Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-10-19 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 two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: October 19, 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 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2), Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals, and 3) Tentative Future Agenda items. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2120 Staunton Court [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. Continued from September 21, 2017. 3.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review of (1) a New Three-Story Public Safety Building With Attached Emergency Telecommunications Facility at 250 Sherman Avenue, and (2) a New Four-Story Parking Structure to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces above and below grade. Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Council Action Requested for Modification to Public Facilities Development _______________________ 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 two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Standards. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared and Publication is Anticipated in Mid-October. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project [17PLN-00212]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow Construction of a Multi- Use Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Structure Over Highway 101 Near San Antonio Road; Construction of the Adobe Creek Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail; and, Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment On September 1, 2017 and Ended on October 2, 2017. Zoning Districts: PF(D), PF, ROLM, and GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 5.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2775 Embarcadero Road [17PLN-00217]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Replacement of the Existing Baylands Boardwalk at the Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center. The Project Also Includes a Separate Request for a Park Improvement Ordinance. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Review from September 15, 2017 and Will end on October 16, 2017. Zoning District: Public Facilities, Site and Design Combining District (PF [D]). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 6.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2747 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00122]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow a Master Sign Program. The Master Sign Program is for a Previously Approved 33,323 Square Foot Office Building Currently Under Construction. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 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 two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 7.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 5, 2017. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two 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 # 8543) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2120 Staunton: New Duplex (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2120 Staunton Court [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. Continued from September 21, 2017. 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 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/59598 A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment G. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 On September 21, 2017, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of that meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-70/ The Board noted that none of the comments made are required but all are to be considered by the project designer to ensure conformance with ARB findings. The Boards’ comments and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Color and Materials Board: The Board noted that a color and materials board was not provided and needed to be evaluated. The Board noted that the materials identified on the elevations were vague. The applicant has provided a physical color and materials board for review. The project employs a “moire” black composition roof throughout the duplex, Andersen window with black frames, board and batten siding that is painted Benjamin Moore’s “Swiss Coffee,” oil rubbed bronze and glass garage doors, and wood front doors painted Benjamin Moore’s “Graphite.” These materials and colors are also noted on the elevations and there is a separate page in the plan set that identifies the colors and materials used in the project. Roof Pitches and Materials: The Board provided multiple comments related to roof pitches. They noted that the lower roof separating the first and second floor should have a lower pitch and that the dormers should be the same pitch at the top roof. As stated previously, the Board noted that the designer should have some flexibility in the roof pitches as changing the pitch of the roofs changes the appearance of the building. The Board noted that the roof material should be all standing seam metal. The applicant has responded by making the top roof and dormer pitches the same, at a 7:12 pitch. The roof between the first and second floor remains a 5:12 pitch to not compromise the upper window heights. A new roof is proposed above the second- floor bay window facing Staunton Court. The pitch of this roof is 3:12 to fit with the gable above. The applicant proposes “Certainteed Moire black” composition roofing on all roof levels. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Staunton Elevation: The Board stated that the Staunton elevation was not the strongest part of the design, and that the project should look like two buildings. A Board member noted that they opposed widening the bay window on the second floor of the Staunton Court elevation. The elevation facing Staunton Court has been revised. The bay has been increased to the width of the upper bedroom and sits 8” beyond the lower dining bay. The new bay has a shed roof and sits above the dining room bay with beams on each side as suggested by the Consulting Architect. The bay consists of three large windows with large posts in between. The applicant has also proposed a French door facing Staunton Court. The project has added a four-foot fence along the Staunton side elevation. A stain grade horizontal wood fence is proposed. Two Building / Two Home Design: The duplex exhibited mirror image architecture. The applicant evaluated the mirror image design and noted that the design maximizes square footage and yard space, and eliminates the need for a curb cut on Staunton Court. The applicant added articulation along the Oxford Avenue elevation by continuing the roof over the bedroom windows creating a shed style roof with brackets at each side. This detail is consistent with the bracket detail at the entry. The applicant also extended the front door over hangs six-inches more than previously proposed. Board and Batten Siding: The Board noted that board and batten siding may not be the best material choice for this project. The applicant considered a variety of material options. The first consisted of doing a mixture of siding at the first and second elevations. The second option consisted of siding at the dormers and bay window and board and batten elsewhere. However, the applicant elected to retain the board and batten siding because the combination of roofing, windows, doors and details with the siding minimizes the busyness of the design. Oxford Elevation: A Board member noted that the Oxford elevation appeared long and unbroken. The roof has been revised to continue over the bedroom windows, creating a shed roof style with brackets at each side. These details are consistent with the roof and bracket detail at the entries. Front door City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 overhangs are extended, and composition roof used throughout the project. Eaves, Rakes and Overhangs: One Board member noted that they support larger overhangs, while another noted that the condition of approval requiring extending eaves and rakes was excessive. The rake/gable ends remain at 12-inches, but the eaves have been increased from 12- inches to 18-inches, consistent with required setbacks. Analysis1 During the September 21, 2017 hearing, the ARB discussed nine primary areas that should be considered but are not required to be addressed. Seven of these areas are summarized in the table above. The two areas not summarized in the table are the prior conditions of approval dictating header trim dimensions and garage staining. The Board noted that these conditions were unnecessary. They have subsequently been removed. The applicant has considered the remaining seven areas and provided a response to the ARB’s comments as well as a response to the IR comment letter. The applicant’s response is included in Attachment H. The applicant has provided revisions to the plans that respond to the Board’s direction. The applicant has provided a color and materials palate that demonstrates use of high quality, integrated materials, and incorporates textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The composition roofing is consistent with other roofing materials found in the area. Additionally, the board and batten siding, aluminum garage door with obscured glass, and Andersen windows are high quality materials. The siding incorporates wood type textures found in neighboring properties to the southwest and southeast of the site. The Benjamin Moore “Swiss Coffee” color is similar in color to the trim of other homes in the area as well. These colors and materials enhance the area because they would be used on a new building that replaces dated structures. The applicant has responded to the Board’s comments concerning mirror image architecture and enhancements to the Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue elevations. As noted, the applicant has widened the Bay window on the second floor of the Staunton Court elevation and provided French doors that open into a front yard enclosed by a four foot tall redwood fence. The roof separating the first and second floors has been changed to composition shingle roof to soften the appearance of the building along Oxford Avenue. However, the Board may wish to further evaluate and discuss these revisions. IR Response The applicant has evaluated and provided a response to the comments from the IR. The response is included in Attachment H. Many of the responses to the IR comments are 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 addressed above in the Board’s comments. To address the remaining IR comments, the project has increased landscaping along property lines, provided interlocking pavers and turf block for the driveways, and reduced the stairway window sills to 18-inches to enhance privacy. Zoning Compliance, Findings and Conditions of Approval The proposed changes to the project have been evaluated for consistency with applicable development standards in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Attachment D contains the Zoning Compliance Table that addresses the project’s consistency with the relevant applicable development standards. Further, draft findings and conditions of approval have been included with this report in Attachments B and C, respectively. 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 E). It was determined 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). 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 October 3, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 3, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff received public comment prior to the September 21, 2017 hearing that was provided to Board. Subsequently, relevant departments provided responses to the resident’s questions. The Department responses were forwarded to the resident by staff. The resident noted that the responses were expected, wanted to ensure that Urban Forestry was aware that the resident remains concerned about the tree, and thanked staff for the help. This correspondence is included in Attachment I. 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 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: Historic Evaluation and Peer Review (PDF)  Attachment F: Individual Review Evaluation (DOCX)  Attachment G: September 21, 2017 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment H: Applicant Response to Comments (PDF)  Attachment I: Neighbor Correspondence and Responses (PDF)  Attachment J: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 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 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:  The project promotes medium density residential development  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 below indicates compliance with the applicable policies. The proposed project is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan, including the following goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multiple-Family Residential. The project continues the multiple-family land use. Land Use and Community Design Element 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 surround the project site. 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, and composition roofing. 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 project is consistent with Finding #2 because: 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 embrace the street frontage along Oxford Avenue by providing direct connections from the street via pathways that lead to covered porch entrances. 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. The project preserves, respects, and integrates the existing natural features by designing the duplex to preserve the redwood tree on the adjacent lot to the southeast. The project provides a harmonious transition in scale, mass, and character. The building is similar in scale, mass and character to the multi-family structures located to the southeast and southwest of the site because these structures are comprised of three and two story buildings with facades along their respective street frontages. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The design is 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, composition roofing as shown on the color and materials board. Further, the project 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 project is consistent with Finding #4 because: 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 yards 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 project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The applicant has designed the project to respect natural features through a design that will not adversely impact 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. 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 a 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. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. 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 October 5, 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 residential units, no additional impact fees are due. Page 2 of 14 8. 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. 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. Page 3 of 14 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 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 Page 4 of 14 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 & 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 Page 5 of 14 area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures:  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 Page 6 of 14 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.” 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: Page 7 of 14 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. 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 Page 8 of 14 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. 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. Page 9 of 14 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 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. Page 10 of 14 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 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. Page 11 of 14 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 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. Page 12 of 14 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. 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. Page 13 of 14 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. 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 square feet (sf) area, 50-foot width, 100-foot depth 5,865 sf 54.60 feet along Staunton Court x 107.34 feet along Oxford Avenue 5,865 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 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. 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 585 Quarry Road San Carlos CA 94070 (650) 331-1870 hylanddg.com       City Department: Planning Staff Contact: Adam Peterson / ARB Reply By: Natalie Hyland Date: 10/4/17 Project Address: 2120 Staunton Court _____________________________________________________________________________________ REPONSE to September 21, 2017 ARB Meeting: COMMENT  #1:    Mirror  Image  Architecture  /  Emphasis  of  Two  Homes   Response:      The  Mirror  Image  approach  helps  us  in  a  few  ways   1. It  helps  us  maximize  our  square  footage  with  an  already  small  square  foot  limit.    We  put  thought   into  making  these  units  look  separate  but  we  couldn’t  come  up  with  a  good  design  without   actually  separating  them.    We  would  need  6  feet  in  between  structures  taking  87  sf  out  of  each   unit.    We  are  maxed  out  at  our  setbacks  and  we  cannot  push  out  any  further.     2. Another  way  to  make  these  look  like  two  units  is  to  place  the  front  door  and  garage  at  the   Staunton  Side  Elevation.    However,  the  current  design  brings  the  two  garages  together  to  share   a  driveway  and  minimize  curb  cuts.    I  don’t  think  planning  or  public  works  would  allow  a  3rd  curb   cut.    We  like  the  garage  adjacent  to  the  front  door  we  think  that  is  important  for  flow.     3. It  allows  us  to  maximize  the  external  circulation  giving  each  unit  their  own  yard  space.    We   extended  the  4-­‐foot  fence  at  Staunton  Court  Side  to  give  the  first  unit  a  nice  yard.      This  would   otherwise  be  taken  up  with  driveway  and  front  yard.       4. It  is  a  duplex.    Not  2  single  family  residences.    We  are  not  trying  to  be  something  we  are  not.     We  are  in  a  mixed  zone  with  enormous  apartments  and  commercial  buildings  and  we  don’t  see   why  we  need  to  appear  as  two  different  structures.    If  it  was  brought  to  our  attention  early  on   that  a  mirror  image  look  was  not  allowed  by  code  we  may  have  gone  a  different  direction  and   designed  a  single  family  residence.       585 Quarry Road San Carlos CA 94070 (650) 331-1870 hylanddg.com     5. We  could  have  added  some  details  to  make  each  side  slightly  different  but  afraid  it  would  have   just  looked  like  we  slopped  on  a  couple  of  roof  lines  a  Mr.  Potato  Head  look  if  you  will,  to  satisfy   the  comment.    We  decided  to  stay  true  to  our  original  design  but  add  a  little  more  articulation   to  break  up  the  length  of  the  Oxford  side,  which  you  will  see  in  Comment  #5.       COMMENT#2:    Mixed  Roof  Materials   Response:    The  roof  is  now  consistently  all  composition.    It  will  fit  in  with  the  adjacent  neighbors  and   softens  the  farmhouse  look.       COMMENT  #3  –  Inconsistent  Roof  Pitches   Response:    The  pitches  of  the  building  have  been  revised  and  are  a  consistent  7:12  throughout  the  gable   ends.    The  Lower  remains  a  5:12  in  order  to  not  compromise  upper  window  heights  and  the  new  shed   roof  at  master  bay  facing  Staunton  is  a  3:12  to  fit  within  the  gable  above.     COMMENT  #4  –  Staunton  facing  Elevation     Response:    We  took  Arnold  Mammarella’s  suggestions  and  widened  the  bay  the  width  of  the  master   bedroom  and  extended  out  beyond  the  dining  room  bay  below.    The  amount  of  glass  is  increased  and   the  beams  were  added  to  give  the  appearance  of  holding  up  the  cantilever.    We  added  French  doors  to   the  dining  room  bay  that  lead  to  this  unit’s  private  yard  that  is  enclosed  with  a  4-­‐foot  high  wood  fence.   COMMENT  #5:    Oxford  facing  Elevation  is  long  and  unbroken  up   Response:      In  order  to  break  up  the  elevation  we  continued  the  roof  down  over  the  bedroom  windows   creating  a  shed  roof  style  with  brackets  at  each  side.    This  also  picks  up  the  same  roof  and  bracket  detail   at  the  entry.      The  front  door  overhang  has  been  extended  6”  beyond  its  main  roof  line  to  draw  more   attention.      We  went  with  a  composition  roof  throughout.    It  softens  the  look  whereas  the  metal  roof   may  have  stood  out  more  therefore  drawing  more  attention  to  the  length.     COMMENT  #6:    Rakes  and  Overhangs   Response:    The  rake  /  gable  ends  remain  at  12”  but  the  eaves  have  been  increased  from  12”  to  18”.       COMMENT  #7:    Truss  roof  with  vaulted  ceiling   Response:    If  this  roof  is  a  truss  we  will  vault  with  a  scissor  truss.    If  it  is  stick  framed  we  will  vault  the  full   pitch.    The  section  has  been  corrected.         585 Quarry Road San Carlos CA 94070 (650) 331-1870 hylanddg.com City Department: Planning Staff Contact: Adam Petersen / Arnold Mammarella Reply By: Natalie Hyland Date: 10/4/17 Project Address: 2120 Staunton Court _____________________________________________________________________________________ REPONSE G1 – Basic Site Planning: Placement of Driveway, Garage and House Response: At the front entries the roof edges have been increased 12” and the brackets have been enlarged to emphasize the entry. The concrete driveway has been changed to interlocking pavers. The Parking space has been revised to turf block. Screening has been added along the interior and rear sides. Landscape plan and Plant legend has been updated to accommodate IR comments. G2 – Neighborhood Compatibility for Height, Mass, and Scale Response: noted and addressed in G3. G3 – Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing, and Rooflines Response: The elevation facing Staunton Court has been revised. The bay has been increased the width of the upper bedroom and sits 8” beyond the lower dining bay. The New Bay has a shed roof and wider 585 Quarry Road San Carlos CA 94070 (650) 331-1870 hylanddg.com sits above the dining room bay with beams on each side as suggested by the Consulting Architect. The bay consists of 3 large windows with large posts in between. The pitches of the building have been revised and are a consistent 7:12 throughout the gable ends. The Lower remains a 5:12 in order to not compromise upper window heights and the new shed roof at master bay facing Staunton is a 3:12 to fit within the gable above. The rake / gable ends remain at 12” but the eaves have been increased from 12” to 18”. Although a small shed dormer was considered at the upper bedroom Oxford facing elevation, it generated the idea to continue the roof down creating a shed roof style over the windows with added brackets at each side. This also picks up the same roof and bracket detail at the entry. G4 – Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries Response: The Architectural Style we are proposing is “Transitional Farmhouse” with clean modern elements. It is possible that our brackets may add a craftsman element to the building however our intent is for this structure to be less craftsman and more “Farmhouse”. We like that the brackets add character to our structure but we want to limit the amount of Craftsman detail. The garage door is an important modern and transitional feature of this building along with the details of our rakes, head trim and rafter tails. The roof is now consistently all composition. It will fit in with the adjacent neighbors and softens the farmhouse look. We considered doing a mixed siding at the lower and upper or siding at the dormers and bay and board and batten elsewhere but there is a lot of break up already with the amount of roofing, windows, doors and details that we believe the board and batten throughout will keep the design less busy. The 4 foot fence along the Staunton Side Elevation has been added. A dark stain grade horizontal wood fence is proposed. G5 – Placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks for Privacy Response: The staircase window sills have been reduced 18” in height to minimize “casual viewing”. 1 Adam Petersen From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:09 PM To:Adam Petersen Subject:Re: 2120 Staunton_ARB comment response- 16PLN-00419 Thanks, Adam. That’s pretty much what I expected… I mostly wanted to make sure that Dave Dockter knew I remained concerned and that I was actually reading the report (:-). And I hope that they will not attempt to rely upon a bubbler box to contain water on site. As I go walking in our neighborhood during the rainy season (fingers crossed we get rain again this winter!), I see a lot of water running off various properties into the gutters. 2120 Staunton will likely be the same. I’ll try to make it to the 10/19 hearing although I do have another commitment that will require me to leave by 10 a.m. that day. Thanks again for all your help. Pria On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:52 AM, Adam Petersen <APetersen@m-group.us> wrote: Good Morning Pria,   Please see Dave Dockter's response in red to your comments below. Also Public Works ‐  Engineering has responded with the following comment:    Item 13: That is a state stormwater regulation that we cannot waive or remove. We are required to  enforce that on all development projects that is applies to or we won’t be in compliance with the  Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3. There are six different options of site design measures and if  one or two of them don’t work they have several other options ‐ such as using permeable surfaces for  walkways – that they could implement instead.     The 2120 Staunton Court project will be reviewed by the ARB at the October 19, 2017 hearing.  It will be the first item on the agenda, starting at 8:30 AM.     Please feel free to contact me with any questions.     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. 106  M‐LAB: A THINK TANK FOR CITIES:  JOIN THE CONVERSATION!      2 From: Dockter, Dave <Dave.Dockter@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 10:57 AM  To: Adam Petersen  Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie; Grewal, Amanjit; Passmore, Walter; Lanham, Elizabeth  Subject: 2120 Staunton_ARB comment response‐ 16PLN‐00419     Adam:   To Ms. Graves comments:   Public Works Urban Forestry Section: I’m pleased that the tree protections for the redwood appear to have been  improved, particularly the requirement for a vertical cut and requiring shoring to be outside of the restricted  area.     I am concerned, however, that item 30.f.ii states that "all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth”. If “modest  landscape plantings” are contemplated within the TPZ (as mentioned in item 27.c), they should be installed with  minimal disturbance to the tree roots.  A 12” till depth is not appropriate and should be specifically prohibited  within the TPZ.  Urban Forestry considers this acceptable, because project arborist certification  form required at building permit plan review will verify landscape plans resolve root damage  impact from understory plantings, irrigation lines and other landscape or drainage elements.    I hope the City will be monitoring the inspections and reports carefully as the project proceeds.  It would be a  tragedy if anything happened to damage that magnificent tree.  The Urban Forestry construction protocol  adequately requires a Monthly Tree & Contractor Activity Report be sent to Urban Forestry to  monitor compliance. The City recognizes the importance of this protocol.   Sincerely,   <image002.jpg>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   From: Adam Petersen [mailto:APetersen@m-group.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 3:56 PM To: Dockter, Dave; Grewal, Amanjit Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie Subject: Fw: 2120 Staunton Dave and Amanjit,  I received the comment letter below regarding the project at 2120 Staunton (16PLN‐00419).  This project is going to the ARB tomorrow, and I'd like to receive your response to the  comments prior to the meeting.     The staff report, with conditions is available at the following link:  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59598     Thanks,     ADAM PETERSEN | SENIOR PLANNER 3 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. 106 M‐LAB: A THINK TANK FOR CITIES:  JOIN THE CONVERSATION!     From: Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com>  Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:31 PM  To: Adam Petersen  Subject: 2120 Staunton   Hi Adam ‐     Thank you for your offer of ensuring that my comments are included in the public record since I  am unable to attend the ARB review in person.    Regards,   Pria Graves   Public Works Engineering item 13: In this particular area there is a compacted rock layer about  6’ ‐ 12' below the surface.  This results in a perched water table above the normal groundwater  level.  In fact, the soil often remains completely saturated for long periods during wet winters.  I  am concerned that the recommended bubbler box will be ineffective and will overflow unless  the bottom of the box is excavated to a depth below the compacted rock layer to allow the  water to pass through that layer. Similarly keeping rainwater onsite as specified in item 17, is  not particularly feasible in this area.    Public Works Urban Forestry Section: I’m pleased that the tree protections for the redwood  appear to have been improved, particularly the requirement for a vertical cut and requiring  shoring to be outside of the restricted area.     I am concerned, however, that item 30.f.ii states that "all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12”  depth”. If “modest landscape plantings” are contemplated within the TPZ (as mentioned in item  27.c), they should be installed with minimal disturbance to the tree roots.  A 12” till depth  is not appropriate and should be specifically prohibited within the TPZ.    I hope the City will be monitoring the inspections and reports carefully as the project  proceeds.  It would be a tragedy if anything happened to damage that magnificent tree.  Attachment J 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 – 10.6.17 Project Plans for ARB” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8400) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue: Public Safety Building and Parking Garage Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review of (1) a New Three-Story Public Safety Building With Attached Emergency Telecommunications Facility at 250 Sherman Avenue, and (2) a New Four-Story Parking Structure to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces above and below grade. Planning and Transportation Commission Review and Council Action Requested for Modification to Public Facilities Development Standards. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared and Publication is Anticipated in Mid-October. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide initial comments on the formal submittal and draft findings, and continue the hearing to a date certain of November 16, 2017. Report Summary This is the first ARB review of the formal application for the Palo Alto Public Safety Building (PSB) at 250 Sherman Avenue and ‘California Avenue’ garage project at 350 Sherman Avenue. The project will occupy two city blocks on Sherman Avenue, currently in use as public parking lots. Environmental review of the project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is underway. Publication of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 anticipated mid-October. Continuance of the hearing to a second formal ARB review will allow for public comments on the DEIR. During its April 3, 2017 meeting, City Council determined the number of parking spaces for the public garage and established the direction for a Public Facilities (PF) zoning code text amendment. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) provided initial comments during an EIR scoping session and is scheduled to review proposed modifications to PF development standards on October 25, 2017. The PTC’s role is to forward its recommendation on both the PF code modifications and DEIR to Council. This report is intended to assist the ARB and the public to learn about the project so they may provide comments the applicant can consider prior to a second ARB hearing, targeted for November 16, 2017. Project approval by the City Council would be based upon Architectural Review findings following action on a Final EIR and on the PF zoning code changes. There are no context-based design criteria within the PF zone regulations. The ARB is encouraged to provide specific direction at this hearing, so the applicant can quickly refine the designs; in particular, for the public parking garage, which would be constructed first. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Ross Drulis Cusenbery Architecture, Inc. Representative: Matt Raschke, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue (see location map Attachment A) Neighborhood: California Avenue Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: 140’ x 371’ (250 Sherman) and 130’ x 312’ (350 Sherman) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Yes, California-Olive-Emerson (COE) area (from 640 Page Mill Road) Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): No resources on the two sites; adjacent to 350 Sherman (parking garage site) is a National Register eligible resource, 321 California Avenue, on file with the State Office of Historic Preservation Existing Improvement(s): The two blocks of the site are improved with asphalt and trees in planters in use as surface parking lots available to the public Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lots Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northwest: CC(2)(R)(P) Zoning (commercial land uses) Southwest: CC(2) Zoning (commercial land uses) Northeast: CC(2)(R) Zoning (commercial land uses) Southeast: PF and RM-40 Zoning (public facilities, and multiple family residential land uses) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Special Setbacks: None Aerial View of Property: Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: 250 Sherman: Public Facilities; 350 Sherman: Community Commercial Context-Based Design: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design: NA SOFA II CAP: NA Baylands Master Plan: NA ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): NA Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, within 150 feet of multiple family residential land use Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: December 2015: Council directed cost/ impacts analysis and design and environmental review of a 3-story Public Safety Building (PSB). 250 Sherman 350 Sherman City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Staff Report #6069 April 3, 2017: Council provided direction on legislative approach and garage uses/# of spaces. Report viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56666. Staff Report #7738 . Video of Council meeting viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-122/ June 5, 2017: Informational report regarding preliminary review PTC: April 12, 2017: Scoping meeting. Report viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56874 Video viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-46/ Excerpt PTC minutes were in the Preliminary ARB report (link below) HRB: May 25, 2017: HRB Study Session conducted. Staff report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57906 Video link: http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-37/ Excerpt minutes are attached to this report (Attachment C). ARB: June 1, 2017: ARB Preliminary Review conducted. Staff report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58034 Video link: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-63/ Excerpt minutes are attached to this report (Attachment B). Three different approaches were presented. Attachment H to this report is the architect’s description of the ARB comments at the preliminary review and applicant responses thereto. General Project Description – Both Sites This section provides a general overview that is applicable to both projects and follows with a more specific discussion with respect to each individual project. The architect’s project description (Attachment D) provides an overview, concept statements, and descriptions of materials, site development and landscape design intent for both project sites. Application information is available through the “Building Eye” website at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. For more project information, see the Public Works Department webpage, entitled ‘New Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage’: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=145. In summary, the existing pavement, curbs, planters and utility items on the existing public parking lots would be demolished, all parking lot trees would be removed, and new structures and landscaping would be constructed and installed. The public parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue would be constructed first, to replace and increase surface parking facilities. The PSB would then be constructed at 250 Sherman Avenue, once the parking structure is operational. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Design Previously characterized as a ‘dynamic massing’ approach, the formal project concept is ‘a series of civic points of contact’, designs that provides ‘visual variety and interest’, simplified massing, with deeper recesses and textural variation. ‘Civic language’ is used through the project to tie two sites together. The selected materials have a long-term lifespan, and green screen use is limited. The applicant has provided an Opportunities and Constraints map that provides information requested by the ARB at the preliminary review. The landscape design’s functionality and intent are described in Attachment D. Landscaping includes street trees and planter landscaping, wider sidewalk widths, lighting, and seating. Both of the city blocks will receive new street trees, intended to signal that this as a “gateway” to California Avenue Commercial District. Signage The plan set does not define where signage would be placed on the buildings or on the site. Staff has encouraged the applicant to submit concepts for signage placement, to allow for ARB input. It is anticipated that subtle signage will be used rather than large emblems over the entry, as pictured in plans, to signify that three City service departments are represented inside the building. Requested Entitlements The following discretionary applications have been filed:  Architectural Review – Major (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 F.  Zoning Amendment. The development standards for the Public Facilities Zone District for parking garages in the Public Facility zone districts in Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts would be amended to allow the parking garage above and below grade encroachments into street yard and interior (alley) setbacks, and greater height, floor area and site coverage than otherwise allowed by PF zone development standards. The Public Safety Building would meet PF development standards except for setback to a below grade parking facility and height overage for the emergency telecommunications tower. The Planning and Transportation Commission will review the proposed amendment and forward a recommendation to the City Council. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Zoning Issues The zoning compliance table (Attachment E) provides a summary of requested exceptions to the PF zone development standards. The proposed legislative changes to the PF zone development standards are intended to address these exceptions. Public Parking Garage Description The proposed garage would have 636 parking spaces within four levels of above-ground parking and two levels of basement parking. The City Council directed that the garage should not contain retail space, and asked that the project include design enhancements to the Birch Street frontage as an appealing interface between the garage and the pedestrian sidewalk. Council also directed staff to:  Revise the Public Facility (PF) development standards to specifically accommodate city parking garages,  Include photo-voltaic (PV) panels on the top of the public garage, as shown in the plans, and  Construct the public parking garage project component first. Architecture The selected architectural style is intended to reflect the eclectic mix of scales, materials, uses and styles in the California Avenue area. The ‘civic points of contact’ concept is for material finishes to be provided at key points. The color and material palette (for both buildings) would include:  terra cotta (tiles or steel with terra cotta finish),  cast-in-place concrete panels with different textures, tinted to a “more earthy” off- white color, and  terra cotta louvers and horizontal window fins in a neutral color. A painted-metal plate panel is proposed for upper walls at all but the Ash Street elevation, and a steel painted terra cotta color is proposed for the PV support structure. Placement of these colors and materials is as indicated on color renderings in the ARB plan sets. Below images of the proposed materials show two concrete textures (a photo-engraved texture for use only at the Birch Street side and a wood-texture on the other elevations). Green images show a mosaic tile wall proposed to face Ash Street, and vines on painted metal fins proposed at the central portion of the parking garage facing Sherman Avenue. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Renderings of Garage Above Image: Garage South Elevation Facing Sherman Avenue Above Image: Garage North Elevation Facing Jacaranda Lane City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Garage East Elevation Facing Birch Street Garage West Elevation Facing Ash Street Site Plan and Encroachments Above image is the Public Parking Garage Site Plan as of August 30, 2017  The garage would encroach entirely into the 20-foot setbacks on Sherman Avenue and Ash Street, but will be set back a ‘to be determined’ distance (shown in plans as 36 feet) from Birch Street.  The subterranean (and above-grade) structure would encroach entirely into the 10-foot alley setback (Jacaranda Lane) for approximately 2/3rd the alley frontage length. These encroachments will comply with the proposed legislative changes to the PF zone development standards. Public Garage Pedestrian Wayfinding  Pedestrian access to the public parking garage would be provided at all three street frontages and also at the alley frontage, to connect with the mid-block paseo to California Avenue from the arcade to special paving on the alley.  One elevator would be located at the corner of Ash Street and Jacaranda Lane. The other elevator would be at the corner of Jacaranda Lane and Birch Street.  A grand, exterior staircase would scale the building end that faces Birch Street.  Two additional staircases would be provided; one at the corner of Birch Street and Sherman Avenue, another near Jacaranda Lane near Ash Street.  The pedestrian arcade would connect the northeast garage entry to the mid-block paseo across Jacaranda. Recesses included at garage corners allow additional landscaping. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9  Wayfinding signage proposals will be provided in a future submittal. Vehicular Access to Public Parking Garage The public parking garage vehicular access will be two-way, at-grade access at Sherman Avenue near Birch Street. The vehicular access point anticipates gates and garage parking meters. Ramps in the public parking garage will be aligned parallel to the long facades. Civic Design The garage features include:  An arcade at the alley side of the garage, designed to connect visually (with pavers) to the adjacent mid-block paseo leading to California Avenue.  Raingardens proposed along frontages to provide storm water treatment.  A grand staircase and pedestrian arcades, for which the design intent is to give the PSB greater prominence. Public Art A Los Angeles artist team has been identified for public art on the garage. Here is the webpage for the artist recommended by the panel: http://www.ball-nogues.com/ The selection is scheduled to be confirmed by the Public Art Commission on October 19, 2017 at 7pm. The potential locations for art include:  The front façade facing Birch Street,  The unresolved corner at Birch near the alley,  The underside of the arcade at the alley, and  The underside of the Ash Street arcade. Photo Voltaic (PV) Installation The plans cover sheet and plans sheet ARB 01.02 provide renderings of the rooftop PV shade structures. Plans sheet ARB 06.05 shows the proposed garage in a section. The project lead is working through the PV procurement and usage strategy, and a public-private partnership similar to the PV systems being installed on other City garages may be used, and Public Safety Building Description The existing 25,000 sf public safety building at 275 Forest Avenue on the City Hall site is inadequate to meet current requirements of the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act, a 1986 California law resulting from the Legislature’s determination that buildings providing essential services should be capable of providing those services to the public after a disaster. This Act includes requirements that such buildings shall be designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards and to resist…the forces generated by earthquakes, gravity, and winds. The functions of the existing PSB would be relocated to the new, larger facility at 250 Sherman Avenue. The new, three-story PSB would range from 45,400 sf to 48,000 sf in area and have a City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 height of 49 feet, with the exception of the emergency communications tower, proposed to be 135 feet tall. The building’s floor-to-floor height keeps the building under 50’. The microwave tower would be placed at the Park Boulevard side of the new building. The height of the proposed tower is requested to allow Palo Alto to participate in the Santa Clara County ECOMM Network for PSAP’s (Public-Safety Answering Points). An employee courtyard, with trees and seating, is proposed abutting Jacaranda Lane (alley) and separated from the alley by a concrete wall. The design includes an overhead canopy to cover 50% of the vehicle parking spaces, trees to provide screening, and a perimeter wall to contribute to the desired ‘courtyard’ feeling. Above-grade, the PSB structure will observe the PF zone’s required street setbacks. The building would be set back 24’7” from the Sherman Avenue property line. Architecture The PSB’s cast-in-place concrete panels will have a rough, stone-like texture. Below images of the proposed materials show two concrete textures; a chiseled-texture to be used at first floor level facing Sherman, and a wood-texture used on the other elevations. Above Image: PSB Materials PSB Renderings (Next page) Above Image: PSB South Elevation Facing Sherman Avenue City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Above Image: PSB North Elevation Facing Jacaranda Lane Above Image: PSB West Elevation Facing Birch Street Above Image: PSB East Elevation Facing Park Boulevard Landscaping and Lighting Above image is the Public Safety Building Plan as of August 30, 2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 The plans reflect one Sherman Avenue driveway, vehicular access from Jacaranda Lane curb cuts, planting and pedestrian/streetscape improvements, and pathway to a staff entrance door on Sherman Avenue. Plaza lighting details and cut-sheets have been submitted for ARB review. The submitted plans addressed the Transportation Division staff request for a narrow driveway width for the Sherman Avenue driveway, in consideration of the pedestrian experience. The below image is provided to illustrate the users preference for an additional narrow driveway providing a vehicular exit from the operational yard onto Sherman Avenue. The narrow Sherman Avenue driveway would be separated from the main driveway by landscaping. Proposed Sherman Avenue driveway to operational yard Below-Grade Encroachments  The subterranean garage will encroach almost entirely into the 20 foot street setback on Sherman Avenue.  On the Park frontage, the subterranean garage will encroach entirely into the 20-foot setback.  On the Birch frontage, the subterranean garage will encroach approximately two feet into the 20-foot setback.  On the alley side, the property line location varies, so that near Park Boulevard, the encroachment into the ten-foot setback is nearly seven feet, whereas near Birch Street to a point approximately halfway of the length of the building, there is no subterranean garage encroachment. These encroachments will comply with the proposed legislative changes to the PF zone development standards. PSB Access  Patrol and emergency services vehicles will have egress to the subterranean parking lot via a driveway at Sherman Avenue, with a ramp system parallel to Park Boulevard. City employees in personal vehicles will arrive from Birch Street via Jacaranda Lane. A ramp system would be covered by a ‘chacon’ and have a key-coded gate system. The basement air intake is integrated into the high wall of the covered ramp. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13  Secured police vehicle surface parking on site, near Park Boulevard, will be accessible from Jacaranda Lane.  Pedestrians and bicyclists will have access to the entrance plaza via Birch Street and Sherman Avenue. Staff will also be able to use a staff entrance on Sherman Avenue.  