design. G5 — Placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks for Privacy Approval Criterion: The size, placement and orientation of second story windows and decks shall limit direct sight lines into windows and patios located at the rear and sides of adjacent properties in close proximity. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Gather information on neighbors’ privacy sensitive windows, patios, yards; 2. Mitigate privacy impacts with obscure glazing, high sill windows, permanent architectural screens or by relocating/reorienting windows; 3. Avoid windowless/unarticulated building walls, especially where visible from the street; and 4. Limit upper story deck size and locate decks to result in minimal loss of privacy to side or rear facing property.] Comments: Privacy impacts appear limited. There are large windows at the stairs facing the side lot line. Since these locations have movement there would be less impact than if the windows were at a room. Dense screening landscape along the side yards would likely be sufficient to minimize casual viewing of the neighbor’s first floor windows, but in addition to screening landscape it would be best to use higher sill windows at this location. If higher sill windows were used so that the sill was mostly at or above eye level at the stair it would be ok to widen the windows from two to three glazed units if desired. At the rear elevation high sill windows are used at the master bedroom and bathroom. Privacy impacts, therefore, should be minimal on the 575 Oxford Street property. Attachment I Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “2120 Staunton Court” and open the record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2120 Staunton - 6.21.17 Project Plans for ARB” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8417) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 392 California Ave: Summit Bicycles Facade Changes (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 392 California Avenue [17PLN-00088]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow Changes to the Façade of an Existing Commercial Building in the California Avenue Business District. The Façade Changes Include a new Storefront Window System, an Individually Illuminated Channel Letter Sign, and a New Custom Abstract Mural by Artist Victor Reyes. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Scott McKay at Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action: 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The project proposes changes to the front façade of an existing commercial building in the California Avenue business district for a new bicycle shop tenant (Summit Bicycles). The façade changes include a new storefront window system, an individually illuminated channel letter sign, and a new custom abstract mural by artist Victor Reyes. Individual signs and minor changes to previously approved projects are typically considered minor projects requiring staff City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 review only. As designed, the project meets the applicable zoning requirements. The project includes a mural on the top half of the building façade facing the street, which covers an area of 546 sf (42’ wide by 13’ tall). There are numerous murals on side and rear facing building walls in the California Avenue business district, but none on front facing building walls. Therefore, in conformance with PAMC Section 18.76.020(b)(2)(I), the Director has determined this improvement would significantly alter the character of the building requiring ARB review. Background Project Information Owner: Clayton Del Secco Architect: Terry J. Martin Associates, A.I.A. Representative: Terry Martin Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 392 California Avenue Neighborhood: Mayfield Lot Dimensions & Area: 42’ x 125’ (5,250 sf) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): Not applicable Existing Improvement(s): 5,460 sf; One story with mezzanine level; height 25’; year built 1949 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Service Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CC(2)(R)(P) (Commercial) West: CC(2)(R)(P) (Commercial) East: CC(2)(R)(P) (Commercial) South: CC(2)(R)(P) (Commercial) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CC(2)(R)(P) Comp. Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial) Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant proposes the following project components:  The existing aluminum storefront window system is proposed to be replaced with a new oil rubbed bronze storefront window system with clear glass. The existing storefront window system has horizontal mullions at the top third of each pane. The proposed storefront window system eliminates the horizontal mullions, but maintains the same general size and spacing of window panes.  The existing stucco above the storefront window system is proposed to be painted with a custom black and white abstract mural.  A new internally illuminated individual channel letter sign with white faces and black returns is proposed to be installed. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Minor (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located in the center of the California Avenue business district, which extends for four blocks between the California Avenue Caltrain Station and El Camino Real. There are many public art murals that decorate the walls of pedestrian alleyways and building walls of local businesses in the area. There are also many public and private sculptures and statues in the area. See Attachment F for a sample of existing murals in the California Avenue business district. The existing murals (approximately two dozen) are typically on the side and rear facing building walls in the California Avenue business district, but none are on front facing building walls. Staff requests that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) affirm the appropriateness of 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 murals on the front facing façade of buildings in the California Avenue business district as well as the design of the proposed mural. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.20.130(a) limits the size of wall signs based on the area of the building face upon which it is placed. The area of the front face of the subject building is 1,050 sf (42’ wide by 25’ high). The maximum allowable area of a wall sign placed on this building face is 65 sf. For the purposes of this application, staff reviewed the definitions of mural, sign, and sign area in PAMC Chapter 16.20 (the Sign Code). Section 16.20.010(a) of the Sign Code contains the following definitions: "Mural" means “a work of art applied to a building wall for decorative purposes only. Use of murals for advertising is not permitted”; “Sign” means “any sign, display board, [. . .] structure or other device used to announce, declare, demonstrate, display, advertise or attract the attention of the public, including but not limited to clocks, barber poles and similar devices”; and “Sign Area,” as applicable to this application, means “the area of the geometric figure within which [lettered or illustrated] material could be enclosed”. In this case, the proposed mural is an abstract design and is not advertising for the bicycle shop. While the “Summit Bicycles” lettering is on the same wall as the mural, it is not integrated into the mural, will be separately installed, and can be clearly distinguished by the use of raised channel lettering. For this reason, staff has interpreted the sign area to mean the rectangular area inclosing the “Summit Bicycles” lettering, which totals 39 sf (19.5’ wide by 2’ high). Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Applicable Findings Draft findings for approval are contained in Attachment B of this report. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt in accordance with Guideline Sections 15301 for maintenance of existing facilities and 15311 which exempts minor changes to existing buildings including signage. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Weekly on September 8th, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 7th, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, one project-related, public comment was received. The comment considered the mural and signage as one and questioned the size when view collectively. Clarification was provided that the storefront system, signage, and mural are all viewed as separate and distinct components of the façade upgrade. The signage is well within the allowable size range for this building. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Scott McKay, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 617-3113 (650) 329-2575 Scott.McKay@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings For Approval (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (PDF)  Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment E: Project Plans (PDF)  Attachment F: California Avenue Existing Murals (PDF) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 1 2 6Jodie Gerhardt 5Russ Reich 124-33-001 124-33-020 124-33-019 124-33-016 124-33-022 124-33-018 124-32-043 124-32-035 124-32-042 Lot C-5 Parking L o t Ba n k o f the W e s t Co u n t r y S u n 174. 7 ' 17.5' 90.0' 136.5 ' 3.0'13.2' 103 . 6 ' 140. 0 ' 12 . 3 ' 3.4' 113.1 ' 32.0' 35.2 ' 71 . 1 ' 26.7' 50.9 ' 125. 0 ' 111.9 ' 40. 0 ' 99.2 ' 40.1' 96.5' 50. 0 ' 96.5 ' 50. 4 ' 90.2' 71.8 '100. 0 ' 71.8 ' 100. 0 ' 135. 0 ' 99.8 ' 10.0'7.9' 125. 0 ' 107. 7 ' 30.0' 99.8' 30.0 ' 99.8 ' 155. 0 ' 230. 0 ' 130. 0 ' 100. 0 ' 25.0' 130. 0 ' 95.0' 40.0' 95.0 ' 40.0 ' 95.0' 49.0 ' 95.0' 49.0' 95.0 ' 41.0' 25.0 ' 50.0 ' 120. 0 ' 91.0 ' 120. 0 ' 100. 0 ' 120. 0 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 131.6 ' 40.0' 11.6 ' 46.1 ' 75.0 ' 90.0 ' 120. 0 ' 90.0' 120. 0 ' 40.0' 22.2 ' 90.0' 271.6 ' 120. 0 ' 14 . 1 ' 239.4 ' 90.0' 48.0 ' 90. 0 ' 48.0' 127. 0 ' 50.2 ' 127. 0 ' 50.2' 125. 0 ' 20.0 ' 125. 0 ' 20.0' 125. 0 ' 50.0 ' 125. 0 ' 50.0 ' 125. 0 ' 46.0 ' 125. 0 ' 46.0 ' 125. 0 ' 37.0' 125. 0 ' 37.0 ' 125. 0 ' 65.5 ' 125. 0 ' 65.5' 93.0' 61.0' 26.7' 7 1 . 1 ' 35.2 ' 40.0' 58.6' 40.0' 58.6 ' 22.7' 20.0'13.8' 7.2' 27.7'2.0' 62.0' 25.6' 90.0' 14.1' 25.0 ' 22.7 ' 90.0' 40.9 ' 90.0' .3' 35. 0 ' 53.4' 35.0' .3' 90.0' 43.8' 125. 0 ' 44.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0 ' 50.0 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 2 ' 50.0' 133. 4 ' 50.0' 133. 4 ' 50.0 ' 133. 5 ' 50.0' 133. 1 ' 50.0' 133. 2 ' 50.0' 133. 0 ' 50.0 ' 133. 1 ' 50.0 ' 132.8' 50.0 ' 133. 0 ' 50.0'132.7'50.0'132.8'50.0' 100. 0 ' 14 . 1 ' 237. 8 ' 14.1' 100. 0 ' 257. 8 ' 24.6' .3' 50.4 ' 100. 0 ' 75.0 '100. 3 ' 133. 3 ' 50.0 ' 133. 6 ' 50.0' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 6 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0 ' 100. 0 ' 102. 4 ' 100. 0 ' 102.4 ' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 6 ' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 6 ' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 3 ' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 6 ' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 6 ' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 6 ' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 6 ' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 6 ' 100.0 ' 133. 9 ' 100. 0 ' 133. 6 ' 40.1' 90.0' 312. 4 ' 130. 0 ' 309. 7 ' 40. 0 ' 121. 4 ' 40. 6 ' 75.0' .6' 46.4 ' 75.2 ' 125. 0 ' 60.2 ' 15.7' 40. 5 ' 74.7' 84.4' 75.0 ' 84.4' 75.0 ' 125. 0 ' 46.0 ' 40.0' 46.4 ' 85.0 ' 92.4' 125. 0 ' 46.8 ' 125. 0 ' 46.9' 79.0 ' 21.0 ' 79.0' 21.0' 21.0 ' 110. 0 ' 20.2 ' 14.1' 100. 0 ' 30.3 ' 95.0 ' 125. 0 ' 95.0'125. 0 ' 125. 0 ' 51.0 ' 125. 0 ' 51.0 ' 125. 0 ' 50.0 ' 125. 0 ' 50.0' 125. 0 ' 42.0 ' 125. 0 ' 42.0 ' 125. 0 ' 50.0' 125. 0 ' 50.0 ' 110. 0 ' 50.0 ' 110. 0 ' 50.0 ' 110. 0 ' 50.0 ' 110. 0 ' 50.0 ' 110. 0 ' 50.0 ' 110. 0 ' 50.0' 110. 0 ' 195.0 ' 110. 0 ' 195. 0 ' 125. 0 ' 130.2 ' 115. 0 ' 14 . 1 ' 120.3 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 125. 0 ' 40.0' 14.1' 125. 0 ' 32.5 ' 125. 0 ' 32.5 ' 110. 0 ' 51.0 ' 110. 0 ' 51.0 ' 110. 0 ' 96.0' 110. 0 ' 96.0 ' 125. 0 ' 96.0 ' 125. 0 ' 96.0' 100. 0 ' 75.0 '100. 0 ' 75.0 ' 100.0' 100.0 ' 100. 0 ' 100.0'100.0'25.0'100.0'25.0'100.0'50.0'100.0'50.0' 50.0 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0 ' 100. 0 ' 110.0'82.5'110.0'82.5' 85.0' 100. 0 ' 85. 0 ' 100. 0 ' 125.0'100.0'125.0'100.1' 49.5 ' 49.5 ' 49.5 ' 49.5 ' 49.5 ' 86.5' 86.5 ' 86.5' 79.0 ' 70.5 ' 70.5 ' 29.5 ' 29.5' 29.5' 46.3' 71.7 ' 82.5'82.5' 82.5' 99.0' 26.0' 99.0' 232 5 2331 490 233 5 480 425 409 407 40 5 465 463 461 459 447 445 437 - 441 433 - 4 3 5 245 8245 4 410 430 46 0 456 45 4 448 425 431 475 245 0 451 453 45 0 43 8 430 410 411 417 454 - 460 42 0 1 23 4 5 421 - 4 2 9 431 - 447 440 414 406 - 4 1 0 392 360 364 415 243 8 41 5 421 321 36 1 241 5 442 - 4 4 4 433 - 4 4 7 405 - 4 0 9 403 - 409 381 - 395 341 - 347366 - 370 384 366 40 0 397 39 1 383 371 37 5 34 0 34 4 35 0 33 0 320 310 382 380 37 8 235 0 29 0 26023632343 475 245 3 390 36 5 36 9 477 334 243 1 417 370 39 1 35 0 450 413 429 422 2473 45 0 440 421 367 300 298 2425 2315 420 JAC A R A N D A L A N E AS H S T R E E T NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E MI M O S A L A N E CAM B R I D G E A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T JAC A R A N D A L A N E PF(R) PF(R) CC(2) PF(R) CC ( 2 ) ( R ) PF( R )CC(2) (R)(P) RM-30 PF CC(2)(R) CC ( 2 ) ( R ) PT O D ( R ) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk Underlying Lot Line abc Easement Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'89' CITY O F PALO A L TO INC O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR NI A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f AP RIL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto Smckay, 2017-08-31 14:44:27Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 392 California Avenue 17PLN-00088 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: Policy L-50 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs.” The placement of the wall sign on the front façade of the building is at a similar height to other surrounding buildings of comparable height. The new internally illuminated individual channel letter sign is of a high quality and successfully balances visibility and aesthetic needs. The white faces of the individual channel letters will work well with the black and white mural as well as the brown and beige colors used on the bottom half of the building and adjacent buildings. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed façade changes use consistent materials and colors that are unified and coherent, and will assist in creating a sense of continuity with the other signage and art surrounding the site. The proposed signage is appropriately scaled for the building and reflects the character of the California Avenue business district. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: Policy L-28 of the Comprehensive Plan states “Maintain the existing scale, character, and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service, and office center intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas.” The façade changes make use of a simplified color pallet (white for the signage and black and white for the mural) which also complements the brown color on the bottom and side portions of the building and surrounding buildings. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The Signage has been placed to assist pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in locating the business. The signage conforms to the City’s requirements regarding visibility triangles at intersections, and would not impair the function and safety of the drive aisles serving the site. The wall sign is under the maximum permitted size, and would be appropriately designed for the business district context. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. The entire site is covered by the building and hardscape. No landscaping changes are proposed. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed signs include LED lighting which is energy efficient and long lasting. ATTACHMENT C  CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL  392 California Avenue  17PLN‐00088      PLANNING DIVISION    1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans  entitled, "Summit Bicycles Permit Resubmittal,” stamped as received by the City on August 9, 2017  on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as  modified by these conditions of approval.    2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning,  Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments.    3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of  approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit.     4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review  and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase,  the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the  Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the  applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the  project planner’s attention.    5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the  City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and  against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties  and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the  Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs  incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such  action with attorneys of its own choice.    6. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial  compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any  revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to;  colors, materials, etc. Contact your Project Planner, Scott McKay at  Scott.McKay@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection.    BUILDING DIVISION    7. A building permit is required for the new storefront window system and signage.    PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING    8. If the installation of the sign will require the installer to occupy the public sidewalk, add a  note to the plans that says, “Installation of the signs must be done in a manner that is safe  for pedestrians using the public sidewalk.  The work area must be coned or taped off.”     9. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road  right‐of‐way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right‐of‐way shall have an  approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work.  THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT  ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.”     10. Add a note to the building permit plan set that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk  to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians  using the sidewalk.  The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4  feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use.  If less than 4 feet of sidewalk is available for  pedestrians, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close  the sidewalk.”    11. The City's full‐sized "Pollution Prevention ‐ It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in  the plan set.  Copies are available from Public Works on our website  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732     Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “392 California Avenue ” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “17PLN-00088 Digital Resub 2017-07-21.pdf”. Attachment F Sample of Existing Murals in the California Avenue Business District Country Sun Mural The Cobblery Mural Starbucks Alley Murals Antonio’s Nuthouse Mural Mayfield Station Mural Alma Street Pedestrian Underpass Mural City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Wynne Furth, Peter Baltay Absent: Board Member Robert Gooyer Oral Communications Chair Lew: Just for the record, Board Member Gooyer is absent today and now is the time for oral communications. The public may speak to an item that’s not on the agenda and I don’t have any. I do have a speaker card for the first item. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Lew: Are there any agenda changes? No. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Study Session 2. 