The Birch driveway ramp is not for patrol vehicles, only personal employee vehicles. Civic and Pedestrian Amenities The PSB includes an approximately 5,000 square foot public plaza with a variety of seating types, as featured civic amenities. Raised planters would provide seating opportunities and moveable seating is also proposed. Paving in the plaza will assist with pedestrian scale and flow to the PSB lobby, and lighting is designed with a ‘tree-like’ motif. The plaza planters will provide demonstration gardens highlighting water conserving, native plants. Public Art At this point in time, a request for proposal is going out to solicit artists, with the possible art locations identified as follows:  The front stairwell,  The visitor area inside the front entrance, and  The Sherman Avenue frontage. Analysis – Both Sites Applicant’s Response to Preliminary Architectural Review Feedback The applicant’s submittal includes a table (Attachment H) that summarizes the ARB feedback on June 1, 2017 and responses thereto, organized by individual board members. The responses are described for each project component. Public Facilities Zoning Development Standards and Amendment The PF zone development standards are more restrictive than the CC (2) and RM-40 development standards, where zero setbacks and greater site coverage and floor area ratios are allowed. As noted, Council has decision-authority on this project and the proposed text changes to PF Development Standards. The Planning and Transportation Commission is scheduled to discuss the proposed text amendments on October 25, 2017. The Zoning Compliance Table (Attachment E) notes the requested exceptions to PF standards. The PF text changes would allow Council approval of this project for encroachments into (1) minimum setbacks, (2) floor area and lot coverage, and (3) maximum height. 1. Street and Alley Minimum Setbacks In the PF district, the minimum front, side, and rear yards: “shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet.” City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14  Encroachments, both above and below grade, vary for both project components as indicated on Attachment E. 2. Floor Area Ratio and Site Coverage For parking facilities in the PF district, the maximum floor area ratio and site coverage: “shall be equal to the floor area ratio and site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district”; in this case, a 1:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and a 30% lot coverage.  The proposed FAR and site coverage of the public parking garage is 3.57:1 and 89.3%, respectively.  The proposed FAR and site coverage for the Public Safety building is .74:1 and 29.2%, respectively. 3. Maximum Height Within 150 feet of the RM-40 zone, the height limit is 35 feet. Elsewhere on these sites, the height limit is 50 feet.  The height of the emergency communications tower for the PSB would exceed the 50 foot maximum height, extending to a height of 135 feet.  The height of the public garage, at 40’7” to the top of the railing, would exceed the 35 foot height limit within 150 feet of the RM-40 zone district. With the anticipated modification to the Public Facilities Development Standards, the proposed project will comply with all applicable codes. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Park Boulevard is a bike boulevard and a school route for Escondido Elementary School and JLS. Ash Street is also a school route for Escondido Elementary School. Sherman Avenue is not a school safety route. Bicycle parking is proposed in the project to meet the demand. The DEIR will reference a traffic study for the project. Public Parking Garage Site Analysis As noted, the Council directed staff to move forward with a garage that maximizes the number of parking spaces, rather than providing additional ground floor retail space. The design achieves the number of spaces as directed by Council. This is the first public parking garage to be built in the California Avenue Business District for many decades. The business community is eager to have additional parking spaces for district workers and customers. The site is within Palo Alto’s only PDA (Priority Development Area), within the PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development) optional overlay area, and within walking distance to the Caltrain station. Comprehensive Plan Policies The following goals, policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the project: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15  Goal T-8: (provide) Attractive, Convenient Public and Private Parking Facilities  Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs.  Program T-50: Continue working with merchants, the Chamber of Commerce, neighbors, and a parking consultant to explore optinos for constructing new parking facilities or using existing parking more efficiently.  Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts.  Program T-52: Evaluate options to ensure maximum use of the City parking structures in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas. Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site, within an active commercial district, is across the street from a new mixed use building on the corner of Ash Street and Sherman Avenue, and across from a multiple residential structure on the opposite corner of Sherman Avenue and Birch Street. Across the alley are commercial/retail buildings including 321 California Avenue, a structure that is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and has been long occupied by Antonio’s Nut House; the building was the first “supermarket” in Palo Alto. PF Zone Code Changes The PF code changes are intended to address the exceptions from the code. The provision of the Council-requested number of parking spaces depends upon these text changes. Alley Dumpsters While there has been discussion regarding how alley dumpsters used by the California Avenue businesses might be addressed with this project, the provision of trash enclosures within the building would mean the loss of parking spaces; therefore, they are not proposed with the project. PSB Site Analysis Project’s Significance The need for a larger PSB arose from the growth of public safety services and changes in regulations. The new PSB and adjacent public parking garage were envisioned in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The decision to place the PSB on this site was the culmination of many years of discussion with community participation. Earlier efforts to place the PSB on Park Boulevard sites were unsuccessful. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the project: 1 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 16 o Policy C-62, design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community, o Policy L-48, high quality design and site planning, compatible with surrounding development and public spaces, o Program L-49, maintain and support historic or consistent design character, o Policy L-50, high quality signage (no signage proposed with this application), o Policy L-62, provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art, o Policy L-70, enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street trees, o Policy L-72, promote and maintain public art compatible with the character and identity of the neighborhood, o Policy L-74, use the work of artists, landscape architects, etc. in the design and improvement of public spaces, o Program L-73, locate parking lots behind buildings, o Policy L-76, require trees and other landscaping within parking lots, o Program L-75, 50% shade program (zoning ordinance update implemented). Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site, within an active commercial district, is across from public facilities (the courthouse) and a high density residential structure on the opposite street corner, across Sherman Avenue. The project plans include streetscape images and bird’s eye views to provide information about the site context. Plaza Size/Program The PSB plaza, proposed at 5,250 square feet, is smaller than (one-sixth of) the plaza examples cited during the preliminary review. The program for the PSB does not allow a larger plaza, but the public lobby is designed as an extension of the plaza, and visual openness and four seating types and plantings are intended to create a lively and useful space. Emergency Communications Monopole The pole, proposed at a height of 135 feet, would have attachments (not shown in project plans) necessary to carry out the functions of this essential facility. It is possible that the reconfiguration of the administrative wing floor plans will result in the provision of a parapet providing roof screening for equipment related to the tower, and thereby reduce the extent of pole attachments. A Santa Clara County study indicates the required height of the monopole. The study may be viewed at this link: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/911/Documents/ECOMM%20Digital%20Microwave%20Project,% 20Phase%20III.pdf). Many nearby cities’ emergency communications monopoles are also taller than 50 feet. For example, Menlo Park’s monopole is 120 feet. Sample images below include a monopole with "stacked" antenna and microwave mounts (left), a monopole with microwave City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17 and some cross-members in a "crows nest" configuration at pole-top (middle) and Sunnyvale’s PSB monopole (right) that is similar to what would be proposed for Palo Alto’s PSB. Stacked mounts ‘Crow’s Nest’ configuration Sunnyvale’s PSB PF Zone Code Changes The PF code changes are intended to address the exceptions from the code. The provision of a functional and safe PSB on this site depends upon these text changes. Refinements to PSB Design The current design will be subject to additional modifications to ensure project features meet objectives.  Though the plans show the operational yard security fence meeting the ten foot alley setback, there are concerns about the loss of critical space in the operations yard, meeting the required ‘stand-off’ distance, and about the provision of a sidewalk along the alley near the yard wall. The plans will be modified to show: o the operations yard and employee courtyard wall abutting Jacaranda Lane, rather than meeting the ten foot setback, and o deletion of the sidewalk along the new wall for security reasons. The alley is at sidewalk grade and is used today by the tenants to access an office building that has its entrance on the alley.  Pop-up bollards may be added to allow emergency temporary closures of Jacaranda Lane. Pop-up bollards will also be considered for emergency closure of Sherman Avenue.  The next version of the plans will also show the additional driveway at Sherman Avenue, separated from the main driveway, large vehicle to access the operations yard, since access from the alley poses maneuverability issues for larger vehicles. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 18  Color and appearance of the covered entryway to the garage ramp may be modified and the cover may be lengthened to allow the proper placement of a full height gate to prevent any unauthorized access.  Additional items to be refined include the floor plans for the administrative wing (that will likely result in exterior adjustments), and possibly, the building overhang. Consistency with Architectural Review Findings Attachment F is provided for the ARB to consider the ‘generic’ AR findings required for the ARB to recommend Council approval of the project. AR findings specific to this project will be prepared for the second formal hearing. Findings will note that the project is subject to council approval of zoning code text amendment. Environmental Review The public parking garage will replace the approximately 310 public parking spaces that currently exist on both sites. Therefore, the formal project applications are considered as a single ‘project’ under CEQA. 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 Draft EIR is proposed to be published for circulation beginning mid-October, 2017, for a 30-day public comment period. The DEIR will be viewable on the City’s webpages. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on October 6th, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 6th, 12 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments and Outreach Any public comments received during the scoping period for the EIR were forwarded to the consultant. Public comments on the DEIR receive before close of the comment period will be addressed in the Final EIR. In March 2017, community meetings were held to review the designs for this project. The purpose of the meetings was to hear public input before the garage alternatives were presented to the City Council in April 2017. Attachment G is an email chain from several Birch Court condominium residents: (1) asking if the parking garage entrance could be placed toward Ash street rather than as proposed near Birch Street, citing competing traffic and safety hazards and noting “the garage entrance/exit would be almost directly across from two other entries (to the VISA building and to the Birch Court condo”, and (2) seconding this and voicing additional concerns regarding air quality, noise and sunlight have been forwarded to the consultant for response. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 19 Next Steps Timely comments on the Draft EIR would be addressed in a Final EIR for Council adoption. The Draft EIR and project are tentatively scheduled for City Council review in December 2017. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the PSB component of the project to a hearing date uncertain. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 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 (DOCX)  Attachment B: ARB June 1st Meeting Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment C: HRB May 25th 2017 meeting Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment D: Applicant Narrative (PDF)  Attachment E: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)  Attachment F: Architectural Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment G: Pat Beatty (PDF)  Attachment H: Architect Response (PDF)  Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment A: Location Map 250 Sherman 350 Sherman City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Board Member Wynne Furth, Robert Gooyer, Board Member Peter Baltay Absent: Vice Chair Kyu Kim Study Session 2. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00136 and 17PLN-00135]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Approximately 40,351 Square Foot Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to Contain 636 Parking Spaces on six Levels (two Below Grade) With a Footprint of 37,075 Square Foot and Floor Area of 149,500 Square Foot. The Public Safety Building Site Would be Developed With Three Individual Buildings and Provide 167 Parking Spaces for Use by the Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared; Formal Project Application not yet Submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information, Please Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: We can move onto the first item which is number two. A study session for 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue. Preliminary Architectural Review of a new approximately 40,351-square foot Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a new parking structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to contain 636 parking spaces on six Levels, two below grade and four above grade, with a footprint of 37,075- square foot and floor area of the 149,500-square foot. The Public Safety Building would be developed with three individual buildings and provide 167 parking spaces for use by the City Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and the Fire Department. Environmental Assessment is an environmental impact is being prepared. A formal application has not yet been submitted and the zone district is PF. Amy French, Welcome. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I am here with Matt Raschke, who is with the Public Works Department and the lead on this project. As noted in the report, the scoping session had occurred at the Planning and Transportation Commission on April 12th. This is in compliance with the notice of preparation of an initial study that identified the areas – the topic areas to be studied in a draft Environmental Impact Report. That period of review closed in early May, May 10th I believe, and there were not a lot of comments received about what additional topics should be studied. The two sites are across the street from the County Court House there – the City Court House and a mixed-use housing project that the ARB – some members of the ARB - may remember at 385 Sherman. It backs up to an alley, Jacaranda Lane that backs up to the Cal. Ave businesses there on California Avenue. The Council has weighed in and stated that they wanted maximized parking on the PF zone site. That zone site is also having a land use designation of a regional community commercial. At one point in time, there was a consideration for retail. The Council heard from the business district folks and decided to move forward with an all parking option there on that site. The Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman, Matt and the applicant’s architect who is here will describe that – both projects as far as ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: June 1, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 architecture. So, today it’s a preliminary review. We’re seeking comment on the three options that are shown in the plans and this will be coming back to you as a formal architectural review application. Mr. Matt Raschke, Public Works Project Planner: Thank you, Amy. Matt Raschke, Public Works and I am the project manager for this – the Public Safety Building and garage project. The Public Safety Building is on the highest infrastructure plan priority for the City and as part of that, we had selected this site parking lot, C6, to place this new essential services facility there. Then, to mitigate the parking there was also, in the infrastructure plan, a new garage plan for the Cal. Ave business district and the projects were combined such that the parking lost on lot C6 can be recouped on a new parking structure on lot C7. Then on April 3rd of this year, City Council gave Staff direction to basically maximize the garage capacity to about approximately 636 spaces; four stories above ground and two stories below. They decided not to pursue a retail element on the parking structure. Just to give you a little background on that and then I would like to welcome Mallory Cusenbery from RossDrulisCusenbery Architectures to give the presentation on the project. Thank you. Chair Lew: Welcome and you have 10-minutes. Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Good morning. Thank you. Alright, thank you for having us. I am looking forward to having the chance to get input from you on this. The statues of the project are that we’re in early schematic design. We’ve been doing schematic design in program verification concurrently. We now have an approved program and scope size and we’re doing out initial schematic design approach which is to go out and to talk to a lot of different groups, including yourselves, and get a lot of feedback and a lot of input on the early phases of the design. With the goal of getting a sense to where people are at. I want to make clear that what we are presenting today to you are not proposals. They are not design approaches as much as they are conversation starters. Our goal really is to generate some dialog and get a sense – get the temperature of the community. Find out what some of the ambitions and the hopes are for this very important project. Just to orient you, this is an early massing model to just put the thing in context. This right here on the lower photograph – I am using my curser and tell me if you can’t see it. This is California Avenue right here, this the Public Safety Building site, this is the parking garage site, this is the Court House, the new Visa building, and various mixed use and retail functions are around it. This is looking from the side of the Court House in the foreground here. The parking structure there and the Public Safety Building there. Officially, this is lot C6 and C7, which you can see here and here. The streets – the (inaudible) are Park Boulevard right here, Birch, Ash to the south. We’re using project north being up on this illustration so to the south is Sherman and then Jacaranda Lane here. There are two existing parking lots on which the parking with be displaced and then relocated into the new parking structure. It’s a very diverse context. These are some photographs of various heights, various building types, mixed use residential, Court House and the new office building. The parking lots themselves are surrounded by trees but have no trees within the parking lot itself. Then here are the sites themselves. I will give you a little bit of data about them. The lower illustration you can see the height of the Public Safety Building is here, on the far left and then on the far right is the height of the parking structure. This one – this diagram assumes photovoltaic panels on top of three-stories of parking and you can see the heights relative to other buildings in the neighborhood. The Public Safety Building on the right has a public plaza here. It has – this is the footprint – the main footprint for the three-story Public Safety Building, which go up to 50-feet high. There are a few one-story site buildings our here. This area right here is a fenced in operational outdoor area for the Police Department and then the alley is continuous in the same direction as it is to the north here. Then the parking structure is almost property line to property line on all sides except the Birch Street side right here where there’s about a 12-foot setback currently. The parking structure is around 36 ½-feet to the top of the guard rail and then if the photovoltaic panels are put on top, it’s around 47 – these are rough numbers but roughly around 46-47— feet to that height. You’ll notice the setbacks and I’ll give you a little bit of background on the drivers for some of why this is looking as it is. The Public Safety Building has setbacks on all side, that is in part driven by operational requirement for the Police Department. We want to have a security setback from all public rights-of-way, where we have subtle barriers for vehicular movements so they can’t approach the building more than 25-feet on any side. The minimum-security setback around the building is 25-feet and then we’ve increase that setback for the plaza area over on this side. There is garage – there are two City of Palo Alto Page 3 garages – two, two-way ramps to the subterranean parking for the Public Safety Building. One off of Sherman, one off of Birch and the primary vehicular entry for the parking structure is off of Sherman with the primary pedestrian access off of Birch near Jacaranda. The driver for the size of the parking structure was to optimize the quantity of parking spaces and as you said, it’s 637, that is our target and so that’s pushed it out to the property lines. I want to offer one correct or addition to the packet that you have there. The Public Safety Building square footage is actually not 40,000-square feet. That’s an older number. The approved number is 45,500-sqaure feet so that’s a correction. Those – I mentioned a couple of programmatic drivers for the scale and the massing of the Public Safety Building. There are also a lot of community design opportunities that we took advantage of and looked at the massing. What you see here are some early photomontages that are based on the current massing. As you see, there are no design in here, just the massing but this is looking down Birch Street. You can see the Public Safety Building here and the Court house in the foreground and then in the lower illustrations is this is Park Boulevard. You see the three-story Public Safety Building here with the one-story elements here as they approach Park. We looked at a lot of different options for how to mask this building. We looked at a two- story option, initially thinking that it might be less imposing as a two-story building. It spreads out and in addition to operational drivers which said that a compact building works much better for the Police Department. There were a lot of other benefits that we saw. In fact, our discovery was that the three- story massing was less imposing and actually tucked itself away in surprising ways as you move through. In this case, in the upper image, you can see the Court House as you approach California Avenue. It’s still the dominate building and then as you go towards the mixed use residential on Park Boulevard on the lower image, you can see that the building steps down. Similarly, in views from California Avenue, you’ll have to look closely on the lower image, the larger one, the Public Safety Building is here completely behind that existing tree. It’s not apparent on that view at all and then from the corner of Park and Cal. Ave, you can see it tucked back. This is the street three-story volume here, tucked back and not taller than other commercial actually, in relative proportion that you see here. Then when you are actually standing mid-block, a little bit of it peeks up above the roof tops there. I will point out a little detail, you will notice that there is a tower. There is an intention to have a telecommunication tower that is building mounted mono-pole; not a truss tower. That will be 136-feet from ground to the top of the tower but it will be building mounted. That is not 135-feet there. You will see subsequent massing models where we’ve represented it at 135-feet. This is based on an earlier height, which we’ve subsequently done more research to height that it has to be. These are some building sections. This is a section through the main public plaza. You can see in the upper left, you can see the parking structure here with the photovoltaics and the plaza here. The three-story Public Safety Building and you can see the two-stories subterranean for (inaudible) parking structure and the Public Safety Building. A lot of the focus that we had now was once we had established the programmatic drivers and scale and context drivers, was – is to put a lot of emphasis on pedestrian orientation. Observation we had for these particular two side is that the pedestrian use of the environment varies depending on which frontage. On the, what we are calling the north/south direction on Park Boulevard, Birch and Ash, there is a lot of pedestrian movement in particularly around lunch time. When you have a lot of people who are working in the – to the south, who are coming to Cal. Avenue. So, they come two, three, four, five at a time and so having some width for people – for a group of people – individuals coming together to go get lunch and be able to walk side by side. Currently, there isn’t even space. You see when they get to this lot they have to single file as they pass by the parking lots. The idea is to provide a more generous space for that movement in that direction. We observed less movement in the east/west direction along Sherman. With the new office building and the Court House there, any pedestrian activity there tends to be a little more static. People come out and smoke a cigarette. They’ll talk on a cell phone. They are not moving so much on Sherman and we’re trying to take that into consideration. The idea here is to have – I’m starting on the right side of the image along Park – excuse me – we would have a widen pedestrian area there along the one-story buildings to provide the width necessary for pedestrian movement. In the plaza here, you see the building is significantly stepped back and the idea would be to program the plaza for lunch time uses or another passive or active pedestrian uses. There is the shading and landscaping along the parking structure here. Then on the west side of the parking structure, the intent is to provide an arcade so even though the parking structure goes to the property line on that side on the first level to a ceiling height that we’re hoping to be around 11-feet. We have a pedestrian arcade with the stairs to the parking – a secondary stair to the parking structure visible there but it gives some width for movement in that City of Palo Alto Page 4 location. Zooming in there, you can see the plaza – again, these site plans that you are seeing now are conceptual. These are just early passes at it to again, generate conversation but you can see that the idea is that we are providing some zone along the front of the Public Safety Building, which provides security for the police and so you don’t want people getting to close to the building but though we do want to have a zone set back here. Where we have seating opportunities, shade opportunities, maybe outdoor tables so again, you can accommodate individuals from Cal. Avenue to come and have lunch or other hours. The way that the parking structure hits the street right now on the left, that is the current approach. We’re exploring some option for that as well. Again, pedestrian orientation is a big driver for us so if you look at the illustration on the right, one current study that we are doing and we’re looking for feedback on this as well, would be to actually have an exterior mounted staircase here. That allows you to walk up the side of the parking structure, exit onto the different levels but creates a more ceremonial civic stair that then it’s outlet is in the direction of Cal. Avenue on that side, creating a little bit more of a dramatic presentation for the pedestrians. Then have a secondary arcade here with bicycle parking that leads you towards the alley that has Starbucks on it, which is a just a little bit over to the left in that illustration. Then those are some of the big sight concepts. What I am going to do then is orient you towards three of the concepts that we have started to gather some of our thinking around. Again, these are conversation starters but our goal is to kind of create three types of attitudes for lack of a better word; three approaches to how the building may be designed to capture different – a different feeling. We’ve tried – we’ve aimed to have a consolidation of design ideas within each of these concepts that differentiate each other but create a clear identity. The first one, concept one, we are calling screening and greening. The idea there is based on some feedback we’ve heard from people that are saying well, maybe you should down play the building’s presence. Maybe the building should be a little bit more of a background building and not necessarily as assertive. To achieve that, this approach takes kind of an organic approach where we use organic materials. Wood like materials for window screening, deeply textured hard walls. You can see samples of materials here. Maybe some building plantings on the parking structure where you have vines on the parking structure or dense plantings on the Public Safety Side, a double row of trees and basically creating an environment where we are creating more of a visual organic feel to the buildings and down playing their presences as objects. So, you can see some of the materials sample there. These are initial, initial, elevation sketches and this is a massing model. We do not have windows shown so these are just the volumes but you can get a sense for the textures, the organic qualities and maybe even some of the vines on the parking structure. Things like that and the denser plantings there. For this first concept, the idea would be that landscape would follow along so the site development would have again, more organic shapes. As evidence by the photographs on the right where it’s a little more meandering and it down plays – it doesn’t have a civic formal presence. It’s a little more informal in its design articulation. So, that’s concept one over one, screening and greening. The second concept takes a very different approach. It says alright, we actually want the building to have – to assert itself as a design presences and we’re calling this one dynamin massing. Where it actually creates some visual interest, and has a contrast in the materials and a play in materials that are a little more assertive. I don’t want to necessarily say playful but a little more dynamic in how they present themselves. The color pallet doesn’t really show on this screen here. Hopefully, the color resolution on your screen is a little better. The color pallet would be based on historic colors – colors of historic buildings within Palo Alto so the idea of Terracotta color or a light-colored tan plaster. Those types of materials that you see on a lot of the historic buildings but updated and presented in a contemporary language in this scheme. You can see up closer here, again we’re not – these are just conceptual window locations but again, it’s taking portions like the ECO above here or the stair tower over here or some of the other program elements and popping them out as individual volumes to create some of that dynamic. You can see the play here. One of the things that is a theme throughout all of these and we’re interested in feedback on this as well, is getting the Public Safety Building and the parking structure to work in tandem. Having them work together so that whatever design approach we take on the Public Safety Building, we take on the parking structure as well and creating somewhat of a gateway entrance towards Cal. Ave. So, you can see that play here, where the volumes and the play continue over onto the parking structure. There is a long – in this scheme there is a long wall opportunity where what we are seeing is a possible public art opportunity on the wall that faces the Visa building. Again, comparable for this second scheme. The site development would also be dynamic as well with the way that we have site furnishings and volumes being playful. Now one of the things that I want to add and I didn’t mention this earlier but City of Palo Alto Page 5 we are creating the vehicular barriers along the perimeter of the site, which is necessary for the public safety function. However, we do not want this to feel like a fortress so whatever we are doing, as you can see in those photographs there, in terms of seat walls, in terms of planters, those will be the barriers. This will not look fortified. This will look like it’s a variable three-dimensional landscape, which also then provides the subtle but transparent security barriers that we need. The other thing that I will mention is the subterranean parking is property line to property line so all planters will be raise anyway just by virtue of the fact that there is no dirt below the parcel. Then the third concept takes yet a different approach and we’re calling this one simple civic and the idea is that for those that feel like a more appropriate language for this project would be understated, formal and less dynamic. This approach is still a contemporary take on it but the idea is to use vertical proportions. The bottom windows along the perimeters along the building would invoke colonnade. It is a little more understated in its development and the use of materials. For instance, the white would be like a Sierra white granite which is a common civic material for public buildings throughout the Bay Area. Traditional brick and things like that but again, in a more understated, serious civic kind of approach. You can see that massing here again to create a dialog between the parking structure and the Public Safety Building. We would have some of those elements present in both of them and the site as well would follow along. This time having a kind of radial approach where the approach to the building is playing up at that linear perch as you see on the exterior of the building. In closing, then these are really – again, as you can see, we have kind of clustered them and the hope is to have internals consistent approaches that – again, for lack of a better term, attitudes and we’re curious how the community responds and what everyone thinks is an appropriate language for this type of a building in this type of a context. With that, I will open it up for questions. Chair Lew: Ok, so thank you for that. Before we get into the question, I did want to open up the – this to the public for any comments. I don’t have any speaker cards for this particular item but I will keep that open in case there are any. So, are there any questions from the Board? No. Ok, then we will just move onto comments. Anybody want to start? No. Robert? Board Member Gooyer: I like the basic concept. The thing that is a little bit – I don’t know, I think it needs some additional thought on the building itself. It seems like you’ve gone through all the effort to camouflage or not camouflages but to make it a very attractive building. Then you have that sort of utilitarian parking lot next to it. I mean it – I just have a problem with that. Especially with a lot of the building in the area are hire that look down on that and invariably, I’ve seen police yards before and they end up just being a mess. A lot of the buildings like I said, around it looks right down on that and if you’ve got a couple of floors – if this had no subterranean parking, I’d say you don’t need it but in this particular case, you do. I’d rather see some of the functions that are maybe straight forward parking or some other function go up and then the sort of utilitarian stuff moved down. As to the options, I – to me to a certain extent, they all look like bunkers. I mean I know the function that goes on there and you need a certain amount of that but – so I figured that if that’s the case then you might as well express it in more of a dynamic concept so I like scheme two better or I should say as a start. It’s a little bit more interesting if you are going to go a little bit out there, why not? I’m not a big fan of, in general, putting wood cladding on like a parking structure to make it – to hide that it’s a parking structure. I mean come on, anybody knows what it is. As far as a parking structure, I’d rather have it look like a parking structure rather than something that you’re attempting to hide because you’re never going to hide that it’s a parking structure. I think all in all I’d prefer option two and with some of the modifications. I’ll see if there’s anything else that comes up while my other colleagues have some comments. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Ok, good morning and thank you. I have to say that I applauded the approach of bringing it to us and trying to crystallize a couple of ideas and just being open to feedback. It really is great to be involved in it at this stage. I have a bunch of thoughts that I will through out at you and hopefully coherently. First of all, it struck me that I don’t think the building should be designed to be seen together as a pair and as a gateway down Birch Street. It strikes me that one has a very distinct civic function as a Public Safety Building and the other, the parking structure, really is rather unfortunate that City of Palo Alto Page 6 we need it at all. I think from following the political discourse over the past few years, everybody agrees that we need it and everybody laments the fact that we need it. Why didn’t we plan for this better? I think that’s where we are right now. How did we get here on where we need to spend this much money and make this big of building? We all need it but I think it’s not the same as the Public Service – Public Safety Building. That’s a civic building and it’s one of the few that we’re building in our generation. Let’s make it something special. That said, if I could then address the public safety lot first, lot C6. If I could get you to change two things, I would say remove the ramp that enters onto Birch Street. That’s the most important pedestrian area; going up and down Birch Street. It’s right past Café Pro Bono over to the California Avenue. To have a 20-foot ramp for police cars there just strikes me as grossly inappropriate and I really don’t think there should be any vehicular access into either of these buildings from Birch Street. Secondly, as Robert mentioned, the large parking area behind the Public Safety Building so to speak, the secure parking – the outdoor police facility. I really wonder if you couldn’t put that underground or somehow just not where it is. I completely agree that those tend to look unsightly and very off putting after a few years of police use on that. It’s not an attractive thing and yet this is a very important property. It’s pretty close to the downtown area, which is developing even more that way. If there is anyway to – what I would like to see is just shift the Public Safety Building further away from Birch and make a larger public plaza in front of it. Sort of on the scale of what we have over on Lytton and University here now, which is about twice that size. It would be a much more appropriate use of that open space and put the police outdoor activities some other place. Underground or I don’t know how you – I’m sure there’s a lot of complicated functional stuff but just looking at the site plan, it just seems to be inappropriate that the parking lot for the police is twice the size of the public plaza, when you are half a block off of California Avenue; it just seems inappropriate. I agree with you that the massing of the Public Safety Building should be taller and more compact. A 50-foot building is fine in that location as your presentation showed it. It’s not overpowering and it’s not out of scale with the area and I think it’s better if you can get a larger plaza to go with that. I think it would be good if you can get vehicular access on both of these buildings off of Sherman as much as possible. You are correct, I think in your observation that a lot of pedestrian traffic is north/south along Park and Birch and Ash Street so to the extent that you can bring in vehicular traffic off of Sherman, which is also somehow a calmer street. I don’t know how to put it but I know coming in on Birch Street always seems to be a bit of a nerve-wracking. You just pulled off of Page Mill and you’re sort of slowing down or there’s people walking or you park your car and you’re walking on University Avenue late at night. It’s not the place to have a police car coming out. I’m left then thinking about the Public Safety Building and your design options. I really like the idea of it being civic. I really dislike the images that you’ve shown us. They don’t look in the least bit civic to me and so you’re left at having sort of a philosophical discussion of what is civic? So, what I would like to do is point out some things that I would think would make that building civic. By civic, it’s timeless. It’s something that 50-years from now is still going to be looking good. It’s going to be there that long. I look at other buildings around town – not to say that we should copy that architectural style but Birge Clark’s Post Office has a civic presence to it somehow. All of us love that building so why is that? Lucie Stern Theater is another one but if I could ask you – your design team to just sort of ask yourself, what makes it a civic, timeless building? To me, it’s a memorable form that are advocative of a public function and you do have to do some soul searching because the public function here is rather security conscious. I think back to the armory up in San Francisco in the Mission District and it’s a serious security focused building and yet there’s something about it that feels Civic; that feels public. I walk by that and I feel kind of proud. That’s what my community built. To me, that’s what this building should have. It’s built with durable and timeless materials. Plaster and stone, that really will withstand the test of time. That won’t be off-put by poor maintenance from a failing City Council and things like that. It also has a public interface. The arcade on the Post Office, there’s something about that ability of people to sort of step into it a little bit. Again, granted that this is a Public Safety Building with police security but that’s what it wants. Somehow the part where the public goes in where it’s on the edge of the plaza, should feel like hey, this my police station. I live in this town. Somehow what we are seeing in these images – I understand that they are schematic massing models but they’re not massing the right things. The last comment on that building then was just response to your comment about 135-foot tall communication tower of some kind. That just seems really extreme and it’s necessary, I would ask you to try to somehow put it in a design that makes sense. We had a very thick flag pole on a small fire station which never quite worked but 135-feet is a tall tower and that will be visible from everywhere. Is it really City of Palo Alto Page 7 necessary and if so, do something to make it really work? Then on to the parking garage. I really do, again, want to reinforce that I think it’s necessary at the size that it is but it’s just unfortunate. It’s too bad that we have to spend public money doing this kind of thing for lack of planning in the past. That said, I think that you can’t really camouflages the building but as much as you can to soften the edges. Give them some ins and outs. Put a tree, a place for public -- a bench to sit on, a small plaza. Just anything that you can do to soften the edge and to take away the focus. This is not a civic building, this is just a necessary thing that we have to have. It’s a parking area so make the edge of it more user friendly. Easier to get in and out of. Perhaps consider having two entrances just to make it function better but each one again, gives you an opportunity to have some ins and outs of the building. Put some more landscaping there. It’s imperative to use materials that are incredibly durable and simple. This is the last building that City Council is going to vote to paint or do anything to so wood siding or anything remotely like that just won’t work. It will just look terrible over time. I know it’s a political question and that’s not in our purview but having retail on the ground floor would make sense. We’re striving to get more life, more pedestrian activity and retail is the best way to do that. Much better than benches and things so I would just put that on the record. That’s what I think we ought to be doing with that. So, that sums up my comments about these. Again, my biggest concern is this ramp into the Public Safety Building off of Birch. Mr. Cusenbery: If I could with permission, one clarification that I failed to mention during the presentation. The two ramps that Board Member Baltay is referring to, they provide different functions. The Sherman Avenue ramp is the primary ramp to the operations level. It’s the ramp that the police vehicles will be coming and going from. The Birch ramp is the second means of egress for operational vehicles in a state of an emergency but they won’t be using that primarily. They will primarily be arrival and departure of personal vehicles because that ramp goes down one level and then continues down into the second subterranean level, which is where the personal vehicles are parked. The day to day operations will be police vehicles off of Sherman and personal vehicles off of Birch so to the extent that that’s helpful. Board Member Baltay: Well, it’s an explanation of why it’s there. It doesn’t change the fundamental notion to me that that’s the wrong place to have the ramp. Let me throughout one last response to an idea that you mentioned or at least I thought I heard you say something about a staircase on Birch Street into the public parking garage. It occurs to me that I think that that’s a great idea. If that stair where broader and more open to say the second level, it’s a great place for people to interact with the parking garage on an easy informal level. A landing – a place to put a chair and it just struck me as a neat idea. Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. This is an impressive and even an intimidating project and I’m glad that it’s come to us early. We often talk about City projects and we’re not – if they get to us at the time when the choice is a flat roof or a pitched roof or a curved roof, it really is too late to be of much use. So, despite your request – respectful request that we stick to these three alternatives, as you can see, we’re going to engage you in a more extensive way. Also, thank you very much for giving us the transcript of the PTC’s environmental review scoping hearing. I’m very interested in knowing what the design team thinks are the defining characteristics of this area? You know, this our second – historically our second downtown; this is Mayfield. It’s been less commercial, less big corporate though we now have Visa across the street. It’s been greener, it’s been flatter, it’s had more views of the sky, it has more views of the hills but what’s interesting to me in connection with this project specifically, is that it’s been radically rebuilt south – and thank you for using north and south, south of this project and millions and millions of dollars of private money has gone in here recently and the results are building that are and look expensive. They have elegant materials, they have totally underground parking, and they respect the earlier residential. This is one of our best neighborhoods for attractive multiple family housing. It – you know we have that little Sarah Wallace pocket park, which is quite lovely. It does not seem to be child friendly but it is quite lovely and I want to know how this project is going to rise to meet those standards? I don’t want it to look cheap. I’m sure it won’t be cheap under any circumstance but I want it to look like we spent our City of Palo Alto Page 8 money intelligently and well. I think about 2650 Birch, Birch Plaza, which is not particularly new but I think it exemplifies a lot of the things that work in that neighborhood. I think about the Visa building, which is across the street and I would – it has everything in terms of pedestrian friendliness in that essentially block long development except for a place to have coffee so I would love coffee in the garage. I think – you talk about maximize parking spaces and that’s important but when we had something even more important, which is affordable housing at the Opportunity Center, we lost three units to keep oak trees and a dawn redwood. You know, they are still alive and it still makes that a much more effective place to house people as they move through that setting into another. I would argue that we will be better off in terms of use of this neighborhood, a reduction in conflict over parking spaces in general but a well-being attitude of people coming to this area if you carve out space that may lose us a few parking spaces here and there but make this a place we want to be and where we don’t feel treated like cattle. Very well feed cattle but still. You know, 410 Sherman is another interesting building. It’s another thing that abuts this thing. It’s on the diagonal and one of the things that interesting about the Court House is that it’s on the diagonal so even though it’s tall, it’s very seldom close to the curb at that height. On the other hand, it’s a tragedy because of that parking lot. It’s like the old PAMF building. It’s a mid-rise in a sea of asphalt. Well, the County is underfunded. They can’t maintain that building properly. I don’t think they had the right materials when they built it in the first place because I have gone there as a lawyer, I remember it as much taller because I am always terrified when I walk into that building but actually, it’s not very big and it doesn’t look very big because of that angling approach. I don’t know if there is a way you can acknowledge that fact that it angles but I would be interested in knowing but mostly I want to know that you’re designing this building for this place. We get a lot of commercial buildings where their agenda is driven by national and international branding. This isn’t and so I want this building to look like it is the wonderful expression of that area we can imagine. Not a high standard, right? This area, it’s higher density than Research Park so we don’t have sort of conspicuous consumption of land that goes on there. It’s lower density than downtown so it’s got lighter and air and greenery and I would like this project to continue to drive in that direction and to address better than it does now, people with strollers, people with intermittent mobility problems, people with anxiety about getting mugged. I am really interested – going to be interested to see how you design a block long parking structure that I am comfortable walking into at 10 o’clock at night. I’m delighted with your suggestions for external stairways. I’m assuming that elevators will be glass and on the outside. I hope we’ll have Portland’s airport style indicator lights that tell me where the available spaces are. Most of all for that building, I want Portland style downtown parking garages which are designed and built to be converted to housing so they have flat floor plates. I had a really interesting conversation the Community Development Director there and that’s what they are building now. I know they are doing that – a private developer is doing that in Los Angeles as well. I think this is an alternative that the EIR should certainly address. I appreciate what you are doing along Birch. I appreciate the agenda to produce a Public Safety Building that does not seem to be a place where an occupying force stands down until needed. A place that invites people in. I think it’s essential that a place that invites people in has a lobby with clear marked and assessable public bathrooms. I didn’t see that on the drawings so far but I think this building will fail if it doesn’t have that. Though, of course, I am very pleased with the idea that we would have better working spaces for the people who do work in public safety and sturdier emergency operation systems. This is – I’m very happy that we’re moving forward. I agree that to have driveways for private police vehicles – police officers – public safety worker vehicles going in and out of this plaza on Birch is a tremendous undesirable. I would like to see another way of doing that. I’m also – a civic building to me should exemplify what we want to happen in this City in public and private development and we basically, would not be to suggesting to anybody else that they have surface parking in an area like this. So, I don’t like seeing us having surface parking in an area like this. I’m also curious as to whether the one-story builds could work as two-story buildings and again, give us more pull back. If you stand in the Molly Stone parking lot and loo towards this site, you’re going to see it. Right now, you see trees and a little bit of the Court House and I’m curious as to what we will see with this approach. I imagine it could be quite planted out but the idea of single-story buildings and surface parking on land this expensive doesn’t not strike me as the optimal solution. Also, in terms of – you know, these are big. This an acre office space, right? We’ve amended our code recently to ask that when we do landscaping that we use native plants and we create habitats. I mean, I was looking at my little six by eight habitats in my alley behind my house and counting the humming birds this morning. This could – I would like to know that when this is City of Palo Alto Page 9 built, this is going to be a bird rich environment. That it’s going to have plants that bloom from season to season. I don’t want industrial – I don’t want to see cape natal plum. In my family, we say Rhaphiolepis. I don’t know how it’s actually supposed to be pronounced but most – in answer to your question about which personality – sounded a little bit like do you want your kid to be upstanding or recessive. I wanted civic but I made something – I do not mean the unfolded Jack Tar building that we saw in these elevations. Avenidas is a great civic building. Redwood City, City Hall, is a great civic building and a completely different time period. I would say this building is not our trunk aided Edward Durrell Stone that was built to be armored and we’ve gradually taken down some of the curtain walls or the walls to repel people but it’s not a great success. I’d like to be less of a heat sink than it is now. I want to know that it’s at least as heavily wooded as it is now. As you point out, it’s mostly in the peripheral so that may be quite possible but to me civic means beautiful. It means that you are thinking at least 50-years ahead. It means that you know we’re not going to have adequate maintenance budgets in the future. I’m really interested in the public space and its landscaping. To me, one of the markers of a successful civic building is moderately expensive landscaping. It used to be rose gardens in front of court houses and I don’t know what we do now but something that requires actual gardening or that perhaps over time becomes fairly low maintenance but these are plants that do a multiplicity of things. I agree that wooden lattices are never going to survive. I think that glass – I’m sorry, metal screening could be very effective. I’m very concerned about having a few – a huge blank wall along – is it Sherman? Yeah. For the garage and we have not been noticeably successful in creating public art in this district that is widely viewed as attractive. The thought of how expensive a piece of that size would be. I mean we’ve had people – we’ve had our Art Commission telling us how expensive something 20 x 30 would be and so the thought of having effective public art here; I’m highly skeptical. It seems to me to be unlikely but I can imagine a terrific design. Thank you. Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you. Chair Lew: So, thank you for your presentation and I think I agree with Peter. I think that the way that you’ve broken up the three concepts for us is – was the right way to start your project. I was wondering if you could go to your – if you have a slide of your opportunity constraints diagram which was page – well, maybe either page two or three in your packet. Mr. Cusenbery: Not currently in the slide show; my apologies. Chair Lew: Yeah, that’s fine. Mr. Cusenbery: I’ll put this one up and I can speak… Chair Lew: Yeah, that’s fine. I just wanted to make some comments on this. One – let’s see, I’ve got – I guess I have seven comments on this particular one. So, one is that I think – I consider Birch as a gateway for people who are driving from Page Mill Road and Birch used to like a little skinny 40-foot wide street and it was widened with a median in there but I think that’s important just to note that it’s a gateway. You’ve mentioned it but it doesn’t really show in your diagram. Then on Ash Street, one block over, it’s been partially widened so near California Avenue it’s sixty and then it goes down to fifty and then it goes down to forty and that issue has come up on the Visa building across the street from your garage. That’s something out there that’s in mind of the neighbors. Two is the – the third is on Park Boulevard, that’s our bicycle boulevard. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Chair Lew: We’re proposing – we’ve been proposing I think that there are improvements to that – the length of that and that doesn’t really show up on your diagram. On some of the new projects, we’ve been doing bulb-outs and whatnot on Park to make it more pedestrian friendly as well. Then four is that there’s the Palo Alto Central Condominiums. Its mixed-use conidium’s on the other side of Park and I just want to highlight that because I think when you had the previous… City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Cusenbery: We’ve got these rights here, I believe. Chair Lew: Yeah and then when you had the – your previous Public Safety Building on the Page Mills site, the issue of light and noise from a building that is being used 24-hours a day comes up so I would imagine that that’s going to come up later. I would like to just note that we do have that use across the street. The fifth one is the Paseos and I think you’ve noted that on one of your drawings. So right, there are two. One near the Starbucks and one near the FedEx, yeah. Mr. Cusenbery: This one right here, right? Chair Lew: Yeah – no, I think we’re… Mr. Cusenbery: Over here? Chair Lew: Yeah, it’s that one. Yeah. The other things are like a little courtyard in back of the Palo Alto pizza. In downtown Mountain View they have two public garages in a similar location to this, with an alley and paseos and at the end of the paseos, they were able to put in stairs and elevators so at the end of the axis. I realize that that’s not necessarily – it’s not easy to do in this particular situation but in the -- this particular configuration that you have but it seems to me to work in Mountain View. People do use them. It does make those spaces less – what do you call it? Less – it makes them more desirable it seems to me and if there’s any way to do that, I would try to do it. Stanford Shopping Center has a garage that has those amenities and I don’t think they are on – my recollection is that they are not perfectly on axis. I think that you can still do something with sidewalks or whatnot or planters to make it more desirable. Six is the existing trees, so I think I understand from the packet that you have here, that no trees are being proposed to be retained. Then I did look at the arborist report, which was not in our packet but it’s on the City’s website and there are a lot of trees and some of them recommended for or some of them are – I forgot the terminology – protected? Protected trees. Normally I would like – I think that’s a decision that happens later but I would like – ideally, I would like to see it now just so that it’s on everybody’s – so everybody understands that’s on the table and that’s a constraint; just so that we all know. I think most of the Board Members do go to the site and so they’ve seen the trees. Then the seventh – the last item is the alley, Jacaranda Lane, and on other projects in Palo Alto, the width of the alley comes up. Trash that is being used by the existing business. Having a safe and attractive place to walk or for employees to take breaks in the back alleys of the restaurants or the back doors of the restaurants. I did see that there are mailboxes but it seems to me that there are a whole bunch of things happening there and I think that the design needs to take those into account. I mentioned the public garages in Mountain View and they’ve done it both ways. On one of the garages, they just built right up to the property line because they were squishing everything in and it’s pretty mean. On one of them, they set it back and have planters and street trees and a plaza or a – like pavers, decorative pavers. It looks kind of nice. It doesn’t look great but I don’t see people using it so I think it’s right for a discussion to see – it doesn’t make sense. It seems like you have an extra width over the – on the parking garage lot. I mean it seems like you guys have a little bit of extra room based on the parking isle modular; like it seems like you have a little bit of room. Mr. Cusenbery: On the Jacaranda side, is that what you are referring to? Chair Lew: Well, just on the width of the lot is… Mr. Cusenbery: On the width, yeah. Right. Chair Lew: …(inaudible) is 130 and the parking isle is 60-feet and you have structure and you have two aisles, right? So, you have some – you have a little bit of room to do something. Ok, so that’s all that I have on that particular sheet. For – I have some comments for all of the schemes and I think I’m in agreement with some of the other Board Members here about the civicness. I think I’m – I was actually to look for something that’s more civic than what you are showing. I don’t like the ramp going to Birch City of Palo Alto Page 11 Street at all. The – at that intersection – you know because California is a dead-end street, there’s lots of zig-zagging cars and there’s a lot of turning at that intersection and to put a ramp there is – seems to me to be highly undesirable. I do like the one-story portion facing Park. I think that seems to match the Palo Alto Pizza Company building and it brings the scale down. I’m not crazy about the blocky – the height and the length of the garage on Sherman. It seems to me that if you have like a 300-foot long façade, I would normally like to see some sort of break where you make three different façade components into one façade; break it up. I have mixed feelings on the plaza. I think generally I think that adding a plaza is desirable. Now in the context of California Avenue and Mayfield, I’ve actually gone back – not just particularly for this project but I’ve actually gone back and looked at the original plans and the old maps and the Sanborn maps, to try to figure out what happened because it’s not the best layout and I always wondered why isn’t there a Court House square like you would see in Sonoma or San Luis Obispo? All those great California towns that have a great Court House Plaza and then look at what happened there and it seems like we totally missed the boat on that. I think trying to add some sort of civic space is highly desirable there. Mr. Cusenbery: If I could ask just for a follow-up clarification? So, you said mixed feelings on the plaza. If you could expand that. Which way (inaudible) (crosstalk)… Chair Lew: Yeah, I will (inaudible) I have some comments on each of the concepts and yeah. Then I have another comment just for all the schemes and that is lighting on the top level of the garage. It may be better if you have photovoltaics because then the lights are underneath the photovoltaics. Having – if you don’t have the light – if you don’t have the PVs and then you’ve got lights all around the garage, it seems to me that would be a major negative for the neighborhood. On the three concepts that you have, on concept one, I have a reservation about using that approach on the garage just based on the size of the garage. I like the idea but then if I’m looking at doing that on a – that size of a building, I guess I wonder if that’s enough. We’ve used it on the Webster Street garage here in downtown and the wood rotted eventually and had to be replaced. I’m not sure that we ever replaced the planters, I don’t think – I think the planters ended up disappearing. Wood is high maintenance but I would say that we have – we do have Terracotta lattice work on some new buildings here in the downtown area and that actually looks pretty nice. So, I would say that might be a possibility. I’ve looked at some of the other City garages in Palo Alto and we don’t – the City isn’t so good about maintaining the planters. I see a lot of dirt and half planted planters and I’m a little bit worried about that – about the maintenance about that. Then I would say that there’s a garage as Stanford Shopping Center, which is four times the size of your proposed garage here. They’ve been able to maintain the planters and green screen really well and it does look nice and it makes it better. I think that should be an – I think that some sort of planters should be an option and it really may make the – this much – it may – some planters may make it very desirable on the Sherman and the Jacaranda Lane side. I think I do like the arcades that you are proposing on Ash and the staircase on Birch. On concept two, I share Wynne’s concern about the mural location. It seems awfully big and it seems like not a great vantage point for viewing. Then there would be street trees presumably that might obscure the artwork so I don’t know – I’m not sure if that works. On the massing, you know we do have architects who are doing these sorts of Schindler-like forms on larger buildings and I’m not sure if it works or not. I think that you’re very skilled at manipulating form but I just wonder does it really work on a bigger scale? That’s just an open question. It seems to me that doing has – it gives you opportunity – doing that approach gives you the opportunity to break a big box up into smaller forms that would better fit in with the neighboring existing buildings on California Avenue so I think that’s worth considering. On the plaza on your concept two, you know I’m not an expert on plazas but I was – I’ve been doing some research into the New York City code on plaza design and also some other urban designers. They have recommendations for the plaza and it seems to me that this one doesn’t – they generally recommend having – like if you have a path from the edge of the sidewalk to the building, then that path goes in straight at least eighty percent of the way. It seems to me that this is chopping it up too much in this particular scheme. On concept three, when I saw your – saw the images that you're proposing, it reminded me of – what’s his name? I think I wrote his name down. [Rafael Nadal], he has a civic building in Spain – a Town Hall building in Spain, which I’ve always liked. It’s a building facing a plaza and I think what really makes that – what separates that building from what you are proposing just diagrammatically is that it has porch space. It has the indoor/outdoor space and I think that that’s really City of Palo Alto Page 12 the key because you get the light and shadow and it gives it the sense of having a Greek colonnade but it’s not Corinthian columns. I think it’s also important to have the indoor/outdoor space because otherwise, if you just have vertical – narrow, vertical slot windows, it can look like a jail. There’s the famous or infamous jail in Chicago, which has the little – instead of having bars on the windows, it’s just skinny slot windows so nobody – they are so skinny that nobody could ever break the glass and escape. Oakland has one too, off of I-80 freeway and I think that would just be the worst direction for this building to have something look like that. I don’t think that – you’re not doing that exactly but I wouldn’t want it to go that way. We did – somebody did do this on the – this approach on our Blooming days building at Stanford Shopping Center and the only caution that I have there is that they had a design architect. Then they had an architect director and things fell through the cracks between the two and then they were coming to the ARB to try to solve all of them; all of the odds and ends. The interior and the exterior never matched and it was just a battle. It was a very difficult situation so I would want the – if you do that approach, I would want to make sure that it’s all resolved and allow for change. I would image that the insides of this could change over time. If you (inaudible) over 100-years, the insides will change so I wouldn’t get to specific about the programming inside of the police station. On the plaza design, I just wanted to mention the things that I am interested in. So, one is south facing, which I think you have. Visibility for openness in the sense of safety and that’s been an issue on some of our parks here in downtown; Lytton Plaza, [Codel] Plaza. The sense of safety and the openness where an issue. The City has removed some of the barriers there to make them more open so I do want to mention that because I know you still have to do your security issues but we still want it to be – have a sense of openness. They are saying that on the New York City code, that along the sidewalk within the first 15- feet of the sidewalk, that it’s at least half open. So, we will see how that works with your safety requirements. Try to get – try to keep the plaza level less than 2-feet above the sidewalk level. It seems like you have a couple steps, which is what? A foot or two? Mr. Cusenbery: It goes up two-feet – the building is two feet above the sidewalk. Chair Lew: Ok, so I think that’s – by the New York City code, that’s the maximum. Keep the stairs low, right? Low, shallow height steps; more like 4-inches instead of 7-inches. Paths be 8-feet wide at least and extending eighty percent into the depth of the plaza and to minimize obstructions. It seems like there are air vents for the garages, you have your driveway ramp for operational vehicles, all that kind of stuff so try to minimize those or design them well. I think Wynne would be interested in this, New York City outlines six different types of seating and then it says – it gives you how many different types of seating that you have. The different types are moveable, individual, fixed, seat walls, plant walls, steps so anyway, we don’t have the New York City code but I think the point is, is that we’re interested in a – to make the plaza usable. You want to attract a diversity of people and uses at all times of day and night. I think some of your schemes do that; some more than others. I don’t know but I think that’s what we are interested in going forward and to see how that works. Ok, any other – that’s all that I have. Any other comments from the Board Members? No? Did you have any follow ups that you want to… Mr. Cusenbery: My main follow up is to thank you very much. This is very articulate and helpful suggestions and it’s exactly what we’re hoping at this point. In a way, this is a weather balloon and your feedback has been very helpful so thank you. Chair Lew: Great, we look forward to seeing this come forward. Board Member Furth: I have one question on the communications tower, which is why don’t we enter into a lease with the County and stick it on their building. I mean that’s a very – that’s more recessed location and closer to higher raised buildings. It’s our sister public agency. Mr. Cusenbery: For the record, this – these views have the 135-feet so you see the tip there. It’s a little hard to see but you see the tip there and you see the height here so this does represent the 135-feet. Where are the previous ones that I showed you did not? City of Palo Alto Page 13 Mr. Raschke: If I may, Los Altos and Mountain View both have very similar towers to what we’re looking at so if you look on San Antonio Road at Edith’s, you can see it from there. It is setback – you know Los Altos has the orchard around their civic area and Mountain Views is right on Evelynn Avenue right by their police station. They create sort of a microwave ring that encompasses Santa Clara County and it’s very important that we have this tower but it will be difficult to hide it. Chair Lew: I pass by both of those towers frequently. They are on my regular routine and every once in a while, I look at them and am like oh, that’s ugly. Then ninety-nine percent of the time I pass by and I’m thinking about what I am eating for dinner or whatever and I don’t notice them. We’ll see it when it comes. Board Member Furth: I don’t think any of us think you can camouflages except with very high – you know with stealth technology on a 135-foot tower. That’s not the question, the question is, of the available places that you can put it, what is the best? Mr. Cusenbery: My takeaway from the conversation was integrating it into the design such that it’s there but it appears intentional as opposed to just screened. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Chair Martin Bernstein, Vice Chair Bower, Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Beth Bunnenberg, Brandon Corey, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen Study Session 2. 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN‐00136 and 17PLN‐00135]: HRB Study Session Supporting Preliminary Architectural Review of a New Approximately 40,351 sq. ft. Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a New Parking Structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to Contain 636 Parking Spaces on Six Levels (Two Below Grade) with a footprint of 37,075 sq.ft. and floor area of 149,500 sq.ft. The Public Safety Building Site Would be Developed with Three Individual Buildings and Provide 167 Parking Spaces for Use by the Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared; Formal Project Application not yet Submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information, Please Contact Matt Raschke at matt.raschke@cityofpaloalto.org or Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Bernstein: That brings us to agenda item number two; study session. I’ll read the description and then we will ask the staff to give us comments or a report on that. Study session, item number two, 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue. HRB study session supporting preliminary architectural review of new approximately 40,351-square feet Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue and a new parking structure at 350 Sherman Avenue to contain 636 parking spaces on six levels (two below grade) with a footprint of 37,075-square feet and floor area of 149,500-square feet. The Public Safety Building site would be developed with three individual buildings and provide 167 parking spaces for use by the Palo Alto Police Department, 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, Emergency Operations Center, Office of Emergency Services, and Fire Department. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report is being prepared; formal project application not yet submitted. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For more information, there is a contact at the public can take a look at. That’s the description and would staff have a report or comments on this before we start? Thanks. Yes, excuse me for a second. Yes, Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: I need to disclose that at – this is public record but I will do it here again. I was on the 2011 Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission. I participated in the Public Safety subcommittee that looked at the need for a new Public Safety Building and I have spoken out at Council meetings in favor of this. I just wanted to get that on the record. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Ok, thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I want to, before I begin, to first introduce our newest staff member, to my left, Emily Vance. She’s our new Historic Preservation Planner at long last and I’m happy to have her here. Just by the introduction, I do have on my right Matt Raschke. He’s the project lead for this project; the Public Safety Building and parking garage in the California Avenue Business District at the address on Sherman. We have kind of an interesting situation in that our code, our Municipal Code, does not require Historic Resources Board review of projects on this site because of the – there is no historic resource – designated historic HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING EXCERPT MINUTES: May 25, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 resources on these two sites. There is, however, a historic resource adjacent to the parking garage site and that’s the 350 Sherman site. It is the old Antonio’s Nut House, which was originally a Safeway Store before it became converted to a different use. It’s interesting in that we have an Environmental Impact Report that will be prepared and there’s a cultural resources section of that report and so I had made a note that there was such a resource adjacent. So, the cultural resources section of the EIR should address that and make mention of it. Then the opportunity for the study session is here. Likely this project will not be coming back to the HRB but it is a City project and being that it’s a City project, having the HRB’s input is helpful at this stage, where we have three options that are being considered by the applicant team. They have a presentation so without further ado, I’ll let them present. Mr. Matt Raschke, Public Works: Thank you, Amy. I’d like to introduce Mallory Cusenbery from RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture to present the project. Mallory. Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Good morning. Thank you for having me here. We are at the very early stages of this project. It’s an early schematic design and data gathering and we are in the process of due diligence program verification and preliminary design. It is a very early phase for us so the idea is we’re trying to do outreach and get as much input and generate as much conversation to inform the early development of this project. The time (inaudible) for this meeting is excellent for us to get further input on this. As was – what I am going to do is I’m actually going to cruise through this at a very high level. Just to kind of highlight the points. Please, slow me down or stop me if there is something that you want me to elaborate on and then obviously, I can elaborate at the end if you have additional questions. As was mentioned, this is two projects. I don’t know if you can see my cursor there. It is two buildings. This is the Public Safety Building on the upper – I’m on the upper image. This is the Public Safety Building on your right and the parking structure on the left; on two separate parcels. The Public Safety Building is three stories above grade, two stories of parking below grade, 47,000-square foot Police station, fire administration, EOC, and 911 center. The parking structure is around 637 – 640 stalls, three stories above grade, two stories below grade with an opportunity for photovoltaic panels of the entire top floor above the third level of the parking structure. These lots officially are lot C6 and C7. C6 is the Public Safety Building lot and C7 is the parking structure. The bounding streets are Park Boulevard, Birch though the middle and Ash. Then Sherman is the primary frontage and Jacaranda is the divider. Jacaranda Alley is the divider; it’s a one-way alley just to remind you and it’s a half block off of California Avenue. Just for reference, we all agreed upon project north is up on this drawing. The two existing lots are empty. They are parking lots that are empty of trees in the middle but have a perimeter of trees around them. Jacaranda Lane goes back here and it’s all surface parking. It’s unusual surface parking, because you actually have to leave the parking lot to go to another drive lane. You actually use the City streets are part of your circulation. Photographs of the lots. They look relatively tree covered because they have the perimeter of trees but they are (inaudible) trees in the middle and then you can see some of the local buildings there. The Court House, that’s across the street, mixed-use residential and the new Visa building over on the right. On the bottom, here you have some comparative heights. This is the Court House, this is a mixed use residential, this is an office/retail and then this is retail. You can see that this is the height of the parking structure with photovoltaics above it and this is the conceptual height for the Public Safety Building. Now, some data, briefly, on the two sites. On the right is the Public Safety site and just as a way of introduction for the Public Safety Buildings. It’s an essential facility and it also has some high order of security requirements so the distance of the setbacks that you see are driven by security setbacks. We try to prevent vehicles from getting to close to the building so there is a 25-foot minimum security set back on all sides thus the setbacks. The – there are – the primary footprint is here for the Public Safety Building three stories above and then there are a couple of one-story site buildings here. This is a screened operational area here so you’re not going to see it. It will be walled and there will be police vehicles and operations inside that. Then the main feature from a public standpoint is on Birch. We are providing a very deep setback public plaza that we hope to have programmed with activities; particularly on lunch time. Areas for people to eat and shade areas to sit, as well as operating some of the – using some of the setback areas along Sherman for seating as well. Then the Public Safety Building, which is a little cut off on this side. I don’t know if it’s cut off on the one that you’re looking but the primary pedestrian entrance is off Birch. Primary vehicle entrance is off Sherman. The parcel pretty much – it pretty much goes property line to property line with exception of about a 10-foot – 11-foot City of Palo Alto Page 3 setback on Birch. Antonio’s Nut House is here and the parking lot in front of them is right there. These are some street sections. This is a cross section through Birch. You can see the three stories above grade for the parking and then the row of photovoltaics. The height, get a little data, it’s 36-feet 8-inches to the top of the guard rail and then maybe up around 46 – 45 or 46-feet high once you get to the top of the photovoltaics, should they be installed. You can see the deep setback here on the Public Safety Building of the public plaza. Then this is park, this is Sherman Avenue so you can see the Court House Across the Street and the Public – I’m sorry. This is Sherman and this is the parking structure and then the Court House and the Public Safety Building there. Again, these are all subterranean – this area here is a subterranean component. The – Since we are early on in the phase, you are going to see some refined drawings but the designs are not refined. These are just illustrations to get people – to get conversation started. You can see the deep setback are with a lot of Plaza opportunity here and Antonio’s Nut House is in this location. The parking structure is here. You see a generous perimeter landscaping of street trees. Where we can get a double row of trees, we do and then a lot of shade and landscape opportunities on the public plaza here. There’s a heavy emphasis on pedestrian movement so we understand the movement of pedestrians for lunch time along Park, along Birch and along Ash. We’re trying to make accommodations with shade and generous sidewalks in those areas. Assuming a little more passive use on Sherman because the circulation is primarily in what we’re calling north/south direction. Now, we are also sensitive to the scale of the garage. Particularly as it approaches Antonio’s Nut House corner so Antonio’s Nuthouse, again as a reminder, is right here. This is Birch on your right and these are two versions of the same plan. We’re trying to make street level adjustments to the parking structure so to improve the pedestrian environment. You can see, we were directed to optimize the quantity of parking so we’re trying to get as much parking spots. That’s why it’s (inaudible) the property line. However, one consideration, we do have an arcade on the Ash Street which we have retained so there is a walk under arcade on Ash. On the Birch Street side, relative to this project that we’re discussing, the one opportunity that we’re looking at is providing an exterior staircase so the one on the right is the alternate option; an exterior civic staircase that goes up the side of the garage, allowing you to actually walk up and exit the stair at different points in the garage, creating more of a civic opportunity for seeing people going up and down. People then can exit or enter on the California Avenue side and walk that direction and then there would be an opportunity for public art along that wall too. The idea is with what space that we have available, we’re trying to make it a little bit more pedestrian amenable. Now in terms of the concepts, I want to say that maybe concepts are even a misnomer. We have three attitudes—three approaches that we’re referring to them as conversation starters. The idea is that we want to create kind of three prototypes of how this project might face the City. Get input and then from there we would then actually develop design concepts. There really – the idea is to kind of gather all of the idea together into one approach and give it an identity and then get feedback on it. The first approach is we’re calling screening greening and it’s an approach that’s based on the idea of downplaying the presence of the building by using organic and informal approaches. For instance, we might have more organic materials like wood or wood-like materials, rougher textures, stone line textures, maybe on the parking structure potentially vines actually on the building, dense screening using landscaping. Again, the idea being to kind of take the screening that we’re going to need to be doing from a security standpoint for the Public Safety Building, where you don’t want a lot of vulnerable windows. Screen those windows but doing it in a way that actually helps downplay the presence of the building. These are massing models. No windows are shown, they are just massing models. Again, very conceptual, but it gives you an idea. For instance, this is the entrance to the parking structure, the Public Safety Building here. Sample materials are on the right and in all cases and in all concepts, you’re going to see that the goal is to make the parking structure and the Public Safety Building work in tandem. So, they are sending a singular message of more of a civic presence. In a way, somewhat, of a gateway towards Cal. Avenue but again, this one using more organic materials and a more presence or organic screening. That would be concept number one. The landscape design would then follow. You see more organic materials and more informal development of the site components. The second concept is what we’re calling dynamic massing. This is a different attitude. The first attitude was downplaying the presence of the building and softening it with organic approach. The second approach is about having a more assertive building, a little more dynamic massing. Allowing the building to assert itself and be a little bit more interesting visually. The color scheme is based on a traditional Palo Alto building of like Terracotta and a white plaster color scheme but done is more contemporary way. Then the volume of the building becomes more, like I said, dynamic. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Again, in the massing model you see here, the building has a stronger presence. Again, the garage and the Public Safety Building are working in tandem. The garage has a large public art opportunity on Sherman facing the Visa building here on this blank wall. As with the previous scheme, the site development would build upon that building idea so you can see the plaza components would be more blocky elements, more rectangle elements in concert with the massing of the building. Then the third idea is —alright, so you have kind of the downplayed building, then a more assertive building and then the third one we would call a little more serious. We call it simple civic and this idea is to take the building and have a look that is a little more serious and a little more formal in its presence. Still contemporary but it uses more vertical windows, a little more traditional proportion and it deep sets the windows on the ground floor. (Inaudible) arcade and uses more traditional materials like brick. Even though it would probably be pre-cast, we would try to simulate the idea of French limestone, which is traditional civic material throughout the Bay Area. The massing model here – again, the parking structure down here on the left and the Public Safety Building here on the right. Similarly, slightly more formal and more serious landscape approach on the site development. So, that’s the big picture. Chair Bernstein: Mallory, thank you so much. Now, I’d like to next ask the Board if there are any questions at this point for Mallory or staff. Any kind of questions before we – then we will open it up to members of the public before we make our comments about it but if there are any questions. Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: Yes, so I just wanted to clarify the intent of the Public Safety Building is to remove the police dispatch element from this building, which is down in the basement, over to that location. Is that also where the actual police officers are dispatched – is that where they will be housed in this building until there is an emergency call and then they will be dispatched from this location? Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Absolutely correct. It is a full replacement of the police station that’s right next store so all police operations. So, police administration, command and control, patrol, various departments, and investigations would all move over. As would fire administration, the office of emergency service which is down here where the UFC is here and the dispatch function as well. I’m clicking back to the site plan. There we go. Yes, so there are two levels of parking below the Public Safety Building. One level would be entirely for patrol vehicles and the second level would be for staff vehicles. Vehicles would be dispatched from here and I failed to mention that so I’m really glad you brought this up. There are two ramps into the subterranean parking. With any Public Safety Building, just to clarify, you cannot have just one ramp into the parking garage because should one ramp become disabled, patrol vehicles need to be able to leave through a second so we have two sets of ramps. A two- way ramp that enters and exits from Birch. The role of that ramp is primarily -- during the day to day operations, primarily for personal vehicles. So, when you arrive at work and you leave from work, you use that ramp and it goes down to the lower level, B2, for personal vehicles. It’s the backup ramp for patrol – largely patrol vehicles would not be entering and exiting from that on a day to day basis. The second ramp is on Sherman, two-way ramp right here. That would primarily be the ramp for patrol entering – patrol vehicles entering and exiting the site. Board Member Wimmer: I’m just wondering what the impact on that whole neighborhood – that sort of sub-community is just because of that location because you have a barrier of the train tracks behind Park. Then you have to travel down several blocks even to get El Camino so that’s going to be the main emergency thro fair that’s not very wide. (Crosstalk) Mr. Cusenbery: You mean impact traffic wise? Board Member Wimmer: I mean I don’t know where – if there is an emergency here at this building and you dispatch from that building, like the route of travel seems… Mr. Raschke: Hi, Matt Rascke, Public Works. Primarily patrol is actually out on the field when the shift starts. Patrol vehicles are dispersed throughout the City so the majority of patrol is already out on the City of Palo Alto Page 5 street so occasionally when there’s a specific emergency and some additional officers can be dispatched from this location. That may occur but it’s not the majority of time when… Board Member Wimmer: Ok, that’s actually… Mr. Cusenbery: Unlike how it’s represented on television where cars go careening out of the garage every time there’s a call. Board Member Wimmer: I was worried about the impact. Mr. Cusenbery: That doesn’t – they are already out on the field. Yeah, they are already out in the field. There are only rare occurrences where they actually have to respond from the building. Board Member Wimmer: Then my second question is would you phase this project? Obviously, would you build the parking structure first? Mr. Cusenberry: Yes. Board Member Wimmer: Then, you’d build the buildings – ok. Mr. Cusenberry: Absolutely, so the parking structure needs to replace the displaced parking before we can start construction on the Public Safety Building so yes. After we get to a certain point of design approval, which is going towards later this year. The idea would then be to then fast track the parking structure to get it going and then the Public Safety Building would lag at that point. Chair Bernstein: Rodger. Board Member Makinen: Yes, hi. Was there any consideration for an alternative exterior for this main building beside another modern box? Mr. Cusenbery: There were… Board Member Kohler: Did you consider community centers style, traditional tile roof home – building that blends in more with the background of Palo Alto? I mean, I do a lot of homes for new people; over 300 or more in Palo Alto. Ten maybe are modern so I don’t quite see the need for this to be – of course without seeing the windows on the wall and everything, it’s hard to really know but it’s just – it may just end up being another series of boxes that no one understands why they are there. Especially in a historic district like this in a sense. Maybe it’s cost, I don’t know but I just – you have the opportunity here to – even the old Police Department building is really quite elegant in a way so as a person who likes historic homes, it’s just that you have the chance here to really do something special and yet it’s just going to be another multi-box structure that people will drive by. Once they have seen it, there’s nothing else to look at so just curious if this was a mandate from the City that it be a modern building. Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you for the question and it’s an excellent question. What I will try to do is break it into separate pieces to answer. The first is the box proportion, the shape that you are referring too. We did early studies on the massing so we did a two-story massing, which is more spread out and this I would call a more compact vertical massing. That was driven – the final decision on that was driven by operations because what was happening – it’s a whole City block so what was happening when it was spread out and became more broken down on a lower level. The Police Department was walking long distances just to get to – between functions that they – I’m sorry. The police -- when it was spread out, the Police Department was having a long – would have to walk long distances for functions that they do every day. The vehicle orientation of the massing, three-stories and compact was the best operationally because it put all the different departments that need to interact with each other very proximate. That’s how we got the massing. From a stylistic standpoint, there has been no directive on style and I would say that there’s been no decision on style. What we are doing, as I mentioned, presenting conversation starters. At the very least the goal would be to invoke and where feasible, utilize the materials that are City of Palo Alto Page 6 precedence from – civic materials in Palo Alto. Your idea – your concept or your idea of the residents with the local tradition is completely consistent and we would not go against that. Whether it’s contemporary or otherwise, that has not been decided and we’re going to – as we get an attitude like I said, a general consensus on an approach, then we will do stylistic and design options on those. Then the final point is the materials. There are a few constraints that we have done public safety, which play a factor. One of them is that the building needs to be ballistic—ballistic resistant so we are going to be steering towards materials like pre-cast concrete by virtue of the fact that it is going to be – it’s going to provide a ballistic protection that you need to have on a Public Safety Building. It has to be survivable after a major disaster so we cannot have a lot of extraneous elements on the building that could cause damage to individuals in the area; such as you mentioned, Spanish tile. There’s a big risk in an earthquake that some of those will come flying off. You can’t have that happen on a Public Safety Building so we need to be very cognizant of how durable the building is. So, that will play a factor as well but it hasn’t closed any doors yet. All those doors are open. Chair Bernstein: Board Member -- Vice Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: Can you talk about the façade of the parking garage that faces the California Avenue building because that’s our review here and how the parking garage –primarily the parking garage interface or interacts with that one property on the corner, Antonio’s Nut house, which is on our historic register. I see and like the foliage on your concept one which will soften a large box which is what a parking structure has to be but I’m wondering what goes on the other side? [Mr. Cusonberry:] Thank you. An excellent question. I’ve put up the two zero zoomed in options that we’re looking at on that corner. In terms of what our ambition is, our ambition is to make that corner as it’s adjacent to Antonio’s Nut House, as visibly porous and inviting for pedestrians as possible. That’s where the vertical circulation of the elevator is. That’s where the stairs will land and that was the incentive of having the – if we do the alternate options of having a staircase kind of display toward California Avenue on that side. From a qualitative standpoint, the idea is to have it feel less box-like and more like a destination and more – with some interesting things visually. In terms of the actual design of it, we’ve not made any progress on that. It’s just conceptual as you saw from the previous ones. I know the models didn’t really show that side but it would be designed to meet that ambition. We’d like to show the staircase one way or another. Have it be visually porous that you can actually – so the box breaks down along that corner? Vice Chair Bower: I think your concept is great and the Public Safety Building, which has a number of security issues, work. All those security issues help to really reduce the impact on the neighborhood but it’s the parking structure. I mean, if you were, for instance, were to adopt the first scheme and put the same foliage on the Jacaranda Avenue side or I don’t know what that is. Avenue or – then that would soften that building. It’s going to be fairly present. Mr. Cusenbery: It’s going to be present, yes. Vice Chair Bower: That’s the best way to put it so I’m just encouraging you to think of that side because that’s really the interface. The other side that we’re seeing here, there’s a brand new two and a half, three-story building so (inaudible)(crosstalk)… Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah and I would actually elaborate that there’s a – I completely agree and I would add one more detail, which I failed to mention and that is not just the Nut House but also the alley that’s right – a couple of buildings over. So, the idea of – on the alternate option is to actually have a little bit of an arcade with covered bicycle parking to kind of direct you toward that alley. In general, at least at the pedestrian level, trying to open it up as much as possible along Jacaranda and the frontage of Antonio’s so that – again, a little friendlier on that façade. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Corey: Yeah, I have two questions. One is – it wasn’t clear to me but is the new garage early for the Public Safety Building? It’s not public at all, ok. Mr. Cusenbery: It’s a completely public garage. Sorry, (inaudible)… Board Member Corey: Oh, it is public? Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah. My apologies (cross talking) (inaudible) Board Member Corey: (Inaudible) that’s a lot of parking. Mr. Cusenbery: It is, it is, right. So, the public – the garage is – serves two primary purposes from a parking standpoint. It replaces all of the parking that’s been displaced on the current lots, which are public lots – public parking spaces. It adds significantly to that parking for the public because of the changes that are going and the density of the area. It’s 100% public parking in the new structure and the two-level sub terrain under the Public Safety Building, those are only police. Yeah, that’s the destination so sorry I didn’t mention that. Board Member Corey: Ok, yeah, no, that makes sense. Mr. Cusenbery: It’s a lot of parking. Board Member Corey: That is a lot of parking. Yeah, so that will be nice. On the – one other thing is and there’s not really a view here but from California Avenue where people are walking, there are a lot of pedestrian traffic. That area now, it’s – since everything is that one-story parking lot, it’s really kind of void of anything on there. I’m trying to figure out what the angle of view from California Avenue would be. I assume it would hit those buildings because they are three-stories and they are pretty hard to hide because you don’t really see but it’s kind of like a – of just an off into infinity when you look now. Mr. Cusenbery: That’s a really excellent point and I regret that I do not have the slides. We did a series of three studies from a number of places, photomontages, on California Avenue and just to answer that question, I did not put them in this show. I will for the next one but I’ll describe to you – it actually gets back to the decision about the massing too. It’s actually one of our decision points that when we were looking at a two-story structure which would cover the whole lot. We found its presence was much more dominating from a number of views, particularly from California Avenue, because you would see it. You would particularly see it coming down Park when the Court House is at an angle and you see the long façade there but from California Avenue, a lot of view of it. When we did the massing studies and the photomontages, the three-story compact building was nearly unseeable from – if that’s a word, from California Avenue. You’d see a tiny little corner of it because it was set back from the intersections. You wouldn’t see it at all because it’s set back on Birch significantly. The mass of the building is not – is largely not apparent from California Avenue in this current massing. That's actually influenced – now, one other point that I did not mention and it’s a little hard to see here but the one thing that will be visible – this is an important point. Is that there will be a communication tower on the building and because it’s visible, the intent is to make it a monopole, not a truss and it’s building mounted. It’s 135-feet from the ground and you can see it in this rendering in the background here. It’s not in the package that you have so this is thing – this is a work in progress and the tower studies were going concurrently with the package that we were developing. So, the package you got didn’t have this in it and so the tower is here; right there. You can see it partly here and partly on the back of the building here. We have located it mid-block, again to minimize its visibility. You will see it from California Avenue but it will be a slender monopole and that’s the exception. Board Member Corey: That makes sense, thanks. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Bernstein: I’ll get to Beth in a second but I just wanted to make a comment Mallory. I’m really – you can see – first, of the wall, I want to thank you for coming up to us with the study session. You can see there is a lot of interest so I am enjoying the good conversation about this. Thank you. Beth? Board Member Bunnenberg: I have several questions of different natures. You do not list a jail as something that would be incorporated in that Public Safety Building. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Board Member Bunnenberg: Is there one? Mr. Cusenbery: A jail, per se, is not in the building. What the building has been what are called temporary holding cells. Board Member Bunnenberg: Holding, ok. Mr. Cusenbery: It’s a 4-hour maximum duration. It’s used for processing prisoners and… Board Member Bunnenberg: (Inaudible) Mr. Cusenbery: … it is located – the way that the building works is we have three stories above grade and two stories of parking below grade. One-story of the Public Safety Building is actually in that first level of the garage. We have a number of what we would call the more noxious functions for the police station, are actually one-story sub terrain. So, the holding cells are on that first level of the garage and the property and evidence storage is on the first level of the garage. The stuff that has no windows, the stuff that has higher security is underground. That – the process is that if you have a patrol vehicle that had someone in custody, they would go down the ramp from Sherman into the basement, they would go into a subterranean Sally-port where it would then be secured before the in custody leaves the vehicle and then goes into the temporary holding. Then is processed and interviewed and whatever else they do. Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, next question is did you ever consider a pedestrian bridge from the Public Safety Building over to the garage structure? Mr. Cusenbery: That – these are great questions. I love this. We actually considered a tunnel. At one point, there was a tunnel connecting the Public Safety garage under Birch to the public parking structure and there was more movement between the two structures. We determined that would be cost prohibited and very complicated from a utility standpoint; the utilities on Birch. Then as it evolved, the parking structure became strictly public so there’s no functionality for the Public Safety Building over there. That precluded the need for the tunnel and probably similarly precluded the need for a bridge because the public – the Police Department is not going to be using that at all. It’s purely for the public. Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, then I wanted to talk a little more about your choice of color. You mentioned the Terracotta color, which certainly is present in Palo Alto and you said a white plaster. Now, then, in the rendering, it appears to be a stark white. Is that your intention or… Mr. Cusenbery: Likely not stark white, yeah. Board Member Bunnenberg: … did you consider a beige and I’m thinking about the buildings that are on California? If you notice the – I think practically the only white one is that painted wall at the pizza place. So that – to think more about a – tending to be more beige or mustard or something of that sort. Kind of like the color of my tee shirt. Is that something that you could work with? Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, on the dynamic massing, the goal would be too kind of resonant with precedence in town so yes, absolutely. We’d be looking at some of the historic buildings and drawing from their colors on that version. On the option one, the more organic option, certainly we would be using more City of Palo Alto Page 9 earthy tones so kind of the colors you are discussing would fall into that category so the answer is yes. Now the white – the white – the reason for the white, as it’s currently represented, is to emphasize the dynamic massing so that it’s a little more assertive. If everyone like – again, these are conversations that started and if everyone said we really want this thing to be dynamic and really contrasting. We would probably shift towards the white just to get that push but that’s not the feedback that we’re getting. I think what you’re talking about in terms of the tamer colors and tamer tones, that is more likely the direction that we are going to go. Board Member Bunnenberg: Yeah, I’m really concerned about a big white box. Yes, it would be eye- catching but perhaps not in a good kind of way. That’s my concern. Mr. Cusenbery: Right and the one that’s most tied to that look would be the third option where we’re trying to get that French limestone, which is defiantly or (inaudible) white granite which are both kind of traditional civic materials in the Bay Area. That would tend more towards white and more serious and a little more austere. That would be the one where the color would be more tied to the scheme. The other two schemes I think have more flexibility on the tones. Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, then did you – so, will these white boxes, for instance, have windows and… Mr. Cusenbery: Oh, yes. Board Member Bunnenberg: …on the second and third floor? Mr. Cusenbery:] Yes. Board Member Bunnenberg: I understand the security kind of thing. Mr. Cusenbery: They will have windows. The windows of the – the primary basking in daylight is going to come from a central – if you notice right here, there’s a central light well in the building. There’s actually going to be a lot of light like an interior courtyard. The bulk of day lighting for the function are going to come through that space. There are definitely going to be windows but they will be smaller apertures because of the ballistic requirements. The goal is to make it maybe narrower and taller proportions so that they still feel generous but there will not be large curtain walls. There will not be a large glass building because that’s just not… Board Member Bunnenberg: So, they do not look like gun turrets though. Mr. Cusenbery: They will not look like gun turrets, no. Board Member Bunnenberg: Little narrow… Mr. Cusenbery: The goal is – right now the proportions that we’re drawing are roughly a 3-foot wide window, vertical proportion. You can see it probably like in these. They’re – these are approximately 3- feet wide so no, we don’t want them to ever feel – we don’t want this to feel like a fortress. That’s really important and that’s a constant challenge for us in designing Public Safety Buildings but we never want them to feel like a fortress. Board Member Bunnenberg: I think – now then, there are certain things that are – that appear gray on your renderings. What is that tone? Mr. Cusenbery: Those represent – in scheme – the kind of options one the screening greening, that would be a rougher textured, maybe stone like quality to it. Again, this under the umbrella of more organic; so earthier, or woodier kind of materials. The gray in that way is representing a more stoneish texture. Again, I say stone-ish because it’s likely that this is going to be pre-cast concrete as the base. City of Palo Alto Page 10 We would try to achieve those textures and this is – you’re actually looking at – for instance, this is deeply textured concrete here. That’s kind of what we’re talking about. The grays on this one is, in fact, would be cast in place concrete potentially or pre-cast. Those are the grays but again the – I would say that these materials that we are showing are meant as triggers for conversation because we’re not actually proposing a specific palette yet. Not until we get to hear people’s feedback. Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright and I’m particularly hopeful that there will become more browns because of brown – and I think your indications of Terracotta. That some brown as well would be a very handle kind of or would be related to the things that are on California Avenue. Even if you don’t see them from California Avenue, it carries some of the feels. Mr. Cusenbery: Definitely. Definitely. Board Member Bunnenberg: Alright, thank you. Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: Thank you, Chair Bernstein. Just a couple comments. When I look at the garage structure it a – corrects me if I am wrong but does it look like there are solar arrays adjacent? Mr. Cusenbery: Yes, so the photovoltaic panels are represented here, as part of the model and they would be relatively comprehensive across the top level. Then in the building sections – oops. They are represented by the dashed line here. Board Member Makinen: Do you know what – how much power they will supply? Will it meet the needs to the building or some percentage of the needs? Mr. Cusenbery: We haven’t done a detailed analysis yet but our hope – we have a couple hopes. One is definitely to try to leverage them for as much as possible for the needs of the building. The second hope is that they actually could provide a backup function in the event of an emergency. That you could actually get redundant power through the photovoltaics but we have not done the detailed analysis yet. It’s a lot of panels though so you’ll get a lot out of them. Board Member Makinen: Yeah. The other thing that came to my mind was that buildings like Public Safety Buildings are usually very sensitive as far as an intrusion of vehicles that may be carrying things that you don’t want to have around them. Ramps and things that discourage vehicle traffic, they become major architectural features on some of these buildings. Maybe you’re not showing it right here but that will probably – the Safety Department will probably (inaudible) mandate some of those things on there to exclude vehicles from getting close to these buildings – the Public Safety Building. Mr. Cusenbery: Absolutely. Thank you for bringing that up and that is the idea. I want to remind everybody that this – the subterranean parking on the Public Safety Building is property line to property line so any planting that you’re seeing is actually on a deck because there is no soil below. The planting areas that we’re showing as green are all raised planters and we’re leveraging those raised planters as vehicles barriers as well because we don’t want to have a flat site and a bunch of security bollards. You know, like an army of bollards around the whole site to make it look like a fortress. So, by having the raised planters, we actually get double duty. You’ll see for instance on the perimeter – I’m going to try to get my mouse there. Those – this is a raised planter and then these are raised seating areas along the edge and this is the 25-foot standoff distance –setback distance. The goal is to actually keep vehicles from getting any closer than 25-feet to the building and using the pedestrian amenities to achieve that. Board Member Makinen: Yeah, because of that – it’s a different type of architecture for this type of building because you mandate the requirement to exclude vehicles from getting close to it. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Cusenbery: Well, and we don’t want this to look like what – in many of the facilities in Washington DC when you see the security around them. Where they’ve had to retrofit the security and it’s just – we want this to be a friendly, landscaped, pedestrian responsive environment and then we’ll just try to use those to achieve the same goal. Board Member Makinen: Well, I think some of those elements are going to be major features that impact the architectural feeling of the building too. The sensitivity of those and how you handle those. Mr. Cusenbery: Well, you can see a few examples here so for instance, some of these are just president photographs but you see these raised areas can achieve what are our goal is. These are photographs of other projects but you can see that they can provide the barrier and also be visually interesting and pedestrian responsive. That’s the goal but you’re absolutely right. It’s a significant factor on the character of the perimeter. Board Member Makinen: Yeah. Ok, thank you. Chair Bernstein: I just have a process question on the – a question for staff. On the report summary on packet page 6, it says that HRB Members should refrain from forming or expressing opinions either in support or against the project. Any clarification on that? Ms. French: This is part of a template form for preliminary study sessions. In this case, you are free to comment freely because this is not going to be coming back to you, this project. Chair Bernstein: Great. Thank you for that. Next, I would like to open up the hearing to members of the public who would like to speak to us regarding this project. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Board for comments or opinions. Board Member Wimmer. Board Member Wimmer: I think – so we won’t be seeing this project again, is that what you said, Amy? Ms. French: That’s correct. You will have an opportunity to comment on – as a member of the public on the draft EIR that is being prepared. There was a scoping session and there is – was a notice of preparation so that comments on what should be studied were received – and then were received. Board Member Wimmer: I guess in terms of our Board, meaning even though we aren’t seeing it again, it would be nice to see further studies between the impact of the parking garage as it is in elevation and a street view next to our historic resource. I know that there are some streetscape views in our packet but that specific streetscape view wasn’t included, which is probably what we would have wanted to see; how – see the Antonio’s Nut House and how it looks in elevation. Also, just to the applicant and I just look on -- for instance on the floor plan view of the parking garage at that corner as it faces the Nut House. It would just be nice if you could somehow – if there is any way that you could better respond to the – being adjacent to the Nut House. I don’t know. In – revise the opening of the pedestrian access to and from in that upper corner because I know in front of the Nut House there is a small parking zone. Maybe if we could unify that or make it look like it was intentional instead of just this is our parking structure and doing our own thing and we know you’re doing your own thing. I know that’s a bad way of describing it, but to better respond in that specific area, that would be nice. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Bunnenberg. Board Member Bunnenberg: Well, just on the subject of that parking lot. Some time ago in 1979, there was a pole out front and apparently, a woman lost a bet to Tony and had to sit up on top of this pole for several days. So, nutty things have gone on there and it also is kind of a haven for Stanford students and people who really like to play pool. So, it has its own little history. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Bernstein: Board Member Kohler. Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I guess I should state that my office was on Cambridge Avenue for seven or eight years and also my rock n’ roll band use to play in the Nut House there. It was really quite – it’s a very important area of California Avenue and I have a lady whose still trims what hair I have left is a block away. She’s been stressed out because there’s nowhere to park and so all the people who own and work on California Avenue can’t wait to get the parking resolved because it’s a real problem. In fact, I sometimes have to drive around and park several blocks away. It’s pretty important and a huge change to Palo Alto. I mean this is a big deal so the whole area of that has been changing rapidly and to see this response is good by the City of Palo Alto. I’m looking forward to parking there someday. Chair Bernstein: Mallory, thanks for the – your presentation and the concepts one, two and three. I’ve got some comments on each of those, please. On concept one, the screening greening, my comment is that I – my opinion is that would become visually tiring to see a building that’s kind of masked in greening – in screening. I think there’s an opportunity because of the existing building that you clearly showed in your presentation, the articulation of a lot of the fenestrations of those buildings. There’s a lot of – you see a lot of fenestration of (inaudible), windows, (inaudible), windows. There is certainly a pattern there and I think if we – if the building ends up being this screening option, we would lose that kind of articulation of architectural detail. That’s – I would not select concept one from my point of view on that. On concept two, dynamic massing, the idea of the materials that you’re presenting in concept two or – what was your phrase? Concept or a feeling of concept. Yeah, the conversation of the concept of conversation. The material that you listed there, I think to provide better compatibility of materials and that was evoking the traditional historic Palo Alto landmarks of light colored cement, plaster, and Terracotta. That coloration I think, will work. I also think the dynamic massing conversation makes it more compatible with the neighborhood pattern. Just as I mentioned of all the articulation of fenestration on other buildings there. I would select that concept. As far as the simple civic, again, it’s the white or light-colored materials. I think that would get kind of visually uninteresting and that might be kind of tiring to look at also or at least not so interesting. I would vote these concepts – I would choose the dynamic massing one with my idea for more compatibility with the neighborhood here. There was one mention by -- in our Board conversation earlier about the modern and blockiness; perhaps was one word used. So, including the building eligible for National Register, The Nut House, that’s also kind of a block mass structure also. I think the dynamic massing, I think is compatible in that sense in terms of massing. Ok, yeah. Any other -- Vice Chair Bower. Vice Chair Bower: So, because I had more experience on the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission concerning the Public Safety Building, all of the design elements that you’ve discussed actually make that building, I think a better building than what would have landed on that site had it not been a Public Safety Building; the increased space and your screening. I have a different opinion than Martin has about the garage. I think the foliage helps to soften the impact of what is a very big box and over time, that changes. There is maintenance issue there but nonetheless, I think that visually changes with the seasons and helps to, again, camouflage it. I’m concerned about Jacaranda Lane becoming Jacaranda Canyon by two large buildings. The Public Safety Building again is set back for safety and they will be doing some work there to screen it. There is actually more space opposite the Public Safety Building then there is opposite the parking. I think that any effort you can make to soften that particular side with some materials that will absorb some sound; that would be helpful to the residents. I suspect that the California Avenue area is going to see the same kind of pressure of explanation that downtown has because that’s now pretty much the last area that you can expand in. I’m not concerned about the size of these building because the Court House sets a perfect bad example of what we did in 1960 and I don’t think that’s seismically – I don’t think they can upgrade that to meet the current standards so I think at some point that building will have to be replaced. These buildings will be, in two important ways, a shift of our policing and fire control function to the center of Palo Alto. This particular site represents almost the dead center of the City and it has very easy access to El Camino, to Alma and to Page Mill or Oregon so those are major arteries that allow our police and fire services to actually move faster to the City. Obviously, Foot Hills Park area is excluded from that so whatever you can do. I like that second option with the garage and opening that up. I think that will help with the parking lot at Antonio’s Nut House City of Palo Alto Page 13 and I look forward to seeing this conversation move forward quickly since we definitely need both of these buildings. Chair Bernstein: Board Member Corey. Board Member Corey: I’m a new – I appreciate all the work that you guys have put into this. I also agree with David. I think parking lots are tough generally because we didn’t have parking lots 100-years go so they kind of stick out there. The ones that I have seen that have some sort of green on them, I think it really does help to soften those. I just wanted to say that I also liked the screening greening concept, especially for the parking garage because I think that will help it blend in more with the neighborhood. There are a lot of trees and vegetation out there now so it’s kind of makes it a little less apparent to look at. Thanks very much. Chair Bernstein: Mallory, I’ve got one other idea that I like that you presented and that was the – on the corner closest to the back of Antonio’s Nut House. The idea of that displayed entry stair; I think that’s a great gesture. So as – because their right between, I think it’s Birch and – is it, -- Nut House is on the corner of Birch, right? Yeah. So, we’re – as people – there’s a parking lot between Birch Street and Antonio’s Nut House so that means people are lingering there. That would be a good chance for people to see that display so I think that’s a really wonderful thing to do. Also on the – using the plaza design shown in your concept one, where there are a lot of different angles. I think that’s a really nice relief from any kind of boxing and massingness that might be perceived from these two buildings. I’ve seen that often in Chicago where the public areas are – you have the rectangular buildings but the public plaza is similar to your concept one area. I think that makes a nice little softening and nice human scale gesture so that combined with that displayed entry way supports – I like your other phrase. You said visually porous at that corner. So, if we end up with the – heading more in the screening greening direction, still keeping that one corner where that displayed entry stair is and keeping that visually porous, I think that makes a good compatible connection between California Avenue and particularly the National Registered eligible building. Any other comments from Board Members? Ok. Alright, I believe that would – any other conclusions from staff before we conclude? Ms. French: No, I thank you for your input, as do the applicants. This is going to the ARB next week on June 1st so I’ll convey the – a quick summary to the ARB of your comments. Chair Bernstein: Excellent. Great, and Mallory, thank you so much. Wonderful. Excellent. Good. Alright, that concludes this agenda item. Thank you, Matt. Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. September 08, 2017 1 Palo Alto Public Safety Building and California Avenue Parking Garage -- ARB Formal Review PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Palo Alto Public Safety Building (PSB) and California Avenue Garage project occupies two city blocks at the intersection of Sherman Avenue and Birch Street, and represents Palo Alto’s largest investment in municipal infrastructure since the construction of City Hall. During the initial study session in June of 2017, the ARB reviewed three uniquely different approaches to building this new civic complex. In summary review, these previous schemes were: Screening/Greening, which proposed to veil public safety building and public parking garage in a naturalized setting to reduce their visual presence and secure vulnerable openings; Dynamic Massing, which proposed to break down building massing by modulating the building volumes to make the two-block project appear smaller, more intimate and visually dramatic; and, Simple Civic, which proposed a dignified and semi-formal visual presence to create a confident, approachable and community- scaled civic image for Public Safety. The ARB had an opportunity to offer input about the design opportunities inherent in each concept and provide direction to the design team on how best to further refine the design as the project progresses; a summary of all comments and comprehensive responses are included in the Comments & Responses Table in the body of the submittal. During this same time frame, the three options were also presented to the building’s user groups, and some community representatives. Overall comments were documented and addressed. The current proposal has emerged from this process. 00 OVERVIEW The Public Safety Building (PSB) at 250 Sherman Ave, is located on the City’s existing surface Parking Lot C6. The PSB is approximately a 46,000 square-foot, three-story police station and fire/police administration building. The PSB includes two full-block subterranean floors of police parking and operations, and shares its parcel with smaller operational accessory buildings, a secure operational yard, and a public plaza. The PSB has generous setbacks from its property lines, a standoff perimeter that offers both security and community design benefits. The PSB is a secure, essential services facility that will be designed to support and protect the critical operations that occur inside. The design of the PSB requires the careful balancing of transparency and solidity. As a law enforcement and emergency response building, there are a series of specialized building and site design accommodations that design of the PSB is required to meet. No unscreened vehicle may come within 20’-0” of the building, requiring a security setback that is enforced with perimeter vehicle barriers. The subterranean parking for Patrol vehicles must have two separate vehicular exits onto two unique streets in the event that one street is obstructed in some way (flooding, protest, fire, or other obstructing hazard). Site design should follow CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) best practices. Windows and openings are to be protected from line-of-sight vulnerabilities, resulting in careful placement and type of windows, Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. September 08, 2017 2 types of visual screening, quantity of openings. Outdoor programmatic areas must be secured and screened from view to protect critical operations. The project will include facility resiliency, redundancy and hardening strategies which when deployed will enable the PSB to remain operational after a major disaster. The Parking Garage (Garage) at 350 Sherman Ave, is located on the City’s existing surface Parking Lot C7. The parking garage is a four-story above grade and two-story below grade, roughly 640 stall public parking structure serving the parking needs of the California Avenue business district. The parking structure fills its site to nearly the property lines, and utilizes strategies such as a cascading exterior grand staircase and landscaped setback (on Birch Street), a pedestrian arcade (on Ash), and a partial-block pedestrian arcade leading to a mid-block paseo (on Jacaranda) to provide scale-mitigating site amenities. The height of the California Avenue Garage will be approximately 49'-0" above sidewalk level to top of roof-mounted photovoltaic panels. As a public-serving amenity, the garage’s key design imperatives include ease of wayfinding, generosity toward the pedestrian environment, and a perimeter skin that offers an appropriate visual character when viewed by its neighbors. 01 GENERAL CONCEPT The proposed PSB and Parking Garage designs createsa distinctive civic identity for California Avenue through a series of prominent civic markers nested within an understated backdrop of rich landscaping and informal visual textures. The overall building volumes are de-emphasized, receding in deference to the smaller-scale, dynamic and colorful civic points-of-contact. Each colorful accent highlights an archetypal urban moment—entry, arcade, plaza, gateway, grand staircase—reinforcing and elevating civic instances like arrival, orientation, entry, protection, repose and connection with nature. The project’s visual palette draws upon Palo Alto precedents: the terra cotta and off-white materials of the City’s historic buildings coupled with the formal invention of its modernist landscape past, all reworked and updated to address contemporary urban design priorities. The PSB and Parking Garage designs embrace the unique qualities of the California Avenue district. This neighborhood’s defining characteristics include: an eclectic mix of scales, materials, uses and styles; significant local investment in quality of design and materials; sensitivity to the pedestrian public realm; and, a “gateway” quality along Birch Street frontage based on existing patterns of pedestrian and vehicular circulation. and embody these characteristics. The PSB and Garage find expression for each of these qualities. The new buildings feature a mixture of scales, from multi-block gestures to small-scale and intimate points-of-contact. The materials palette is based on high-quality local historic precedents—terra cotta, finely detailed concrete. The public realm is reinforced through civic amenities such as arcades, a grand staircase, and an enveloping plaza environment, even overlapping into the PSB entry lobby and multi-purpose room. The gateway potential of Birch Street is amplified through grand canopies that bookend the public Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. September 08, 2017 3 realm on each side of this important street. The PSB and garage designs emerge from and contributes to the uniqueness of the California Avenue Business district. 02 SITE DEVELOPMENT The PSB and Garage sites create several diverse pedestrian environments with character and uses based on location. The main focal point is a plaza zone that bookends the two sides of Birch Street; the east plaza in front of the PSB—the larger of the two—accommodates a variety of pedestrian activities in small- to medium-sized groupings, while the plaza on the west side of Birch primarily accommodates seating and shade for individual passive activities. The Park Blvd. and Ash Street frontages are focused on accommodating generous pedestrian movement to and from California Avenue, using an arcade and wide sidewalk areas for people walking together as a group (as is common during the lunch hour rush). Sherman Avenue does not experience as much pedestrian activity, and has been designed for quiet, passive shaded seating. Jacaranda Alley is a low pedestrian-use area as well, and has been designed to support and reinforce the mid-block paseos that connect the alley to California Avenue, with an arcade and deeper setback area to facilitate access to these pathways. The Jacaranda frontage has a solid wall along its length that serves as both a vehicle barrier and security screen; this wall has been elaborated with vines, and setback seating to mitigate its presence and offer visual and furniture amenities for the alley neighbors. From a street lighting standpoint, all the pedestrian areas will be lit with a low-level, focused pedestrian lighting that reinforce the intimate and small-scale aspects of the plazas/streets, avoid light-pollution, and reinforce the civic character of the facilities. Vehicular movement is a key consideration in the site development of these two blocks. Due to its lower pedestrian volumes, Sherman Avenue will be the primary vehicular activity zone, with both the Garage and the patrol vehicle garages entering off Sherman. Birch St. has been selected as the back-up/emergency exit (and staff vehicle access point) for the PSB to avoid conflicts between vehicles and the bike pathway along Park Blvd.; to mitigate this Birch Street ramp presence, the vehicle pathway has been adjusted to utilize the Jacaranda alignment so vehicles move as though they are utilizing the alley. The primary building entries for both the PSB and the Garage are oriented toward the Birch Street plaza zone. The PSB entry is a two-story pavilion scaled to match the deep setback of the PSB plaza, and is approached through a generous civic staircase and ramp. The Garage has a dramatic exterior staircase that animates the plaza side of the garage with pedestrian movement. These building entrance orientations reinforce the plaza zone with pedestrian access and movement. The inflection of the Garage civic staircase is toward California Ave., acknowledging the role it plays in support of the retail environment. The secondary entrance for the Garage is off of the Ash St. arcade for ease of access and wayfinding. Staff entry to the PSB will be adjacent to the emergency vehicle-only curb cut-out along Sherman. The site design has also been influenced by input from city agencies as part of the DRC design review process. Meetings with DRC, design revisions based on input from various City departments (Planning, Transportation, etc.) including: Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. September 08, 2017 4 PSB:  The 10’-0” high security wall along Jacaranda was moved further away from the property line to provide a continuous sidewalk and meet the 10’ planning setback requirement.  A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) will be required for portion of alley-facing CMU wall taller than 4’-0”  PF Zone exception will be required for the basement parking at PSB  The entry alignment of the Birch Street ramp has been shifted to align with Jacaranda  Sidewalk curb locations have been adjusted and pedestrian crossing bulb-outs have been added  The provision for native trees has been increased to 25% overall  The Birch street median will be shortened slightly @ Sherman to facilitate pedestrian crossing GARAGE:  The Sherman Ave frontage has been revised to increase sidewalk width, add on-street parking and provide pedestrian bulb-outs  Pedestrian access points have been added between the Sherman Avenue sidewalk and the first level of the Garage  The on-street parking along Ash Street has been relocated to the Sherman Avenue side in order to provide a wider pedestrian right-of-way along Ash  The Jacaranda Arcade leading to the paseo has been made more accessible/open by relocating the garage elevator core  Arcade on Ash  The provision for native trees has been increased to 25% overall 03 MATERIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND ARCHITECTURE Formally, the PSB and Garage exterior designs combine to create a consistent approach to the public realm, yet, each of the buildings retain an independent aesthetic identity. The PSB is the more civic of the two projects, and is designed to convey the dignity and importance of the functions housed within. The Garage has a more deferential presence, with its large volume downplayed through massing and screening strategies, and deferring to the civic moments it can offer—a grand staircase, an arcade and various public art sites. The two buildings work in tandem to create a dramatic framing of the Birch St. right-of-way and a generous pedestrian realm. The PSB and Garage share a material palette for what are called the civic points-of-contact. These exceptional moments—entry portal, grand staircase, arcade, pedestrian seating, overarching canopies—share a palette of terra cotta, a material/color consistent with Palo Alto precedents. It is a color that helps elevate the visual impact of these points-of-contact by creating dramatic visual accents. The two buildings also share an understated palette for the remainder of the buildings, favoring quiet, restrained surfaces that are animated through texture and subtle massing strategies. PSB: Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. September 08, 2017 5 The PSB massing is based on the articulation of a simple three-story rectangular volume. This volume is elaborated through a series of additive, subtractive and textural strategies. Subtractively, the volume is eroded utilizing: a glass corner revealing a public staircase at Birch/Sherman; carve-outs at a Level 02 exterior deck; a glazed ground level along the Birch Street plaza referential to the consistent storefront porosity of California Ave; and, generous window areas for key programmatic functions (such as the publicly accessible Multi-purpose Room). The additive massing components include: a dramatic canopy at the roofline of the building that inflects toward the main public plaza; site security walls articulated as though the building base has “slipped out” and extended over the site; and, vertical window fins that provide both solar shading and a traditional columnar reference. The overall composition is knitted together with a pronounced surface texture manifest in both concrete surfaces and terra cotta window screens. The primary exterior material for the PSB is in cast-in-place concrete. This material provides for the stringent ballistic resistance requirements as well as the desired durability and aesthetics. The off-white concrete panels have a rough, stone-like texture. Additional exterior materials include: terra cotta horizontal window screens—slatted screens to protect windows from the sun and unwanted visibility—in a neutral color to match the earth tones of the precast concrete building; clear glass; painted steel at overhangs, color-coded as “civic” elements, as described above; and, polycarbonate translucent canopy surface at these overhangs. The building requires a 135’ high telecommunications tower. This element will be integrated into the building by providing a wall-mounted monopole. This element visually relates to the pattern of verticals in the exterior design. Mounting it to the building will improve its overall visual integration. The rear operations courtyard has a translucent canopy that screens views of the operations yard from neighboring properties. Overall, the PSB design provides an operationally responsive, high-security environment required of a law enforcement and emergency response building, but does so without visible fortressing. Parking Garage: The parking garage massing is also simple and understated. The focal points are the outboard grand exterior stair that inflects toward California Avenue and the recessed pedestrian arcades along Ash Street and Jacaranda. The singular garage volume is scaled down by interrupting long horizontal expanses with material changes. Large expanses of the exterior of the garage are provided with horizontal slats that will support the growth of a “green screen” vine planting The Garage is a cast-in-place concrete structure. The horizontal slat assemblies will be of a high- quality terra cotta, so the wall will look good in the event that vines do not cover certain areas, but will support the green wall wherever if flourishes. The visual presence of the building volume is reduced the dense “greening,” creating an immersive landscape environment that makes the vines a building material as well. The top level of the garage will have a continuous canopy of photovoltaic panels supported on a painted steel structure, providing shade as well as a perceptual “roof” to the structure. Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. September 08, 2017 6 There are several opportunities for major public art installations. The final sites have not yet been chosen (this will be part of the public art process), but some dramatic potential sites have been identified. The tall opaque wall that supports the exterior grand staircase along Birch is one such opportunity; if faces the PSB plaza across the street, so it is a large and highly visible location. One other potential site is the inner surface of the Ash Street pedestrian arcade, with the goal being the creation of a compelling and immersive pedestrian experience. 04 LANDSCAPE STATEMENT OF DESIGN INTENT The project includes the landscape at two central parcels of the busy commercial area surrounding the new Public Safety Building and the Parking Structure. Public Safety Building: The landscape of the PSB occupies a full block with four unique frontages. Each orientation has distinct programmatic demands, yet the overall landscape shares a family of elements and a vocabulary of streetscape, plantings and furnishings. The landscape reinforces the role of the PSB site as 1) a good neighbor, 2) a promoter of diverse activities, and 3) a symbol of community policing. The landscape also provides a great civic amenity and enhanced streetscape for this vibrant commercial center. The landscape is seen as a protective envelope that provides color, texture and contact with nature, and serves as a space for civic functions and public use. Birch Street is a gateway into the California Avenue Business District and the sidewalk street trees reinforces this role. The plaza on the Birch Street frontage marks the main entry to the Public Safety Building with an open and welcoming civic space. The Plaza is approximately 5,000 square feet, fronts the Birch Street sidewalk, and provides places for people to sit, eat, socialize and pass through on their way to the California Avenue business district. The plaza steps leading to the entry of the PSB provide a plinth for the building as a clear forecourt to the PSB. The PSB plaza features a low stone wall, a series of natural stone bollards and a large raised planter that provides landscaping soil and plantings otherwise absent due to the parking structure directly below. The stone wall and bollards provide a security barrier to vehicles, while providing a natural material that demarcates entry into the public plaza. This large civic-scaled planter is shaped to invite passage from the direction of California Ave. and has an occupy-able interior as an inviting civic place. The plaza area is bordered to the southwest by a double row of trees that reinforces the pedestrian realm and provides shade for the sidewalk and for seating within the plaza. A diversity of seating types – built-in, planter edge, and moveable units— characterize the furnishings. The plaza paving is a variable pattern of stone or pre-cast concrete, differentiated from the field paving to accent building entry, community room, and an inside/outside flow into the lobby. The paving within the seating areas in the planting bands is a smaller, intimate scale. Fixed furnishings support the light poles within the plaza and function as discrete vehicular barriers. The fixtures are tapered poles with multiple heads providing a tree- like motif that drifts through the plaza. Site furniture-integrated lights supplement the poles lights for visual variety. . The plaza planting is purposefully designed as a “demonstration” garden highlighting plants for water conservation and provision of habitat - for example Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. September 08, 2017 7 California native pollinator species, native grasses, drought tolerant succulents, and native meadow rain garden planting palettes. Educational signage is intended to further explain and enhance the plantings. The remaining frontages demonstrate an equivalent attention to the public realm. Sherman Avenue and Park Avenue frontages feature a double row of street trees, utilizing raised planters where needed due to parking structure below; the profile of the raised planters varies to create nested seating areas and provide raingardens for storm water treatment. Jacaranda Lane features a raised, “secret” garden courtyard secured for PSB staff; this walled garden has a mounded grove of trees, vine-covered walls along the perimeter, and benches within gravel pathways. The Jacaranda Lane side of the security wall also features vine plantings and lighting to create a safe and greened passageway. The Birch Street, Sherman Avenue and Park Avenue frontages have pedestrian pole lights and planter mounted landscape lights to provide safe and attractive passage around the perimeter of the PSB. The general street tree planting strategy around the PSB frontages is to select species that will thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate architectural emphasis and scale on each of the three frontages, and have relatively low maintenance and water requirements. The selection also prioritizes the use of native species where appropriate. Specifics:  On Birch Street the priority attributes include a larger shade tree (> 40 ft. height and >30’ width) that will frame Birch Street on east and west sides creating a gateway to California Avenue. The tree should generally have a spreading, vase-shaped canopy, relatively fine to medium textured foliage, and providing bright green foliage coupled with dense shade. The preferred species is a variety of Chinese Evergreen Elm (Ulmus parvifolia).  The Birch Street median provides a setting for three large shade trees with a priority for providing a tree that is differentiated from those on the sidewalks. The attributes of this tree may include a broad canopy as it has room horizontally over the street. With a preference for a large, native tree a potential preferred species is Valley Oak (Quercus lobata).  On Sherman Avenue the desirable attributes include a south-east exposure, with larger shade trees to provide summer shade and a more open canopy in winter. Ideally we would create continuity from the Garage site across Birch Street along Sherman and plant a tree or trees that provide a large canopy over 50’ height. The preferred species are considered to be London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia), alternating with California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) to provide diversity and a native species.  On Park Boulevard the trees have horizontal space and good exposure in all directions. They will be functioning to screen the operations yard from residences across Park Blvd. The scale of these trees should be medium to large, with a more spreading canopy form. The potential species include Linden, Cork Oak, Sweet Gum, and London Plane.  On the north side of the building there is an enclosed employee courtyard that will have tree plantings. Trees here should be shade tolerant, provide an intimate architectural setting, be of a medium to small scale with a spreading canopy, and provide screening of the buildings to the Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. September 08, 2017 8 north from the office spaces above. Potential species include Japanese Maple, Silk Tree, Crape Myrtle, Redbud, or Flowering Plum. All trees shall be planted at 48” box size and Silva Cell systems shall be installed under sidewalk area and over structure to expand tree root volume and ensure long-term health of trees. Average extent of Silva Cell system components shall be from back of curb to full width of sidewalk and connecting all tree plantings using Silva Cell 2 for Streetscapes. The understory plantings around the PSB include the following typologies: Native and Ornamental Grass palette, California Native and Flowering palette, Succulents and Companion drought tolerant palette, Rain Garden Meadow palette, and Vertical palette of vine plantings. In the plaza the Native and Ornamental Grass palette, the California Native and Flowering palette, and the Succulents and Companion will be planted in the large raised planters that frame the spaces in the plaza. Species may include grasses such as Muhlenbergia, Leymus, Lomandra, and Seslaria and flowering plants with aerial flowers and long seasonal bloom for example Salvia, Yucca, Knifophia, Anigozanthos. Succulents that may be planted include Aloe, Aeonium, Echevaria, and Sedum. The plantings along Sherman Avenue and Park Avenue will be in a series of elevated planters alternating between the Rain Garden palette for stormwater treatment and California Native and Flowering Palette. The plant palettes will be characterized by meadow-like plantings with accent plants that flower, add texture, and have increased habitat value for insects, hummingbirds and butterflies, these may include Rushes, Native Poppies, Salvias, California Fuschia, Cistus, Baccharis and others. On all of the frontages there are opportunities for vertical plantings of a diversity of vines including Thunbergia, Jasminum, Solanum, Distictus (Trumpet Vine) and Ficus (Creeping Fig) among others. Parking Garage: The site development of the public Parking Garage works in tandem with the PSB site to privilege the public pedestrian realm. Similar to the PSB, each of the four frontages are unique. Each side improves the streetscape and enhances the experience of coming to and from the garage. The east side of the garage site “bookends” Birch Street working to visually expand the perceived public plaza area across Birch at the PSB plaza. The Birch Street frontage is composed of a series of raised planters with integral seating and an area of rain garden planting at the corner and additional “native woodland” palette planting below the exterior stair. The seating areas are distributed along the length of the sidewalk. Along Sherman the sidewalk has been widened (curb shifted to align with east of Birch) to allow for street trees and rain garden planters and benches at the back of walk against the façade of the garage. Along Ash Street there is an arcade with paving and seating amenities within the arcade. At Ash the sidewalk has also been widened to allow for more generous circulation to and from California Avenue and healthy tree planting. The garage arcade along Jacaranda has the potential to connect to the adjacent mid-block pedestrian paseo with pedestrian pavers that would help calm traffic and enhance the visual connection. Vine plantings along the Jacaranda façade will be considered to help green this face. Birch Street, Sherman Avenue and Ash Street frontages shall have pedestrian pole lights and planter mounted landscape lights, in addition to building mounted lighting, to provide safe and attractive passage around the perimeter of the parking structure. Palo Alto Public Safety Building & California Avenue Parking Garage RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture Inc. September 08, 2017 9 The general street tree planting strategy around the Garage frontages is to select species that will thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate architectural emphasis and scale on each of three frontages, and have relatively low maintenance and water requirements. The selection also prioritizes the use of native species where appropriate. Specifics:  On Birch Street, the priority attributes include a larger shade tree (> 40 ft. height and similar width) that will frame Birch Street on east and west sides creating a gateway to California Avenue. The tree should generally have a spreading, vase-shaped canopy, relatively fine to medium textured foliage, and providing bright green foliage coupled with dense shade. The preferred species is a variety of Chinese Evergreen Elm (Ulmus parvifolia).  On Sherman Avenue, the attributes include a south-east exposure, with larger (>50’ ht) shade trees to provide summer shade and a more open canopy in winter. Ideally, we would consider matching the species planted across Sherman Avenue that are Plane trees. The preferred trees are therefore London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia), alternating with California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) to provide diversity and a native species.  On Ash Street, the trees should complement the architectural arcade at the face of the building, and provide a broad year-round shade canopy for this south-facing street. The scale of these trees should be medium to large with evergreen foliage and a more horizontal form that can spread over this widened sidewalk. Potential species include Silver Linden (Tilia tomentosa) and Cork Oak (Quercus suber). All trees shall be planted at 48” box size and Silva Cell systems shall be installed under sidewalk area and over structure to expand tree root volume and ensure long-term health of trees. Average extent of Silva Cell system components shall be from back of curb to full width of sidewalk and connecting all tree plantings using Silva Cell 2 for Streetscapes. The understory plantings around the PSB include the following typologies: Rain Garden palette, Rain Garden Woodland palette and Vertical palette of vine plantings. On Birch Street the raised planters will have a woodland palette due to the north east exposure and overhang of the stair above, species will potentially include dogwood, coffeeberry, ferns – Western Sword Fern and Chain Fern, woodland strawberry, asparagus fern, and native Douglas iris. On Sherman the raised Rain Garden plantings have a southern exposure and may include species such as Sedges, Rushes, Salvias, Mimulus, Geraniums, and Iris. The Vine planting palette along Jacaranda will primarily be Ficus due to the northern exposure and very limited growing space. The irrigation strategy throughout all sites is to provide a fully automated irrigation system that is weather controlled and uses water conserving low flow irrigation heads and drip irrigation where appropriate. Controllers and backflow preventers are intended to be located in interior locations when possible in vandal proof enclosures screened by landscaping. ATTACHMENT F ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 250 and 350 Sherman Avenue Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT) Public Facilities Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 250 Sherman None 55,164 sf No change proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 350 Sherman None 41,843 sf No change proposed PF Zone Setbacks - Minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF zone shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards of the most restrictive abutting district, provided no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet, and no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet – this provision is proposed to be modified PSB Front/Rear and Street Side Yard Setbacks (SB)  Park  Birch  Sherman 20 feet; PF code requested to be revised NA Park: SB 21’9=8” above grade, SB 0’ below grade; Birch: SB 48’ above grade to main building wall, 33’ to canopy edge, and 25’ to base of ramp cover, SB approx. 18’ below grade Sherman: SB 25’ above grade, SB below grade near Sherman Av PSB Interior Side Yard Jacaranda Lane 10 feet; PF code requested to be revised NA Building SB is 20’ or greater (SB range: 36’3” to 46’3” until second jog in property line), SB below grade is within 10 feet CMU wall/Fence SB is 10’ until employee garden where SB to CMU wall is 3’2”’ for length of 40’ approx. wall height exceeds four feet (DEE is requested) Parking Garage Front/Rear and Street Side Yard Setbacks  Birch  Ash  Sherman 20 feet; PF code requested to be revised NA Building encroaches above & below, all frontages Birch: SB 11’2” above grade, 36’ below grade; Ash: SB 0’ above grade, likely same SB below grade (section not provided in set) Sherman: 0’ SB above grade, 0’ SB below grade. Parking Garage Interior Side Yard Jacaranda Lane 10 feet minimum ; PF code requested to be revised NA SB is 2’3” over 2/3 of the wall length; where property line jogs into Jacaranda Lane, SB is met. PSB Site Coverage – based on most restrictive adjacent district (PF zone, which allows 30% coverage and 1:1 FAR) 30% NA 29.2% - complies Garage Site Coverage - (or equal to adjacent most restrictive district, or PF) 30%; PF code requested to be revised NA Site Coverage 89.3% - does not comply with adjacent PF max coverage (compare to CC(2) which allows 100% site coverage and RM-40 which allows 45% site coverage) PSB - Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR); 1:1 NA 0.74:1 – complies Garage - Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR); note: 18.04.030 (B)(i) only exempts parking facilities that are accessory to a permitted or conditional use on the same site; the parking garage is not accessory use 1:1 (the most restrictive adjacent district); PF code requested to be revised NA FAR 3.57:1 - does not comply PSB - Max. Building Height; SW corner is within 150’ of residential RM-40 zone 35’ at SW corner of PSB site within 150’ of residential zone; 50’ elsewhere; PF code requested to be revised for emergency telecom tower NA 139’ emergency telecom tower does not comply; elsewhere height is 49 feet and complies (PSB is not within 150’ of residential zone) Parking Garage Max Height; SE corner is within 150’ of residential RM=40 zone 35’ SE corner of Garage site within 150’ of residential zone NA 49’ to top of parking structure Tbd (additional 15’?) to top of PV structure; PF code to be revised to allow height to exceed 35 feet within 150’ radius of RM-40 Daylight Plane for site lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone 10’ up and 1:2 slope; NA NA 250 Sherman PSB number of parking spaces Other uses not listed 155 public spaces 162 spaces for PSB; Director determines parking requirement for use not listed 350 Sherman Parking Structure number of spaces NA 143 public spaces 636 public spaces (replaces the existing spaces on both blocks (143 + 155) and adds 338 spaces Architectural Review Findings Council Adopted on First Reading November 14, 2016 The revised AR findings approved by the City Council on November 14, 2016 are: 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be appropriately maintained. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 1 French, Amy From:Pat Beatty <patbeatty621@aol.com> Sent:Monday, August 28, 2017 9:36 AM To:French, Amy Cc:Dwight Clark; Kathleen Steinle; Peter Holland Subject:Fwd: Fwd: 350 Sherman - a suggestion / Ozone vs. oxygen? Dear Amy French, I concur with my neighbor's suggestion and I had a couple of concerns regarding the proposed parking structure at 350 Sherman as well. Fresh air? Our nine unit condo structure at the corner of Birch and Sherman has no central air conditioning and four of the units have their balconies and windows facing Sherman that would be exposed to exhaust fumes from hundreds of cars entering and exiting each day. Many other condos of our 40 unit complex have windows and balconies on Birch and will experience greatly increased traffic and noise as well. Sunlight? I'm concerned that the height of the new structure would further reduce afternoon and evening sunlight. Thank you for you consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, Pat Beatty 2516 Birch Street Birch Court Condominiums (PS I wonder if the two parking structure on Cambridge were designed to have additional levels added?) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: 350 Sherman - a suggestion Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:55:29 -0700 From: Dwight Clark <dwightcla@gmail.com> To: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org CC: Anne Steinle <anne.steinle@gmail.com>, Peter Holland <PLHolland@aol.com>, Pat Beatty <patbeatty621@aol.com> Dear Amy French, May I make one suggestion regarding the proposed parking garage at 350 Sherman? 2 The plans I've seen show three exits (the parking garage, the VISA building opposite, and the Birch Court building where I live) all on the Birch Street end of that block of Sherman. With three adjacent exits, there would seem to be more likelihood of both congestion and accidents. How about putting the parking garage exit towards the Ash Street end of that block (rather than the Birch Street end) to separate and thus somewhat minimize these competing traffic flows ? I'll be eager to get your comments. Appreciatively, Dwight Clark 2510 Birch Street Attachment I 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 Sherman 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 “20170920_ARB Presention_Final.pdf” and dated 9/22/17 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8262) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project [17PLN-00212]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow Construction of a Multi-Use Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Structure Over Highway 101 Near San Antonio Road; Construction of the Adobe Creek Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail; and, Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment On September 1, 2017 and Ended on October 2, 2017. Zoning Districts: PF(D), PF, ROLM, and GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Report Summary On June 12, 2017, the City of Palo Alto Division of Public Works Engineering filed an application for Site and Design review to allow construction of a Highway 101 Multi-Use Overcrossing City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 between the East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road overpasses of Highway 101. The PTC reviewed the project on September 13, 2017 and recommended approval of the proposed project to Council based on the Site and Design review findings included in the draft Record of land Use Action in Attachment B. The proposed overcrossing would replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz Highway 101 underpass with year-round connectivity between residential and commercial properties west of Highway 101 and the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Business Park, and the regional Bay Trail network of multi-use trails east of Highway 101. There are five distinct sections of the overcrossing and trail that are discussed in more detail throughout this report. These are referred to as the Principal Span Structure, the West Approach Structure, the East Approach Structure, the Adobe Creek Bridge, and the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. The project also includes site amenities, signage, landscaping, and lighting improvements and the minor reconfiguration of Google’s private parking lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road to accommodate the West Approach Structure. A map showing the location of the proposed project is included in Attachment A. The project plans are provided in Attachment F. A hearing with the City Council is tentatively scheduled for November 13, 2017. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Civil Engineer/Architect: Roy Schnabel, Principal, Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc./ Claudia Guadagne, President, FMG Architects Representative: Elizabeth Ames, Public Works Department, Sr. Project Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: Approximately 0.3 miles north of San Antonio Road (West Approach Structure crosses over 3600 West Bayshore) Neighborhood: Palo Verde and Adobe Meadow/Meadow Park Neighborhoods Lot Dimensions & Area: 008-05-005 (44,645,693 sf); 127-10-076 (89,941 sf); 127-10-100 (89,941 sf); 127-56-006 (38,619 sf); 127-56-007 (34,843 sf) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: There are four protected trees within the project area all of which will be retained and protected during construction. Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): The project would cross over existing roadways, including East City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 and West Bayshore Road frontages and Highway 101; requires reconfiguration of the existing Google parking lot; and follows an existing SCVWD maintenance road on the west side of Highway 101 out to East Meadow Drive. Existing Land Uses: The majority of the project spans Caltrans right-of-way over Highway 101 or City right-of-way across the Bayshore Road frontages. The overcrossing approaches would be located on publicly owned conservation land on the east side of Highway 101 and land designated as Research Office on the west side of Highway 101. Most of the western approach structure, the Adobe Creek Trail bridge, and the Adobe Creek trail improvements would occur within Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) property adjacent Adobe Creek, which crosses land designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Research Office and Light Industrial but which is currently used as a SCVWD access road. Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Research Office, Caltrans right-of-way, and Publicly Owned Conservation land uses (ROLM and PF[D] Zone Districts) West: Research Office land use and some multi-family residential land uses (ROLM Zone District) East: Publicly Owned Conservation Land (Palo Alto Baylands) (PF[D] Zone District) South: Office/manufacturing Uses (GM Zone) on the east side of Highway 101, Caltrans and City street right-of-way and Research office and Research office/City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering offices on the west side of 101 (ROLM (D)(AD) Zone District) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Sources: Google Maps; Biggs Cardosa Associates Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: PF (D), PF, ROLM, GM Comp. Plan Designation: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Light Industrial and Research Office on the west side of Highway 101 and Publicly Owned Conservation Land on the East side of Highway 101. Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Applicable, see discussion below El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Other: The pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing alignment must comply with applicable Caltrans and CPUC clearances. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail path located within SCVWD property must conform to Santa Clara County’s Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines. Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable. Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Utility Easement/Corridor High voltage electric overhead and high pressure gas main PG&E utility easements, City utility easements, U.S. Highway 101, and SCVWD Rights-of-Way /corridors Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Council conducted a hearing on November 7, 2016; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54482 During the hearing, Council approved a motion to increase the budget for the Adobe Creek/Highway 101 Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, capital Improvements Program (CIP) Project PE-11011; accept the $1 million contribution from Google to use towards contingency funds; and to incorporate “enhanced amenities” for an additional cost of $0.13 million. Through several previous study sessions and hearings, Council selected the bridge alignment, height, width, and structure type. Prior Council Actions on Project Website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/facilities/bridge_project/default.asp PTC: May 31, 2017 Preliminary Study Session; Staff Report link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57977 Meeting Minutes Link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58628 On May 31, 2017, the PTC conducted a preliminary study session to provide input on the 15 percent design concept for the project. During the hearing, PTC provided feedback on the design of the bridge, asking for additional consideration of specific details, particularly at trail/bridge intersection points to ensure safety for users. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Commissioners asked about lighting, provided feedback on amenities, provided feedback on signage for user etiquette and wayfinding and asked staff to work with SCVWD to try and open the access road to the public as soon as possible and to maintain the undercrossing, if feasible. No action was taken during this study session. PTC conducted a formal hearing on September 13, 2017; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59466 Meeting Minutes Link: The meeting minutes from this meeting are not yet available. However, a video recording of this hearing can be found here: http://midpenmedia.org/planning- transportation-commission-56/ On September 13, 2017 the PTC conducted a formal hearing for the project and recommended approval of the project to the City Council based on the Site and Design findings and project conditions of approval included in the draft Record of Land Use Action. HRB: None ARB: August 7, 2014 Study Session of Design Principles https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43282 No action was taken during this study session. May 4, 2017 Preliminary Study Session; Staff Report link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57467 Meeting Minutes Link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57836 On May 4, 2017, the ARB conducted a preliminary study session to provide input on the 15 percent design concept for the project. During the hearing ARB provided preliminary feedback on the proposed finish of the bridge, asked for refinement in the design of the bow string truss/Pratt truss connection, commented on signage and lighting, and discussed the location of amenities. One board member asked to explore a better connection of the east approach structure and the trailhead; the idea of a traffic circle at the east approach structure trailhead entrance was encouraged. No action was taken during this study session. Project Description The project description is provided in Attachment E and the project plans are included in Attachment F. The purpose of the project includes reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips by encouraging walking and biking to the Baylands area, improving safety for bikers along East Bayshore Road, and providing a year-round connection to the regional trails in the Baylands for bikers commuting to/from nearby cities. The project includes five sections of the overcrossing/trail, which are discussed in further detail below. As shown in the plans, other amenities such as lighting, signage, benches, bike racks, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 and drinking fountains are proposed as part of the project. The existing Google parking lot would be reconfigured to improve circulation and accommodate the new access ramp, as discussed further below. The landscape area around the parking lot would be improved and would serve as a bio-retention area. Any trees removed would be replaced. No protected trees would be removed. Principal Span Structure The Principal Span Structure is perpendicular to and spans Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads. It consists of three simply-supported steel truss spans, spanning 165 feet across Highway 101 and 72 feet across both East and West Bayshore Roads. The maximum height of the principal span is approximately 34 feet above the center highway surface and the top of the truss arches over East and West Bayshore roads are approximately 30 feet at their maximum height. There is an eight foot vinyl clad chain link safety fence located on the inside edges of this span. The safety fence includes one inch square opening per Caltrans standards. The Principal Span Structure is 15 feet wide, as measured to the exterior, which provides a 12 foot internal clearance along the multi-use path. West Approach Structure The alignment of the West Approach Structure consists of an approximately 115 degree curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from along West Bayshore Road, over the Google parking lot, and connects to the Principal Span Structure. The West approach consists of a four span reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2 foot 6 inch by 5 foot rectangular columns supported on large diameter pile shafts. The span lengths vary between approximately 40 to 50 feet. The eight foot safety fencing over the Highway 101 portion of the bridge reduces to four feet high along the concrete approach ramps and becomes slightly more open, as shown on the materials board. East Approach Structure The alignment of the East Approach Structure consists of an approximately 168 degree compound curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from the Principal Span Structure, over the Baylands, and back around to connect to the San Francisco Bay Trail parallel to East Bayshore Road. The East Approach Structure consists of a seven span reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2 foot 6 inch by 5 foot rectangular columns supported on large diameter pile shafts, consistent with the design of the West Approach Structure. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long. The safety railings will be four feet high on the East Approach Structure. As discussed further below, this reduction ensures visibility while still meeting safety requirements. It also ensures that views of the Baylands from the East Approach Structure are less obstructed for users. The East Approach will include an overlook between Bents 10 and 11 in order to provide trail users a viewing point toward the Baylands without impeding pedestrian and bicycle traffic. It will also include seating and a bicycle rack, providing a place to pause and rest. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Adobe Creek Bridge The Adobe Creek Bridge will connect the West Approach and the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. It consists of a 140 foot long, 14 foot wide prefabricated steel Pratt truss spanning over the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks. The top chord of the steel truss will serve as the top chord of the four foot high safety railing of the structure. The abutments will be concrete, supported by large diameter piles. This bridge design was selected to mirror a similar existing bridge over Adobe Creek on the east side of Highway 101 within the Baylands. Adobe Creek Reach Trail and West Plaza The Adobe Creek Trailhead/West Plaza is approximately 1,300 sf and connects the overpass to the proposed Adobe Creek Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail as well as to West Bayshore Road. The raised sidewalk and access ramp from West Bayshore Road to the plaza is eight feet wide and 115 feet long. The new Adobe Creek Reach Trail follows the Adobe Creek maintenance road out to East Meadow Drive where it would connect to a proposed bicycle boulevard. It would be 620 feet in length and approximately 14 to 16 feet wide. The new trail would include a four foot fence mounted to the existing concrete barrier along Adobe Creek to meet ADA requirements. The existing access road would be paved. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary approval is subject to ARB review:  Site and Design: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and Design applications are reviewed by the PTC and ARB, and recommendations are forward to the City Council for final action. Site and Design projects are evaluated against specific findings that include both the ARB findings (ARB purview) and Site and design findings (PTC purview). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project re- design or denial. The findings for ARB to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment B. Additionally, the project requires approval for the following, which are not subject to ARB review:  Park Improvement Ordinance: The Park Improvement Ordinance has been reviewed for recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission and forwarded to City Council for final action.  Public Art: The applicant is exploring options and artists for on-site public art. The Public Art Commission (PAC) will review and issue a determination on the proposed public art work in accordance with PAMC 16.61.070 prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The on-site art work is subject to the requirements outlined in PAMC 16.61.050 and 16.61.060 for eligible artwork. Staff notes that although approval of the public art is not subject to the ARB’s purview, the ARB’s design input on the proposed public art is encouraged.  Exception Permit: The proposed project will require at least one temporary closure on Highway 101. This closure must be performed late at night in accordance with Caltrans City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 requirements to avoid impacts to traffic. Work outside the required construction hours outlined in PAMC Section 9.10 requires approval of an exception permit from the City Manager or his designee in accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.070. The City Manager or his designee may require conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by such an exception. Analysis1 To the extent the project is comprised of pedestrian and bicycle paths of travel, it is not subject to zoning and land use restrictions for any specific zone district or land use designation (similar to City streets and sidewalks). However, the project has been evaluated to ensure the design meets the intent and objectives of the Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Baylands Master Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and other city policies. Neighborhood Setting and Character The overcrossing connects existing roadways and trails to adjacent commercial and residential areas. West Bayshore Road includes several commercial centers along the road frontage and there are many newer multi-family housing units as well as single family residences in the Palo Verde and Adobe Meadow/Meadowview Park neighborhoods adjacent West Bayshore Road. The proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail would connect to East Meadow Drive providing improved year-round access to the Baylands for residents or employees walking or biking in the area. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail also connects to the west plaza and provides safer access between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive than the current access from Fabian Drive. Because the East Approach Structure is located within the area covered under the Baylands Master Plan, the structure design, location, proposed amenities and proposed vegetation planting is all designed within the context of consistency with the Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines and Baylands Master Plan. ARB, PTC, and Public Requested Revisions and Clarifications Proposed Materials/Finish Consistent with feedback from the board on the preferred finish of the overcrossing, COR-TEN self-weathering steel is proposed. The self-weathering option will provide a more natural look, consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines and will also reduce the need for any temporary bridge closures in the future to periodically repaint the structure. Self-weathering steel also reduces long-term maintenance costs. Board members also commented on the material of the required guard rail fencing across the bridge and recommended a welded wire mesh instead of vinyl clad chain link fencing. Board 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 10 members noted that the chain link is less desirable because of both the look of the material and potential fit and maintenance issues. Public Works Engineering is proposing a vinyl-clad chain- link due to cost. However, the welded wire mesh will be bid as an alternative addition so that if funding allows, the welded wire mesh would be selected. Staff would prefer to see the welded wire mesh, consistent with the initial ARB comments. However, the Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines recommended vinyl-clad chain link for security fencing. The Guidelines recommend black vinyl-coated chain-link fencing because it is generally less visibly intrusive when viewed against the landscape; however, because this fencing would be viewed against the sky, black vinyl coating would not necessarily be preferred. Public Works Engineering is proposing a sand colored finish to match the color of the self-weathering steel trusses. Staff feels that the findings for approval can be made regardless of whether the material used is vinyl clad chain link fencing or welded wire mesh. Bridge Truss Design Multiple board members noted that bow string truss and the adjacent Pratt truss connections along the principal span of the bridge did not seem fluid and suggested that this be further refined to be more cohesive. Consistent with board member comments, this bridge design has been further refined to provide a more cohesive connection between these truss connections, as shown on Sheets 4.1 and 4.4 of the project plans. One member of the board also asked the applicant to explore a reduction in the height of the main span of the structure. The proposed height of the bridge has been reduced slightly by approximately 6 to 9 inches; however, minimal reduction could be achieved given clearance requirements above and below the bridge as well as for structural reasons, including load resistance and deflection control of the structure. Trailhead Refinements Board members expressed support for the traffic circle that would connect the East Approach Structure to the Bay Trail along East Bayshore Road. Further refinements to this trailhead and adjacent vegetation are shown on Sheets 9.11 and 6.1 of the project plans. Colored concrete will be used to serve as a visual cue for bicyclists and pedestrian and directional pavement marking would be included. Wayfinding signage will also be placed at this trailhead to help guide users exiting and entering the bridge to nearby destinations. Details on the pavement markings and wayfinding signage are still being coordinated with the City’s Transportation Division and Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC). However, examples of anticipated signage are included on Sheet 9.14 of the project plans. At least one board member also asked whether this trailhead, which connects to the Bay Trail immediately parallel to East Bayshore Road, could also connect directly out to the bike lane on East Bayshore Road. This option was explored; however, in coordination with the City’s Transportation Division, it was determined that because the bike lane along East Bayshore Road would end, the current design that connects bicyclists to East Bayshore Road approximately 500 yards north of the bridge would be the safer and therefore preferred design. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Board members did not provide specific comments related to the trailheads at West Bayshore Road and at East Meadow Drive. However, refinements to these trailheads primarily included minimizing amenities, consistent with comments on the West Bayshore Road trailhead, and improvements to the lighting, as discussed further below. One commissioner also noted concerns in the formal hearing about the design of the crosswalk at East Meadow Drive and asked that the raised crosswalk be offset from the trail, rather than aligned with the trail. This would further slow bicyclists exiting the trail and make them more aware of the path’s intersection with the street. Although the suggested change could be physically achieved, this change warrants further analysis in coordination with the Transportation Division to ensure that the junction is designed appropriately in consideration of a pending Council approved project on Fabian Way where access to the path must be considered from various approaches. Public Works Engineering is continuing to work with the Transportation Division to ensure that this comment is addressed, which may result in minor changes to the proposed implementation of traffic control devices in this area prior to Council approval. In general, the City follows MUTCD guidelines as to including the correct advisory signage on shared-use paths (approaching roadways). Bollards will also be placed at the trailhead to slow bicyclists and to stop vehicles from entering the site. These bollards would be designed to be removable so that SCVWD trucks/equipment can enter the site, if needed. All refinements to this trailhead are being designed with input from PABAC and the City’s Transportation Division. Amenities and Overlook Although members of the public expressed mixed feelings about the inclusion of the overlook, based on direction from Council and input from the ARB, the overlook will remain part of the proposed design. This rest area provides a place to pause for users without affecting the flow of pedestrian and bicycle traffic on the bridge and ensures that the bridge sufficiently addresses the needs of all potential users (e.g. the elderly and less physical walkers). Benches at the overlook would be part of the public art design included in the proposed project and the unique bench design now includes back rests, consistent with comments from multiple members of the ARB. In addition, members of the ARB indicated that amenities should be minimized and located more effectively for ease of maintenance. To address this comment, amenities have been minimized so as not to clutter the area and would be provided at trailheads along West Bayshore and East Bayshore Road where they would be easily accessible for maintenance (e.g trash/recycling pickup). Based on a comment from a member of the public, a small dog hydration station will be provided in addition to a regular water fountain. During the PRC hearing for the requested Park Improvement Ordinance, at least one commissioner asked PWE to consider adding another bench on the West Bayshore plaza area so that benches are provided on both sides of the bridge. However, SCVWD asked that much of the amenities on their property be removed due to maintenance concerns. Any additional amenities would have to be located on the trail and not the trailhead itself. Although there are few opportunities for a bench along the trail, PWE will continue to discuss that option with SCVWD as part of the joint use agreement for use of SCVWD’s property. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Lighting The board generally liked the rail and handrail lighting concepts. However, at least one board member asked that pole lights be refined to evoke a more integrated feel with the structure, noting the design of the lights on the Golden Gate Bridge as an example. The pole lights have been revised to be more in line with the vocabulary of the overpass design and better direct light down. West Approach Wall Finish The ARB requested that alternative form-liners, combinations of form-liners, wood or other reliefs be explored for the west approach wall finish. The City’s PWE Division explored alternative form liners and the integration of images (e.g. grasses) based on these comments. However, PWE found that wood surfaces or other images provide flat surfaces for graffiti, making the bridge harder to maintain, and also found the more detailed form liners to be cost prohibitive based on Council’s approved budget for the project. The selected form liner matches the rest of the structure banding and is designed to discourage graffiti. Landscaping Board members asked that the boundaries of the proposed landscaping be better defined in the plans. Sheet 6.1 through 6.11 in the project plans in Attachment F show the proposed planting area, show details regarding the vegetation that will be removed, and provide specific details regarding the type of ground cover and trees proposed in each are of the project site that will be restored. Consistent with input from the City’s Urban Forestry Division and comments from the public, willows, cottonwoods, and pacific wax myrtles will primarily be used within the Baylands as well as areas on the west side of Highway 101 immediately adjacent Adobe Creek. These species are native, compatible with riparian areas, provide quality habitat for avian species, and are consistent with the Baylands theme. Based on public comment, sycamores were incorporated into various locations along the west side of Highway 101. All planting would be located outside of the delineated top-of-bank of Adobe and Barron Creeks; work within the creek bed would require further permitting. Style and Signage Types Based on input from board members as well as the PTC, wayfinding signage, trail etiquette/directional signage, and educational signage is proposed as part of the project. Wayfinding signage will be placed at trailheads and would provide distances and show the direction to key destination points. An example of the anticipated signage is included on Sheet 9.14. As discussed above, the signage is still being refined in coordination with the City’s Transportation Division and PABAC. Signage is required to meet MUTCD standards as well as be consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines. Signage is also being coordinated so that it corresponds with signage for other bicycle/pedestrian projects within the vicinity (e.g. the bicycle boulevard project with which the project connects). One member of the planning commission asked that wayfinding signage be designed to also show direction/distance to nearby company campuses to further encourage commuting by bicycle. Staff is still exploring this recommendation along with other appropriate destinations in City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 coordination with adjacent cities. Final signage will be determined in coordination with the Transportation Division as well as other cities, as appropriate. Additional Miscellaneous Comments One member of the public asked staff to further explore whether the project can incorporate features that would promote swallow nesting under the new bridge. The project will not discourage swallow nesting that can occur naturally but in coordination with the project biologist PWE will explore the placement of grooves in the concrete for swallows to catch onto. Swallow nest boxes are not proposed due to maintenance concerns. The project would include the closure of the existing seasonal Highway 101 underpass, which was commemorated as the Benjamin Lefkowitz underpass. One board member asked Public works engineering to explore options for incorporating a commemoration to Benjamin Lefkowitz into the project. Although the underpass will be closed, the commemorative plaque would remain. If needed, it will be relocated to a more visible location. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, particularly goals, policies, and programs outlined in the Transportation Element, the Community Services Element, the Land Use and Design Element, and the Natural Environment Element, as outlined in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Overall, the Comprehensive Plan programs, goals, and policies support land use decisions and facilities that: promote pedestrian and bicycle use, support reductions in single-occupancy vehicle use, improve the Bay trail network, and that include responsible management of public open space areas to meet habitat protection goals and support public safety. The proposed project is consistent with these goals. Baylands Master Plan A portion of the proposed overcrossing is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve at the border of one of two areas identified as “The Natural Unit.” The project would be consistent with Natural Unit Policy 1, “Maintain the trails described in the access and circulation section.” The Baylands Master Plan also notes that the original vision for a natural environment was ample pedestrian and bicycle trails that link to regional trails with a limited role for automobiles. The project would be consistent with this vision. In addition, the project is consistent with the following specific policies outlined in the Baylands Master Plan: Policy 3: Expand Bicycle and pedestrian activities while reducing vehicle traffic in the Baylands as far as possible. Policy 13: Follow Guidelines established in the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature preserve published in 2005. 2 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 14 Policy 14: Comply with Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The project expands opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians to enjoy the Baylands, providing opportunities to safely access this area without the need to drive and park. Consistent with the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, the rustic design selected for the bridge is intended to integrate into the Baylands design theme, which focuses on low-profile features, natural colors, and low maintenance. The principal span trusses will be constructed using self-weathering steel, which results in a muted, natural coloring that is consistent with the general design principals. The bridge is designed to have as low of a profile as feasible while still meeting separation requirements between the City roads and Highway 101 below. The project is not within the Airport Influence Area, as identified in the Airport Land Use Plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project addresses two key Capital Improvement Projects identified in Table 7-1 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan3 to improve across barrier connections and trails. As outlined in Attachment B, the project is also consistent with specific objectives identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan to reduce emissions and upgrade bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. The project improves multi-modal transportation in all directions and serves a variety of users choosing forms of transportation other than single-occupancy vehicles for commuting, utilitarian, and recreational purposes. The proposed width of the Highway 101 overcrossing was designed in coordination with Council to provide sufficient maneuvering space for pedestrians and bicyclists while also attempting to slow bicyclists so as not to speed. Both wayfinding signage and signage identifying desired user behavior will be added for improved usability and to ensure user safety. Specifically, based on previous input from the PTC, signage will be added to: direct bicyclists to slow at intersection points, direct bikers going southbound on West Bayshore Road on how to access the bridge, and provide destinations and distance, especially at trail connection points in the Baylands. Because the proposed project would reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips by providing a multi- use connection between commercial and residential areas and regional trail networks for commuting and recreational purposes, no traffic study is required. In addition, because the project does not add new floor area or generate new vehicle trips, no new public parking is required or proposed as part of the project. Minimal short term traffic impacts associated with construction are assessed in the environmental analysis and were determined to be less than significant without the need for mitigation. Per the Transportation Division’s request, the driveway and parking stalls at the existing Google Parking lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road would be reconfigured to improve circulation, avoid conflicts with the east approach ramp overcrossing column supports, and to accommodate the raised sidewalk and accessible landing of the ramp. There would be no net loss or increase of private parking stalls. 3 Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 The project also improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians by providing an alternate connection between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive via the new Adobe Creek Reach Trail. A new at grade crossing is proposed on East Meadow Drive for the safety of those entering and exiting the trail. The project includes a trailhead along West Bayshore Road that provides connections to both the new Adobe Creek Bridge and over Highway 101 and the bicycle path along West Bayshore Road. Because the project eliminates the need for the existing sidewalk along West Bayshore Road over Adobe Creek, a dedicated southbound bike lane for West Bayshore Road is included as part of the project. Consistency with Application Findings A portion of the project is located within an area identified as Open Space and is therefore subject to Site and Design review, which requires both the PTC’s review of the project’s consistency with the Site and Design objectives and the ARB’s review of the project’s consistency with the Architectural Review findings. The PTC reviewed and recommended approval of the project based on the Site and Design findings included in Attachment B. A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with the Architectural Review findings is included in Section 4 of Attachment B. The project is part of a Capital Improvement Project identified as a priority project in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan to improve across barrier connections and trail connections in the City. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Natural Element, Transportation Element, Land Use Element, and Community Services Element as well as the Baylands Master Plan, as outlined in Attachment B, because it focuses on reducing single- occupancy vehicle trips and associated emissions, and providing improved connections between open space/recreational areas and nearby residential and commercial uses. 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, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on September 1, 2017 and is available for public review. A link to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included in Attachment D. The ARB must consider the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in making a recommendation on the project and may comment on the draft. Following ARB’s recommendation on the project, a Final Draft MND and MMRP would be prepared for the City Council. Mitigation has been included, in particular, to reduce direct and indirect impacts on animal species within the Baylands and to address the discovery of any unanticipated cultural or tribal resources that could be found during excavation or grading activities. With the incorporation of mitigation, all impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on October 6, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 5, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Public comments received during the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission March 28, 2017 study session included the desire to complete a functional, cost-effective bridge as soon as possible, consideration to enhance the site vegetation within the Baylands, and requests for the public art component of the project to be bird friendly, to not have an overlook because it may not be used, and a request for a dog drinking fountain. Some public comments sent to commissioners prior to the meeting would like to see the Pope/Chaucer and Newell Road Bridge projects built first. Additional oral and written comments were provided at the ARB hearing held on May 4, 2017. Oral comments expressed an interest again in a dog drinking fountain, an interest in exploring bird friendly features (e.g. soffit areas) for swallows to nest, and noted that LED lights should not be used if feasible because they are not bird friendly. In addition, one commenter noted that this bridge will be an important connection to the regional bay trails to provide a better route for those biking to work in neighboring cities. Many commenters noted that this project should be finished as soon as possible. During the PTC hearing, comments included requests to open the SCVWD access road to the public as soon as possible, requests to improve and provide as much vegetation as feasible around the west approach ramp and Adobe Creek Bridge, a request to reconsider the overlook, and a request to look into improving the sidewalk and bicycle connection between the new bridge and Amarillo Avenue to the north. One commenter also asked that additional thought and budget be put toward restoration to ensure that it is successful. Written comments received throughout the process are included in Attachment C. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17 Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Record of Land Use Action (PDF)  Attachment C: Public Comments (PDF)  Attachment D: Environmental Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment E: Project Description (DOC)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 01 09-001 127-09-002 127-09-003 127-09-004 127-09-005 127-09-006 127-09-007 127-10-106 127-11-065 127-09-008 127-09-009 127-09-010 127-09-011 127-09-012 127-10-050 127-09-013 127-10-049 127-09-014 127-10-107 127-09-015 127-09-016 127-09-017 127-09-018 127-09-019 127-09-020 127-09-021 127-10-084 127-09-022 127-09-023 127-36-026 127-36-029 127-10-099 127-36-032 127-10-098 127-36-031 127-68-077 127-68-076 127-68-075 127-68-078 127-68-058 127-68-057 127-68-079 127-68-080 127-68-059 127-70-046 127-68-056 127-68-074 127-68-073127-68-072 127-68-071 127-70-047 127-70-072 127-68-060 127-70-026 127-68-055 127-70-073 127-70-074 127-70-075 127-68-061 127-70-048 127-70-027 127-68-054 127-70-076 127-70-039 127-70-040 127-68-062 127-70-041127-70-042 127-70-043 127-70-049 127-70-044 127-68-053 127-70-045 127-10-094 127-70-028 127-68-005 127-68-063 127-68-052 127-68-070 127-70-050 127-68-004 127-68-066 127-70-029 127-68-003 127-68-069127-68-068127-68-067 127-68-064 127-70-071 127-68-051 127-70-070 127-70-030 127-70-069 127-68-065 127-70-051 127-70-068 127-68-050 127-70-067 127-70-031 127-70-052 127-70-032 127-70-038 127-70-034 127-70-035 127-70-036 127-70-033 127-70-037 127-68-006 127-70-024 127-68-007 127-68-008 127-68-036 127-68-049 127-70-025 127-68-035 127-10-076 127-68-026 127-70-023 127-68-037 127-68-048 127-70-022 127-68-034 127-68-027 127-70-053 127-68-038 127-68-047 127-70-021 127-68-033 127-70-016 127-70-066 127-68-028 127-70-015 127-70-054 127-70-002 127-68-039 127-68-046 127-70-018 127-68-032 127-68-029 127-70-003 127-70-065 127-70-014 127-70-017 127-70-055 127-68-045 127-68-011 127-70-013 127-68-010 127-70-004 127-70-020 127-68-009 127-68-040 127-68-031 127-68-044 127-70-056 127-70-064 127-68-030 127-70-019 127-70-005 127-70-012 127-68-043 127-70-063 127-70-057 127-10-103 127-68-042 127-70-062 127-70-006 127-70-011 127-70-058 127-70-061 127-70-009 127-70-059 127-70-010 127-12-023 127-70-060 127-70-007 127-70-008 127-68-015 127-68-021 127-68-016 127-68-022 127-68-020 127-68-024 127-68-014 127-68-023 127-68-017 127-68-018 127-68-019 127-68-012 127-68-013 000-00-000 127-12-017 127-12-018 127-12-019 127-12-020 127-12-021 127-12-022 127-12-025 127-12-026 127-12-027 127-68-002127-68-041 127-10-035 127-10-060 127-12-083 127-56-007 127-56-006 127-10-100 116-01-049 127-56-008 127-56-004 127-56-005 116-01-041 127-56-003 116-01-048 116-01-046 116-01-050 116-01-045 116-01-024 116-01-023 127-56-002 116-01-052 116-01-051 116-01-033 116-01-014 116-01-013 147-01-097 private MFG Space Systems Loral CAFETERIA CPA Utilities Engineering OFFICES OFFICES Eichler Swim & Tennis Club OFFICES OFFICE BATTERY LAB OFFICE 22.7' 69.5' 31.4' 36.1' 89.1' 88.0' 109.8' 65.0' 110.0' 50.2' 14.8' 104.1' 67.0' 109.8' 67.3' 76.8' 88.0'75.0' 104.1' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 68.0' 110.0' 110.0'89.1' 101.4' 25.0' 38.4'60.0' 50' 115.0' 60.0' .0' 56.1' 9' 101.0' 37.3' 26.6' 81.9' 11.8' 86.9' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 53.0' 31.4' 69.5' 10.5' 73.1' 100.0' 90.9' 74.9'117.6' 129.6' 67 50.6'107.2' 503.3' 310.8' 80.0' 31.4' 51.8' 100.0' 71.8' 72.9' 115.4' 69.9' 115.2' 70.0' 115.2' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.4' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 77.7' 111.8' 77.7' 111.6' 77.7' 112.1' 77.7' 111.8' 77.7' 112.4' 77.7' 112.1' 65.0' 109.3' 65.0' 109.3' 65.0' 109.3' 65.0' 109.3' 111.8' 77.7' 112.1' 77.7' 111.8' 77.7' 112.4' 77.7' 112.1' 77.7' 111.6' 78.0' 63.0' 109.3' 63.0' 37.8' 13.0' 72.4' 78.1' 110.0' 115.2' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 61.5' 115.5' 61.5' 70.0' 115.2' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.3' 70.0' 115.3' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 70.0' 115.5' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 115.5' 55.0' 31.4' 95.4' 75.0' 115.4'.3' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 69.7' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 115.4' 70.0' 115.4' 70.0' 75.0' 45.4' 54.4' 27.4' 49.9' 115.4' 97.0' 73.3' 97.0' 73.3' 78.0' 86.9' 74.2' 4.7' 97.0' 82.0' 97.0' 62.6' 104.8'77.8' 104.8' 42.5' 18.1' 125.6' 105.4' 126.3' 59.8' 31.4'25.0'18.2' 63.0' 146.3' 66.3' 125.6' 100.8' 70.0' 100.0'11.6' 50.0' 100.0' 70.0'70.0' 100.0' 70.0'70.0' 104.0' 69.2' 100.0' 63.0' 65.0' 104.4'34.4' 30.7' 104.8' 34.4' 47.0' 100.8' 52.4' 104.4' 106.7'76.0' 102.0'54.0' 76.0' 104.0' 54.0' 102.0' 124.2'65.5' 116.8' 65.0' 20.7' 45.5' 124.2' 65.0' 113.8' 109.2' 65.0' 113.8' 68.7' 20.7'96.4'18.5' 46.0'106.6'22.4' 37.6' 106.6' 52.0' 111.1'14.2' 62.4' 111.2'60.0' 111.4' 60.0' 111.1'60.0' 111.2' 60.0' 111.4'31.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 20.5' 157.9' 120.0' 80.0' 140.0' 242.4' 34.8' 36.0' 96.7'60.0' 134.3' 64.6' 134.3' 60.0' 157.9' 64.2' 1.3' 150.8' 60.0' 176.7' 63.0' 131.6' 60.0' 150.8' 31.5' 131.6'31.5' 50.4' 116.8' 81.8' 100.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 102.0' 69.5' 100.0'24.4' 36.2' 70.0'65.0' 100.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 104.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.1' 107.4'20.5' 49.4' 104.0' 61.9' 100.0' 65.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 101.1' 80.0' 100.0'4.2' 59.7' 114.1' 75.0' 101.1' 60.5' 238.1' 125.9' 347.6' 164.5' 509.6' 147.2' 174.8' 660.1' 1204.1' 175.0' 156.2'30.4' 1138.1' 175.0' 1165.7' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 90.0' 101.6' 19.3'16.8' 24.3' 112.8' 135.1' 165.3' 44.7' 101.6' 161.0'95.7' 38.4'165.3'28.5' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 73.3'72.1' 31.4' 39.7' 44.0' 100.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5'70.0' 100.0' 125.0' 131.2' 4.1'37.0' 95.7' 105.0' 20.0' 105.4' 38.7' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 49.9' 17.1' 153.2' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 145.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 70.0' 80.0' 31.4' 50.0' 100.0' 126.7'135.0' 53.2'153.7' 100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 71.0' 256.2' 195.7' 170.9' 48.0' 177.4' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0'100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 25.0' 50.3' 62.4' 100.0' 42.0'39.3' 115.2' 81.6' 96.4' 60.0' 104.5' 63.5' 109.2' 67.2' 117.8' 44.9' 104.5' 87.5' 101.8' 52.9'117.8' 1.3' 77.4' 101.4' 69.3' 100.0' 52.6' 100.0' 69.0'50.2' 25.0' 39.3' 40.1' 27.0' 76.5' 115.2' 53.3' 138.3' 105.7' 77.4' 128.4' 54.7' 17.0' 80.0' 75.0'105.7' 45.0' 31.4' 98.1' 109.1'63.7' 103.7' 238.6' 602.2' 171.7' 26.0'470.1' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 100.0' 61.3'100.0' 61.3' 67.5' 80.0' 31.4' 47.5' 100.0' 67.5' 100.0' 47.5' 31.4' 80.0' 100.0' 78.0'100.0' 78.0'107.4' 57.9' 10.1' 100.0' 113.0' 44.4'100.3' 119.5' 56.0' 107.4' 2.6'10.1' 41.0' 119.8' 117.9' 173.6' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 69.4' 2.9' 14.5' 65.3' 32.6' 24.1' 31.0' 100.0' 48.7' 134.4' 109.0' 20.6' 135.8' 41.5' 135.8' 175.8' 138.8' 167.3' 81.1' 45.0' 138.8' 74.7' 105.9' 39.0' 25.9' 80.6' 14.5' 81.1' 116.0' 31.7' 148.7' 45.3' 74.0' 114.1'58.0' 105.9' 89.0' 116.4'58.0' 145.8' 65.0' 173.6' 74.0' 209.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'100.0' 65.0' 80.0' 31.4'45.0' 65.0' 108.3' 65.5' 100.0' 65.0' 101.9' 37.9' 27.2' 100.0' 80.0' 104.4'60.5' 101.9' 35.0' 56.9' 111.3'60.5' 104.4' 65.0' 100.0' 45.0' 31.4' 80.0' 7.4' 71.7' 111.3' 49.5' 108.3' 73.0' 114.0'54.4' 111.3' 116.4' 82.5' 102.0' 55.0' 103.5' 74.5' 107.4' 48.0' 73.0' 103.5'59.4' 114.0' 111.3'56.9' 20.0' 114.1'60.5' 114.1' 140.6' 100.0' 85.7' 80.0' 31.4' 21.9' 26.8' 101.8' 75.0' 118.9' 12.0' 104.8' 124.5' 100.0' 60.4' 59.1' 21.9'31.4' 50.0' 76.0' 106.7'57.4' 97.1' 22.2' 58.0' 97.1'58.5' 100.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 108.3' 80.0' 108.3'108.3' 80.0' 108.3' 80.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 108.3' 80.0' 108.3' 94.0' 108.3' 80.0' 106.0' 80.0' 106.0' 75.7' 106.0' 115.4' 72.9' 95.5' 31.4' 52.9' 100.0' 71.0'100.0' 71.0' 100.0' 51.5' 31.4' 80.0' 71.5' 145.0' 318.8' 148.5' 287.0' 121.9' 67.9' 125.3' 60.0' 121.9' 60.2'122.9' 60.0' 125.3' 60.1'119.6' 65.0' 122.9' 20.2'39.7' 135.0' 150.0'143.5'148.5' 27.7' 331.7' 31.4' 115.2' 70.0' 115.2' 70.0' 36.2' 110.6' 59.6' 32' 70.0' 100.0' 36.1' 0.6' 133.8' 2 0' 70.0' 11.4' 99.8' 65.0'00.0' 35.9' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 39.1' 38.4' 50.0'2.1'31.4' 56.7' 100.0' 113.3' 98.7' 122.4' 40.0' 54.4' 30.0' 59.4'3.8'31.4' 64.4' 99.3' 92.3'117.5' 36.0'100.2' 50.7' 19.7'100.2'2.3' 79.0' 59.6'1.3'100.0' 46.3' 100.0' 51.9' 21.9'14.5'47.3'31.4' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 117.5' 51.3' 26.8' 94.0' 66.3' 91.6' 46.4'8.8' 99.8' 99.0' 32.2' 80.6' 99.7'21.9' 73.1' 46.4' 46.3' 31.4'47.3'14.5' 21.9' 51.9' 100.0' 88.0' 100.0' 46.3' 31.4'3.8'80.3' 139.5' 100.0'119.6' 50.2' 150.1' 139.5' 72.8' 24.2'18.1'23.2' 120.7' 110.0' 150.1' 54.3' 99.7' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 50.0' 101.5' 70.0' 81.5' 31.4' 70.0' 112.8' 50.0' 31.4' 92.8' 63.0' 112.8' 63.0' 112.8' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 70.0' 101.5' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 42.0' 165.5' 97.0' 147.1' 109.3' 147.1' 54.3' 165.5' 21.7' 165.5' 101.5' 145.0' 120.7' 145.0' 40.9' 165.5' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'60.0' 145.0' 60.0' 145.0'63.5' 145.0' 63.5' 145.0' 37.6' 135.5' 283.4' 31.3'231.1' 285.0' 32.3' 218.7' 63.2' 50.3' 285.0' 94.1' 106.8' 116.1' 295.5' 212.0' 295.5' 212.6' 311.6' 61.4' 112.9' 532.5' 15.0' 358.7' 76.1' 215.0' 183.4' 228.3' 376.8' 31.5' 207.9' 384.3' 206.1' 250.2' 167.8' 76.1'137.5 159.5' 90.0' 50.0' 116.4' 219.9' 206.1' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0' 90.0' 193.0' 82.6' 144.7' 14.1' 256.2' 159.9' 48.9' 115.2' 230.0' 215.1' 241.2' 189.5' 230.0' 189.5' 230.0' 96.0' 67.4' 244.9' 212.4' 230.0' 337.3' 165.1' 244.9' 77.2'95.8' 96.9' 106.8' 220.1' 183.3' 28.4'158.0' 332.3' 156.9' 264.0' 199.9' 259.2' 10.8' 113.1' 91.0' 35.7' 131.0' 32.8' 131.0' 100.0' 120.0' 38.0' 63.3' 120.0' 100.0' 122.6' 75.0' 122.6' 50.0' 120.0' 75.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 68.5' 120.7' 10.0'49.9' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.2'8.8' 61.2' 100.2' 85.0'115.5' 48.7' 100.5' 60.0' 100.0' 46.5'13.5' 115.5' 9.7' 90.0'100.5' 54.9' 100.0' 17.1' 86.3' 7.0' 100.0' 14.5' 24.7' 100.0' 63.0' 100.0' 63.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 68.0' 100.0' 68.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 111.5' 123.3' 39.3' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 104.9' 123.8' 10.4'22.1' 100.0' 19.2' 89.9' 113.3' 30.0' 223.7' 115.6' 94.2' 26.9' 225.8' 214.6' 201.1' 215.4' 36.0' 181.3' 194.0'201.1' 236.0' 156.1' 31.1' 54.7' 166.7' 106.8' 96.9' 291.6' 240.3' 46.7' 220.8' 389.7' 14.0' 181.5' 478.6' 130.4' 384.3' 74.9' 162.5' 242.0' 215.0' 76.1' 58.2' 46.5' 211.5' 179.0' 242.0' 20.8' 197.2' 385.2' 218.7' 82.6' 216.0' 293.4'279.3' 304.5' 154.8' 182.0' 203.3' 34.5' 241.3' 311.6' 72.0' 239.9' 174.8' 146.1' 293.4' 145.7' 304.5' 408.0' 127.9' 385.2' 286.9' 389.7' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 108.6' 60.0' 108.7' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 108.9' 60.0' 112.1' 33.4' 26.8' 78.1' 59.7' 7' 63.8' 32.2' 73.1'8' 113.7' 73.8' 113.7' 9.8' 135.6' 77.7'45.3' 115.4' 20.0' 115.4' 25.6'38.8' 73.2' 102.0' 80.0' 102.0'82.0' 80.6' 104.0' 80.6' 84.9' 27.5' 45.0' 27.4'57.8' 72.4' 79.9' 104.0' 100.0' 96.0'100.0' 79.9' 55.0' 42.5' 14.5' 38.8' 33.9' 52.8' 104.5' 65.0' 104.5' 00.0' 30.0' 140.1' 44.2' 120.0' 131.0' 120.0' 90.5' 38.4' 140.1' 72.8' 100.0' 21.7' 10.1' 35.3' 90.5' 72.8' 107.8' 100.8' 77.9' 100.0' 65.0' 94.2' 55.4' 9.5'20.9' 100.0' 72.1' 100.0' 60.0' 60.2' 100.0' 72.8' 100.8' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 29.2' 57.8' 65.5' 77.2' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 60.0' 140.0' 40.4' 9.5' 11.4' 133.4' 107.5' 133.4' 50.4' 147.7' 50.0' 147.7' 32.7' 101.9' 156.3' 100.8' 60.0' 100.8' 60.0' 100.8' 96.3'100.8' 96.3' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 130.2' 27.7' 9.5'24.4' 140.0' 39.7' 130.2' 75.4' 36.2' 122.4'122.4' 131.4' 110.0'9.5' 67.4' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 77.0' 100.0'22.0' 34.5'105.4' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 90.8' 105.4' 50.8' 136.3' 19.5' 73.7' 100.0' 41.8' 107.9' 103.2' 136.3'58.4' 103.3' 74.0' 19.5'107.9'42.2' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 80.0' 103.3' 26.9' 37.3' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0'65.0' 100.0' 70.0' 102.4'80.6' 96.0' 100.0' 64.0' 100.0' 65.0' 40.0' 65.0' 25.0'81.1' 39.4' 77.7' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0'70.0' 100.0' 6601' 175.0' 246.8' 134.0' 120.5' 156.1' 255.5' 237.9' 196.7'214.6' 56.6' 75.8' 134.0' 214.6' 215.0'214.6' 215.0' 95.0' 98.4' 70.1' 32.5' 16.8' 173.7' 162.1' 149.2' 47.1' 90.6' 98.9'158.9' 150.3' 158.9' 234.8' 173.7' 93.6' 221.0' 63.6' 47.1' 191.0' 93.6' 221.0' 93.6' 221.0' 119.5' 130.0' 214.4'187.3' 125.3' 32.5' 82.6' 37.0' 199.7' 119.5' 50.0' 214.6' 219.8' 214.6' 55.8' 98.4' 95.0' 200.8' 136.5'136.5' 136.5'136.5' 71.9' 61.8' 131.2'66.3' 58.0' 74.6' 73.8' 136.5' 32.2' 100.0' 125.1' 136.5' 60.9' 66.0' 99.3' 81.1' 45.0' 2.0'96.8' 50.1' 37.4'1.9'47.7' 96.8' 109.2'109.2' 100.0' 65.0' 70.0' 102.4' 25.0' 127.0' 299.5' 360.0' 374.2' 299.5'221.5' 274.8'274.8'219.6' 196.6' 197.8'252.5'252.5' 223.2'223.2' 284.5' 266.2' 335.5' 54.3' 478.6' 118.9' 112.6' 18.0' 180.6' 54.3' 735.7' 156.9' 28.7' 123.4' 21.1' 20.6' 57.2' 264.2'264.2' 139.8' 30.2' 196.8'196.8' 67.1' 124.3' 180.6' 112.6' 18.0'118.9' 170.0' 809.4' 228.6'228.6' 616.4' 109.9' 581.0' 115.1' 58.0' 34.8' 464.2' 104.6' 312.1' 109.9' 280.0' 1133.1' 205.6' 62.0' 91.2' 401.7' 30.3' 663.2' 209.9' 391.5' 454.0' 170.0' 265.4' 170.0'440.0' 387.0' 564.0' 439.7' 490.5' 238.1' 338.7' 419.2' 200.0' 400.0' ' DRIVE ASPEN WAY LUPINE AVENUE FABIAN WAY LOUIS ROAD EVERGREEN DRIVE LOUIS ROAD FABIAN WAY NATHAN WAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY BA Y S H ORE FREE W AY EAST MEADOW CIRCLE EAST BAYSHORE ROAD FABIAN WAY CORPORATION WAY EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY FABIAN WAY SAN ANTONIO ROAD KENNETH DRIVE THOMAS DRIVE GREER ROAD KENNETH DRIVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY WEST BAYSHORE ROAD KENNETH DRIVE BAYSHORE FREEWAYWEST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY ELWELL COURT E NNETH DRIVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY EAST MEADOW DRIVE ORTEGA CO EAST MEADOW DRIVE EAST MEADOW CIRCLE UTUS AVENUE EAST BAYSHORE ROADWEST BAYSHORE ROAD EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY BAYSHORE FREEWAY DRIFTWOO D D R I V E D G R E E R R O A D EAST MEADOW DRIVE QUAIL DR QUAIL DR PALOMA DR HERON WY EGRET LNPLOVER LN SANDPIPER LN MALLARD LN CURLEW LN FEATHER LN KLAMATH LN PALOMA DR TRINITY LN STANISLAUS LN TUO LUMNE LN Almanor Lane Barron Creek Creek3623 GM PF R-1 ROLM (D)(AD) (8000) ROLM PF PF(D) ROLM This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Highlighted Features Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'467' Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing 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 chodgki, 2017-04-14 10:17:19 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment B APPROVAL NO. 2017-__ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE OVERCROSSING AND ADOBE CREEK REACH TRAIL: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW [FILE NO. 17PLN-00212] On ________, 2017, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approved the Site and Design Review for the Adobe Creek Multi-Use Path Bridge making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 12, 2017 The City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division applied for Site and Design Review for the development of the Adobe Creek Multi-Use Path Bridge. B. The project site crosses six parcels, including: APN No. 008-05-005, which is owned by the City of Palo Alto; APN No. 127-10-076 which is owned by a private entity; APN Nos. 127-10-100, 127-56-006, and 127-56-007, which are owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Work on property owned by the private entity and the Santa Clara Valley Water District require access/encroachment permits, which will be obtained by the City following adoption of the environmental analysis and approval of the site and design. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on September 13, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. D. Following staff and Planning and Transportation Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on October 19, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. E. On ________, 2017, the City Council reviewed the project design and the MND and MMRP. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the Site and Design subject to the conditions set forth in Section 5 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan approved by the City Council on ________, 2017. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the proposed project(s) would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed. The MND is included in Attachment D of the staff report and the MMRP is included as Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action. All mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVE FINDINGS. The project is consistent with the Site and Design Objective Findings outlined in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. Nearby uses primarily include commercial and residential uses on the west side of highway 101 and bicycle and walking trails within the Baylands on the east side of Highway 101. The proposed project would provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection from commercial and residential areas to the regional trail network in the Baylands for recreational and commuting purposes. The proposed project includes two key capital improvement projects identified in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian transportation plan for improving trail connections. The proposed project would be consistent with all applicable clearance requirements for Highway 101, east and west Bayshore road below the bridge as well as California Public Utility Commission clearance requirements for utility lines above the bridge. It improves the vegetation on both the Google Property at 3600 West Bayshore Road as well as restores and improves vegetation within the Baylands. It provides a needed connection to reduce single occupancy vehicle use. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, short term impacts during construction would be less than significant. Operation of the project is intended to reduce traffic, reduce emissions, and would not generate any noise. The bridge is designed to have extremely minimal, if any, light spillover. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project is consistent with Objective B in that this capital improvement project improves access for employees and residents to open space/recreational areas. This infrastructure improvement project is an improvement to existing conditions in the area and therefore improves the desirability of investment, the conduct of business, research, and other educational activities in adjacent areas. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The proposed project is consistent with Objective C in that the project encourages pedestrian and bicycle activity, providing a better connection for commuters and recreational users to access the regional network of bay trails. The project is designed to avoid wetland areas, improve vegetation in the area, reduce overspill lighting, and contribute to a long-term reduction in single-occupancy vehicle uses (and associated traffic and emissions) by providing a year round pedestrian/bicycle connection to the Baylands. No protected trees would be removed. New vegetation would be designed to improve habitat for avian and riparian species. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Objective D because the project encourages reductions in single- occupancy vehicle use between residential/commercial areas and recreational/open space areas so that residents and employees can enjoy use of these areas without using their vehicle. Specific policies with which the project is consistent are outlined in Table 1 below. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101. The project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan because it enhances a gateway site near the entrance to the 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. City over Adobe Creek, consistent with Policy L-71 and Program L-72. It enhances vegetation in these areas, includes public art, consistent with policy L- 72, improves bicycle safety in this area, and provides trailhead improvements. The design connects residential and commercial areas to open space/recreational areas to improve across barrier connections. The plaza area along west Bayshore makes the area more inviting and provides a gathering space for the public, consistent with Policy L-48. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles. The project would encourage reduced reliance on single occupancy vehicle use by creating more accessible connections to recreational/open space areas for pedestrian and bicyclists, consistent with several goals and policies outlined in the City’s Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The project is designed to be low- maintenance so as to avoid the need for extensive infrastructure maintenance in the future but improves the City’s overall infrastructure by creating a year-round across barrier connection. The proposed project would include improvements to sidewalks, street trees, and public spaces and would also provide public art and pedestrian amenities. Site lighting would also be updated, which in turn would promote an improved pedestrian environment. The bridge is designed to accommodate a variety of users safely. Planned etiquette and wayfinding signage will also help to improve safety for users. The bridge would not affect future buildout of Highway 101 in this area, which is already built out to its full capacity. The project includes coordination with the Santa Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. 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-model transit stations. Policy T-17: Increase cooperation with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails utilizing creek, utility, and railroad rights-of-way. Program T-19: Encourages the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities linking trips to parks, schools, retail, centers, and civic facilities, which enables and encourages residents and visitors to bicycle or walk for discretionary trips. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and Policy T-20: Improve maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Clara Valley Water District to use existing access road to improve off-road bicycle/pedestrian pathways, consistent with Policy T-14. For these reasons the proposed project is consistent with the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Natural Environment Element Policy N-1: Manage existing public open space areas … in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs. The project is designed to avoid impacts to habitat within the Baylands through the location of the bridge, the lighting, and proposed vegetation improvements. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Community Services Element Policy C-22: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community. The bridge is designed to accommodate a wide range of users choosing alternate transportation to single-occupancy vehicles. For example, the bridge is designed to safely accommodate bicyclists that may have a trailer; it provides a rest area so that users can pause to rest, fix their bicycle, etc. without impacting the flow along the bridge; and it provides access from various access points to accommodate a variety of users from East meadow drive and west Bayshore. It also provides a connection for commuters using the regional trail connections in the Baylands and coming into/out of Palo Alto. Therefore, as outlined in the table, the proposed use of the site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD FINDINGS. The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: As discussed above under Site and Design Objective D and detailed in Table 1 above, the proposed project is consistent with the Land Use, Transportation, Natural Environment, and Community Services Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it is designed and located to reduce dependence on single-occupancy vehicle trips by creating an across barrier connection between residential and commercial uses and nearby open space/recreational uses. It is also designed to better connect to the regional bicycle trail network for those that commute in and out of the City. Table 2 below outlines the project’s consistency with specific objectives in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Table 2: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Consistency Across Barrier Connections [ABC]-1 Adobe Creek Highway 101 Overcrossing and trails [TR]-2 Adobe Creek Reach Trail The proposed project addresses two key capital improvement projects outlined the Bicycle and pedestrian bridge plan. Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. A key strategy of Objective 2 is to remove and/or upgrade substandard bike lanes and trail crossing barriers to improve safety and convenience. The project would be consistent with this strategy and objective because it provides a bicycle/pedestrian connection to the Baylands for residents and commercial developments on the East side of Highway 101, discouraging the use of single- occupancy vehicle trips to cross over the highway in order to take year-round advantage of this area. Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. Key strategies of Objective 3 include prioritizing enhancements to the Bay to Ridge trail corridor and expanding trail networks along creeks through partnership projects with regional agencies including the SCVWD. The project would be consistent with these strategies and this objective because it improves the existing bike lanes along East and West Bayshore Road, better connecting them to trails and residential/commercial areas. To the extent that the project is a bicycle trail/walking path it would not be subject to the same zoning development standards or identified under a specific land use in the City’s zoning code in the same way that buildings or associated accessory structures are. However, the project is designed to fit in with the adjacent area and be consistent with the intent of the code (e.g. ensuring that the height is compatible with the area) and complying with all applicable requirements for work in open space areas. There is no applicable coordinated area plan for this area; however, the portion of the project east of Highway 101 is located within the area defined in the Baylands Master Plan. The project would be consistent with applicable policies identified in the Baylands Master Plan and the associated Baylands Design Guidelines, as described in the staff report. The project would not be subject to any other design guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning code, and applicable design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, 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: It enhances the existing conditions at the site by improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians along West Bayshore Road; creates a year-round connection from commercial/residential uses to the Baylands where an unreliable connection exists; and improves the connection for residences along East meadow drive to access West Bayshore Road and the Baylands area without the need to use their vehicle. There are no historical features at/immediately adjacent the site. The project preserves natural features on the site, including existing wetlands and protected trees while also improving landscaping/riparian habitat in the areas around the bridge. It enhances living conditions by providing better connections for residents in the area. The project is designed using materials such as self-weathering steel that are intended to provide a more natural feel to the bridge, consistent with the Baylands theme. The bridge is designed to be as low as possible while still meeting all applicable Caltrans and City of Palo Alto clearance requirements beneath the bridge. The bridge height is well below the typical height limit for buildings in the area. The bridge width is designed to be wide enough to accommodate various users traveling in both directions while also being narrow enough to slow bicyclists. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project uses high quality materials while still balancing the engineered design of the project to meet all clearance and safety requirements. Specifically, the project uses core-ten, self-weathering steel, consistent with the architectural review board’s recommendations. This material is intended to provide a natural feel to the bridge consistent with the character of the Baylands. The self-weathering steel also reduces long-term maintenance of the project, consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals. In addition, the project uses a vinyl clad chain link fencing with a sand colored finish, consistent with rustic look of the Cor-ten steel finish. This proposed fencing is consistent with the Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, which allows the use of vinyl clad chain link fencing for security purposes. If funding allows, this would be revised to an even higher quality galvanized wire mesh material for the fencing, which would also be consistent. All signage will be consistent with the Baylands Design Guidelines, which discourages the use of bright colors for signage. The vegetation is being developed in accordance with the City’s landscape architects and urban forestry division to fit into the Baylands theme and enhance the habitat within the project area. Therefore, the project is consistent with Finding 3. 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 project is a multi-use trail, which is specifically designed to improve connections for pedestrian and bicyclists and other users seeking alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. It has been identified as the highest priority across barrier connection capital improvement project in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Special consideration has been given to ensuring safety of all users by ensuring visibility around corners, providing etiquette and wayfinding signage, ensuring ADA accessibility, and ensuring that all aspects of the design are functional for a variety of users (such as the elderly, bicyclists, bicyclists with trailers, young kids, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The landscape is being design in accordance with the City’s Urban Forestry Division and landscape architects to fit into the Baylands theme and improve riparian and avian habitat in a sensitive area. All protected trees would remain and all trees removed would be replaced with appropriate species for the site that are indigenous and provide habitat. Based on an in-field meeting with stakeholders and a restoration specialist, mulching for vegetation restoration will be used in lieu of hydroseeding to reduce the potential for regrowth of predominant non-native weeds at the site. Additional planting, beyond the proposed mulching and the vegetation proposed in the project plans, would be included as funding allows in order to further enhance the restoration in coordination stakeholders and the restoration specialist. 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 project will use indigenous, low water-use, drought resistant plants that are consistent with the Baylands theme and improve the habitat within the project area. The project is a pedestrian and bicycle bridge that provides year round connections to the Baylands and regional network of bay trails to improve access to recreational areas without the use of single-occupancy vehicles as well as to provide better connections for commuters. Therefore, the purpose of the project is to reduce vehicle use in order to reduce emissions. The project is, therefore, consistent with Finding #6. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Highway 101 Multi-Use Overcrossing and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Site and Design Review Package” dated October 5, 2017 and stamped as received by the City on October 10, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. MMRP. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and included here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 6. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. Building Division The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application: 7. RAMP SLOPES. On the previously submitted civil sheet P-1 (dated 6-2-17), Profile of the proposed bridge span appears to show the slope of the bridge between West Approach Structure at 3.0% (over West Bayshore Rd), Principal Span Structure at 4.75% & -4.75% (over Hwy 101). For clarification, can these ramp/ walkway slopes also be shown on the Construction Detail civil sheets C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 (dated 6-2-17). An accessible walkway shall not be steeper than 1:20 (5%) and accessible ramps shall have a running slope not steeper than 1:12 (8.33%). If the running slopes are shown on the various sections of the bridge, then it can be determined if that section is to be considered a walkway or a ramp. (CBC 11B -403.3, 11B-405.2) 8. SIDEWALK GRADE. On civil sheet C-2 (dated 6-2-17), Construction Detail, show the slope of the Raised Sidewalk and clarify if it will be a walkway or ramp (see comment 1). Clarify if this raised sidewalk is a continuous grade and the maximum length. All walks with continuous gradients shall have resting areas 60 in in length at intervals of 400-ft maximum. The resting area shall be at least as wide as the walk. The slope of the resting area in all directions shall be 1:48 maximum. Accessible ramps shall have a maximum slope of 1:12 (8.33%) and shall provide landings for a maximum rise of 30-in. Bottom landings shall extend 72-in minimum in the direction of the ramp run with a 60-in minimum width. (CBC 11B-403.7, 11B-405.6. 11B- 405.7) 9. GUARDRAILS. On civil sheet C-2 (dated 6-2-17), Construction Detail, provide a profile or elevation view of the Raised sidewalk. Guards shall be located along open sided walking surfaces that are located 30” vertically to the grade below. Guards shall have a minimum height of 42”. Openings in the guards shall not allow a passage of 4” sphere from the walking surface to the required guard height. Provide details of the guardrails to show compliance. (CBC 1015.2) 10. EAST APPROACH SLOPE. On civil sheet C-3 (dated 6-2-17), Construction Detail, for the East Approach Structure show the maximum bridge running slope and cross slope (1:48 max) to determine if it fits the requirements of a walkway or ramp. It the running slope is between 1:20 & 1:12, then it will be considered a ramp. Ramps that change direction between runs shall have a clear landing 60 in minimum in the direction of the downward travel. Ramps that do not have level landings at changes in direction can create a compound slope that will not meet the requirements of CBC 11B-405.7. Curvilinear ramps with small radii also can create compound cross slopes and cannot, by their nature meet the requirements for accessible routes. (CBC 11B-405) 11. BAYTRAIL APPROACH SLOPE. On civil sheet C-3 (dated 6-2-17), Construction Detail, for the Baytrail Connection, show the running and cross slopes of the bridge. If the running slope is between 1:20 & 1:20 then it will be considered as an accessible ramp and will require a level landing at the bottom that extends 72-in minimum in the direction of the ramp run. (CBC 11B-405.7.3) 12. PRINCIPAL SPAN SLOPE. On civil sheet labeled “Adobe Creek POC Elevation No. 1” (dated 6/1/17), for clarification show the running bridge slope for the “Principal Span Developed Elevation” and the “West Approach Developed Elevation” to determine if these spans are to be considered as accessible walkways or ramps. (See comment 1) 13. TYPICAL SECTIONS. On civil sheet labeled “ Adobe Creek POC Typical Section” (dated 6-1-17), for Typical Section A-A, B-B & C-C, show a 2-in high minimum edge curb that prevents the passage of a 4-in diameter sphere. (CBC 11B-405.9.2) 14. GUARD OPENINGS. On civil sheet labeled “Adobe Creek POC Typical Section” (dated 6-1-17), Openings in the guards shall not allow a passage of 4” sphere from the walking surface to the required guard height. Provide details of the guardrails to show compliance. (CBC 1015.2) Watershed Protection Division The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 15. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. Note that the discharge of groundwater to both the storm drain and sanitary sewer systems is only allowed during the period of April 1-October 31. Refer to the code for updates before construction. 16. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER (PAMC 16.09.180[b][14]). On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 17. COPPER PIPING. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 18. STORM DRAIN LABELING. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.165(h) storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. This includes public and private drains. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 19. EXISTING UTILITIES. Building plans shall show the existing WGW utility on the proposed plan sets (utility sheet/s). 20. WATER FOUNTAIN CONNECTION. Identify the drinking water fountain's water meter and its connections on the plan. RECYCLING 21. RECEPTACLES. Waste receptacles must be colored coded - black for landfill (garbage/trash) and blue for recycling. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION 22. Update Landscape Plan Sheet 6.1 to match the corresponding sheets. TRANSPORTATION 23. To ensure that the final signage is consistent with City standards, continue to work with the transportation division and consult the division regarding the proposed signage. GREEN BUILDING 24. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. SECTION 6. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Site and Design approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment Exhibit A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 1 PROJECT NAME Highway 101 Overcrossing and Adobe Creek Tail Project APPLICATION NUMBER 17PLN-00212 APPROVED BY City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment DATE 09/01/2017 APPLICANT/OWNER City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Highway 101 Overcrossing and Adobe Creek Tail Project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code: ... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an MND. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1: Dust generated by various construction activities could adversely impact residences and/or other receptors located in the project vicinity. MM AQ-1.1: Implementation of MM AQ-1.1, described below, will ensure that any significant adverse effects associated with construction- generated dust are avoided. • Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day or covered. • Haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • 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. • Roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and name of an individual working for the construction contractor who can be contacted regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation regulations. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1: If project construction occurs during a flooding event that inundates the area Flood Control Basin, there is the potential for project activities to result in take of salt marsh harvest mice and impacts to salt marsh wandering shrews. MM BIO-1.1: The project contractors will implement the following measures to avoid potential take of salt marsh harvest mice and impacts to salt marsh wandering shrews: • Work Schedule: Work within the biological study area will occur between April 15 and October 15. If it is not possible to schedule project activities between April 15 and October 15 within the biological study area, then pre-construction surveys by a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)-approved biologist for salt marsh harvest mouse and wandering shrews will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that these species will not be disturbed during project implementation. These surveys will be conducted no more than one month prior to the initiation of project activities conducted prior to April 15 and after October 15. • Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Before any construction activities begin, a USFWS-approved biologist will conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include descriptions of the salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh wandering shrew, their habitats, the importance of the species, general measures that are being implemented to conserve these species as they relate to the project, and boundaries within which the project may be accomplished, and if Applicant/Contractor Prior to and During construction Planning and Community Environment Department; USFWS City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 4 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation found (living or dead) their observations must be immediately reported to the Resident Engineer and USFWS-approved biologist.. • Herbaceous Cover Removal. Prior to the start of project activities within the Flood Control Basin portion of the biological study area (including vehicle/equipment access), herbaceous vegetation will be removed from impact areas to eliminate cover for salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews, thereby discouraging them from occurring in impact areas. The grassland land cover within the project footprint on the northeast side of Highway 101 will be trimmed to within two inches of the ground level prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. Vegetation removal will start where the San Francisco Bay Trail crosses Adobe Creek, and will proceed gradually northwards towards the open marsh habitat in the Flood Control Basin. Vegetation will not be removed during a flooding event that inundates the Flood Control Basin, as these are the conditions in which salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews are most likely to be present in the biological study area. A USFWS-approved biologist familiar with the biology of these species will conduct a pre-construction survey prior to vegetation removal, and will monitor the vegetation removal process. Vegetation will be removed using hand-held equipment (e.g., weed-whackers). This will allow any small mammals, including salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews, to City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation escape the biological study area under the cover of vegetation, and will encourage movement of such small mammals towards available vegetated habitat to the north outside the biological study area. Herbaceous vegetation that could potentially conceal a salt marsh harvest mouse or salt marsh wandering shrew within the biological study area will be removed, including herbaceous understory vegetation on the north bank of Adobe Creek. Vegetation that is removed will be hauled offsite the day it is removed, and will not be left on the site to provide potential cover for small mammal species. It is possible that vegetation within the Flood Control Basin portion of the biological study area will be removed during the fall prior to construction to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds. In such a case, if sufficient herbaceous cover regrows prior to construction the following year, this herbaceous cover will again be removed by hand prior to initiation of construction activities. • Exclusion Barrier. Following vegetation trimming and prior to the start of construction activities on the northeast side of Highway 101, a fence will be installed at the outer limits of the work area, as shown in the Initial Study. The fence will be designed to exclude salt marsh harvest mice from the project footprint, define the limits of the footprint, and provide a visual screen. This barrier, which will be constructed under the guidance of a Service-Approved Biologist, will consist of a three-foot tall, tight cloth, City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 6 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation smooth plastic, or sheet-metal (or similar material approved by the Service) fence toed into the soil at least three inches deep and supported with stakes placed on the inside of the barrier. A USFWS- Approved Biologist will conduct a pre- construction survey of the area where vegetation was trimmed prior to construction access, and will monitor the installation of the barrier. Following the installation of the barrier, designated construction personnel will check its integrity each morning that construction activities occurring, and will initiate repairs immediately as needed. The area of vegetation removal will extend approximately two to three feet beyond the area where equipment and personnel will operate during project construction to create an open area that will discourage salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews from approaching the exclusion barrier • Environmentally Sensitive Area Fencing. Within the Flood Control Basin, biological study area limits will also be clearly demarcated with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing to avoid inadvertent disturbance of any habitat outside of the designated construction area during construction activities. This fencing can be combined with the exclusion barrier but must not be outside that barrier. • Visual Screening. Additional green-screen fencing will be installed along the limits of the biological study area between work areas and natural habitats within the Palo Alto Flood Control Basin to screen project City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 7 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation activities from view of the Baylands and avoid potential visual disturbance of salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews. This fencing can be combined with the fencing described above but must not be outside the exclusion barrier. • High-water Work Suspension. All ground work on the northeast side of highway 101, including vegetation trimming, will be suspended while there are flood waters within 100 feet of the project footprint (other than waters within the Adobe Creek channel). • Immediate Work Stoppage. If a salt marsh harvest mouse or salt marsh wandering shrew, or an animal that could be a harvest mouse or wandering shrew (e.g., a similar species of mouse or shrew), is observed within the biological study area during project activities, all work that could result in the injury or death of the individual will stop and the USFWS- approved biologist will be immediately notified. The animal will be allowed to leave the area on its own and will not be handled before work in that area resumes. • Work Limits. All activity will be limited to the existing and proposed footprint, access, and staging described in the May 2017 Biological Assessment, prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates. Environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands and tidal habitat, will be identified on contract plans and discussed in the Special Provisions. Temporary orange fencing or other obvious system will be used to identify City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 8 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation areas of avoidance and will remain in place until all construction is completed. • Night Work Lighting. If night-time work is conducted, the use of temporary artificial lighting during nighttime construction hours will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable and will be directed at the associated work zone and away from adjacent tidal wetland habitat. • Trash. Food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps will be disposed of in closed containers and removed at least once a day from the work area. • Firearms Forbidden. No firearms will be allowed on the project except for those carried by authorized security personnel, or local, state, or federal law enforcement officials. • Pets Forbidden. To prevent harassment, injury or mortality of wildlife species, no pets will be permitted on the project site. • Water Quality. The potential for adverse effects to water quality will be avoided by implementing temporary and permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in Section 7-1.01 G of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Caltrans erosion control BMPs will be used to minimize any wind or water-related erosion. The State Water Resources Control Board has issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Statewide Storm Water Permit to Caltrans to regulate storm water and non- storm water discharges from Caltrans facilities. A Storm Water Pollution City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 9 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed for the project, as one is required for all projects that have at least 1.0 acre of soil disturbance. The SWPPP complies with the Caltrans Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP includes guidance for Design staff to include provisions in construction contracts to include measures to protect sensitive areas and to prevent and minimize storm water and non-storm water discharges. The SWPPP will reference the Caltrans Construction Site BMPs Manual. This manual is comprehensive and includes many other protective measures and guidance to prevent and minimize pollutant discharges and can be found at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ construe/stormwater/ manuals.htm. Protective measures will be included in the contract, including, at a minimum: a) No discharge of pollutants from vehicle and equipment cleaning are allowed into the storm drain or water courses. b) Vehicle and equipment fueling and maintenance operations must be at least 50 feet away from water courses. c) Concrete wastes are collected in washouts and water from curing operations is collected and disposed of and not allowed into water courses. d) Dust control will be implemented, City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 10 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation including use of water trucks and tackifiers to control dust in excavation and fill areas, rocking temporary access road entrances and exits, and covering temporary stockpiles when weather conditions require. e) Coir rolls will be installed along or at the base of slopes during construction to capture sediment and temporary organic hydro- mulching will be applied to all unfinished disturbed and graded areas. f) Work areas where temporary disturbance has removed the pre- existing vegetation will be restored and re-seeded with a native seed mix. Graded areas will be protected from erosion using a combination of silt fences, fiber rolls along toe of slopes or along edges of designated staging areas, and erosion-control netting (such as jute or coir) as appropriate. Impact BIO-2: Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in impacts to nesting birds through the loss of fertile eggs or nest abandonment. MM BIO-2.1: The following measures will be implemented to ensure that project activities avoid substantial impacts to nesting birds and their eggs, which are protected under the migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CDGC). • Avoidance of the Nesting Bird Season. To the extent feasible, project activities will be scheduled to avoid the avian nesting season. If such activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, impacts on nesting birds, including raptors, Applicant/Contractor/Qualified Biologist Prior to and During construction Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 11 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation protected under the MBTA and CFGC, will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in Santa Clara County typically extends from February 1 through August 31. • Vegetation Removal during the Non- Nesting Season. If project activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, potential nesting substrate (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that is scheduled to be removed by the project, if any, may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (e.g., prior to February) to reduce the potential for initiation of nests. The project schedule includes vegetation removal in the Flood Control Basin portion of the biological study area during the fall prior to construction to minimize impacts to nesting birds the following spring. If it is not feasible to schedule vegetation removal during the nonbreeding season, or where vegetation cannot be removed (e.g., in areas immediately adjacent to the biological study area), then pre- construction surveys for nesting birds will be conducted as described below. • Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys for Nesting Birds. If it is not possible to schedule project activities between September 1 and January 31, then pre- construction surveys for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation. These surveys will be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to the initiation of project activities. During this survey, a qualified City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 12 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation biologist will inspect all potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, grasslands, and buildings) within 300 feet of impact areas for raptor nests and within 100 feet of impact areas for nests of non-raptors. • Buffers around Active Nests. If an active nest (i.e., a nest with eggs or young, or any completed raptor nest attended by adults) is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist, in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife, will determine the extent of a disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Because the majority of the biological study area is already subject to disturbance by vehicles and pedestrians, activities that will be prohibited from occurring within the buffer zone around a nest will be determined on a case-by-case basis. In general, activities prohibited within such a buffer while a nest is active will be limited to new construction-related activities (i.e., activities that were not ongoing when the nest was constructed) involving significantly greater noise, human presence, or vibrations than were present prior to nest initiation. • Screening. As described for salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews above, additional fencing with a green screen will be installed along the limits of the biological study area between City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 13 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation work areas and natural habitats within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve’s Flood Control Basin (Flood Control Basin). This fencing will screen project activities from view of the Baylands and minimize potential visual disturbance of nesting birds as a result of the project. • Nest Deterrence. If necessary to avoid impacts to active nests (i.e., nests containing eggs or young), nest starts may be removed on a regular basis (e.g., every second or third day), starting in late January or early February, or measures such as exclusion netting or slippery panels may be placed over nesting sites on the existing bridges to prevent active nests from becoming established. Any netting installed for nest deterrence must be installed appropriately by an experienced deterrence technician, under the supervision of a qualified biologist, and must be inspected and maintained regularly to avoid the entrapment or entanglement of birds. Impact BIO-3: The project could result in potential impacts as a result of bird strikes with the bridge structure; as well as disorientation, predation, and habitat impacts from increased lighting. MM BIO-3.1: The following measures will be implemented to avoid impacts on bird populations due to potential collisions and project lighting: • The overcrossing will be designed to minimize the potential for bird strikes; it will not include highly reflective surfaces, suspension cables, transparent surfaces, or features such as small wires or netting that could injure birds. • No power lines will be suspended above Project Engineer/Applicant/Construction Contractor Prior to Construction (Shown on Building Plans); During Operation Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 14 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation the bridge deck. Night lighting on the bridge will be minimized; only lighting needed for safety purposes will be installed. Lighting will be directed at the bridge deck or downward, not outwards toward natural areas, and lights will be shielded to minimize spillover of light into natural areas. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES Impact CUL-1: Unknown subsurface archaeological or paleontological resources could be present on the site in underlying native soils and could be disturbed during project construction. MM CUL-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials (including fossils) are encountered during construction grading or excavation, construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Public Works shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations 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. Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning and Community Environment Department MM CUL-1.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who shall attempt to Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 15 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the land owner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If the Director of Planning finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Impact CUL-2: Unknown tribal cultural resources could be uncovered or disturbed during construction activities associate with the project. MM CUL-2.1: In the event that a tribal cultural resource is found during construction, the NAHC will be contacted for information regarding the appropriate tribe and/or persons to notify. Once the appropriate tribal representatives are notified, consultation will take place consistent with Assembly Bill 52 requirements. Mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid significant impacts (if there is no agreement on appropriate mitigation in discussions with the tribal representatives) may include: • Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including: - Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context; - Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria; • Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 16 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: - Preservation in place; - Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; - Protecting the traditional use of the resource; - Protecting the confidentiality of the resource; - Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact HAZ-1: Aerially deposited lead located in soils at the project site could be disturbed during grading and construction activities and potentially impact workers, area residents, or the environment. MM HAZ-1.1: A construction risk and spoils management plan (CRSMP) shall be prepared for the project prior to the start of any ground- disturbing activities. The CRSMP shall include necessary procedures to ensure that excavated materials are stored, managed, and disposed of in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The CRSMP shall include the following components: • A site-specific health and safety plan (HASP) shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in accordance with federal OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.120) and State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (8 CCR 5192). The HASP shall include required measures to protect construction workers and the general public by including engineering controls, monitoring, and security Applicant/Contractor Prior to Building Permit Issuance Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 17 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction area and to reduce hazards outside of the construction area. If prescribed contaminant exposure levels are exceeded, personal protective equipment shall be required for workers in accordance with state and federal regulations. • The CRMSP shall include step-by-step procedures for evaluation, handling, stockpiling, storage, testing, and disposal of excavated material, including criteria for: (1) reuse within the project area; (2) stockpiling within the project area; and (3) offsite disposal shall be included. Excavated materials shall be inspected prior to initial stockpiling, and spoils that are visibly stained and/or have a noticeable odor should be stockpiled separately to minimize the amount of material that may require special handling. The chemical quality of the spoils intended for reuse shall be characterized, and spoils should be reused onsite only if they meet the reuse criteria established in the Department of Toxic Substances Control Variance obtained by Caltrans (Variance No. V09HQSCD006). If some of the spoils do not meet the reuse criteria and/or debris is identified, these materials shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal waste disposal requirements. The CRMSP shall also include procedures to be implemented if unknown subsurface conditions or contamination are encountered, such as previously unreported tanks, wells, or contaminated soils shall be included in the City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 18 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation CRSMP. NOISE Impact NOI-1: The project could result in exposure of persons in the project area to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels during construction activities. MM NOI-1.1: The following measures will be implemented during construction to lessen the potential for noise impacts: • With one exception, noise-generating construction activities will be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The exception is that, as stated above, there would be up to seven nights of construction including up to three nights to lower prefabricated structures in place over Highway 101, West Bayshore Road, and East Bayshore Road. No construction activities will occur on Sundays or holidays. • For any planned construction outside permitted hours, the project contractor will notify property owners within 500 feet of the proposed work at least one week in advance of the construction activities, require the contractor to implement a construction noise monitoring program and, if feasible, provide additional mitigation as necessary (in the form of noise control blankets or other temporary noise barriers, etc.) for affected receptors. • Internal combustion engine driven equipment will be equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. • Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines within 100 feet of residences will be strictly prohibited. Applicant/Contractor Prior to construction outside permitted construction work hours Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program Page | 19 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation • Stationary noise generating equipment will be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. • "Quiet" air compressors and other "quiet" equipment will be utilized where such technology exists. • Construction equipment will conform to Section 14-8.02, Noise Control, of the latest Caltrans Standard Specifications. The contractor will prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities and distribute this plan to adjacent noise- sensitive receptors. The construction plan will also contain these construction noise reduction measures. 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hettenhausen, Michael <michael.hettenhausen@PRK.SCCGOV.ORG> Sent:Wednesday, September 13, 2017 3:34 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Ms. Hodgkins,    I noticed this item on tonight’s Planning & Transportation Commission agenda and would like to note the County Parks  Department’s support. Please let me know the outcome of tonight’s meeting and the possible construction timeline,  when possible.    Thanks,    Michael    Michael Hettenhausen, Associate Planner  Santa Clara County Parks  |  298 Garden Hill Drive  |  Los Gatos, CA 95032  (408) 355‐2362  |  parkhere.org        Follow Santa Clara County Parks News!   www.facebook.com/SantaClaraCountyParks    NOTICE: This email message and/or its attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as  recipients in the message. If you are NOT an authorized recipient, you are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing the message  or content to others and must delete the message from your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email.    1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Comments Hwy 101 Adobe Multi-Use Bridge   From: Penny Ellson [mailto:pellson@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 2:37 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Comments Hwy 101 Adobe Multi-Use Bridge Honorable Commissioners, I cannot attend tonight’s meeting because our family will be celebrating my daughter’s high school graduation. Here are my comments on the Hwy 101 Pedestrian-Bicycle Bridge to the baylands: Please encourage staff and Council to move this much–needed project forward expediently. I remember writing letters in support of VTA funding for this important connection more than a decade ago— funding that was awarded and then subsequently rescinded because of project delays. The project before you is a good, cost-effective plan. Please move it forward. The bridge project is well-supported by Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. The current crossing at Embarcadero Road is 1.5 miles away. Using it when the tunnel is closed can add as much as three miles to a bike trip. That is a barrier for young children. For an adult biking at 15 miles an hour this extra distance means added time of 12 minutes, plus up to 3 minutes waiting for a green light at Oregon Expressway. For people who bike commute from south Palo Alto to points south, that would be a significant addition to daily bike commutes. Instead, without the bridge, they are pushed to busy, arterial surface streets during the wettest, darkest months when the Lefkowitz Tunnel is closed. Safety is an issue. For people who enjoy hiking and birding in the baylands, the bridge will provide a new car-free connection to this amazing open, natural space. The Hwy 101/Adobe pedestrian/bike bridge is an important regional connector that is long overdue. Please move it forward quickly. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Penny Ellson Palo Alto resident 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Highway 101 Bike Bridge - PTC Meeting   From: Boris Foelsch [mailto:borisfoelsch@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 5:07 PM To: Planning Commission; pwecips Subject: Highway 101 Bike Bridge - PTC Meeting Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission, In advance of tonight's meeting, which I cannot attend, I'd like to write you about the proposed design for the Adobe Creek over crossing of 101. Upon reviewing the materials, which are very helpful, I was pleased to see that the design is straightforward, functional and simple, yet aesthetically pleasing. I think it's absolutely fine to have a design that is not particularly ornate, especially given that it looks fairly sleek. I ride across the freeway about five or six times a week to take Bay trails to/from work and the availability of a safe, year-round alternative will be very welcome. I'd like to recommend that move the project forward expediently. I see no reason to make changes. Sincerely, Boris Foelsch 3694 Louis Rd. 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:20 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Ped/Bike Bridge ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Ann Pianetta [mailto:annpianetta@yahoo.com]   Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:43 AM  To: Architectural Review Board; pwecips  Subject: Ped/Bike Bridge    To Whom It May Concern:  It is a well thought‐out project except for one thing.  There is not enough protection for peds and bikes next to the  roadway.  There should be a wall.  This will keep people from jumping in front of cars and cars hitting peds.  And this  should be on both sides of the freeway.    Also, when is there going to be better landscaping in general at all the entry ways into Palo Alto from 101.  It looks  horrible and reflects on our city.  Please do something about it and let me know.    Sincerely,    Ann Pianetta  3815 La Donna Avenue  Palo Alto, CA   94306  650‐424‐9070  1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:19 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Highway 101 Bridge ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Joel Davidson [mailto:joelscottd@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:08 AM  To: Architectural Review Board  Cc: pwecips  Subject: Highway 101 Bridge    To whom it may concern,  I am strongly supportive of the proposed Bike bridge on Highway 101.  This project has been too long on the waiting list  of the Parks and Recreation Commissions agenda.  I guessing about 10 years.  Please move forward on this project ASAP.  Thank you,   Joel Davidson former Parks and Recreation Commissioner  504 Thain Way  Palo Alto, CA 94306  1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:20 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Lait, Jonathan; Gerhardt, Jodie Subject:FW: Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge From: Judd Volino [mailto:gobike20816@typespot.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:33 AM To: Architectural Review Board; pwecips Subject: Highway 101 Bicycle and Pedestrian Bridge Dear ARB and City Staff: I am a Palo Alto resident and cyclist and am writing that you do everything possible to expedite this project to ensure that inflation doesn't catch up again and cause it to be short on funding. A bridge that allows mounted riding and that is much more visible than the Embarcadero bridge will do a great deal to open access to the Baylands and provide safe crossing of the freeway. Please just build this thing! Thank you, Judd Volino 1150 Parkinson Ave 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 11:21 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject:FW: Excited about highway 101 bicycle bridge From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa.dusseault@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 10:11 AM To: Architectural Review Board Subject: Excited about highway 101 bicycle bridge Hi, I just wanted to say I'm excited about this bridge. As a family we use the existing bridges (Oregon and Stevens Creek trail) maybe 10 times a week. My husband commutes by bike, and I sometimes go to meetings by bike from the Duveneck area where we live to places like Google. Sometimes we go to the baylands or Shoreline Park with our kids. Sometimes my husband runs in the baylands and Shoreline park and we bike along with him to keep him company. My main frustration with the Oregon bridge is the difficulty getting a bicycle trailer through the slow-down gates. From the images I've seen about the new bridge this will be much easier and we'll have more choices where to cross the 101. I have to admit we totally ignore the "walk your bikes" injunction along the top of the Oregon bridge. I've never seen any problems with people riding their bikes - people are polite and pass each other civilly whether anybody is biking, walking or walking their bike. Perhaps the problems, when they occur, are not with people riding their bikes (which they're going to do anyway) but with being unsafe or inconsiderate (which they're going to do anyway). Lisa 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Deborah Baldwin <baldwinart@mac.com> Sent:Monday, May 01, 2017 2:49 PM To:Hodgkins, Claire Cc:lenraven1@gmail.com; Architectural Review Board; Larry; Cornelia and Arne Stoschek Subject:Re: [dsfna] Bike bridge planning meeting Hi Claire, Thank you for responding so fast! Some of my thoughts/concerns regarding the project are (there are 4 key areas): 1) Managing cyclists/pedestrians: I propose that there are separate lanes for both parties. Many cyclists will use this trail for getting to work, pedestrians for pleasure. I have seen many unnecessary near clashes because the walkers spread out over the entire walkway or one or the other had headphones on. This is particularly concerning where there are benches for viewing-as many may congregate there. 2) Transitions Remember what happened to the cyclist on Pagemill that was hit by a car a year ago? I believe part of the responsibility lies in not having an adequate transition. Indeed, there is NO notice-(even a year later!) to motorists that a cyclist may enter a highway and little guidance to a cyclist. Even a stop sign would be a solution. This is a rampant problem. I have seen this many times, where the bike paths, once you are on them are lovely, but getting there and transitioning to another road are nightmares. I don't mean to attribute blame, unfortunately, dead cyclists can not tell "their" side. 3) Safety I'm concerned (from a brief look at the plans) that the fencing over any overpass or high area is not sufficient to deter a person from attempting to "jump" off the bridge. How are we going to ensure this? 4) Cost I have seen many bridge constructed over 101 that takes these concerns into account. They may not be the prettiest, but they look nice and look to be cost effective. Perhaps we should reconsider that? In fact, in so doing, there may be funds to address the transition issues or perhaps to update that "nightmare" of a bridge near Oregon along with getting onto the bike path on the other side of the road. Thank you for permitting me to "vent" , I DO hope I was being constructive in my comments. Please do keep me updated. I have scheduled for myself to be attend on the 25th of May. :-) Debbie Baldwin Sent from my iphone On May 1, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Hodgkins, Claire <Claire.Hodgkins@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Good afternoon Lenore and Debbie,   Thank you for your comments regarding the Architectural Review Board meeting set for May 4, 2017. All  meetings for the Architectural Review Committee are held on Thursday mornings. However, there are  several other opportunities for you to provide input on this project. You may:   1) Call, e‐mail, or mail me, the Project Planner for the proposed project, to discuss any  questions/comments/concerns about the project. 2 2) We will have a study session in the evening with the Planning and Transportation Commission so  that anyone that cannot attend the Architectural Review Board meeting on May 4th could still  express comments at that public meeting. The Planning and Transportation Commission hearing  for this project is tentatively set for May 25, 2017 and starts at 6pm. 3) Following these two study session meetings the City’s Public Works Engineering Division will  work to incorporate/address comments from the public (whether expressed at the hearing or  provided separately to the project planner) as well as comments from both the Architectural  Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission study session meetings. 4) The City’s Public Works Engineering Division will then come back to the Architectural Review  Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and to City Council before a decision on the  proposed project is issued. The Planning and Transportation Commission and Council hearings  will both be held in the evening. I’d be happy to update you once the dates for those hearings  have been set.   Warm regards, Claire Hodgkins   <image001.jpg>   Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650-329-2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org     From: Architectural Review Board Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 12:11 PM To: Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc: Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject: FW: [dsfna] Bike bridge planning meeting From: Lenore Cymes [mailto:lenraven1@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 11:38 AM To: Deborah Baldwin Cc: pwecips; Architectural Review Board; Jeff Levinsky; dsfna@yahoogroups.com dsfna@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsfna] Bike bridge planning meeting Good catch Debbie. I didn’t even read it. I agree! Not just this meeting, but no meeting concerning community input should ever be held during the day and this meeting must be rescheduled to a proper time for people to finish their work and show up. If it is not changed, why bother at all - what is the goal of the Arch. Review Committee? Lenore On May 1, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Deborah Baldwin baldwinart@mac.com [dsfna] <dsfna-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Hi I noticed that the planning meeting set for this important bike bridge is set for the morning. To me, It is very confusing to have the time set specifically at a time many 3 commuters by bikes can not come because they are working. What is the mechanism to have these voices and their wealth of experience heard? Thank you Debbie Baldwin Sent from my iPhone __._,_.___ Posted by: Deborah Baldwin <baldwinart@mac.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. NOTE: By default replies to this message will be sent to the message author only. VISIT YOUR GROUP Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:52 PM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject:FW: Comments on the HWY 101 Adobe Creek Overcrossing Attachments:W.BayShore Bike Lane - 02.jpg; W.BayShore Bike Lane - 04.jpg; W.BayShore Bike Lane - 15.jpg From: roycsnyder@comcast.net [mailto:roycsnyder@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:45 PM To: Architectural Review Board Cc: pwecips Subject: Comments on the HWY 101 Adobe Creek Overcrossing To the City of Palo Alto Architecture Review Board - May 4, 2017 (We have lived in the south Palo Alto Palo Verde neighborhood for over forty years. In all but the most inclement weather, we bike at the Baylands 2-4 times per week, using the existing Adobe Creek Undercrossing or the Embarcadero Overcrossing.) Comments: The proposed overcrossing is not a destination, but rather a mere conveyance from South Palo Alto to the main attraction, the Baylands. It should be simple, cost effective, speedily constructed, and, since it crosses a main artery, seismically robust. The concept of an Eastern Approach Overlook is wrong headed: There is nothing of natural beauty nor remarkable wildlife to be viewed from such a point. The proposed location is close to HWY 101 and the constant traffic noise will detract from any "appreciation" of the adjacent Baylands. The proposed Overlook is redundant to existing and better nature viewpoints actually located in the Baylands, only 200-300 meters further along the trail. It adds undue cost. The proposed drinking fountains, trash and recycling containers, trail head art, bike racks, etc. would serve greater purpose if located further up the trail where it joins the Baylands Trail at the Coast Casey Forebay. Again, this structure is not a destination. Such amenities will only impede flow along the trail. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail should be opened immediately, even if in a temporary configuration. The bike lane along West Bay Shore - northbound is currently unsafe due to south bound vehicles drifting into the bike lane. (See photos attached.) Respectfully, 2 Roy Snyder Thomas Drive, Palo Alto Attachment D Environmental Documents Hardcopies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are available by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3600 Bayshore 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 “2017-09 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration” 6. Open the attachment named “Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” HIGHWAY 101 MULTI-USE PATH OVERCROSSING PROJECT AT ADOBE CREEK WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Highway 101 Multi-Use Path Overcrossing (Overcrossing) is located in the City of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County, between the East Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Road overpasses of Highway 101, and will replace the existing seasonal Benjamin Lefkowitz Underpass of Highway 101 located within the Adobe Creek corridor. The grade-separated crossing will provide year-round connectivity from residential and commercial areas west of Highway 101 to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve (Baylands), East Bayshore Business Park area, and the regional Bay Trail network of multi-use trails east of Highway 101. The project will include a new bridge structure over Highway 101 and West and East Bayshore Roads, a trail connection along Adobe Creek to East Meadow Drive, sidewalk improvements along West Bayshore Road, and landscaping and habitat restoration within the Baylands and along the Adobe Creek riparian corridor. The project lies primarily within City and Caltrans rights-of-way, although the south/west project area includes Santa Clara Valley Water District property and private property owned by Google. The proposed Overcrossing will consist of multiple structure types in order to maximize the benefits of the different structure types for the various constraints present in the project. The Overcrossing structure is divided into the following four major elements: 1. Principal Span Structure: Three span structure over Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads 2. West Approach Structure: Multi-span structure located west of West Bayshore Road 3. East Approach Structure: Multi-span structure located east of East Bayshore Road 4. Adobe Creek Bridge: Simple span crossing of Adobe Creek west of West Bayshore Road STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION: PRINCIPAL SPAN STRUCTURE The Principal Span Structure is set to a straight alignment that is essentially perpendicular to the Highway 101 and Bayshore Road alignments. It consists of three steel truss spans spanning across West Bayshore Road, Highway 101, and East Bayshore Road. At this location, Highway 101 is a 12-lane highway with a 162-foot wide right-of-way (See Figure below). East Bayshore Road consists of two travel lanes with a 20.5- foot wide traveled way and two 6-foot shoulders. West Bayshore Road consists of two travel lanes with an approximately 20.5-foot wide traveled way and a 5.5-foot shoulder and 6-foot bicycle lane. The span over Highway 101 will consist of a 165-foot long, prefabricated steel bowed truss. The bowed truss is able to achieve the long clear span while keeping the profile depth from the top of deck to bridge soffit to a minimum. The adjacent side spans spanning over East and West Bayshore Roads will consist of a 72’-0” long prefabricated steel trusses continuous with the Highway 101 span. All spans will accommodate a 12- foot clear width pathway. Bents under the Principal Structure spans will consist of 2-foot thick non-skewed concrete pier walls on cast- in-drilled-hole (CIDH) pile foundations. In order to reduce traffic control requirements within Highway 101, the pier walls adjacent to Highway 101 (Bents 6 and 7) will be founded on a concrete pile cap supported by CIDH piles located within the medians between Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Roads. The concrete pier walls supporting the other ends of the steel Pratt trusses (Bents 5 and 8) will be founded on a concrete pile cap which is supported by CIDH piles. Pier walls at Bents 5 and 8 will support both the steel Pratt trusses of the Principal Span Structure and the end of the West and East Approach concrete slab spans. Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the Principal Span Structure. The railings will consist of 8-foot tall safety fencing. Baseline safety fencing includes vinyl clad chain link fabric. Potential upgrades include the use of decorative woven wire fabric in lieu of chain link fabric. WEST APPROACH STRUCTURE The alignment of the West Approach Structure consists of an approximately 115 degree curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from along West Bayshore Road, over the Google parking lot, and to the Principal Span Structure over Highway 101. The alignment closely abuts the adjacent Barron Creek to enable retention of all parking spaces with in the Google parking lot and to provide the maximum elevation gain between the adjoining Principal Span Structure and the Adobe Creek Bridge crossing. The West Approach Structure consists of a four span, 2’-6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2’-6” x 5’-0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter Type II CIDH pile shafts. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long, resulting in a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 0.050. The columns will be architecturally enhanced. The abutment will consist of a reinforced concrete seat-type abutment supported by a large diameter CIDH pile. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway. Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the West Approach Structure. The railings consist of 4-foot tall galvanized safety fencing and will include a small concrete curb at the edge of the pathway to collect rain water. Baseline safety fencing includes vinyl clad chain link fabric. Potential upgrades include the use of decorative woven wire fabric in lieu of chain link fabric. EAST APPROACH STRUCTURE The alignment of the East Approach Structure consists of an approximate 168-degree compound curve that directs pedestrian/bicycle traffic from the Principal Span Structure, over the Baylands, and back around to conform at the San Francisco Bay Trail. The East Approach Structure consists of a seven span, 2’-6” deep reinforced concrete slab superstructure supported by 2’-6” x 5’-0” rectangular columns supported on large diameter Type II CIDH pile shafts. The span lengths will vary from 40 to 50 feet long, resulting in a minimum span-to-depth ratio of 0.050. The columns will be architecturally enhanced. The abutment will consist of a reinforced concrete seat-type abutment supported by CIDH piles. All spans will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway. Bent 8 supports both the end of the concrete slab of the East Approach Structure and the end of the steel Pratt truss span of the Principal Span Structure. Architecturally enhanced safety railings will be provided the full length of the East Approach Structure. The railings will be 4-foot tall galvanized safety fencing and will include a small concrete curb at the edge of the pathway to collect rain water. Baseline safety fencing includes vinyl clad chain link fabric. Potential upgrades include the use of decorative woven wire fabric in lieu of chain link fabric. An overlook area consisting of an extension of the reinforced concrete slab will be located between Bents 10 and 11 in order to provide the trail users an opportunity to pause, rest and view the adjacent Baylands without impeding pedestrian and bicycle through traffic. The architecture of the overlook will extend from the main bridge structure elements including railings and concrete facing textures and colors. The overlook will be decked with a wood finish to make the area more distinguishable from the main pathway and to give it some warmth in texture and color. Amenities such as benches and informational/educational signage will also be located on the overlook to further enhance the experience for the users. Benches will be located along the overlook to allow users to rest and/or view the surrounding vistas of the Baylands. ADOBE CREEK BRIDGE The Adobe Creek Bridge consists of a 140-foot long prefabricated steel Pratt truss, spanning over the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks, adjacent to the existing Adobe Creek Bridge (Bridge No. 37C- 0060) along West Bayshore Road. The bridge will accommodate a 12-foot clear width pathway allowing for travel in both directions. The top chord of the steel truss will serve as the top chord of the 4 foot high safety railing for the structure. The abutments will consist of concrete seat type abutments supported by large diameter CIDH piles. ADDITIONAL PROJECT ELEMENTS: WESTERN APPROACH ACCESS A pedestrian access ramp has been incorporated into the Western Approach Structure between the Google property (3600 West Bayshore Road) and Adobe Creek Bridge to provide continuous access for pedestrians along West Bayshore and access to the Overcrossing. For northbound pedestrians along West Bayshore Road the access structure can reduce the length of travel by roughly 500 feet. This access structure also provides equal access to mobility impaired trail users and provides a pedestrian bypass allowing the existing bike lane along West Bayshore road to be made continuous across the existing Adobe Creek Bridge. It also provides a functional ADA compliant alternative access which can be used as a primary ingress/egress if and when the SCVWD closes the trail access area for their channel sedimentation maintenance. STRUCTURE LIGHTING Lighting design will be provided for the Overcrossing that contributes to the project goals of providing connectivity while addressing environmental concerns. The Overcrossing paths are to be illuminated during night hours to support pedestrian and bicycling activates, with lighting levels reflecting the transition from higher illuminated urban areas on the western side of Highway 101 to the lower lighting of the Baylands to the east. Photometric levels will conform to standards set by the Illuminating Engineering Society. The Western Approach Structure will require higher lighting levels for better uniformity ratios to the surrounding environment. Pole mounted luminaires will provide uniform illumination along the pathway and at landscaping areas leading to the Overcrossing. At the Principal Span Structure, lighting will be integrated into the guardrail where possible to create a consistently illuminated pathway. Direct view of any light source is to be shielded from adjacent vehicular vantage points to reduce glare and distraction for drivers. Lighting at the Eastern Approach Structure and Eastern Approach Overlook will be integrated into the urban infrastructure components, such as railings and benches, in order to reduce visual interferences of the Baylands. Careful consideration will be given to providing appropriate illumination at environmentally sensitive areas such as areas adjacent to Adobe and Barron Creek and the Baylands. Lighting on the Eastern Approach Structure will be minimal in order to reduce potential glare and distraction for wildlife with the Baylands. Step lights will be utilized, meeting photometric requirements, to provide low levels of functional lighting along the pathway. Warm color lighting techniques will be used to reduce lighting effects to migratory birds and other wildlife. The lighting system will be designed to be mindful of the surrounding environment. Lighting poles and bollards with full-cutoff capability will be used in order to reduce light emitted above the 90° plane, limiting contribution to light pollution. Lighting controls will be utilized to reduce light output during hours with limited activity. Light levels dim down on a set time schedule synced with the astronomical clock. As people approach, sensors detect their presence, allowing the lighting to change in response to pedestrian and bicycle activity. PROJECT LANDSCAPING AND STORM WATER RETENTION Landscaping is limited to restoration of areas disturbed by construction. Primary areas for restoration include: 1. The portion of the Baylands under and adjacent to the Eastern Approach Structure which will be restored with native grasses and planting as well as some hardscape and planting at the east plaza where the East Approach Structure joins the San Francisco Bay Trail. Trail head amenities in the form of trash and recycling receptacles, a bicycle repair station, as well as an optional drinking fountain and bottle filling station. 2. Disturbed areas of the Google Parking Lot under and adjacent to the Western Approach Structure will be landscape to provide screening to the structure and will include accommodation of a bioretension area, replacement of existing landscaping trees affected by construction and reconfiguration of the existing Google Parking lot resulting in no net loss of parking. 3. The west plaza at the Adobe Creek Reach Trail Head will include hardscaping at the plaza and existing aggregate base along the SCVWD maintenance road compatible with the regular SCVWD maintenance operations and materials, as well as proposed trail head amenities including a bicycle repair station. 4. Storm water collection into bioretension systems will include native planting and drainage swales leading into retention basins to filter storm-water. These systems will be located in landscaping areas in the vicinity of the western and eastern approaches. ADOBE CREEK TRAIL The proposed Adobe Creek Reach Trail involves designating a 14- to 16-foot wide by approximately 620 linear feet of the existing Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) maintenance road on the east side of Adobe Creek, between West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive, as the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. The Adobe Creek Reach Trail will provide a more direct, comfortable, and potentially safer alternative to Fabian Way/West Bayshore Road for pedestrians and recreational bicyclists. The trail will utilize the existing SCVWD maintenance road along Adobe Creek and will include installation of safety railing along the top of bank of Adobe Creek (subject to acceptance by the SCVWD). The project will include trail heads at West Bayshore Road and East Meadow Drive. Trail heads will consist of simple concrete connections to the adjoining streets/sidewalks (no formal plazas), associated pavement delineation and street signage. Paving of the Adobe Creek Reach Trail is included as part of the baseline project. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES The proposed project would comply with the following Site and Design objectives as described below. OBJECTIVE (A): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Road businesses, and regional Bay Trail network from residential neighborhoods and employment districts in south Palo Alto. The improved connectivity and access would support regional bicycle commuting and encourage greater recreational activity and use of the Baylands and trail system. During the times the existing Benjamin Lefkowitz undercrossing is closed due to flooding, access across U.S. 101 to/from southern Palo Alto and the Baylands Nature Preserve/Bay Trail does not meet community needs because it requires significant out-of-direction travel south to the San Antonio Road overpass, which primarily serves motorized vehicles and lacks sufficient facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. Access across U.S. 101 is also available to the north on the Oregon Expressway Overpass, but that facility is 1.3 miles away and does not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. OJECTIVE (B): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The Project provides improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access to the area including improved connectivity to existing residential and business communities. OBJECTIVE (C): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The Project has been scoped and designed to minimize impacts to the surrounding environment including location of the proposed structure to minimize impacts to existing vegetation, and habitats, avoidance of pile driving to minimize construction noise and structure type selection that use of prefabricated elements that are manufactured off-site minimizing potential environmental impacts. OBJECTIVE (D): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 4826 § 121, 2004: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978): The following Comprehensive Plan programs, goals and policies relate to the project: Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, biking, public transit use.  The purpose of the proposed project is to improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity to the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, East Bayshore Road businesses, and regional Bay Trail network from residential neighborhoods and employment districts in south Palo Alto. The improved connectivity and access would support regional bicycle commuting and encourage greater recreational activity and use of the Baylands and trail system. During the times the existing Benjamin Lefkowitz undercrossing is closed due to flooding, access across U.S. 101 to/from southern Palo Alto and the Baylands Nature Preserve/Bay Trail does not meet community needs because it requires significant out-of-direction travel south to the San Antonio Road overpass, which primarily serves motorized vehicles and lacks sufficient facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. Access across U.S. 101 is also available to the north on the Oregon Expressway Overpass, but that facility is 1.3 miles away and does not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling.  