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 Chair Lew: Then let’s go into the first item which is number two, which is a study session; preliminary review for 375 Hamilton downtown parking garage. Preliminary Architectural Review of a new five-story parking garage with one basement parking level with 1,709-square footage of ground floor retail, bike storage and 331 parking spaces located on a 29,164-square foot surface parking lot and the zone district in public facilities. The environmental assessment is an initial study has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA and a draft EIR will be prepared with the formal application. We have Amy French, our City Planning Official, welcome. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: September 7, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning, thank you. Amy French. Today you are looking at three options in a study session format for a preliminary design for the downtown parking garage at 375 Hamilton. The slide on the screen has one and two options mislabeled so the one to the left is option two, the one to the right is option one and the one at the bottom is option three, as noted. Just a quick review, this is going to be going through a CEQA for environmental review. This did go to a scoping session with the Planning Commission and a meeting with the Council to confirm the direction of the project, which includes one basement level and they added a top level – an additional floor to maximize the parking on the site. The HRB reviewed this last week and now it’s your turn. The Planning and Transportation Commission will be looking at a code amendment in October, October 11th, to modify the PF development standards that set forth the special setbacks and setbacks and floor area ratios and that kind of thing. So, there’s going to be some amendments going forward to the Planning Commission and Council. We expect to see the application to come in, in about October and then the follow up will be the environmental review. This will all be going to the City Council, so your recommendation is to Council but not today; we’re looking at direction. Just a quick recap, the HRB saw this last week, the packet page 13 does discuss what the HRB was asked to do; specifically, compatibility with nearby historic resources - there are three nearby historic resources - and to take a look at architectural review finding 2b to assist staff and the ARB. One member was concerned about the special setback encroachment and suggested that the City consider two basement levels and lopping off the top floor. Several members prefer the option one, which was the screen but with some openings in that mesh to give it more interest. They did note the benefits of the second story horizontal line on that option one with the colonnade that reflects the Post Office and they appreciated a step back at the upper floors and the desire for street trees on Hamilton was expressed. A couple folks talked about the Spanish/Mediterranean Revival style and thought that the tower might be an opportunity to express some of that Birge Clark iron work in some way. Just showing you the three nearby historic resources: we have a Victorian on the left with a turret there, we have the sport shop there which is coming forward at some point soon for rehab to more historic and potentially adding some residential on the top floor there. Then we have, of course, the Post Office across the street with its colonnade. These are the considerations at this time; we have finding 2b that looks at the compatibility and nearby historic resources. We also have the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and there are two goals for the Hamilton Avenue District, and there are guidelines as well. I have those on the screen and they are in your staff report as well. One thing to note is that there is a look at the Hamilton frontage and we do have a bus stop there and we have the opportunity to widen the sidewalk. It’s pretty narrow at this time so they are looking at putting a wider sidewalk there to match what’s in front of that AT&T building next door. I am going to load the applicant’s presentation and Holly Boyd with Public Works is the Project Manager. Ms. Holly Boyd, Public Works: Hi, Holly Boyd, Public Works Engineering and I did have one correction. Originally our Council proposal was for five-stories above ground and when we went to Council in April, they actually added the below grade basement to the project so it’s five above and one below, thanks. Ms. French: Now we have Ken Hayes, who is going to give a presentation. Mr. Ken Hayes: Good morning, Chair Lew and Members of the Board. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects and I’ll be making a presentation on behalf of the team. There we go. I am joined by Watry Design this morning, Michelle Wendler and Gordon Knowles if there are questions about the specifics of the garage itself. The site, as we know, is a 29,000-square foot parcel on the corner of Waverley and Hamilton. It’s an ‘L’ shaped parcel currently occupied by a City parking lot. In terms of the content, right across – this is Hamilton here and right across the street, we have the Palo Alto Post Office; a Category One historic structure, as well as a National Registry building located here. Then on Waverley Street, we have the Palo Alto Sports structure which is a Category Three. The Victorian house next to that is a Category Two and on the corner here at University Avenue and Waverley is the [Decaoats] building and that’s a Category Three historic resource. The property is currently zoned PF and surrounding properties on this side at least are primarily CDC, P, ground floor restricted uses. Across Hamilton, the ground floor restricted uses are not in (inaudible). At the rear along the property here is access from Waverley that is a one-way alley called Lane Twenty-One and it provides access to the back of CDS and the stores actually along Waverley here – the backs of those. There’s also a parking space in City of Palo Alto Page 3 the back of Lot 84 I believe. These are views of the existing buildings in the neighborhood, we have the AT&T building that’s about 74-75-feet tall. It has an interesting brick base to it and a big block on top. We have the All Saints Episcopal Church, which is primarily a building in the landscape. We have the Post Office which is the Category One historic building. We have 400 Hamilton, which is kind of a brick post and beam office building with some ground floor public space out front. A little bit closer in, the Post Office has the beautiful tile roofs, the arcade, it has some nice metal work that we can draw from, deep shades and recesses. Then along Waverley, we have the Palo Alto Sport Shop here, it’s a little bit more modest and then the completely different Victorian building next to that. This ground floor area is all primarily retail or retail like, ending in this building here at 510 so our property is just to the left of that. The program is a four-story but five-level because we’re parking on the roof, structure with the above ground with one level of basement parking; 330 stalls. The City dictated plus one stall to replace the stall that we would loosing at the back of Lot 84, which is located in here so that will have a stall in the parking structure for a total of 331. Council would like to see about 1,700-square feet of retail fronting on Waverley Street and they share a trash enclosure for the buildings kind of in this area. As well as a bike storage facility incorporated into the structure itself. The design constraints, we have setback issues here and then on this side here we’ve got to provide a solid wall with zero setback because opening penetrations would be an issue and so that’s a solid wall. We have a 16-foot setback on the back of the building that fronts onto Bryant – Waverley Street and the reason for that is to provide some pedestrian access for utilities. We can bring our potential trash and that sort of thing out into this area but also it provides for protection of openings. So, create the open space there so the garage can be open and we’re not impacting the windows that are in the backs of the existing buildings so it’s kind of a dictated setback in that location. The same thing is true along this edge of the property and here’s the property line but we’re going to set 10-feet back so that we can have an open parking structure with unprotected openings and as you’ve probably noticed, the 510-existing building has windows on the property line. So, it allows for those to continue for light – daylight penetration into that existing building. Then we have a special setback along Hamilton of 7-feet located there with the AT&T building that is on that special setback. We have a requirement for 65 ¼-feet essentially to get the parking dimension to work and the dimension that we have is 66-feet so we have ¾-foot extra basically in that leg of the ‘L’. In this leg of the ‘L’, we’re required to have 87 ½-feet because of the two aisles of parking, as well as the driveway or the ramp and we have 90-feet and so we have about 2 ½-feet of extra space there that we’ll be using essentially for articulating the façade. The garage is an open ventilated parking garage, other than the ground – the basement level, which will be mechanically ventilated but the floors above grade will all be designed as an open parking structure. So, we’re required to have lots of openings in the walls, essentially around the perimeter and because of this wall being solid, as well as some others, being solid, that is a bit of challenge for this project. We have a 2-foot zone basically running around this edge where we can start to create some articulation and relief that’s outside of the main structure of the garage so that’s clear of the columns that support the garage. Auto access, this is the alley that’s one- way in that direction coming off of Waverley heading over to Bryant and we’re going to keep the entrances to the garage almost in the same place that it is today for the entrance for the parking so, we’re eliminating all the access from Waverley Street. In terms of pedestrian access, we’re trying to create an alley here and the alley will then turn and kind of create this zone in back of the Waverley buildings. The corner, sort of open court yard space is also a pedestrian focus and those both terminate on stair and elevator (inaudible) so both these locations will have stairs and elevators. Then the retail rhythm of the street will be maintained along that street edge and lacing the retail space here and that’s about 1,700-square feet. So, in all the concepts before you, one through three today, the locations of vertical circulation of the entrance to the garage, those elements have stayed the same in all of the concepts. So, what we’re looking at is different ways of the look and feel and expressing the form. We understand that we’re going to have opportunities for pedestrian amenities and seating and that sort of thing long the ground floor. We can talk about that as we look at the alternatives. These are some, I guess local – this garage here, some presidents are over at Stanford. This is in San Jose and I think it’s a (inaudible) garage and this is garage is Claremont, California. What I like about all these garages is that they are richly detailed and there’s a lot of relief, a lot of shade and shadow with the deep recesses and so on and they kind of change character at night because of the use of metal screen in this particular garage here. This garage also has some metal screen here that becomes transparent at night. I like the outdoor spaces that are created here, as well as – this has a pedestrian zone retail space, basically on the City of Palo Alto Page 4 whole ground floor here and then a stair comes down into that space that leads you up into the first level of the parking. Way-finding is pretty obvious and very important in a public parking facility from being able to find where you are, know where you’ve parked your car and for safety reasons. So, the idea of the stairs being very well defined in all of these garages I think makes sense and so we’re trying to incorporate that also into the building. Just some close up of ways of screening, this is a metal mesh and the reason for the metal mesh is it’s very open. We achieve some sense of screening to create this feeling of a block or a mask but allow that transparency to take place for ventilation purposes. This is a metal mesh at the Epiphany, this is actually a brick screen wall and that could be very interesting perhaps on the ground floor because there’s a lot of – if you will go back to the pictures of the context, 400 Hamilton is a brick masonry building; it’s veneer. The AT&T building, a lot of brick and – I can’t believe I’m almost out of time already. Chair Lew: Ken, it’s a study session so we can – you’re – we only have one item on the agenda so… Mr. Hayes: So, I don’t want to rush, normally I start to rush at this point. Chair Lew: We’ll give you two more minutes. Mr. Hayes: So, this is some ideas for mesh, whether it’s a metal or brick. Obviously, the brick would probably be lower level and then this is some kind of a louver treatment. Concept one, the idea is to create the block of the garage and get that mass on the corner to sort of hold the corner relative to the AT&T building next door but incorporate a rhythm of arcade, let’s say on the ground floor that is reminiscent of the Post Office, create a vertical stair element that is easily recognizable. So, this is the Hamilton façade and then the Waverley façade, we would continue the rhythm of the store fronts and try to create some form that relates to 510 Waverley next door and then it slowly transitions into the entrance of the parking structure. So, this is a view from Waverley looking towards the Post Office on the left. Opposite the entrance of the Post Office is essentially an entrance into the garage for pedestrians; the stair defines that. The height of the first two floors is defined here and it approximately lines up with the roof of the Post Office and then we would repeat that – the rhythm as we march down Hamilton. The garage entrance is approximately in the same location as it is today. We separated the garage from the AT&T building by about a 20-foot reveal so that there’s a gap in the rhythm but it’s also a screened gap. This shows opportunities for pedestrian seating and landscaping on the ground floor and then on the Bryant – I’m sorry, I keep saying, Bryant. On the Hamilton Street façade, that would actually wrap and this is the entrance to the pedestrian alley that takes you down – sorry? Mr. Hayes: Waverley, what did I say the second time, Hamilton? Waverley. We’re on Waverley Street and then the garages are shielded above. This stair comes down into a small court yard opportunity for seating; obviously, this could spill out here for retail purposes. The other concept picks up on the AT&T building where we try to express the mass a little bit more formally. We still have the gap here between the AT&T building and the parking garage. We tried to express some kind of artistic treatment of the ground floor that might be reminiscent of the metal work or the brick work or something that you might find on the Post Office. So, an opportunity actually, for an artisan to perhaps get involved at that ground floor and along Hamilton. Then along Waverley Street, it would be retail space on just that first level and expressed in that way. Same views looking towards the Post Office on the left, the stairs in the same place but a little bit different expression. You start to look at this post and beam kind of idea that you see on the diagonal corner at 400 Hamilton, the brick building. So, it starts to draw from a number of the neighboring buildings. You can see where we would -- could have this ground floor artistic metal work; bars or twisted rod iron or something that then could climb up the buildings. The HRB thought that could actually be incorporated into the stair in some way. We’ve picked up on the openings of the AT&T building, these just big extrusions that kind of protruding from the façade and thinking that this could be some kind of a metal mesh. Then, as we come down Waverley, this is the entrance again to the pedestrian area. A little bit more generous plaza and the stair comes down as a broader stair into that space but the actual area allocated is (inaudible) all of these concepts. Then the third concept is a little bit different so instead of using a metal mesh, we could use some kind of a louver approach to define the mass of the building above. Again, to hold the corner relative to the AT&T building and the downtown City of Palo Alto Page 5 plan. We would – this is kind of a hybrid, we would still pick up on this arcade of the Post Office on the first two floors here, the elevator and stairs all in the same location, the ground floor could be some kind of the brick mesh – the brick screening rather perforated wall or more of the metal work on the ground floor. On Waverley Street, we would again go back to a two-story expression to relate to the building next door and the ground floor retail that occurs there. Same view, the stair has turned into this option but it comes down to the same plaza here. However, the ground floor retail is expressed – this is this idea that these fins pick up on the terra cotta color of the brick across the street, the tile roofs both on Waverley and the Post Office. A view from the other direction with the entrance and then as it goes down the pedestrian alley. Then this plaza is setback even more because the stair has been turned so it’s more open let’s say, for that retail to spill out and create some seating opportunities. We see seating opportunities in these recesses as well. It’s a great place to sit and look at a Category One historic resource across the street. Of course, there will be landscaping and so on and we’re not yet at that point; this is more about the massing and that concludes my presentation. I look forward to your questions. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Ken. We’re going to do the speakers, we have two public speakers and then get Board Member questions and comments. I do have one little announcement, is that the Castilleja School expansion was originally scheduled to be on the agenda today and they pulled it off of the agenda because of they… Ms. French: The applicant requested a postponement and so we sent out notices and I think we did a pretty good job advertising the cancellation. Chair Lew: Yeah, I just want to make sure that every – if anyone was tuning in and they were looking forward to that, that’s what happened today. Ok, so we have two speakers, Elizabeth Wong and Roxy [Rap] and you each have 5-minutes. Ms. Elizabeth Wong: Buenos Dias, (followed by statements in Spanish) The reason that I am saying this is because I grew up in Buenos Aires and Spanish is my natural language. So, every time I come and make a speech, I have this language impediment but I’ll try to – not to tax your ears. So, this is the third time that I bring similar issues concerning this parking garage. We own – oh, what happens? Oh, we’re the owners of the Lot number 85, which is adjacent to the parking garage and there are some things that are very important and I express three times, as I said before, and I was to bring it to the public’s attention. They fall into two categories, one is at it relates to our – the next – the adjacent buildings and the second category is as it relates to the garage itself. Concerning the first category, I have a problem with the access for future residences at my buildings, as well as the adjacent building but I will speak only to my building. By making a walkway between the garage and the rear of Lot 85, you pretty choke the traffic – the car movement on that – in that stripe or in that parking space. One of the – we met with Amy French and Holly Boyd and one of the suggestions that came up -- and Brad [Eggleston] – one of the suggestions that came up was the idea of tunneling a path from the underground parking to the underground of Lots 85 and 84 so that it can provide onsite parking for future residences. I believe this is a concept that has been used in the City before and it was said that it was – at the meeting that it was used at the City before and I would like to very strongly for you to consider that opportunity. Otherwise, we are landlocked and there will never be any development – any residential development at those sites. The second issue also concerns that so-called walkway and if they called it a driveway, then I would imagine that they would allow us car access to the back of the building and why do we need the access to the back of the buildings? Ok, those spaces are or has been restaurants ever since I can remember. We have owned them for 15-years or 20-years and even before we bought them, they were an Italian restaurant and with restaurants, you have constant cleaning of grease traps, which is extremely messy. You have (inaudible) that come and de-grease the hoods and the air conditioning system and all those trucks need access to the rear of the building. Right now, at that walkway, you have the dumpsters in the new design and you – the waste – (inaudible) waste will have to have access to those dumpsters. What we’re requesting is that our trucks that we need for the functioning of the business, be allowed to come in and do the services that they have been providing for years. Then there is the issue of deliveries so right now you have almost no loading zone around this area and the reason is because the existing City of Palo Alto Page 6 parking lot is being used as a delivery zone. When you take that – when you build a new structure, all these delivery people – oh, how long do I have? Chair Lew: You used up your 5-minutes but – we – I think the Board read all of your emails too but if you could just wrap up – try to wrap up quickly but we have read your emails. Ms. Wong: So, the loading zones don’t work because you have – not only do the loading zones and the garage service the Waverley buildings, they also service Apple and CVS. Well, I want to briefly tell you about my objections to the new design of the garage. I think it’s super massive, I suggested that they put two levels of underground parking, and four above ground but instead they are having five levels of parking. I think that the screens are atrocious, there’s no reason at all to have screens in a – for parking. You are protecting the cars where you should be protecting the stair well where people walk from the inclement weather and glass in the stair well would be a really great addition; leave it open. Make it an organic garage, alright, thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Ms. Wong and Roxy Rapp Mr. Roxy Rapp: Thank you. Roxy Rapp, 265 Lytton and I also happen to own the building on the corner of Waverley and University. I have two – well, first I want to say I support the garage one hundred percent. I think it’s great the City wants to do and develop it and it’s the center of town and I think it will be really used a lot. The biggest problem I have is it’s not big enough and as you know, we took employee parking out of the neighborhoods and we’re having a tremendous problem downtown. Especially with the restaurant workers that are not being able to find parking and it’s starting to have an impact on our vacancies at restaurants and turning over now. I think this would be a great opportunity for the City to do something about employee parking. I think definitely you should go deeper, you should go two floors and there’s no problem. Lot GNL has three-floors and I think you should go higher and make the top and maybe the bottom extra floor employee parking. You could do it with a gate and it would be terrific to be able to have employees to be able – close to their job and park and not have to circulate or be put way out on the – further out and have to come in. I think you should definitely try to encourage that. The second thing is I would encourage you to have Ken talk to the owners of – especially the new owner of the Toy World building and see what his plans are in the futures. I’m pretty sure he plans to go up and do something really nice there. That’s the [Thorwt] family and it’s run by Jon Shank and then the Brad [Hicken] family, who are another very good developers in town, I think you should try to find out what’s going to go on there just to be able to have a whole picture of what’s going to happen there in those two major properties that are supporting the development. I can’t encourage you enough to try to get City Council and the Commission to accept higher than 50-feet and to go lower. I think it’s a great opportunity for the City and I would hate to lose it, thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Rapp. Let’s move onto Board Member questions, I’m sure we have lots of questions. Peter. Board Member Baltay: Yes, good morning. A question for architect Ken Hayes regarding the 10-foot setback between the garage and the Thai Pan buildings is it possible to reduce… Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: Excuse me, I’m sorry one second. Board Member Baltay: My understanding is that you need that setback to allow the wall of the garage to be open for ventilation purposes but is it possible to reduce that setback? If it weren’t a pedestrian alleyway, could it be closer to 5-feet? As I read the code it seems to have some flexibility there. Mr. Hayes: I think for the amount of openings that we need, we need 10-feet because we can’t make it work with twenty-five percent, right? This is Michelle Wendler. Ms. Michelle Wendler: Yes, Michelle Wendler from Watry Design, so when we have the 10-feet, we’re allowed to have all of those be unprotected openings on that side. If we make it 5-feet, we can only have City of Palo Alto Page 7 twenty-five percent of the area and we need all of that area to make up the difference because we’re so solid along the AT&T side and because of working with the openings around the rest of the façade. Board Member Baltay: So, it’s a matter of how many – what percentage of openings you can have. Ms. Wendler: Correct. Board Member Baltay: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Any other questions? Wynne. Board Member Furth: Some question for Staff, these are – I doubt you will have the answers today but this is a very interesting corner of course and it’s architecturally fascinating; context I should say. So, I’d like to know more about the history of All Saints. Do I mean All Saints or All Souls? All Souls – All Saints, whatever. The Episcopal Church across the corner and I’d like to know more about the AT&T building, particularly as it moves up towards Bryant. It has that elaborate brick façade, it’s got arches, it’s got the diagonal roof fading into the building’s rectangular block and I’d like to know what happened there? Why is it like that? Who designed it? What’s it for? Then I would like to understand more about the legal rights that the property owners facing on Waverley adjacent to this site might have. I understand that we have our own principles that say we’re supposed to be – any structure going up is supposed to be respectful of what’s around it but I’m curious as to what kind of actual entitlements for access anybody might have – any of those property owners might have. I am also curious about the extensive use of Lane, whatever it is, Twenty-One, for trash bins. My understanding is that that’s not what those lanes are supposed to be used for. That means that the buildings have to be designed to have them somewhere else and in thinking about what I would think that this design should be accommodating or making space for, I would – it would matter to me whether those present uses are essential but probably in violation of local rule or something the City wants to continue or something we think over time might change. This is not a question but one of my concerns here is that we would be trying to accommodate buildings that aren’t long for this world in their present form and so that’s going to be something that I’m going to be thinking about a lot. Thank you. Chair Lew: Wynne, can you clarify what you’re looking for on the All Saints Church? Board Member Furth: Some discussion in the Environmental Review of what that buildings history is and what it's designed is and whether it is of (inaudible). Chair Lew: Oh, ok, interesting. It’s been – there’s been a Church there as long as Palo Alto and they tore down the original church which is originally something more like St. Thomas Aquinas and that size of wood – a little wood building. Then they built the concrete building to accommodate their congregation. On the – just so you – also, on the AT&T building, that use to be a – the taller piece use to be a mid – just classic mid-century building and then in the 80’s, I remember when they sort of annexed the building next door and they added all of the brick – yeah, towards Bryant. They added all of that brick work at that same time and the angle, that was all done at the same time, that’s my recollection. Then also on this particular site of the garage, there was a Church, it was the first Congregational Church and it was a big shingle style Church right on the corner with a big oak tree. Yeah, the current – the existing parking lot. Board Member Furth: Oh, and I have one other question for Staff. There’s an oak tree on site, is that too small to be protected? Ms. French: I think it is a protected tree so – but that’s what the environmental review is going to cover. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, it’s a protected tree. Board Member Furth: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Mr. Hayes: It’s the one out… Vice Chair Kim: Could you come and speak into the mic for the record, please. Mr. Hayes: This is Gordon Knowles with Watry Design. Mr. Gordon Knowles: Hi, good morning and I am Gordon Knowles with Watry Design. The Arborist report has looked through the trees in the Bay Area and I think the tree that you’re talking about is a protected tree. The Arborist report is that it’s been previously damaged and isn’t in good condition. Though we could try and protect it and we’ve looked at options of possibly even moving the tree. He doesn’t feel that – actually, with the damage the is to the tree, it would be viable to save as part of the process. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: I have some questions for Staff. I guess on the 10-foot passageway that’s being proposed, has there been any thought about the passage way design? I was looking at the Cowper – the Webster and Cowper Street garage and it has about a 10-foot passage with an arbor and lighting and vines and signage. I was wondering if anything like that was considered for this site? Ms. French: The last sheet of the set would be the sheet to refer to as to the thinking thus far and perhaps Mr. Hayes would have any… Mr. Hayes: I really don’t think we’ve given it a whole lot of thought yet. They should a paving pattern right now or I’m sorry, we show a paving pattern right now but that whole space needs to be studied on how it relates to the garage, how it pulls people down to the elevator and the stair and that sort of thing. There will be eyes on that space and I mean there are windows into the adjacent building and then the parking garage would be primarily open at that level. Chair Lew: I would say the living wall is a really interesting idea. I’ve looked at some of the ones in San Francisco and they are really beautiful; like the one at [SF Moma] is really gorgeous and there’s also the one at the private school near California. I would just be – I guess my concern on that is just the scale of having a very tall wall of the garage and I mean that’s – I would be interested in seeing something that breaks down the scale. So, if you’re thinking of a living wall, is it only two-stories or would you think it would be even taller? That would be my question, is real – you know you’ve got something – basically, you’ve got something 10-feet wide and 50-feet high and that’s like a mid-evil street so I would be curious to see how you mitigate the scale on that. I have some questions on the – I was wondering if Staff could maybe talk a little bit about how the City is going to manage the parking because I attended the Council hearings and I do understand that there’s some discussion about changing how garages are used. Is there any thought and it’s not necessarily the Board’s purview but I just want to say that there have been larger discussions out there about permits or attendance or what not and – or active monitoring systems. Ms. Boyd: Yeah, so we are – this garage is going to have a parking way finding to help guide people to open spaces to they will be able to tell on each floor which spaces are available. I – at this point, we don’t – I don’t know what the Transportation Division and Planning is going to decide regarding how many permit spaces various public spaces; that hasn’t been discussed. I know for transportation they have been discussing for future garages – we show in the plan that there are provisional gates at the entrances that may be added later for future pay for parking but again, that hasn’t been decided on. Chair Lew: Then I have a question on the – the plans are showing a bike station and is that intended to be similar to the outdoor bike racks or is this something else like a supplement to the existing – to the bike share system? City of Palo Alto Page 9 Ms. Boyd: This – the desire for the bike station was requested by the Transportation Division and they want it to be similar to what’s at the University Caltrain Station lot, where it’s a key access and a secure station but no attendant though. Chair Lew: Also, a question for Staff, on Lane – what is it? Lane Twenty-One, so the alley there, does – has Staff received any complaints on how that functions from the various businesses in its current configuration? Do we know anything about how it works? I mean there’s a lot of dumpsters and I walked through yesterday and there are lots of dumpsters which is pretty normal for our alleys downtown but it’s only 15-feet wide. So, it's narrower than some of our other ones so what do we know about that? Ms. French: Well, we’ve – over the years there have been code enforcement cases like people putting pallets out and this kind of thing. This is true of many of the alleys downtown, we – people – there are dumpsters and as buildings re-develop, we ask that people provide trash enclosure rooms and then it becomes please use those for the trash instead of for something else. In this project, they are proposing the trash enclosure to handle the trash from those three – two or three businesses there on Waverley… Ms. Boyd: As well as the trash from the retail on our parking garage site. Ms. French: Then we still have the CVS pharmacy and the other uses there and Starbucks etc. on University that has a need for placing detritus in the alley. Chair Lew: Then my last question is regarding the special – the 7-foot special setback on Hamilton and I know we have that on many of the streets downtown and it was originally used to widen the streets. It’s come up before on other projects on Hamilton – on several projects on Hamilton and I was wondering what – you’re proposing to change the zoning for this zone or were you thinking that it would be a variance and there would be findings for a variance for this? Ms. French: This is part of a larger discussion that will be with the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council, and that is for City public or for City parking garages that go below grade in a setback and above grade in a setback. This would be a change to the Public Facilities Zone Development Standards for this particular use. In this case, the Public Facility Zone Standards require a 20-foot setback on any street, which is actually wider than the 7-foot special setback. Yes, the original intent of the special setbacks was to widen the streets and that plan has not, since the 1950’s, come forward to widen Hamilton, but in this case with the geometries of the lot, it’s really tough to meet that 7-foot setback and so they are requesting the 5-foot encroachment and we’ll do that through a zoning, legislative decision by Council. Chair Lew: Yes, Wynne. Board Member Furth: What would the setback be if this was a commercial development on this site? Ms. French: If it was a commercial zone? Oh, 7-feet. Board Member Furth: If we (inaudible) looking at the adjacent uses that we have there. The retail and whatever… Ms. French: Yeah, it would be a 7-foot special setback on Hamilton. Board Member Furth: From the property line? Ms. French: Right, not a 20-foot. Board Member Furth: But absent that special setback, if we already had as wide as the street (inaudible) because (inaudible) it’s zero setbacks? City of Palo Alto Page 10 Ms. French: Correct. Board Member Furth: Thanks. Board Member Baltay: In the same… Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: …(inaudible), what would the setbacks be regarding the 16 and 10-foot walkways to the adjacent commercial buildings if this were a standard commercial development in a CDC zone, would those setbacks be required? Ms. French: There would be no setbacks required in the CDC zone, which this is not going to be changed to a CDC zone but yeah, to compare. We can have – if you’d like for formal review so you can understand - a comparison between the CDC – if it were a commercial building in the CDC, if you’d like that. Board Member Baltay: It’s ok, I’m just trying to understand what – where these parameters have come from because they are restrictive on the design. Chair Lew: Ok, Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Could you explain how the trash will be picked up from the trash enclosure? Ms. Boyd: So, I’ve been in talks with our refuge group and the trash collector will come down Lane Twenty-One… Vice Chair Kim: So, a truck can navigate down Lane Twenty-One? Ms. Boyd: Yeah, they do because they have to pick up all the trash from Starbucks and everything. Vice Chair Kim: I didn’t know if they came down Lane Twenty-One or if they actually access the parking lot. Ms. Boyd: I think they probably do both to come down the parking lot for the three buildings here for frontage but there’s quite a lot of trash bins along the University front – businesses as well. Vice Chair Kim: To me, it seems like perhaps the enclosure doors should then be facing Lane Twenty-One and not the pedestrian access but perhaps – I don’t know. Was there a reason the doors are facing the pedestrian alley as opposed to the Lane? Ms. Wendler: (Inaudible), we have a couple different things happening on the frontage to Lane Twenty- One. One is we have a mechanical exhaust duct coming up from the basement that needs to discharge out that direction, that’s what’s on the left corner. Then we have the access – the vehicular access – right next to that is a sheer wall and we have very limited places to put our seismic shear wall elements in this building. We’ve squeezed that into that particular location and so we imagine that the dumpsters would be pulled out and around that sheer wall. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: No other questions? We’re going to go to Board Member comments. Peter? Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I have three general rounds of ideas/directions/ thoughts for this. The first one has to do with the overall site planning and so overall, I agree that it makes sense what you have here. I’m wondering if it wouldn’t – I’m questioning the 10-foot pedestrian alley between Waverley Street and (inaudible). I think it’s going to feel very tight and I think that if you were to reduce that to City of Palo Alto Page 11 more like 5-feet, you could actually get a greater setback along Hamilton, which I think would be really a good thing. I think that the – when I look at the guidelines for the Hamilton Avenue again, it’s asking for a pedestrian connection from Hamilton through to University somehow. My office is very close to this site and I walk past it several times a day and the pedestrian traffic cutting from the corner of the AT&T building through – behind Prolific Oven and out to University is pretty intense. I mean I would say every 30-seconds somebody is walking through there and I don’t think that’s going to change. What you’re going to have – the way this is designed is people walking through the parking lanes to make that same connection. Secondarily, I’m very empathetic to the businesses in like the Thai Pan, Prolific Oven, whatever happens to the Toy Sport building and that they just need some means to service their business functions. It’s true that they are perhaps not legally entitled to that use of that land but if we take that away, they are just going to be trying to access things off of the diagonal parking on Waverley Street; which is really a hit to the community and that’s just not an attractive thing. So, I think we have to (inaudible) somehow, which means that pedestrian access has to be somehow functional. Mr. Hayes: At the back of those buildings? Board Member Baltay: At the back of those buildings and I think that we just – unfortunately, we just have to accomplish that and I don’t know if it’s 16-feet or 20-feet. You’re very sympathetic again, to the – you got to make the parking spaces work and that’s not – there’s no squeezing on that and it has to work. The thought process is that could that pedestrian access goes clear out to Hamilton and then remove the pedestrian connection – 10-foot connection over to Waverley Street. That’s a – not one of your options here but looking at that, I think that that’s the pedestrian connection you need and… Mr. Hayes: To force people through the garage you’re saying? Board Member Baltay: Essentially come up with a very creative garage design where you also have a pedestrian connection through. I say that because I think that’s what’s going to happen. If you go through a number of garages downtown today like the one over on the corner of Lytton and I think it’s Waverley again. There’s a lot of pedestrian traffic just cutting these corners, working their way through; it’s a tight urban area. I think it’s going to happen regardless and maybe there’s a creative way to get that connection and keep your parking functionality and better serve these businesses that are going to be impacted. It also better meets the guidelines of pedestrian connection from Hamilton and I think the 10-foot alleyway out to Waverley is really just going to be a dark, almost dangerous tight alley. That’s also duplicated by Lane Twenty-One cutting through adjacent to it. In that same vein, I’m really struck that there’s the little corner back there where the alley jogs and there are two other buildings that are very likely or three to be redeveloped… Mr. Hayes: Right here? Board Member Baltay: Yeah, and it feels to me that on one hand, we’re dealing with an incomplete set of information here because the City really could look into more of what is going to happen with the buildings in that area? Then is there an opportunity to create some sort of a micro plaza back there, some sort of -- what you would find in a European City. A little pedestrian area way or something where again, you mix the pedestrian with the functional needs but right now it’s not being thought about and we’re developing it in reaction to what local businesses do. When we’re developing a garage like this, it’s the opportunity for the City to try to take that into control. You do have one little green space indicated back there but if you go back on these alleys during the day and the evening, it’s remarkable how many people –a guy taking a cigarette break, a couple having an argument, a person who is pulling off the sidewalk to do something. These alleys are used but they are not designed and it's incumbent upon us as architects, as City planners to take that into account and maybe we can do something more back there. Again, my thoughts about the planning of this are that the 10-foot alley at Waverley, I don’t think works and I think you’re missing an opportunity to make an important connection to Hamilton. My second set of thoughts really had to do with – I guess I confessed to my fellow Board Members that I’ve just been struggling on trying to understand the importance of the historic aspect of all the buildings around this. Clearly, the Post Office is an important building and the Historic Resources Board seems to – when I City of Palo Alto Page 12 listened through to their discussion, they seem to say that they like the idea of some sort of element on the garage that mimics the height of the eave; that second story line. I think Wynne pointed out very (inaudible) that the Church across the street is a very interesting and striking building that doesn’t seem to have been considered. I guess I’m just really feeling like the ARB is in a bit of a vacuum here on understanding how much should we be considering? Should we be treating this Birge Clark building across the street as some sacrosanct thing that we have to respond to or can we ignore it? What I am sort of hearing everybody eludes to is we need to pick up some of the details; maybe some metal detail or maybe an eave line. The best idea I heard was what architect Hayes mentioned in the past meeting that by having a bit more of a setback from the parking garage, you have a place where you can see and look at this wonderful building. I have to say that I walk by that Post Office several times a day and I always look at it and it always brings a smile to my face. Maybe that’s the best way to respect this because I’m not sure by putting some clever iron detailing that’s of our time, modern, but still eluding back to that and that it’s going to work or that it’s really a historically appropriate. I don’t think we want to put a bunch of masonry arches or a tile roof on this building. What I am finding though is that there doesn’t seem to be quite enough discussion about how we’re fitting into the history or what we want it to be doing. I really wish on the historic resources level that somebody really understood the history of this was coming forward saying this how we ought to be approaching it because I think again, we’re reacting in small levels to it. With that said I did, in walking around, come to one idea that I think the Post Office and the Wells Fargo building and the Church have in common a sense of an enclosed outdoor spaces; the arcade along the Post Office, the covered two-story portico on the Wells Fargo building. The Church has wonderful outdoor spaces around it and it leads me to think that the stair tower on the corner is an opportunity for what I would call an enclosed vertical space and I understand that there’s some concern about wanting it to be safe by being visible. At the same time, I think that that’s the one place Ken, where I think you’re failing on the design; it just looks industrial and scary to me. If I were coming down with my kids, I’d really hold their hands tight. Mr. Lait: Excuse me, Board Member Baltay. Chair, if you don’t mind, I’d like to take a break and just discuss a procedural matter with the Chair. Thank you. Chair Lew: Ok, so we’re going to take a 5-minutes break and sorry about that. Board Member Baltay: No, problem. Board Member Baltay: So, I apologize to everybody but it appears that I might have a conflict of interest in this project so I’d like to recuse myself from any further participation at the moment while I check with the City Attorney. So, at this point, take what I said with a grain of salt and I might be back later but at the moment I am going to recuse myself from participating, thank you. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Lew: We do have to wait till he actually leaves the room and then I think we’ll go to Board Member Kim. Vice Chair Kim: Alright, so this is a study session so I’ll just kind of go out of order. I also agree that – I feel strongly that the City should look at two underground levels and really try to max out the parking lot as much as possible with a certain sense of responsibility to the mass and scale with the neighbors. When I look at some of these elevations, especially the Waverley elevations and seeing those building outlined in the background, I don’t see why adding another story to the top and also the underground levels would be that detrimental. I was also thinking if – and looking at seeing if there are ways to maybe reverse the ramp such that perhaps the portion – perhaps there’s on a half sixth level that is up against the AT&T building. That way it would still remain five levels at the Waverley Street elevation and I realize there are complications with possibly reversing the ramp and so on and so forth but just kind of ideas that I was thinking through. Another thing that I think is missing currently that will – that could eventually play into the design of this is the solar canopy. I know it’s been mentioned in some of the City of Palo Alto Page 13 sections and I’m just wondering isn’t there a possibility for that solar canopy to kind of tie itself into the design of the elevation of this garage as well, rather than it being kind of an afterthought and stuck on. Mr. Hayes: Actually, can I have Michelle just address that real quick (inaudible)(crosstalk)… Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, it’s a study session so I think that’s fine. Mr. Hayes: I know this is comments but... Ms. Wendler: Just currently in our program and in the budget, solar panels are not in the project. Although we are designing it for the future possibility to add the solar panels into the project. So, looking at the architectural (inaudible), that’s possible but it’s currently not in the project that was given by Council. Vice Chair Kim: Well, I’ll just say for the record that I feel that that’s a huge shame… Ms. Wendler: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Kim: …and that’s a disservice to the public and to this building project actually. Moving on, some other comments that I have with regards to the circulation of the garage. I think there are some things that bother me enough, such as these dead-end aisles on every floor. If I am coming up the ramp and I need to – there are basically these dead ends that die into the Lane Twenty-One area of each floor of the ramp except for the first floor. I was also thinking that perhaps the entry and exit from Lane Twenty-One maybe that can only be an exit only. I don’t know if we want to encourage the public to access Lane Twenty-one form Waverly just to enter the garage. That would also free up those extra two stalls that could be deleted or may have to be deleted if that – the (inaudible) for entry from Lane Twenty-One as well. I was also – you know looking over the different options, at first, I really appreciated the options one and three where you have this taller arcade element that kind of relates to the Thai Pan building but listening to the discussion and reading emails of possibilities of redevelopment along that Waverley set of buildings there. I’m wondering if that’s a strong enough element that the parking garage should try to tie itself into, especially if that building is going to get redeveloped or changed. For now, I mean I guess if we’re assuming that building is going to be staying the way it is, I do like the way that it ties into that. So, the element that ties into that is the retail and I’m a little bit concerned about the proportions of the retail space as far as the depth and the height. It doesn’t appear that the first floor of the parking garage is any taller and I know that retail has preferred heights. I did read in the Staff report that perhaps it’s a florist or some other kind of specific retail that may not require the height but I just want to put it out there as a comment. Also, looking at the bike station, I notice that there’s an intake right in front of the bike station entry. In my opinion, I don’t know what the intake is going to look like but sometimes it can make for a situation where it really turns people off from wanting to enter and exit that bike station. I think the City’s desire to have a bike station there is great and wonderful but we should try to make that entry and exit experience a little bit more favorable to the people that are using it. I also wanted to make a note on the different stairs that you are showing at the corner of Waverley and Hamilton. While I’ve personally preferred the overall design scheme of option three, I felt that the stair kind of dying into the wall as you come down on the street level probably wasn’t favorable. I do prefer something like option one or two where they kind of exit out onto either street as opposed to the wall of the parking garage/retail area. Then in the future, as this comes back as a preliminary review or a formal application, I’d liked to see some 3-D views of the alley ways and I realize that they are still under developed but I think those are important for us to see. I think those are – that’s it as far as my initial comments. Mr. Hayes: Great, thanks, Vice Chair Kim. Chair Lew: Wynne. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Furth: Thank you and thank you for the presentation. I did watch the Council’s deliberations on this and so it did seem much of the Staff report in the study presented to them and it was a very impressive amount of thinking and research that has gone into this. I know this area very well because I’ve lived near it but not within 500-feet of it, for 18-years. I patronized the Post Office and CVS and Prolific Oven and all those areas; the farmers market so that’s of great interest to me. First, I started thinking about the context and you know that one of my concerns is that we don’t seem to be thinking about the church across the street; heavily used outdoor space. Those – that’s not just a – a kind of not to well-kept front lawn, that’s an assembly space and their court yard goes in and out, it’s going to be sort of across the street from this and that should continue to be something desirable. Another thing that I wanted to say about context is what I think of as the Wells Fargo building. It is kind of classic Wells Fargo in the sense that it’s red brick but the building is fascinating because it is set way back with those big elaborate porches, terraces, galleries, and large elements that come over planters. It’s also really impressive if you ever use the ATM there because the flowers are at shoulder height so instead of having flowers at knee level with cigarette butts in them, you have really impressive landscaping that is a pleasure to be around. With respect to the Birge Clark Post Office which I understand we owe to Lou Henry Hoover, just like the Girl Scout House, because she had her husband call the then President of the United States and say no, we’re not having federalist here. We have a very good local architect and so we got this building. However, if you look at the entry, it’s true that it’s shades of, I guess stucco. It’s very square and it has what looks like a national recovery act eagle on it. I think that’s the most – so it’s very a steer and rectangular. I realize that it’s round but it looks very squared off and formal. We seem to have a lot of volunteer trees in front of the Post Office and it’s all great to look at. I think Council Member Filseth pointed out that one of the pleasures of walking down Waverley and along this parking lot and generally, it’s a hot, glary, unpleasant corner with a restroom, is that you get to see that entry. So, I think preserving to the extent possible the ability to see that portion of the building would be valuable. Not that the rest of the building isn’t lovely but it’s lovelier as experienced. I’m also concerned that when we spend these many, many millions of dollars, we don’t spend too much time and money and design compromising important project goals for buildings that may not stay long or that logically under our existing zoning will change. Then I thought a lot about the current functions of this surface parking lot and one of the things that I think I see is that this is a place that I can always find a parking place. It would be nice to pretend I never drive over there but I do; often on my way home from somewhere else and I can always find a parking place. There’s always one or two spaces available and if there aren’t, there will be within 90-seconds. So, an important part of this in supporting retail, is quick in and out parking, which is not served by having a whole bunch of electric charging stations on the ground floor, in my view. I won’t say anything about the urge to key Tesla’s while trying to find a parking place but I don’t – I think we should think about what – by definition, you don’t use charging stations for a 5 to 15- minute stop. They should be somewhere else, put them in the basement, (inaudible). The other things that I’ve been thinking a lot about – I mean actually complaining to Staff a lot about for years is there is no bicycle parking. You guys want to me to ride my bike but I end up climbing through the Algerian Ivy or lifting my bike up onto the bumpers – the curb next to the cyclone fence next to the AT&T building because there is nowhere to put a bike unless you want to trip people on their way into CVS. So, I think quick in and out (inaudible) parking is also important. I don’t need a bike station for running into CVS for 15-minutes so I think bike stations – more secure parking might be important but I also think that accessible, in fact, I’m sure it is for some people, places to park are an important part of this. You know you’re just across the street from the farmers market and that’s the other big function that happens around here. The front of the AT&T building is a major place for workers to take breaks because there are benches – seating areas integrated into it and as members of the public pointed out, you can look – it’s got a good view, you look across at an attractive place. There’s great landscaping on the parking lot across – what is the name… Mr. Hayes: (Inaudible)(crosstalk). Board Member Furth: Hamilton, that’s more fabulous landscaping so it really makes it an inviting place. So, I’m expecting to see great landscaping with flowers, which brings out the point that if you’re going to have a living wall, I want to see the endowment that goes with it. I love the [SF Moma] living wall, which among other things features Agapanthus growing out horizontally but that must cost a great deal of time City of Palo Alto Page 15 and energy and expertise to maintain. The last thing that I guess I want to say about context is all those corners go in and out – let your eye go into the building, let’s you walk along and still see the street but be in a protected way. I’m sure that All Saints doesn’t have the kind of maintenance budget it would like and that’s not a great wild life habitat on the corner yet and I know it’s heavily used for their purposes but these are inviting spaces for the eye. They let you go in and out and I think that would be important to have here. I also want you to show me designs that are going to let me see the corner towards the bay of the Post Office as soon as possible as I walk up Waverley. I think if you are going to have 50-story buildings, you need at least some 40-story – 40, sorry, 40-foot architect – landscape elements. Whether they grow up from the bottom or not and I am not in favor of maintaining trees that we think are not going to make it in the longer run. Pedestrian access is interesting, it is a heavily used area, however, I don’t think the alley from Waverley may be heavily used by people who work there, by people who are making deliveries, by people who are doing service work or servicing these buildings. As far as I can tell, pedestrian walk through CVS, you know you just walk – you come straight out of the sidewalk on University, you walk through CVS, you walk through the parking lot and you’re over here. I am not in favor of a walkway from Waverley that’s shared with motor vehicles, I don’t think that’s a walkway. I’m also not really in favor of a 10-foot wide walkway with 50-foot walls next to it. So, I tend to think that it – that space would be much better used on the Hamilton front of the building. I’m perplexed by the staircase and generally, I like the idea of visible staircases but I may be having trouble understanding how these staircases work and look but I think we have some less than successful parking lot stair cases in town. I’m not particularly fond of the one across the street from – gosh, which park? Mr. Hayes: The one on Bryant? Board Member Furth: Yes, there’s seems to be consensus on this point. It doesn’t work, I mean it seems askew, I don’t see people using it, it’s hot when it’s sunny, it’s wet when it rains. I’m very familiar with the Claremont parking garage. Mr. Hayes: So am I. Board Member Furth: I spent more time, Ken. You were just visiting your daughter but I was one of the people who put together the redevelopment agency. What works is the broader shallow steps of the lower level and they are kind of gracious, they invite you in but it’s because they are wide and relatively shallow and they only go part way and then it gets a little more whatever. That is an incredibly busy parking lot and you are never up there by yourself. It is always occupied because that’s a retail zone with a hotel across the street and a train track on the back. I don’t particularly like the stair cases – the look of the stair case coming out towards the street but I don’t know what should be done but I don’t like the way these things appear to the point of where I wondered if they should be tucked up against the AT&T building instead. So that you could have more setback for greenery and view, I don’t know but I do think if you can move the building back another 5-feet that will help. Retail, I didn’t read the City Council to say that they wanted 1,700-square feet of retail. I heard them say they wanted retail that was functional, that was going to be highly (inaudible) and desirable for some kind of use and I do understand the paradox that as you make it bigger, it generates some parking demands. I think we have seen sort of token commercial when we have districts that require commercial. That’s not really what’s driving the redevelopment and then we get commercial that we’re quite skeptical about so it would be important to know that this is designed for real world, successful retail or whatever other permitted use we have in that area. I’m also concerned about the lack of public restrooms facilities there. I think they are hard to design into parking garages but it’s a long way to the nearest restroom. The (inaudible) I mean there is actually one somewhere if you finding it in the Wells Fargo building but it’s a long way so I would be interested in that. I don’t know if it’s possible to essentially say we think the pedestrians can’t be bothered to walk around the corner which is now going to be lovely and attractive with benches and plantings. That that’s -- that the cut through basically should be satisfied by cut (inaudible) – I mean from the policy that encourages inter-block pedestrian connection. If we just need to be sure that that’s designed so that when in fact people cut through that, which they are going to do all the time, it’s reasonably safe for them to do so. I don’t know how you do that but it’s important. Let’s see, I have a whole bunch of notes. The other thing is that this is a really interesting project because the City is City of Palo Alto Page 16 struggling to maximize and budget desirability. Desirable things including the number of parking spaces and we’ve had to make serious compromises and have – the Council has in the past. If you look at Heritage Park, Staff didn’t recommend Heritage Park. Staff said Heritage Park is too expensive, the neighborhood went bezerk and we have Heritage Park and I don’t think anybody regrets it and we were able to attract private funding to develop it. More on point, the Opportunity Center was a site both graced and constrained by great big trees and we were looking at building not only low-income housing but no income housing on that site. Every unit is precious and I think we sacrificed two to three to preserve the trees and I think it’s been totally worth it. So, I would bear that in mind when thinking about how this works. I do hope that this redevelopment lets us make the existing alley work better for whatever it needs to work for. I’m not sure that casual pedestrian cut through is going to be much of it but I don’t know. In terms of the designs, I found the rectangular window attachments unconvincing. The AT&T building is very formal, everything is balanced, symmetric and I don’t know if they used the golden mean but it’s very formal and I don’t know think quoting it works at all. I also don’t think quoting other elements necessarily works but I do notice the great – the preponderance of creamy stucco and brick and tile and those might be things to learn from. I went to Stanford in the 60’s and we had the original Richardson Romanesque and then we had to use the technical term really stupid buildings that had a lot of yellowish stucco with little tile veneer roofs on top. Most of which have now been torn down because they started to just build well design buildings that because of their setbacks, their landscaping, their parapet heights, and their materials complimented those existing buildings and respected them; that’s more of what I am looking for. I do sort of like the idea of a different element – a different thing going on lower down. This is a very tall structure new to a very tall structure and I kind of have liked, at least in the drawings that we’ve seen, the idea of something lighter at the top. I mean I’m certainly not looking for five-stories of stucco. Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Furth: On the 50-foot height limit, that’s a Council directive, that’s a voter directive, right? That’s a ballot measure. Ms. French: The 50-foot height limit in the City is Comprehensive Plan, as well as… Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) the Comprehensive Plan right, it’s a voter enacted initiative? Ms. French: It came out of that era. Board Member Furth: It’s a – we’ve never repealed it, right? It’s a voter directive and we don’t get to change it. Am I confused, has it changed? That’s why we had to have an override vote to do the new Stanford Medical Center buildings. Ms. French: Well, it became – had a rezoning to a different zone but its… Board Member Furth: Well, you had to have voter approval to go over 50-feet. Could we… Ms. French: I know it’s a Comp. Plan policy. Board Member Furth: I believe it’s a voter initiative so it was not a Council idea so we need to check and see. I don’t know if they stuck it in the Charter or just did it as a – they could have done it as an intuitive ordinance rather than a Charter amendment but double check because PAMF was built and in many ways, it made sense for that building to be taller. Almost any health care facility it’s easier to move by elevator than long corridors but I think we are constrained by that so if you could check. Maybe we repealed it but that’s not what I understood. Mr. Hayes: So, I’m sorry, are you in favor of – if it’s not, are you in favor of a taller structure? City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Furth: I have no idea. I think the damage is done by the time you get up that high so I don’t know that I could tell the difference between 60 or 50-feet but I think we’ve been (inaudible) structures above the 50-feet if it is a voter mandate. On the – I hope that it’s – I realize that there are lots of problems but I share the view that’s been expressed by others that it’s a pity not to go down two floors. We’ve been looking at a lot of projects and we keep struggling to approve them, particularly downtown or in the areas around downtown if they don’t have two below parking because you can’t get what you want above ground if you don’t have two floors below ground. More recently we’ve been looking at a hotel that’s proposed at Su Hong on El Camino and it’s next to a Palo Alto Redwoods and Palo Alto Redwoods is – what’s the density? It’s high like 50 or somebody look that up for me; 50 or 60 dwelling units per acres. It’s fully parked, it’s got great loading zones, it’s massively landscaped and it works because they have two floors of underground parking and a big deep site but I’m concerned that this doesn’t – we’re going to really regret it if we don’t go under. We also have parking lots that encroach into the street underground; it’s our street. I don’t know what kind of utilities, it’s mostly our utilities so have we seriously studied encroaching into the street and what we could get there? I would think we would want to do that because I think if you are going to build a garage, boy do you want it to (inaudible). I also and I’m sure other people think about this too but if you are going to spend these many millions of dollars for cars, I hope – I would like us to think about its next use; whether it’s housing or whatever. I understand the load factor for parking garages is so huge that actually the load factor is not a problem for convertible uses but it’s about are the plates flat and a few other things. So, I would like to know how we’ve considered that. There’s seems to be an exhaust vent over by the, at this point, 10-foot pedestrian alley from Waverley kind of near its entry. It shows on sheet PK-2.1 and I don’t know what’s that about but that tends to be uninviting to go into – well, I don’t think that’s an inviting space anyway but if you were going to keep that as a 10-foot alley, that tends to discourage people from walking in. I don’t – sorry. Mr. Hayes: It would be up high. It discharges (inaudible) (crosstalk). Board Member Furth: Ok, that’s what I wondered so it’s up high, it wouldn’t be bothering us. It’s just something going by but I do think that – this does not strike me as an alley that I would like to go down. I think of our funny little alley adjacent to the historic building, is it on Florence too – no, no, that one works, it’s short, it’s straight, it’s well lite, it’s wide enough and the buildings are short. No, this is next to… Mr. Hayes: 420 Florence? Board Member Furth: The – yes, I think it’s the one – it’s the garage that fronts on Bryant and then I guess backs up on Florence and there’s this funny little zigzaggy thing and it’s not a pedestrian access way. It’s a… Chair Lew: You’re saying from Lytton? Board Member Furth: Yeah, from Lytton, the one that wonders by the historic buildings. It’s because it needed to be done to accommodate a complex setting but this -- I don’t think this is going to be where people walk. So, I don’t think we should dedicate a lot of space to it if we can pull the building back and do better on Hamilton; that’s my thought at the moment. Chair Lew: Thank you, Wynne. Great, thank you to the Staff and also to Ken, I think the packet and how you presented the project were perfect for preliminary. I guess the first thing that I want to say is that I have not read the HRB minutes yet because we just got them today but I have been talking to other Board Members on – about other historic projects and I’ve been – I think there’s some unhappiness about the way we’ve been reviewing new buildings when they are adjacent to historic buildings. So, I’ve been doing some research on my own about this and in Philadelphia, there’s an organization and they try to sort of frame the discussion about the design of new buildings. So, you could have literal replication of the historic building on the new site or you use that style but come up with a new – something new within that style or you could just make an abstract reference, which would be Ken Hayes preferred way City of Palo Alto Page 18 or you could just do a completely different strategy where you do something completely different and you just respect the old as old. Maybe you can’t replicate an old colonial building but you just make it completely different and there – so there are these four strategies and we don’t really talk about them. We sort of talk about the projects on the – you know like cornices and metal work respecting – similar to the Post Office but we don’t really actually talk about the four strategies and which strategy would be the best for a particular site. I think that probably should have happened on some of our other recent projects like Avenidas and what not and also, we have the Junior Museum project. I think that there’s some sentiment on the Board to try to elevate the level of discussion about that and debate about these different strategies so there’s that. On the site plan, I have several concerns that have been mentioned before which one is the 10-foot passage way. It just seems like it could be a very dark, undesirable place if it’s not designed correctly. I have also been concerned about as exiting this garage onto Land Twenty- One, which is only 15-feet wide and it’s one-way. I’m also concerned about the – as cars enter the garage from Hamilton. I’m concerned about queuing and stacking because once you – the car enters the garage, they have to decide are they going straight, are they going right or are they going up the ramp and so that seems to me to be a tricky point where you – we could actually end up with a lot of delays there with people not trying to figure out where they are going. On the retail depth, I think it’s been mentioned before that there are concerns about the dimensions of it and so if you have a 25-foot deep retail space, my unscientific survey of downtown is that’s going to be one of the small – shallowest spaces downtown. We have some barbers in the President and also the Cardinal Hotel and they are around 28-feet. There’s some – I think there’s a little ice cream place on University that may be around 28 or 30-feet but I mean most of the time they are like 40 or 50 or more in depth. So, you’re just going to limit the types of tenants that are going to be able to go into it. Then you – (inaudible) – also, within that 25-foot depth, you’re going to have to take out like handicap accessible bathrooms so you’re taking out 7 or 8-feet from that depth. So, I just have to give caution to Staff that there is a – that it’s very desirable to put the retail space in there but we may be limited in the number of tenants – types of tenants that could utilize that space. On the options, I think I would – I think I’m in agreement with – I guess it was the HRB’s sentiment which was something in between options one and two and I think I’m sort of there. Mr. Hayes: I thought it was one and… Chair Lew: Oh, one and three. Yeah, one and three with some sort of – some openings on the upper levels; I think that sounds fine. Two seems top heavy to me, having four floors of the garage over a low base and then I think the other concern that I would have on option two is that the – it really requires a hand of a very skilled designer, as yourself, but it’s really tricky. If you look at the federal building in San Francisco, the architects maybe a lot of mistakes with perforated metal. It’s very hard to get the right proportions of openings on the perforated metal and the public just doesn’t like them at all. Then with the – all the different meshes, sometimes they look good like there is a mesh on one of the UC Mission Bay buildings, it looks great from one direction and then you look at it from the other direction and it doesn’t look so great. It’s a trick material to use and it has its place, for sure. Anyway, it seems to me that something in between one and three is safer. Mr. Hayes: I mean one also has a mesh or metal of some kind but there are ways to mitigate that kind of impact. I mean it could be a bronze kind of color so it’s a real earthy – it’s not a shiny metallic metal (inaudible) (crosstalk)… Chair Lew: Yeah, no, there’s definitely a place for mesh in the right – there are beautiful meshes out there but some of them are very expensive. So, there’s definitely room in there to work with. I do want the – your Hamilton Avenue façade, I think you’re showing some – you’re trying to make some recess in there and I do want to see how that works with the arcade of the Post Office and how they look together in perspective. I’m curious to see if the Board wants to see a sun study on this and how it would impact the Waverley Street properties, especially if they are proposing residential uses there. It seems to me having a very tall garage on the southern side of those properties is going to impact the sun light on those; although we don’t really have any requirements. I don’t think we have and requirements on the – in the downtown zone for that. One just nitpicky item that I’ve seen on other garages that have had to City of Palo Alto Page 19 have fire sprinklers so if you have to have fire sprinklers – you’re not normally required to have them but you might have to if you have a retail use. Mr. Hayes: Retail, yeah, we’ll have fire sprinklers. Chair Lew: So, I’ve seen – there’s one near my house where they just didn’t figure out where to put all the stand pipes. They do this zig zag thing in the (inaudible) stair case on the corner and it looks terrible so I trust you to figure out where that goes. Mr. Hayes: Can you comment a little bit, Chair Lew, about the corner entrance and stair. Chair Lew: Yeah, you know I hadn’t – I am undecided on the staircases. When I use the stair cases in San Francisco, I prefer the stair cases to be completely open for – the feel safer, even if they are exposed. It just seems to me to be a nicer experience but then when I look at it and I think about all of the Birge Clark buildings and what not, I’m not sure I want to see this big open stair case with the big wing wall that goes all the way up. Then the other thing that I think about too is that on the outdoor stair cases are usually, like in a hand of unskilled lighting designer, they’ll just put these really ugly wall pack lighting and exposed conduit on there so it doesn’t look that great at night. I do trust that you sort of design the lighting to be attractive there. My take is a little modern and I could go – I’m open. My take on it was something more enclosed but I’m flexible on that. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Lew: So, I think that’s all that I have. Any other closing comments? Yes, Wynne. Board Member Furth: Elizabeth Wong mentioned underground connectivity to the adjacent parcels, which we did in the 800 block or the City and the 800 block of High Street to accommodate affordable housing on an adjacent site. So, I think under the right circumstances, that can work and that did involve funding from both parcels. On the stair case, I was suddenly thinking of the ornamental staircases with tile risers around – across the street on Ramona which is probably not appropriate here but I think there’s enormous variation in the attractiveness of stair cases. I think lighting makes a huge difference and I look forward to seeing that. Then I just wanted to tell Staff that on the 50-foot ceiling limit, I’m perfectly willing to believe that I’m dead wrong. I was just terrorized by the City Attorney who hired me in believing that it was sacred but I would like to know the history of that because I thought that we had to do a ballot measure for the more recent Stanford health project because it was going to exceed 50-feet. So, I look forward to understanding where I came across the misapprehension if it is one. Chair Lew: Great, any closing comments Ken? Mr. Hayes: No (inaudible). Thank you very much for your comments and we look forward to coming back. Chair Lew: Thank you. 3. 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, 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: City of Palo Alto Page 20 4.Draft Architectural Review Minutes of August 3, 2017, and August 17, 2017. Chair Lew: So, we have the approval of minutes and we have two sets. We have two – well, they – you mean the minutes were sent by email. Board Member Furth: I’m thinking I missed one of those meetings. Chair Lew: Yes. So, should we do – do you want to do the August 17th? MOTION Board Member Furth: So, moved. Chair Lew: I don’t have any comments on them. Board Member Furth: Move approval. Vice Chair Kim: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: Ok, all in favor? Opposed? None. MOTION PASSES 3-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER BALTAY RECUSED AND BOARD MEMBER GOOYER ABSENT Chair Lew: Then for the minutes for August 3rd, we will push those back to a future agenda. Subcommittee Item Avenidas Expansion Project Chair Lew: We have one last item which is subcommittee. Ms. French: So, before adjournment of a full Board, I would like to note on Jodie’s behalf that packet page six there are some corrections needed. Let’s see, today – sorry, on the 21st, which it says the 22nd but that’s the 21st, Board Member Furth will not be attending. Then the dates there after are a day off so we’ll fix that on the next packet, thanks. Board Member Furth: I have a conflict of interest with respect to Avenidas because I live within 500-feet of the corner of the park so I will not be participating in the subcommittee. Ms. French: Thank you, Alex, for agreeing to step in for that. Chair Lew: So, we’re adjourned. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment On September 21, 2017 the ARB subcommittee reviewed project details per approval condition 2c from the ARB approval of the project in October 2016, and verified consistency of same with AR approval findings. Project details included were light fixtures including courtyard trellis light fixtures, photometric plan, trash enclosure roof/trellis detail, and final palette showing the paint color for the exterior of the existing Category 2 building. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8403) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 9/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1545 Alma Street: Subcommittee Review Title: 1545 Alma Street [16PLN-00283]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Driveway Surface Material, Open Space Seating, and Circulation Into the Unit B Garage From the Site Driveway. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple- Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 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 July 27, 2017, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the subject project. At the Board’s recommendation, from the July 13, 2017 hearing, a condition was imposed that required certain project elements 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: The paving material for the driveway shall be changed to a more durable surface. Applicant’s Response: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2  The applicant proposes to replace the “drive-able grass driveway” with “permeable pavers.” The color would either be sierra granite or sequoia sandstone in a 6 x 9 running bond pattern. “Narrow Joint Permeable Quarry Stone” by Calstone Staff’s analysis/Feedback:  The pavers provide a more durable surface and provide filtration of water to achieve similar benefits as the previously proposed grass driveway. Architecture Review Condition: The common space in the rear of Unit C shall include seating. Applicant’s Response:  The revised plans show “built-in wooden slat benches” over the blue stone patio. This seating area is under the new oak tree (Sheet L1). Staff’s analysis/Feedback:  The proposed seating and location appear to be appropriate. There is an existing oak tree on the neighbor’s side, however, the improvements appear to be out of the dripline of the tree. A proposed oak tree would be located in the corner where the seating and patio is also proposed, however, it is not expected that these improvements would affect the tree roots as the tree would be a 24-inch box size that would grow into the space. Architecture Review Condition: Adjust Unit B by possibly flipping the unit so that the parking of the unit is adjacent to Unit A’s parking to improve circulation. Applicant’s Response:  The applicant pushed back the entry shed roofs so that the posts that support them are now almost flush to the wall. Since these posts are setback from the driveway, there is now more clearance for cars at the corner of Unit B to get into the garage. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 In addition, the applicant also made the tree planters alongside the driveway only single tree planters instead of double so that the driveway clearances will work as well. Staff’s analysis/Feedback:  The concern for the Board was the circulation of vehicles getting access to the Unit B garage. While technically, there is no Code required turning radius, the ARB was only able to make positive findings for the project with this condition. The response by the applicant pulls back potential conflicts and provides more space for maneuvering. Removing the second row of vegetation along the driveway helps with the circulation, but reduces the amount of screening between the project and the adjacent neighbors. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enqY-TkNCZI The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 X 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: July 13, 2017 ARB Excerpt Meeting Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Wynne Furth, and Board Member Robert Gooyer Absent: Board Member Peter Baltay 3. PUBLIC HEARING/ QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1545 Alma Street [16PLN-00283]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Addition to an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construction of two Additional Units on a 10,000 Square Foot lot. The Project Also Requests a Design Enhancement Exception for Driveway Width and Distance From the Adjacent Property. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Chair Lew: [Video started mid-sentence] judicial matter for 1545 Alma Street. Recommendation on applicant's request for approval of a Major Architectural Review to allow an addition to an existing single-family residence and construction of two additional units on a 10,000-square foot lot. The project also requests a Design Enhancement Exception for driveway width and distance from the adjacent property. The environmental assessment is the project is exempt from CEQA per guideline section 15303 and the zone district is RM-15. We have our project planner Sheldon Ah Sing, welcome. Ms. Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Planner: Yes, good morning. I do have a PowerPoint presentation and the applicant is also here and they have a presentation as well. So, thank you for the introduction and overview but yes, this is a renovation and addition to a single-family house and the addition of two new units on 10,000-square foot lot that’s along Alma near the intersection of Churchill. This did go before the Board previously on March 2nd, 2017. I do want to bring to your attention that in front of you I did place Attachment B-1, which are the findings for the Design Enhancement Exception. Those were apart of the March 2nd meeting. There didn’t seem to be any issues with that component of the project and also, there are copies of that on the back table. At the last meeting, there were extensive comments regarding the design of the project in the amount of detail that the plans had exhibited. This slide really just shows the comments and then how the applicant responded to those and we also have some slides about that. One of the things was to select a unified style, as opposed to just maintaining the Spanish design and then going on towards the back of the property with a more contemporary design. That’s what the applicant proposed is a more unified style. To consider the removal of the balcony for Unit C and that one was removed. Then there was some issue or concern about the common space that was ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: July 13, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 2 along Alma so that space was moved to the very rear of the property. Then the colors, there was some concern about the colors being too bright and those of course have been toned down. Then there was also concern about the slope and the daylight plan for Unit A and I’ll show you through the exhibits that those have now been revised. The first thing to address would be the unified architectural style and colors. As you can in the December 2016 proposal that was before you had March, you had a lot of different colors going on, it was very modern in design. Then with the recent proposal, you have much more unified elements and design for you and the applicant will go in more detail about what they were proposing there. You can see here Unit C balcony, on the left is what was proposed. There was a balcony that was overlooking an adjacent property so there were some privacy issues there that were raised. A neighbor did show up at that meeting and addressed that. Then the new proposal is that they removed that balcony. The issues was with the common space locations that was located along Alma. We did look into the noise and as mentioned in the Staff report that those noise levels are elevated along that corridor. Especially you have the train there as well so the new common space is located directly in the rear and there is access to that via a driveway area. Then here this exhibit shows the Unit A roof line and the daylight plan where there was kind of an abrupt change to the form of the house to fall within that daylight plane tent. You can see where again the – with the new design that the roof line now is more cohesive. With CEQA it is exempted on there, the California Environmental Quality Act, for new construction and conversion of small structures. Really just providing two additional units here. The recommended motion is the approval of the proposed project to the Director based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation, thank you. Chair Lew: Now is the time for the applicant presentation and you’ll have 10-minutes. Then for Staff, I think we have a speaker card for this one. Vice Chair Kim: Could the applicant have the mouse? Mr. Kelvin Chua: Good morning. I am Kelvin Chua from Topos Architects and obviously talking about 1545 Alma Street. I am here representing our client Manish Baldua who is present with us as well. This is – as mentioned before our second hearing. In this presentation, here we are going to talk about the design changes that we have made in response to the comments made from the first hearing. Just to reiterate on the project, as far the zoning it said that it was an RM-15, 10,000-square foot lot. Because we are not permitted, by zoning code, to do a single family or two-family unit, the three-unit condominium is the only allowed per zoning code development that we are allowed to make on this property. In our redesign, we had some parking issues before that we didn’t fully flush out. In the redesign of it we have made it so that all the parking space are directly adjacent to each corresponding unit. The orange in here is representing the uncovered parking spaces and the yellow representing the covered parking spaces or the garage. In our previous design we had some parallel parking spaces in front of the middle Unit B, which is a little bit awkward. By reconfiguring it, we were able to eliminate the parallel parking space and provide for more adequate turns around or for a more functional parking lot for backing up and turning around. As mentioned before the driveway wasn’t really an issue but I just wanted to reiterate the exception for the Design Enhancement Exception for the driveway. The reason for the request to have a driveway with less than the 16-foot requirement for a multi-family unit and the reason why we need the driveway to be less than 5-feet away from the adjacent property line. We have a narrow lot that is only 50-feet wide and we would like to maintain the existing driveway approach from Alma, which is the existing condition right now. We would also like to avoid the removal of a 21- inch diameter street tree, maple tree that is there and we would also like to preserve the existing Unit A building; the footprint of the building. A 16-foot wide driveway would make us have to eliminate or 3 demolish this corner of the building. This is an image of the original design that we had from the first hearing. Here we were trying to use mix vocabulary, basically keeping the existing façade of the existing Unit A, which faces towards Alma. Then combining it with these larger color monolithic forms that was more of a mixed vocabulary that wasn’t really unified in style. What we proposed on the new redesign is basically – the idea was to create a more unified architectural style as requested by the Board. So, we are no longer using that mixed vocabulary. We’ve removed the large monolithic colored forms and we have modified the existing Unit A to match the materials and the forms of Unit B and Unit C, all with the gable ended roofs and similar materials. In being a more traditional roof form, we decided – we still wanted to have some visual interest so we decided to use more contemporary materials. A standing seam metal roof, smooth off-white plaster contrasted with thermally broken dark bronze windows and doors. Another big element is the fact that we have such a large driveway and parking so instead of using concrete pavers or asphalt or so, we’re proposing to use grass pavers just because we have a very limited amount of exterior space and we thought that might add a little bit more feeling of vegetation or more – a softer edge to the surfaces. This is an image from Alma, on the left is the existing property and then on the right you can see we’ve maintained the same type of form but applied the new materials to the existing Unit A. In keeping a kind of same consistent style, we propose to have like a three and twelve shelf roof, stainless steel, for each of the Units is consistent through all of the units on the property. While there is a different configuration for each Unit A, B and C, this roof – this entry roof is constant throughout all. You are looking at PSL posts and beams and supports over a concert slab with some more contemporary based masonry tile. This is the previous design. Like is said keeping the façade from the existing Unit. This is the proposed design with the new materials. This was the previous design with the monolithic forms and the combined mixed vocabulary of architectural styles. This is the more – well the new design with the more unified style. Privacy is obviously an issue on this project. All the windows on the second story are small and high. We’ve also proposed to use frosted satin etched glass for windows that directly face into the neighbor’s yards and properties as well. The balcony as Sheldon has mentioned before has been removed in response to [Mr. Matloft’s] from 118 Churchill. His request that there was a view from that balcony into his property, that has then been completely been removed. This is a view of the old design, on the far left you can see the balcony that was there, which is now been removed. Also, his other concern was the massing looking from his rear yard towards this building and this large red plaster form that he would be looking at. So, we worked on the articulation of that with the new proposed design. Removing the balcony on left and then also stepping back the roofs on Unit B and also stepping back the building from the setback about 1-foot 6-inches away. Then trying to break up the massing from what he is going to be looking at from his rear yard. Here’s another view of the same faced from a different angle with the specific (inaudible) murals. We tried to model that in there to show how it would soften up that façade as well and showing the step back roofs as well. We worked closely with our landscape architect to provide vegetation that would also add to the privacy screening toward the other properties and also to create some outdoor spaces that we felt were usable for Units A, B and C. We know that it’s a – the lot size makes it limited in terms of how much space you can really get but we worked very hard to get private spaces for each of the units and then some common spaces that can be used all together. Redesigning the front patio of existing Unit A. We know that there were some noise concerns towards Alma but we still believe that this is a patio that people are still going to use even though it is pretty loud out there. Being that we have such – a 24-foot setback, using that yard as a space is foreseeable as a common space but we also provided one in the rear corner as well just in case they wanted to use it that way. This is another image of the open space that we have for Unit B. 4 Proposing to build a trellis with some vegetation to kind of screen it from the driveway. Once again using what we have in a limited condition but also using the trellis as shading for the living room on the inside but it’s still a space that I think people will use. For Unit C, this is the rear space in the back of the unit for the private space and just another image. In closing we respectfully request that the ARB recommend this project of approval. We felt like we made, since the first hearing, a lot of design changes to address issues and concerns that the ARB Board had. As well as the neighbor’s concerns that they expressed as well. We feel that this project is contextually compatible and we’ll also provide three small yet efficient units and housing which is definitely needed in the City of Palo Alto. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you and Staff I think we have a speaker card for this item. I don’t have it. I think it’s in the back there. We might have two. Then for – I think we are going to have two speaker cards (inaudible) and you – each person will have 5-minutes. The first is Ronald Baker and I don’t have the second card yet. Awe, item five? We’re on item three. Ok. So, then our speaker for item – for this item, which is [Jason Matloft]. Great and you have 5-minutes, welcome. [Mr. Matloft:] Thank you. So, first of all, I thank the Board and the architects for generally have addressed most – and accommodated most of the concerns that I had from last time and it’s already been addressed so I won’t bring them up again. I would just request a couple things – minor things I hope to the project but will be major for us. Just to put in context, the house is literally 6-feet away from my back yard; 20-feet high and straight in my back yard because of the perpendicular context of the units. So, the glazing is great on the windows and I appreciate that that’s in there. I just want to make sure that it is in there in the plans and it will be specified but also the one additional thing that I would request is a change to the vegetation. The architect was just telling – I am sorry, I have forgotten the gentleman's name. They’re only 10-foot high myrtles or something like that and we have a huge house and the trees are not really screening. So, if we could get a bigger tree like an olive or something that could provide better screening, I would be very – I think it would be much more helpful and much more – much less invasive to my back yard. Again, if you can imagine my very shallow back yard and going to have a huge house 6-feet from the fence so thank you very much. Chair Lew: Great, thank you for coming. Ok, I’ll close the public portion and bring it back to the Board. Are there any questions? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I’ve got one. This is actually for the architect, the rendering that you’ve got here is like an applicant white. Is that what you plan on having the… Mr. Chua: It’s supposed to be a softer – the problem is in the imagines on the screen is not coming exactly how I want it to be. Board Member Gooyer: No, I understand, I just – oh ok, so you do have that, alright. Ok, that’s fine for right now. (crosstalk) Mr. Chua: This is an actual (inaudible)… Board Member Gooyer: Let me take a look at it. Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Other questions? Wynne. Board Member Furth: Excuse me. So, this is for Staff and then for the applicant. So, I have been trying to understand the RM-15 -- is that where we are – open space requirements. We seem to have usable 5 open space, open space, common open space, common useable open space, private usable open space. So, I have spent hours trying to understand this with little success so forgive me. I think I understand that first of all, there is site percentage which is supposed to be an open space, which mainly means the sky – nothing between the sky and then space, is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: That’s landscaping, not driveways and things of that sort. Board Member Furth: Right so driveways, parking etc. don’t count as open space. This is other open space that’s 35% or something? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Board Member Furth: That’s not a problem on this site, right? We’ve got all that space alone Alma so that one is easily done. Ms. Gerhardt: We have 36%, yes. Board Member Furth: Ok, it took me a long time to try to understand the relationship between common space and common open space and common useable space. Ms. Gerhardt: If you start from the bottom, they roll up. Board Member Furth: So, take me through it. Ms. Gerhardt: So, private and common on two separate items. They have minimum requirements, you know private being 50 and common being 100 but then those – both of those items roll up into the usable open space. The usable open space is 200, which is a larger number, therefore either common or private has to be bigger than the minimum to meet that 200-square foot minimum. Board Member Furth: But both private useable space – both private and common usable space are supposed to be useable. They both go with – they both… Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, all of this is sort of useable space; throw a ball, sit on a chair, read a book, those sorts of spaces. Whereas the site open space can be shrubs and other sorts of landscaping. Board Member Furth: Can be juniper stuff you can’t use. Ok, so I’m perplexed by where the common open space is. It’s a 600-foot requirement basically, is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: 100-square feet per unit… Board Member Furth: Oh, 100? Ms. Gerhardt: …for common open space. Board Member Furth: Right, 300, ok and then – but useable open space is 600 for this site? Ms. Gerhardt: Including common and private, yes. Board Member Furth: For this project, how much of it is common and how much of it is private? Ms. Gerhardt: We have… 6 Board Member Furth: I will tell you where I am going. I am looking at something labeled – I’m looking on sheet A1-1 and I even have a magnifying glass and it specifies Unit A common open space 183.06-feet and it’s right by the front door. Then over on Unit B, it shows common open space and again, it’s right by a door. Then there is something in the back, which appears to be accessible by sidling by a car and then on sheet A04, in that areas, there’s also something shown as site fencing which encroaches into that space. Perhaps that’s just during constructions to protect the tree? Male: Yes. Board Member Furth: Ok, so I cannot – don’t have to worry about that. My concern is that things which are designated on this plan is common open space are not, they are private. Nobody is going to be using the entry way in Unit A as shared open space and the same – am I misunderstanding? Is that – explain to me what my problem is? Ms. Gerhardt: There has been a lot of discussion among Staff about this very issue and we don’t have a true resolution. The plan definition of common definitely means that it’s open to the public. Sort of can be seen and accessed by all so I think front yards do sort of meet a portion of that intent but another intent could be that it’s a gathering space for these different units to come together. Maybe those front yards wouldn’t feel like such a nice space for that sort of thing but that’s an open question for Staff. Board Member Furth: I’ve been reading the definitions, I’ve been reading the titles and at a minimum – this is a condominium development, right? So, a common open space has a meaning in condominium law and that is that it’s maintained by the condominium association, not by the individual owner and that everybody has access to it. Are these spaces that are going to be maintained by the condominium association? Mr. Chua: They are -- so the issue with the – I’m trying to understand how we were trying to lay out the private open space and then respond also to the hearing from before. In my – the problem – the issue is that the front can’t be used as a common open space because you say there is much traffic, too much noise. Really, in feasibility of the plan to make it work, there really wasn’t a way to make the buildings work to reconfigure it to say and then we weren’t allowed to use that front open space. I would rather have that considered -- the front as the common space. I mean that’s the 300-square plus that you could use up there and I think it will be used but that’s what – you’re saying there is decibel levels is an issue. To me, noises (inaudible) bother me in terms of a common open space but I was trying to make the areas work and there really wasn’t a definition of what the space needs to be. I think ideally, the front open space will be a space where you could develop to be some type of usable space where people could use as a common space and the rest of it should be private but because they tear up together from private becomes – can be used as common, common can be used as site usable open space. I was just trying to lay out a plan on how we could use it and meet the criteria. Board Member Furth: I don’t have any better ideas. Staff again, tell me what’s the minimum common open space on this site? Ms. Gerhardt: 100-square feet. Board Member Furth: So, 300? Ms. Gerhardt: Per unit, yes. 7 Board Member Furth: So, it’s 300-square feet. So, you have more than 300 defined here, don’t you? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, it’s shown on packet page 90. That is our table where we lay this all out. Board Member Furth: Ok, that’s it for my questions. Thank you. Vice Chair Kim: I have a question, could Staff look up where the driveway with regulation is in the code? If you could just let me know what section that is later. Then a question for the applicant, your bicycle lockers were quite hard to find but I did see them on sheet A0.4. They look like they are in the setback and from what I could see from what you’re proposing there, I think they are like actual physical lockers. So, I don’t know if you’ve considered whether or not those allowed in the setback. Then also a setback question is, is there air conditioning in these units and there is and I see them and that’s fine so ignore that second part. Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, if I could jump in on the bike lockers. There is a provision in the code regarding projections into setbacks and – basically for storage and so it can’t be wider than 2-feet, it can’t be taller than 6-feet. So, while there are no specifics in the plans, we’ll make sure they are in plan check. Vice Chair Kim: Ok. I guess it will comply since it’s 2-feet and then probably less than 6-feet high. Ok. Ms. Gerhardt: You were asking about driveway widths? Vice Chair Kim: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: It’s 1854, I believe table 3. Vice Chair Kim: Thank you. Chair Lew: I have a question for the architect. You showed a rendering of Unit B from the back yard of 118 Churchill. Could you bring that up and just -- my question was mostly about the fence and the landscaping. Yeah, so what – I mean – I am looking just in terms of proportions. I mean it seems like you are showing a 4-foot high fence –picket fence but what is… Mr. Chua: Right, it’s 4-foot high, right. Chair Lew: Yeah, so that’s not the existing fence, right? Mr. Chua: No. Chair Lew: It is something -- is the proposed fence just something – just a – is this an actual design that you’re proposing? Mr. Chua: No, the fence hasn’t been designed. Chair Lew: That’s just a… Mr. Chua: Yeah, that’s just an (inaudible) (crosstalk). Chair Lew: Right, that’s just an illustration. Mr. Chua: There’s a fence existing there now but will be rebuilt we just haven’t had the design for how that fence is going to look. 8 Chair Lew: Ok because it makes the building look bigger than normal. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Ok, then the – then can you talk a little bit about the wax myrtle shrubs. Mr. Chua: Talk a little bit about them? Chair Lew: Yeah or did – the – just about the mature height and the time frame. Mr. Chua: It's 10-15-feet so I am not an expert on the plants. I would have to ask my landscape architect on that but for the – in terms of what the neighborhood is asking in terms of – we’re willing to change the vegetation on that to make it work for something that’s more appropriate in terms of the height. It’s 15-20 but I think 15-feets acceptable but like I said, we’re willing to work in terms of making a condition of approval to whatever plants you would recommend. Chair Lew: Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: I did want to note that some of the trees on the landscape plan are noted at 15-gallon. Usually, we do 24-inch box and so that would give some better instant impact as well. Chair Lew: Jodie, could you remind me about the performance standards for multi-family that backs up against adjacent houses? I think this case is R2 so – right – I mean, I think some of the properties on Channing are two units. I think my – I think what I was looking at – looking for was just the – yeah, the guidance on the plant sizes, right? We’re supposed to provide an evergreen screen with trees and hedges at a point in – what is it, 5-years or 10-years? Ms. Gerhardt: So, we have performance criteria on page 88 – packet page 88. It does talk about privacy of abutting residential properties. Should be protected by screening from public view – let’s see. It just says – it – privacy screening. I would have to grab the rest of the language to see. Chair Lew: Ok. Ms. Gerhardt: We certainly have the authority to require the larger landscaping. Chair Lew: Ok, great. Ok, I think that is all the question that I have. We will do comments, Board Member comments. Wynne? Board Member Furth: This is very much an application that I want to support. I like the proposed use, the houses aren’t overly large, I didn’t mind the brightly colored plaster. I, myself, kind of enjoyed it but I think this one looks fine. I like the metal roofs but I am having trouble making the finding that this complies with the zoning because I don’t see the usable common open space. I probably need to understand more about what is in the rear. I am worried about it because I don’t think it’s particularly accessible. If somebody is parking – that’s a parking space right in front of it and if somebody is parked in the middle of that, I mean do I have to sidle to get over there or do you push the parking over to one side or do we have screening landscaping over there, I don’t know. I don’t see it – any evidence that it’s useable open space yet. When I look at the common – the open space by Unit B, it’s very attractive. It also, I think, and tell me if I am confused here. Aren’t their windows opening onto it from Unit B? Isn’t that their terrace basically? Their private terrace and you think of how people use spaces, not whose actually technically maintaining it. I mean I certainly wouldn’t go sit there if it wasn’t my house, unless I 9 was invited and it’s even more true for Unit A. Where if you look at what’s designated as common open space, I don’t think it is and I suppose part of the reason – I mean that’s the door the living which comes off that space. I mean you can’t really tell me that I am going to go over there with my gin and tonic and not feel like I am trespassing or even a cup of coffee. I suppose this on my mind because I live in a project that is small units on very small lots. The density is not a lot different than this, lay out is more convenient and when it was originally presented, it had another unit. The ARB said no and they took out a unit so that we now have side yards, which was highly functional with a minimum dimension of 9-feet and then they widen up to 12. I don’t want to eliminate a unit here. I think that’s a bad idea but I don’t see that this meets the common open space requirement. I think a common open space basically has to be to the rear of Unit A to deal with the sheltering issue and has to be in some kind of reasonable shared space. Which essentially is going to be somewhere either between Unit A and Unit B or you pull Unit C forward and you somehow give good access to a rear yard. Not ideal because of the impacts further back. I think it tends to become private but I look forward to hearing my colleague’s comments. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, actually as a kid growing up in San Francisco, our common open space was the middle of the street so that’s sort of – I have a different outlook on that but I can see the concern. This project has come a long way I think since the first iteration and I guess I don’t have as big of a problem with the whole concept of open space. I think people will find that in a project like this. Again, I can see it in your – the problem with this is removing the unit as you said, removes basically a third of the project. So, I mean that makes it infeasible at that point. The main problem I have is the – of all the strange things is the grass block. That’s not going to work. I mean the only reason or the only time really grass block works well is let’s say you’ve got an open field and the Fire Department says we need to have an access through there to bring our trucks through. So, you put the block in and it’s never used or hopefully it’s never used and then the lawn grows over it and it disappears. In a situation like that, cars are going to come in and they are going to leak oil on your “lawn” and it’s just going to be a mess. I’d rather see an attractive paving stone in there rather than the grass block. In fact, to me, I think it’s going to detract from the project within a year. Other than that, I’m glad you showed me the softer color for the building. I could approve it like this based on the modification of the driveway. Chair Lew: Ok. Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, thanks for coming back to the Board with this project. I’m not so concerned with the open space myself but I am, as Board Member Gooyer has mentioned, a little bit concerned about the grass block. I think it’s just too much and too almost easy of a solution to just say that the whole driveway is going to be grass block. Maybe if portions of it were proposed with that material, I think that would be more acceptable. I think the access to Units B and C by car is still a concern to me. I think there are areas here where the clearances get very tight and you know we were just talking about the previous agenda item where people may not park in their garages. In which case with this project site, there’s no street parking Alma so they are going to have to park either in front of the garage or to make space between units somehow to get in their second or perhaps even their third cars. How that leaves people driving to Unit C and in and out is quite a challenge in my opinion. I also think the access into the garage for Unit B is also tough. You’re going to be hitting whatever that becomes of the entry to Unit B, whether it’s a curb or whether it’s flush pavers with the grass block. It’s going to be a corner that’s going to be consistently clipped. Otherwise, I think as far as the change in style of the architecture, I am very 10 much in favor of it. I think the roof forms are much more cohesive, it’s much more pleasing to look at. I think the materials that you are presenting here with the bronze aluminum windows and the wood doors painted to match, I think that’s – those are great choices. I was looking at the elevations for the windows and doors and I was just thinking is there a way to possibly align some of those [phonetics][molians]? Especially in those areas where the doors and windows are closer together. It’s just something to take another look at. Also, I – while I don’t have anything against the stucco or the cement plaster siding, there probably will have to be some kind of control joints or reveal lines that are going to be put in that I think will make an impact on the elevations. So, I think those are things to perhaps also think about and perhaps present to us in the future. I like where this project is going but I think there’s still a little more to be desired and I don’t know that I am ready to recommend approval quite yet. I think we are getting there and we’re close but I think there are just a couple more things that we need to look at and think about. I was looking at some of the sections of the taller or I am sorry, the sections of the Units B and C and I am – I would just caution you that there may be some areas that you are showing currently in the sections that may qualify as third floor equivalency on the second floor so just be cautious with that. I think I’ll leave it at that but I’m excited at where it’s going and I think just a little bit more clean up and then tightening up of the design would make something that I could recommend for approval, thank you. Board Member Gooyer: Kyu, just for curiosity, what would you think on Unit B if it’s flipped this way? Vice Chair Kim: The floor plan? Board Member Gooyer: So, the garage is in the front because I agree with you that that’s going to almost be impossible to park a car in there. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, I’d have to look at it and think about it. I think that could be a solution, yeah. Board Member Gooyer: That way also it doesn’t change the design really, it… Vice Chair Kim: You know one of the other comments maybe that I have is that I think everything’s in here but it was quite difficult for me to find drawings that I really wanted to look at. Maybe if you have a first-floor site plan and a second-floor site plan that shows all three units. Again, maybe you have that and I’m just having a hard time flipping through the sheets to find that. Chair Lew: The second-floor site plan is farther back in the set. Vice Chair Kim: I there a first-floor site plan as well? Sorry, I see the second-floor site plan here on A-3.5. Oh, I did want to compliment you on getting those imagines. I don’t know if you had a drone or what but that was really nice to see. Yeah, I think I would certainly entertain that idea by Board Member Gooyer with regards to possibly flipping the floor plan so that the garages for A and B are kind of back to back, yeah. Chair Lew: Ok, so thank you for the (inaudible). I was thinking that this project was approvable today. The – I think Wynne’s – your comments about the open space I think are interesting. We’ve had other – in the past – I’ve been on the Board for a while but we’ve had other – I’ve looked at other projects like this with three units on one lot on similar size lots and the open space has always been a question in my mind. Especially when the dimensions go down less than 10-feet, as this one has on the – it has them on the side setback so they are like 6-feet to maybe 6-foot or 6 to 7-foot 9, right? So, that does concern me 11 and it’s been a challenge on the other projects as well but I think – my collections is that they had more like a 10-foot setback for the private open space. Those other projects were not on Alma so they didn’t have a special setback. They had more room to move buildings up close to like 10-feet from the sidewalk so they had more space to do things in the middle of the lot. Some of the projects attached – I think one of them attached to the units, just to give more flexibility. I guess I would say maybe the open space should be possibly revisited but on the other hand -- on the other side of my brain, I am thinking that part of this is just planning calculations. I mean the reality is, when I meet my neighbors and stuff, it’s on the sidewalk. Things happen and they don’t happen where a planning diagram tells you it’s going to happen; that’s just part of the architecture. I think that a key thing is to have porch spaces – having the indoor/outdoor spaces where people just sort of happen to meet and I think that the project has that. I wish it were better but I mean it does – it seems to me that it has the – to me, in my mind, it has it. Then you were asking about the private or the common open space in the back corner behind the parking. So, I think that they are showing – it looks like there is an 11-feet between the garage and fence and cars… Board Member Furth: You’re saying that I don’t have to turn sideways to get… Chair Lew: Well, a car is 5 ½ -- a regular size car is 5 ½-feet so you don’t have to turn – so, it depends on the car. So, you might have turn sideways if it’s a Land Rover or something but normally you would not have to do that within that space. Is that essentially under the oak tree, is that what we are talking about? Chair Lew: Yeah, I think that shows on the landscape plan, right? Yeah. Board Member Furth: Under the oak tree with a rock? Chair Lew: Yeah. Board Member Furth: No seating? Chair Lew: Yes, in the shade. Then on the – then for [Mr. Madloft], I think that the – if this were being built near my back yard I would not be happy. I mean I had an apartment building in my backyard – next to my back yard but it’s like 10-feet away. It seems to me that the architect has done as much as they can so I was measuring the height. The height is like 17 – the plate height is about 17-feet, which they’ve squished the second floor down about as low as you can go. The building code doesn’t let you go lower than 7-feet for a habitual room. Then the pitch is a fairly standard pitch. I would say with the metal roof; the pitches could be lower but they are trying to match the existing house in the front and that’s been an issue with some of the Board Members on other projects. Then on the landscaping, I think for the shrubs, there are quite a number of – if that myrtle doesn’t work for whatever reason. I haven’t used that one in particular but pittosporum hedges easily go over 15-feet, I would say in the 5-10-year period. I don’t – I think that you can block out almost all for the wall for that – for Unit B with hedges. Then I think my question for the Staff was because it’s trees and shrubs and so the placement of that I think, could be – maybe that could be improved. I think they are just showing hedges in front of – to the 118 Churchill so maybe there’s room for improvement. Then I am not sure that the private open space for Unit B is really usable just because it’s so small. I mean normally a patio, I would think would be minimum 11 to 12-feet to actually put a table and chairs around it. That’s where I am on this one. Let’s – I was thinking this was approvable but if you guys think this should – needs to come back, I am willing to 12 entertain that. I think we should be really clear – I mean we can’t design it on the fly but I think we should just be fairly specific about what is acceptable and what is negotiable, right? Vice Chair Kim: I think architecturally, for the most part, I think my concerns could probably come back to subcommittee but I wanted to ask you, Chair Lew, if something such as driveway access and automobile access on the site, if that’s something that could come back to subcommittee or if that’s substantial enough that the project should come back for another hearing? Chair Lew: So, there are no rules about that. In the past, we thought it – I think we’ve generally thought that if it was a big massing issue – if we thought that the project was too massive, then it should come back to the whole Board. If it’s details like a car crossing over paving – you’re saying the front porch area to Unit B, yeah, I would say that could go – that would be subcommittee. If you’re talking about flipping a unit -- mirroring a unit or something, then that should come back to the whole Board. Vice Chair Kim: I agree, ok. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I appreciate what you say about sociability being enhanced by incidental places where you meet. Certainly, that’s the way my neighborhood socializes is in the alley and on the sidewalk and the front porch and we do have front porches and that does help. I’ve been thinking about why this, to me, doesn’t work and I understand Robert talking about where he actually played growing up in San Francisco. My problem is that I don’t think we get to amend the code and the code says that there’s supposed to be common open space and I think to come call these spaces designated at open space – common open spaces is to do just violence to those words as to be non- conforming. I am reassured to know that I could get by the car to get under the oak tree but I wouldn’t consider that a common usable space unless there’s somewhere for me and friend to sit and enjoy that shady place. I mean under oak trees is a good place to be but I don’t know if you can do that without damaging the roots; maybe some kind of cantilever arrangement. I’ve been thinking – so one of the things that – when one of you talked first, second, third, even multiple cars, I was thinking well surely people who live here, that’s not going to be the situation. Then you look at Unit A and Unit A had four bedrooms and four bathrooms and it’s designed to accommodate a lot of adults. Not necessarily a family and I think the problem, the reason this doesn’t work is because it’s built around an existing building and is keeping part of it. If that building – if that two-story addition was instead parking incorporated into that original structure, you could still have a considerable size building or adequately sized dwelling unit, I think. Then you would have enough space for real common open space and you wouldn’t be making all these efforts to comply with zoning, which I don’t think meet the functional requirement. So, that’s where I am stuck. Board Member Gooyer: I agree with you on part of it but the reality of it is that on Unit One, the only thing that really sticks out or most of it that sticks out is the actual garage. Board Member Furth: Right so you’d had to modify it by converting part of the existing building to parking. Board Member Gooyer: But I meant that even if you wanted to reduce the size of the building, you couldn’t do it by much because you still have that garage that needs to go there. You still need the – an actual enclosed garage for Unit A. 13 Board Member Furth: That couldn’t be incorporated – you couldn’t move that by reducing the other space? Put it in the ground floor, tucked under part of the second floor in the existing? In other words, move it rear side forward. I mean if you were designing this without the existing building, couldn’t you put the unit there and have parking and have it not take up so much space? Have such a bit bigfoot print? Board Member Gooyer: I mean you’re right. You could basically gut part of the existing building and put the garage there and put it on the second floor. Board Member Furth: That’s what I think is making this not work. Is trying to keep that existing – I keep thinking of our building on El Camino adjacent to Mayfield and I feel badly about that project because it was keeping the existing underground parking that left us with that rather complex, not to say tortured, set of spaces when we could have had really nice ones. Board Member Gooyer: No, you’re right. Male: Can the owner speak? Chair Lew: We can – I think we usually – we’ll let you guys do a rebuttal but I think we have to finish our – let’s just finish our thoughts here and then we’ll let you say something. But if you have a question for them about – why do you refer – Wynne? Why don’t you maybe refer – you could ask… Board Member Furth: Yes? Chair Lew: …the owner question about retaining the existing house. Board Member Furth: My – I believe that this project doesn’t comply with zoning because it doesn’t have enough open space to the – behind Unit A – between Unit A and the rear property line. It’s effective common open space and when I look at Units A and B and C and then I look at – it seems to me that Unit A is longer – much longer than the others; significantly. If you shortened it by incorporating some or all of the parking into the existing – the footprint of the existing building, you could have enough room to have good open space – compliant open space and you could still have a completely decent sized house there; residence. So, I have particularly concerned when I see a four bedroom, four bath house which seems to me within your rights if you’re meeting all the other zoning requirements but seems to be pushing it for three units on this site, when as we all know it’s a long way to offsite parking. My question to you is, would you consider consolidating Unit A so that it does not extend so far towards the rear of the lot and made use – made possible to have a functional code compliant, in my view, common open space? Ms. Manish Baldua: Hi, thanks for the question Wynne. My name is Manish, we would be very open to considering it and work without architects to make sure that we address these concerns. I – there was one other thing that I wanted to state about hearing the discussion around the open spaces. I am by no means an expert on this, I’m probably more confused than anyone here present but what I took from you Jodie and you Sheldon was that you need a total of 300-square feet of common open space. Would you consider the lawn in the front to be that 300-square foot of common open space because the rest of the requirement is around private open spaces and then there’s the overall requirement to have 600- sqaure feet of open space? We went – in my mind, I think we went by that definition so maybe we 14 misinterpreted some of that and if so, we would love to find out exactly what that needs to be and then make sure that we adhere by it and are in compliance. Thanks. Chair Lew: Wynne, do you have any other… Board Member Furth: Well, I am very appreciative of the applicant’s statement. I don’t think that the 300-square feet gets to go right along Alma because I think it doesn’t meet the code either. More to the point, I appreciate that some of you have much better ears than I do but it’s to noise and to impacted by the traffic to meet the zoning. Board Member Gooyer: I think part of it is also the whole idea that it’s called open space for Unit A, open space for Unit B rather than just open space. If something says open space for Unit B, you pretty much figure somebody from Unit A isn’t going to sit in that location and that sort of thing. I think that’s part of it. It’s semantics, I think part of it. Board Member Furth: I think there’s room to do it if you compress Unit A. Chair Lew: I am not sure where the Board is so why don’t we try a motion because I – yeah. This is a tough one. I am going to leave it to you two. Mr. Chua: Excuse me, can I say something? So, in the idea of using this – the technicalities that we need to fit for this common useable space. Is there provisions that say that you’re not allowed to have a common open space because you feel that it’s too loud on the street? Is that… Board Member Furth: Staff can – I’ve got my notes but I’m sure Staff has theirs but basically it says that common open space is subject to the standards of 15 – I am sorry, usable open space is subject to the standards of 1813040E, shall be protected from activities of commercial areas and adjacent public streets and to provide noise buffering from surrounding areas when feasible. The problem that our noise studies on Alma show 70 decibels ambient, which is too loud. Vice Chair Kim: It also does say when feasible and I guess in this case it’s just not feasible. Board Member Furth: I am saying it would be feasible on the site. Ms. Chua: Well, it’s feasible if that Unit A your saying becomes demoed but if he’s trying to maintain the existing unit –we’re trying to work with in parameters here. So, that’s a complete rebuild of an entire house so that’s economics, that’s everything to it as well. So, I am just trying to find something – some direction where we are heading with it and we would like to get some clear direction on where that goes with that. Vice Chair Kim: Let me say that while given my initial comments, I was hesitant to recommend approval. I think I am leaning more and more towards thinking that my concerns can be addressed at the subcommittee level. Then perhaps somebody can propose an actual motion. Chair Lew: I am going to leave it to you, Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, so let me understand that the – this—what part do you want to get done at the subcommittee? Vice Chair Kim: Making sure that the – well, the material of the driveway and the paving. 15 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah that’s a – I was going to make that comment now, that it was an absolute part of it. Vice Chair Kim: Right and then in addition to that. Some of the auto maneuvering and circulation of the driveway itself in relationship to the garage. Board Member Gooyer: The only reason I am mentioning it is that – I mean I see on here for instance on Unit B and that’s what made me think about flipping it. You have – you’ve got the diagrams of how a car could go but the thing cuts through about a quarter of the decorative paving for your pedestrian area, if you want to call it that, for Unit B. Vice Chair Kim: It also cuts… Board Member Gooyer: You already know you’re not going to make that turn the way you’ve got it designed. Where you have to go over the decorative paving and one of the concerns, I understand that. Vice Chair Kim: That was part of the concern and also my concern is that in that diagram, they are all just showing cars going over the trees on that side yard. Board Member Gooyer: Right. I mean you assisted us by showing us how the route goes but also, you’re sort of showing where the problems are. I don’t think – the only reason I say this, I don’t think that could be addressed at the subcommittee because they may have to make such major changes that I don’t know if that’s a subcommittee item. Ms. Gerhardt: Can I just clarify that the – you’re correct that the circulation does show a car going over the kind of paving for the front door on Unit B but there’s not required size for that decorative paving. Board Member Gooyer: I am not arguing that. I am not arguing that but then invariably it’s one of these things that if that’s an area like that, you may end up having some future on there because that’s a seating area. All of sudden the car has to do all kinds of (inaudible) or you have to move the chair if you want to get into your driveway or into your garage. That’s the thing that – that’s why I said an easy solution would be to just flipping it, which seems to eliminate all those issues and just puts the two garages next to each other towards the front of the building. Something – if it’s that simple, it could be done at a Staff level mainly because it’s – the design doesn’t change at all but if they come up with another solution, then I think it gets into the whole concept of the design and I don’t think we can do or I mean I don’t think its recommended we do that at a Staff level or not at Staff level but subcommittee level. See the other problem is with four people here and the way it’s already starting to – I’d hate to push this issue and then have it end of up being two to two because that means basically a no vote, doesn’t it? So, I mean it – there’s enough concerns here that it could easily get that. You could easily end up with a two to two vote so I am wondering if it wouldn’t make more sense just to bring it back? Chair Lew: Ok, I have a couple questions – ok, let’s get – I think we should answer that question in a moment and I just want to a – two questions for Staff. So, one is that Kyu had mentioned third-floor equivalence floor area and that’s for houses. Does that apply for multi-family? Ms. Gerhardt: For – that would be under the single-family regulations, not under the multi-family, correct. 16 Chair Lew: Great and then on the open space, if they were to build a solid fence in the front yard. Are they allowed to do that in a special setback area because that’s -- a solid wall does reduce the noise as my understanding. Ms. Gerhardt: Wooden solid walls don’t have the… Chair Lew: Like stucco. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah… Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Ms. Gerhardt: Well, a stucco wall would certainly reduce more than – but you can have solid wood fencing as well that reduces the noise. Chair Lew: But is it allowed in a special – we have – Alma has a special setback. Ms. Gerhardt: Not in a special setback and then in the front setbacks, I’d have to check. I mean it’s usually the lower height that is the… Chair Lew: The 4-foot. Ms. Gerhardt: …front setback. Chair Lew: Yeah, yeah, ok. I think my take on it is the projects – I think it’s very close to being approvable and I think my main concern, based on the things that we’ve been talking about is actually more adjusting Unit B. I think I am not supportive of changing Unit A, so putting a garage in an existing house doesn’t work. I mean it’s basically you’re sitting – the back house – the garage is built completely differently than the house; just based on the floor levels. So basically, you are saying they would have to tear down the back half of the house and so that’s like $500,000 to a million dollars. You are destroying something that is already there so that’s not great for sustainable design. So, in my mind, it’s just tweaking and not a redesign of Unit B so I would be ok with that going to subcommittee. Board Member Gooyer: Do you mean flipping it or… Chair Lew: Tweak – flipping or just shifting a foot or two or something but if it was a redesign then I think it has to come back to the Board. Board Member Gooyer: Well are you comfortable enough to have that at the Staff or at the subcommittee level? Chair Lew: Yeah, as long as everybody is ok with the general – right, everybody seems to be ok with the architecture, then I would – yeah, I think it’s ok. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Chair Lew: Just in the effort of trying to moving this forward. MOTION Board Member Gooyer: You want me to try again, then. Ok, I propose we accept the project as presented with the – 17 Chair Lew: Recommended. Board Member Gooyer: Recommend approval, ok. With the exception of a change in the design of the driveway. Preferable with a paver of some sort but an actual paver rather than the grass and a tweaking, if you want to call it, of Unit B to allow a simpler or an easier ability to use the garage. Like I said, the easiest solution that I can come up with is literally flipping the unit, like that, which would then put the garage for Unit B towards the front of the property. Anything else? Oh, and to have that obviously – those two items brought back to the subcommittee. Sorry, I forgot that portion of it. Yeah? Chair Lew: Well, before we talk about it, we need a second. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, alright. Vice Chair Kim: I’ll second that. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, now go ahead. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Board Member Furth: Would you consider adding a condition that the area designated Unit C common open space be revised to include seating if feasible? Board Member Gooyer: To include what? Board Member Furth: Seating if feasible. Board Member Gooyer: I am assuming that is probably doable, sure. Like I said, I have a real problem with calling it Unit A and Unit B and Unit C open space. Board Member Furth: I am just using that… Board Member Gooyer: I just think that you ought to just eliminate that designation… Board Member Furth: I agree (crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)(crosstalk) I’ve got enough for the total of all three. Board Member Furth: It’s designated that way on sheet A-1.1. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, can – I think you have to – that little amendment, is that acceptable with the – with you, Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Sure. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Alright, it’s up to you. Chair Lew: Were there any comments on the DEE for the driveway? Board Member Furth: I think it's fine. Chair Lew: I think it was fine too. Board Member Furth: I think the findings are easily made. (crosstalk) 18 Chair Lew: Are there any comments on the regular findings or conditions of approval? I didn’t see anything. I didn’t notice anything. Ok, so I think we are ready to vote. All in favor? Opposed? Board Member Furth: No and I’d like a brief comment. MOTION PASSED 3-1-0-1 WITH BOARD MEMBER FURTH AGAINST AND BOARD MEMBER BALTAY ABSENT Chair Lew: Yes? Board Member Furth: I dissent; I think this is an admirable use of the property. I think that the design is excellent but I think that by retaining Unit A and adding a garage and second story addition to it, the result has been a design which is not compliant with code because it does not, in fact, have common open space as required by the code. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Do you have any – if you have any closing comments. Ok, then we will see you in subcommittee sometime. Great, thank you. Ok, so we are going to take a 15-minute break. Sorry about that Ken and then we’ll get… Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: …then we’ll hear the next item. Sorry about that. Attachment B Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1545 Alma Street” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “FULL SET-ARB Submittal-9 Aug 2017.pdf”