See response to Policy T-1 above. Goal 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- model transit stations.  See response to Policy T-1 above. Policy T-17: Increase cooperation with surrounding communities and other agencies to establish and maintain off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails utilizing creek, utility, and railroad rights-of-way.  See response to Goal T-1 above. Additionally, an approximately 620-foot-long Adobe Creek Reach Trail would be constructed along the east side of Adobe Creek between Highway 101 and East Meadow Drive in order to connect the new bridge overpass to the surrounding bicycle and pedestrian network on the west side of Highway 101. Program T-19: Encourages the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities linking trips to parks, schools, retail, centers, and civic facilities, which enables and encourages residents and visitors to bicycle or walk for discretionary trips.  See response to Policy T-1 above. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.  The Project will improve existing bicycle and pedestrian service along W. Bayshore Road by providing a through bicycle lane where previous bicycle service was forced to either share with pedestrians via the existing sidewalk or to share with adjacent vehicular traffic. Policy T-26: Completed development of the Bay trail and Ridge Trail in Palo Alto  The Project connects to the existing San Francisco Bay Trail. Policy T-42: Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvements.  The project proposes an ADA-accessible bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing over Highway 101 to replace an existing underpass that closes during the rainy season. Existing alternative routes during underpass closure (the Oregon Expressway Overpass, 1.3 miles away) does not meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Policy C-22: Design and construct new community facilities to have flexible functions to ensure adaptability to the changing needs of the community.  The Project has considered proposed future projects within the Project limits and has provide flexibility to accommodate these future facilities such as future utilities and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Express Lanes along Highway 101. Policy L-71: Strengthen the identity of important community gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101.  The Project includes architectural enhancements and the City has retained an artist to help strengthen the aesthetic impact of the structure along the Highway 101 gateway to the City. 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.  The Project includes architectural enhancements and the City has retained an artist to help strengthen the aesthetic impact of the structure along the Highway 101 gateway to the City. Views and vistas to Adobe Creek and the Palo Alto Baylands have been maintained and promoted as applicable Policy N-1: Manage existing public open space areas in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs.  The Project minimizes impacts to and promotes views and vistas into the Adobe Creek corridor and the Palo Alto Baylands. OBJECTIVE (E): If the project is located in the Open Space (OS) zone district your letter should also address the 10 Open Space Development Criteria, adopted by the City Council on October 20, 1986. A copy of the development criteria can be obtained at the Planning Division counter. The project would comply with the following 12 open space criteria included in City Municipal Code 18.28.070 as described under each criterion: (1) The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view.  The Project has been developed to minimize visual impacts to and promotes views and vistas into the Adobe Creek corridor and the Palo Alto Baylands. (2) Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line.  The Project structure profile has been kept to a minimum to minimize visual impacts and to keep the top of the structure below the adjacent tree line. The Project is not located near a hilltop. (3) Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring property.  The Project structure profile has been kept to a minimum to minimize visual impacts. Landscaping has been coordinated with the adjacent property owner (Google) to provide screening and separation from the trail facilities. (4) Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats.  The Project has been developed to form fit into the existing site constraints including Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Road corridors, Adobe Creek and Barron Creek corridors, the Google campus at (3600 West Bayshore Road), the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Palo Alto Baylands. (5) Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance.  The Project has been developed to conform to and be compatible with the existing uses of the site. The Project would conform to the existing site constraints (including Highway 101 and East and West Bayshore Road corridors, Adobe Creek and Barron Creek corridors, the Google campus (3600 West Bayshore Road), the San Francisco Bay Trail and the Palo Alto Baylands). Replacement vegetation will be similar to the existing native vegetation on-site. (6) Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible.  The Project has coordinated closely with the City Urban Forester regarding necessary tree removal and proposed replacement species and locations. (7) Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading.  The Project has minimized earthwork where possible including the use of deep foundations to support structures to minimize foundation size and associated earthwork. (8) To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided.  The Project has limited impervious surfaces to the footprint of the new trail and the reconstruction of the existing Google parking lot (no addition or loss of parking spacing). (9) Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors.  There are no buildings proposed as part of the Project. (10) Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique.  The Project has coordinated closely with the City Urban Forester regarding necessary tree removal and proposed replacement species and locations. (11) Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site.  The Project has incorporated lighting fixtures that limit light pollution and light spillage into adjacent facilities and includes cutoff and shields to prevent direct viewing of light sources from adjacent vehicular vantage points to reduce glare and distraction for drivers. (12) Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.)  There are no access roads proposed as part of the Project. Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Councilmembers. 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: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2. On the left hand side click “Development Proposals” 3. In the drop down window click “Pending Projects” 4. Scroll to find “Adobe Creek/ 101 Overcrossing (3600 West Bayshore)” and click to view the project plans Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8455) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2775 Embarcadero Road: Baylands Boardwalk (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2775 Embarcadero Road [17PLN-00217]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Replacement of the Existing Baylands Boardwalk at the Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center. The Project Also Includes a Separate Request for a Park Improvement Ordinance. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Review from September 15, 2017 and Will end on October 16, 2017. Zoning District: Public Facilities, Site and Design Combining District (PF [D]). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan 2. 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 would replace the existing Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk with a new boardwalk of the same location, length, and alignment. The boardwalk extends approximately 850 feet northeast across the Harriet Mundy Marsh towards the San Francisco Bay from the Interpretive Center located adjacent the San Francisquito Creek Trail. The new boardwalk is designed to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements, comply with Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) policies that require projects to be resilient in accommodating projected sea level rise, and reduce the number of permanent structures within Marsh Habitat. Proposed wood materials were selected for their natural durability and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 decay resistance. A location map is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment G. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Biggs Cardosa Associates Representative: Elizabeth Ames, City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: 2775 Embarcadero Road Neighborhood: Baylands Lot Dimensions & Area: 25,007 square feet (sf) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable Historic Resource(s): The boardwalk was originally constructed in 1969 and was rehabilitated and widened in 1980. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, as outlined in the environmental analysis (Attachment E), therefore an evaluation of the boardwalk’s eligibility for the National Register of Historic Resources is not required. Existing Improvement(s): Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center (3,101 sf building area; one story; 12’3” high; built 1969) and boardwalk (850 feet long; Built 1969; rehabilitated 1980) Existing Land Use(s): Open Space/Recreation Trail/Public Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: All adjacent uses are Open Space/Recreation Trail/Public with zoning of PF(D). Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities/Site and Design Combining District (PF[D]) Comp. Plan Designation: Split land Use designation: Major Institution Special Facilities (MISP), Conservation Land (CL); Public (P) Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Applicable, see discussion below El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Applicable, see discussion below City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Influence Area: Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The project would replace the existing Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk with a new boardwalk of the same location, length, and alignment. The existing timber boardwalk, which extends approximately 850 feet northeast across the Harriet Mundy Marsh towards the San Francisco Bay from the Interpretive Center, has experienced substantial deterioration as a result of exposure to the surrounding salt water tidal marsh environment. Most of the boardwalk was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. The elevation of the proposed deck would be approximately 3.6 to 4.3 feet higher than the existing structure (13.5 feet NAVD881) to comply with BCDC policies requiring projects to be resilient in accommodating projected sea level rise. The proposed five-foot width, which compares to the four-foot width of the existing structure, was selected to meet ADA standards. To reduce the number of wood piles/posts in the marsh from 186 (existing) to 159 (proposed), the proposed span between support structures has been increased to 12 feet in length. Each of the existing pressure-treated Douglas fir posts would be removed down to the mudline. The new posts would be constructed with Alaskan yellow cedar due to its natural durability, high resistance to wear, and natural resistance to decay. The new boardwalk would have four intermediate overlooks and an observation platform at its northeasterly end. The additional viewing platforms along the boardwalk are designed to allow clearance for users in wheelchairs to turn around and pedestrians to pass by. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (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. 1 NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum of 1988 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO): The Park Improvement Ordinance has been reviewed for recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Commission and forwarded to City Council for final action. Analysis2 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve and connects to the existing Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center. The new boardwalk extends approximately 850 feet northeast across the Harriet Mundy Marsh towards the San Francisco Bay in the same location as the existing boardwalk. There are no other buildings within the immediate vicinity of the boardwalk. The Interpretive Center and Boardwalk are located on an approximately 25,000 sf site. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is included in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes. Although the project is located within the Site and Design combining district, Site and Design review is not required in accordance with 18.30 (G).040, which only requires site and design approval for the construction of a building or establishment of a new use on sites within the site and design review combining district. The proposed project does not include construction of a new building or establishment of a new use. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines4 A detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is included in the findings for approval in Attachment B. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages management of open space areas in a manner that meets habitat protection goals and allows for low-impact recreational use. The project would replace the existing boardwalk in the same alignment as the previously constructed boardwalk and is approximately the same length. Baylands Master Plan and Baylands Design Guidelines Consistency The project is located within the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve within the area identified as the “Natural Unit.” The project would be consistent with Natural Unit Policy 1, “Maintain the trails described in the access and circulation section.” The Baylands Master Plan also notes that the original vision for a natural environment was ample pedestrian and bicycle trails that link to 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 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. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4 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 6 regional trails with a limited role for automobiles. The project would be consistent with this vision in that it provides an additional trail, connecting to the Interpretive Center and Bay Trail that provides visitors with views of the marsh. In addition, the project is consistent with the following specific policies outlined in the Baylands Master Plan: Policy 3: Expand bicycle and pedestrian activities while reducing vehicle traffic in the Baylands as far as possible. Policy 13: Follow Guidelines established in the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, Palo Alto Baylands Nature preserve published in 2005. Policy 14: Comply with Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The project expands opportunities for pedestrians to enjoy the Baylands by replacing the existing, structurally deficient boardwalk. The boardwalk replacement would not increase the need to drive or park in the area; rather it provides more opportunities to enjoy the Baylands for those coming to the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center. The project is consistent with the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, which encourage natural colors, low-profile features, and low maintenance. The boardwalk would be of a low-profile (similar to the existing boardwalk), constructed from a natural wood material that would not include any toxic materials, and will utilize wood that is designed to withstand exposure to the surrounding salt water tidal marsh environment. The project is within the Airport Influence Area, as identified in the Airport Land Use Plan, but the maximum height from grade to top of deck is 13.5 feet NAVD88, or approximately 5 feet, 10 inches above the marsh (consistent with BCDC policies for sea level rise resilience) and would not include any lighting. In addition, it would replace the existing deck in the same alignment; therefore, the project is consistent with the Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Boardwalk improvements would not change the existing use of the site. The existing boardwalk provided an additional amenity to visitors at the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center before it was closed due to safety concerns. The project would allow for this amenity to be safely re-opened to the public. It would not increase access to the site nor the capacity of the building and is therefore not anticipated to cause an increase in traffic compared to existing conditions. Although a member of the public could come out only for the boardwalk, anticipated trips for this purpose would be nominal. It is more likely existing users of the trail system and nature center would utilize this feature thus maintaining existing traffic levels, similar to the last forty five years that the boardwalk was in operation. Therefore, no traffic study is required and no increase in the number of vehicle or bicycle parking spaces is proposed. The boardwalk improvements would also ensure that the boardwalk is ADA compliant to allow for use by all visitors. Consistency with Application Findings The proposed project is consistent with the Architectural Review findings in that the project allows for low impact recreational use of the area, consistent with the current use of the site City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 and the designated land use of the site. The project is consistent with several programs and policies outlined, in particular, in the Comprehensive Plan Natural Element and Land Use and Community Design Element. The design would be constructed using low impact techniques, which have been reinforced as conditions of approval of the project. A complete analysis of consistency with the Architectural Review findings is included in Attachment B. Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Comments The PRC conducted a study session for the proposed project on August 22, 2017 to provide initial feedback on the project. During that study session, the PRC asked several questions about the timing of construction to better understand the regulatory process and to understand options that could help expedite the project. They also commented on a couple of the design components. Public Works Engineering staff considered these changes but, for the reasons outlined below, no plan modifications were made. On September 26, 2017, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that City Council approve the Park Improvement Ordinance. However, during the hearing they also asked for further consideration of the design changes that were previously requested. These changes are discussed below. Lower the Boardwalk The PRC requested that the boardwalk be lowered so that those using the boardwalk would be closer to the marsh environment and so that the boardwalk would flood occasionally during King tides for the unique experience. If the entire boardwalk could not be lowered, PRC asked Public Works Engineering to further consider stepping down the viewing platforms so that they would be closer to the marsh. The new boardwalk will be anywhere from 3.6 feet to 4.3 feet higher than the previous boardwalk such that the final top of deck across the entire boardwalk is 13.5 feet NAVD88. The purpose of this increase in the height of the boardwalk in comparison to existing conditions is to comply with BCDC policies for new construction projects to accommodate projected sea level rise. In addition, it ensures that the new deck is consistent with ADA access requirements given the height of the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center deck, which is also 13.5 feet NAVD88. This change results in an added benefit of reducing impacts to the underlying marsh by reducing shading, as shown in the shading study included in Appendic A of the environmental analysis, which in turn allows for the wetland vegetation beneath the boardwalk to naturally reestablish. At 13.5 feet NAVD88, the boardwalk would be approximately 5 feet, ten inches above the marsh. The requested changes to either reduce the height of the entire boardwalk or otherwise provide viewing platforms that step down closer to the marsh would not comply with BCDC policies, would not be ADA compliant, and would likely increase impacts on the marsh vegetation. Therefore, these changes have not been made to the project design. Bird Deterrent Rollers The PRC expressed concerns about the aesthetics of the perch deterrent rollers, which would be added to the top of the railing. In consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Service (USFWS), the agency expressed concerns that the railings for the new boardwalk would be higher than the existing railings, creating a better vantage point for avian species to prey on endangered mammals that could be present within the project area, including the salt marsh harvest mouse and salt mouse wandering shrew. To address this concern, USFWS asked that, consistent with new construction of other boardwalks within the region, bird deterrent rollers be placed atop the railings to deter perching/predation. Although these rollers may not be preferred, staff does not believe that they detract in any substantial way from the aesthetics of the boardwalk and user experience. They are not anticipated to be visible from vantage points on adjacent recreational trails in the Baylands. More importantly, because these are requested by a federal agency as a design feature to ensure that impacts under CEQA are less than significant, these perch deterrent rollers have not been removed from the project design. Signage One commissioner asked that PWE consider developing the signage for the boardwalk as part of this project; noting that it may influence the total number of viewing platforms that are proposed for the project. The potential locations of proposed signage, the materials for the signage, and the general types of signage that would be proposed have been developed; however, the exact details on each proposed sign has not yet been designed. Therefore, these signs are not included at this time. However, the City’s Community Services Division has applied separately for a Master Sign Program to process a larger request for signage within the Baylands, including signage on the Boardwalk, at the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, and across a 2.75 mile stretch of trail that would link the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center to the Interpretive Center at Cooley Landing in East Palo Alto. Processing this as a Master Sign Program will ensure that all signage proposed is designed in coordination to provide better connectivity between the signs. Therefore, signage is not included as part of this project. However, the Master Sign Program will come before the ARB in the near future for consideration. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s environmental regulations. Specifically, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 day period on September 15, 2017 and will close on October 16, 2017. A link to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included in Attachment E. The ARB must consider the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in making a recommendation on the project and may comment on the draft. Following completion of the ARB’s review and recommendation on the project, a Final Draft MND and MMRP would be prepared and adopted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Design features and mitigation has been included to address sensitive habitat avoidance for construction related impacts to sensitive species within the Baylands, including the salt marsh harvest mouse and salt mouse wandering shrew. The proposed project would be constructed City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 outside the avian nesting season to avoid impacts to nesting avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on October 6, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 5, 2017, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department has not received any written comments from members of the public regarding the Baylands Boardwalk and no public comments were received at the public hearing with the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted on September 26, 2017 for a recommendation on the Park Improvement Ordinance. However, the Community Services Division noted during that hearing that they have received a significant number of phone calls from members of the public asking when the Boardwalk will be reopened. 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 ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (PDF)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Environmental Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment F: Project Description (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 78.8' 253.4' 51.5' 84.5' 228.5' 83.0' 91.5'98.6' 106.0' 140.5' 263.5' 68.5' 75.8' 292.5' 331.9' 102.5' 155.0' 146.0' 102.5'172.5' 278.5' 175.0'132.5' 182.6' 143.4' 128.5' 188.0' 177.5' 125.0' 126.0' 241.0' 332.5' 334.0' 256.5' 237.5' 202.0' 200.5' 202.5' 245.0' 153.0' 187.5' 32.8'.0'26.0' 547.8' 343.2' 459.4' 162.7' 477.5' 29.3' 112.6' 337.9' 5159.9' 350.0' 772.0' 211.0' 169.8' 236.0' 167.7' 329.7' 303.6' 330.0' 198.0' 475.0' 290.4' 273.9' 118.8' 211.9' 178.2' 105.7'2.8'60.2' 132.0' 428.3' 11.3' 152.5'240.2' 106.7'141.7' 179.9' 112.1' 203.6' 515.9'33.2'.2'564.0' 2691.4' 165.0' 60.0' 195.7' 127.4' 175.0' 20.1' 345.2' 7.6' 172.1' 17.8' 277.5'367.8' 175.1' 167.3' 169.0' 204.2' 128.1' 6.3' 248.8' 139.0' 18.7' 139.8' 162.5' 207.7' 168.3' 46.7' 123.8' 265.3' 165.0' 179.8' 25.4'60.0' 165.0' 148.0' 276.4' 127.4' 175.0' 20.1' 418.5' 20.0' 452.1' 420.5' 345.2' 7.6' 241.3'393.7' 230.0' 47.1'129.2' 25.1' 84.3'18.7' 139.0' 206.3' 665.7' 44.8' 230.7' 367.4' 182.3' 179.8'25.4' 195.7' 44.8' 312.7' 341.8' 229.3' 35.4' 147.8' 4.9' 396.4' 30.1' 358.7'59.7'115.1' 437.7' 149.5'159.5' 57.6' 153.2' 281.9' 1.9'89.8' 48.4'39.5'16.4' 386.6' 167.3' 56.5' 148.0' .3'.5'11.0'123.2' 129.3' 277.5'367.8' 171.5' 115.1'59.7' 386.6' 169.1' 368.1' 228.5' 291.1' 238.2' 101.5' 11.0'123.2' 129.3' 98.9'131.7' 148.0'56.5'43.4' 25.9' 789.6' 515.9' 203.6' 112.1' 179.9' 141.7' 441.4' 398.0' 32.7' 538.4'375.0' 400.0' 526.8' 129.0' 206.0' 626.2' 168.2' 201.2' .2'33.2' 265.6' 175.1' 248.8' 24.4' 261.9' 160.1' 17.0' 253.2' 196.9' 234.7'195.5' 5.0' 206.5' 234.7' 22.2' 184.7' 9.6' 206.0' 5.0' 226.0' 31.4' 191.0' 200.0' 129.0' 246.0' 200.0' 375.0' 200.0' 375.0' 200.0' 66.5' 572.4' 128.1' 303.6' 330.0' 198.0' 475.0' 290.4' 273.9' 118.8' 211.9' 178.2'105.7'102.1' 621.5' 188.6' 159.5' 57.6' 153.2' 281.9' 438.6' 71.9' 238.2' 101.5' .5'.3' 131.7' 209.3' 147.8' 35.4' 162.5' 207.7' 204.1'89.1' 279.8' 47.1' 129.2'25.1' 393.7' 251.5' 42.8' 3.5'17.8' 172.1' 589.5' 180.0' 2450 25 2100 2585 2525 2483 2600 2370 2575 2465 2471 2479 17301700 2480 1766 2450 17662275 1717 1755 2500 1858 1800 1850 1840 1830 1820 1810 2445 2455 2465 1731 2501 2478 2470 2468 2460 2450 2448 2438 1900 1888 1880 1870 1860 1903 1875 2000 2415 2417 2425 2380 2500 2560 1804 1901 1925 2463 1735 2775 2452 24542458 2462 2464 2476 1808 1886 2550 2440 1985 1905 1890 1909 2508 2472 2452 2375 2222 1800 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Curb Edge Sidewalk abc Easement Underlying Lot Line abc Dimensions (AP) abc Address Label Arterial Street Water Feature Railroad Highlighted Features Current Features 0'865' Baylands Boardwalk 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 chodgki, 2017-10-10 16:44:01 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Baylands Boardwalk Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2775 Embarcadero Road 17PLN-00217 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: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site includes a split land use designation of Major Institution Special Facilities (MISP), Conservation Land (CL); and Public (P) The project proposes replacement of an existing boardwalk that connects to the Lucy Evans Baylands Interpretive Center and that allows for low impact recreational use of the area, consistent with the current use of the site. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy N-1: Manage existing open space and encourage management of private open space areas in a manner meeting habitat protection goals, public safety, and low impact recreation needs. The project would allow for the existing boardwalk to be safely re-opened to the public for low-impact recreational purposes while avoiding long-term impacts to wildlife and vegetation. Program N-2: Examine and improve management practices for natural habitat and open space areas The project would include a reduced impact on the marsh by reducing the total number of support structures within the marsh. It includes restoration of all temporarily disturbed areas. Program N-3: Review the need for access controls in environmentally sensitive areas, including the Baylands, foothills, and riparian corridors. The boardwalk allows for low-impact recreational enjoyment of the marsh area while eliminating the need for users to step into marsh areas, which would be environmentally impactful. Policy N-8: Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or The project would reduce the total number of support structures within the marsh and allow for wetland areas as open space. more vegetation to grow beneath the boardwalk by slightly raising the height of the structure. Allowing access to the marsh through controlled means preserves and protects the bay, marshlands, and sloughs in the area while allowing for the public to enjoy and learn more about the ecology of the area. Policy L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public streets in the developed portions of the City. The project would not affect views of the foothills given its low profile. Moreover, it would allow for better viewpoints for visitors to the area to enjoy these views. Policy L-50: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. Signage on the boardwalk would be integrated into the railings and would provide educational information about the ecology of the area to visitors. An example of the proposed signage is included on Sheet 4.7 and is of a high quality and consistent with the Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines. 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. The project would be located off of the Bay Trail which connects to the end of Embarcadero Road within the Baylands. It would not be visible from Embarcadero Road. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project follows the same alignment as the existing boardwalk and is compatible with the adjacent, low profile Lucy Evans nature Interpretive Center. It would not affect the historic use of the site and is designed to be consistent with the secretary of the Interiors standard for historic rehabilitation in order to maintain the existing low-profile and natural look, consistent with the existing boardwalk and the Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines. The project is also consistent with the zoning development requirements for structures within the PF(D) zone including, height, floor area ratio, setbacks, daylight planes and lot coverage, as provided in Attachment C as well as the Baylands Master Plan and Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines, as outlined in the staff report. Therefore, the project is consistent with Finding 1 because it is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The project is not located in the vicinity of residential uses and is not subject to any context-based design criteria. However, as described in further detail under finding #3, the project is designed to be compatible with the existing Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, which it is connected to. It preserves and protects natural features by reducing the overall number of support structures within the marsh area, using more environmentally friendly wood, and is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for historic rehabilitation despite the fact that neither the nature center nor the existing boardwalk has been identified as historic. This ensures that the historic look of the site would not substantially change. The project provides a harmonious transition from the Nature Center out to viewing platforms along the marsh. The project creates a desirable environment for visitors from the general public. Therefore, the project is consistent with finding #2. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project is designed to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s standard for historic rehabilitation despite the fact that neither the boardwalk nor the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center has been identified as historic. Consistency with these standards ensure that the overall look of the proposed structure is similar and compatible with the existing structures at the site so that the historic look and natural feel of the site would be maintained. The project would be constructed using Alaskan Yellow Cedar rather than Pressure Treated Douglas Fir, as was historically used, to reduce the potential for pollution (specifically copper and arsenic) as well as to provide a structure that would better withstand the salt marsh environment over a greater lifespan. The textures, materials, and color were selected for consistency with the existing building and to meet the Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines. Construction techniques are also specifically selected based on the environment. Most notably, no construction would occur during the avian nesting season and no heavy equipment would be used for construction. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with finding #3. 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 design is functional in that the project connects to the decking of the existing Nature Interpretive Center in the same location and along the same alignment as the existing boardwalk. The design is intended for pedestrian use only and would not increase vehicle use or parking or otherwise effect vehicle access to the general area. The project is designed to meet ADA requirements where the existing boardwalk does not, ensuring access for all potential users. The project is consistent with the historic use of the site and would continue to allow for users to enjoy the Baylands. Interpretive signage would be appropriately incorporated into the site design in that it would be located on the railing in a low profile way that would be visible to users without affecting the overall look of the boardwalk from nearby trails. 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: The project does not include a landscape design given that the project is located within marsh habitat. Adding trees to the site area would increase predation on endangered species and is therefore not included in the design. However, the project construction minimizes impacts on the environment through several design features and mitigation measures and restoration of temporarily impacted areas would be required in accordance with the project’s mitigation measures. The site would be restored using only native plant materials appropriate to the site and would be done in a manner that would ensure the site’s long-term restoration for wandering shrew and salt marsh harvest mice. 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: Operation of the project would not utilize energy or water. No landscaping is proposed; only restoration of the salt marsh habitat to ensure the habitat quality for salt mash harvest mice and wandering shrew are maintained. All of the materials from the existing boardwalk would be recycled or otherwise restored and reused for other projects, such as for the Highway 101 bicycle bridge overlook. The project would avoid the use of pressure treated Douglas Fir timber due to concerns with potential chemical treatment effects (most notably arsenic and copper) on the marsh environment. The project would utilize Alaskan Yellow cedar, which would not include these harmful toxins, and would be longer lasting in the salt marsh environment. ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2775 Embarcadero Road 17PLN-00217 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Baylands Boardwalk Replacement Project Architectural Review Board Major Package” stamped as received by the City on October 10, 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. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 5. DESIGN FEATURES. Key aspects of the project’s design features and construction were designed to avoid impacts to sensitive habitat and species within the project area. Therefore, as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, the following parameters shall be observed for project design and construction: • To avoid disturbing nesting Ridgway’s rails, construction will be restricted to the non-nesting season of September 1st through January 31st. This restriction will also avoid nesting disturbance to other common and special-status bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. In addition, no work will be allowed during extreme high tides. • The contractor will utilize the existing boardwalk as a staging platform to construct the replacement boardwalk. • Only relatively light-weight equipment that can be supported by the existing boardwalk (assuming some reinforcing of the existing boardwalk, where warranted) will be utilized, which will avoid the staging of equipment and materials in the marsh. • The new piles/posts will be located outboard of the existing boardwalk footprint, which will facilitate installation from the existing boardwalk. Old piles/posts would be cut at ground level and left in place. Pile-driving will not occur during installation of the new piles/posts. Staining of natural wood will be performed at a staging platform to prevent chemicals from entering the Baylands. • Durable, decay-resistant, non-pressure treated wood piles/posts would be installed to prevent the leaching of chemicals from the wood into the adjacent soil. • Since only hand-held tools and smaller materials will be able to be carried to the boardwalk via the deck of the Interpretive Center, temporary marsh mats will be installed on the eastern side of the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center (as shown in Figure 3.1-1) to allow larger materials and equipment to access the boardwalk. The mats would be used because they distribute weight and prevent excessive sediment disturbance and mobilization. • Temporary marsh mats, up to ten square feet in size, would be placed at each boardwalk bent for construction personnel only (no equipment) to stand on during bent work. These mats would be removed upon completion of construction at each bent. • Construction personnel will be restricted to the existing boardwalk and marsh mats. Area trails would remain open and the Interpretive Center would remain in use during construction. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 9. FLOOD ZONE: Plan set shall identify/reference the following: a. Identify flood zone designation and appropriate base flood elevation b. Reference NAVD 88 datum. c. The base flood elevation location shall be provided on any structural details and elevations. d. Provide note of flood-resistant materials for structure below the base flood elevation. 10. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 11. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: If 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. 12. 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. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 Community Services Division 13. BENCH DESIGN. The benches shall be constructed with common materials that can be easily replaced (i.e. not custom designed). Building Division 14. PATH OF TRAVEL. Indicate the accessible path of travel from the arrival points to the buildings entrance and to the area of alteration to demonstrate compliance with CBC 11B-202.4 for path of travel requirements. 15. In addition, demonstrate that the connecting San Francisquito trail has been constructed with gradients permitting at least partial use by wheel chair occupants. Buildings and other functional areas shall be served by paths or walks with firm and stable surfaces. (CBC 11B-246.7) Exhibit A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 1 PROJECT NAME Baylands Boardwalk Improvement Project APPLICATION NUMBER 17PLN-00217 APPROVED BY City of Palo Alto DATE 10/12/17 APPLICANT/OWNER City of Palo Alto, Public Works Engineering Division The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Baylands Boardwalk Improvement Project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code: ... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an EIR. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation AIR QUALITY Impact AQ-1: Fugitive dust emissions during construction could significantly impact recreationists or construction workers in the project vicinity. MM AQ-1.1: Implementation of the following BAAQMD BMPs, which have been amended to address project-specific impacts, will ensure that any significant impact associated with construction- generated dust emissions are avoided.  Haul trucks transporting loose material off-site shall be covered.  Visible mud of dirt track-out onto adjacent public road shall be swept with a street sweeper once per day to control dust.  Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  Unpaved surfaces shall be watered on a daily basis or as needed to control dust. Water shall be applied at a limited rate so as to avoid the creation of runoff from the site. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation require project contractors to take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO-1: Construction activities could result in direct and indirect impacts salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews in the project area. MM BIO-1.1: Sensitive Habitat Avoidance. The following measures will avoid and minimize impacts on salt marsh vegetation that is habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse and the salt marsh wandering shrew during project implementation: 1. Staging, access, and parking areas will be located outside of sensitive habitats. 2. Areas of disturbance will be limited to the smallest footprint necessary. 3. Ingress and egress points will be clearly identified in the field using orange construction fence. Work will not be conducted outside the designated work area. 4. In general, demolition and construction will be performed by personnel and equipment operating from either the existing boardwalk or the incrementally- constructed boardwalk. No construction personnel or equipment will operate while standing in the marsh, except as noted below:  Construction equipment and personnel will access the Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation project site via temporary marsh mats within the construction access zone cleared by the biologist. The temporary marsh mats will remain in use throughout the construction duration.  Construction personnel (but no equipment) may access the surface of the marsh at each bent location to facilitate construction of new timber connections and removal of existing boardwalk elements. All such work will be performed from a small segment of temporary marsh mat (equal to or less than 10 square feet). The placement of the temporary marsh mat will be monitored by a biologist to ensure there are no mice present. The temporary marsh mat will be removed when no longer required and will remain in place for no longer than one work shift before being removed. MM BIO-1.2: Water Quality. The following measures will avoid and minimize impacts on water quality during construction activities in and near the salt marsh: 1. Equipment will be maintained free of petroleum leaks. Vehicles operated Applicant/Contractor During construction; Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Stormwater Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation within 150 feet of any water body will be inspected daily for leaks and, if necessary, repaired before leaving the staging area. Inspections will be documented in a record that is available for review on request. 2. Spill prevention kits will always be in close proximity to construction activities (e.g., crew trucks and other logical locations) when using hazardous materials. Feasible measures will be implemented to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled and the quality of aquatic resources is protected. 3. No fueling will be performed in wetland or aquatic habitats unless equipment stationed in these locations is not readily relocated (e.g., pumps, generators). For stationary equipment that must be fueled on site, containment will be provided in such a manner that any accidental spill of fuel will not be able to enter the water or contaminate sediments that may come in contact with water. 4. A hazardous materials management/fuel spill containment plan will be developed and implemented by the construction contractor and given to all contractors and biological monitors working on the project, with at least one copy of the plan located on site at all times. The Management Plan prior to issuance of a building permit City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 6 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation purpose of the plan is to provide on- site construction managers, environmental compliance monitors, and regulatory agencies with a detailed description of hazardous materials management, spill prevention, and spill response/cleanup measures associated with the construction of the Project elements. The primary objective of the plan is to prevent a spill of hazardous materials. Elements of the plan include, but are not limited to the following:  A discussion of hazardous materials management, including delineation of hazardous material and hazardous waste storage area, access and egress routes, waterways, emergency assembly areas, and temporary hazardous waste storage areas  Materials Safety Data Sheets for chemicals used and stored on site  An inventory list of emergency equipment  Spill control and countermeasures including employee spill prevention/response training  Notification and documentation procedures City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 7 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation  Monthly reporting plan 5. Vehicles will be washed only at an approved area. No washing of vehicles will occur at the project site. 6. A stormwater management plan will be developed to ensure that, during rain events, construction activities do not increase the levels of erosion and sedimentation. This plan will include the use of erosion-control materials (e.g., baffles, fiber rolls, or hay bales; temporary containment berms) and erosion-control measures such as straw application or hydroseeding with native grasses on disturbed slopes; and floating sediment booms and/or curtains to minimize any impacts that may occur due to increased mobilization of sediments. Suitable erosion control, sediment control, source control, treatment control, material management, and non-stormwater management best management practices will be implemented consistent with the latest edition of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook, available at www.capmphandbooks.com. These will include seeding denuded upland areas (e.g., the levee slope in the temporary access path) with a native seed mix to ensure rapid revegetation and erosion control. City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 8 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation MM BIO-1.3: Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Construction personnel will participate in a worker environmental awareness program. These personnel will be informed about the presence of listed species and habitats associated with the species and that unlawful take of the animal or destruction of its habitat is a violation of FESA and CESA. Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist will instruct construction personnel about the description and status of the species; the importance of their associated habitats; and a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts on these species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information will be prepared for distribution to the construction crew and anyone else who enters the project site. Applicant/Contractor Prior to construction Planning & Community Environment MM BIO-1.4: No Firearms. No firearms (except for federal, state, or local law enforcement officers and security personnel) will be permitted at the project site to avoid harassment, killing or injuring of wildlife. Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment MM BIO-1.5: No Pets. No animals (e.g., dogs or cats) can be brought to the project site to avoid harassment, killing or injuring of wildlife. Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment MM BIO-1.6: Food Trash Removal. The project site will be maintained trash-free, and food refuse will be contained in secure Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 9 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation bins and removed daily during construction. MM BIO-1.7: Daytime Work Only. No nighttime work will occur. Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment MM BIO-1.8: Biological Monitoring. A qualified biological monitor will be present during on-the-ground work activities (as opposed to activities on the elevated boardwalk/decking) within the marsh or in vegetated areas within five feet of the marsh to look for individuals that may be impacted by construction. For example, when construction personnel need to briefly/temporarily stand in the marsh on either side of each bent, the biological monitor will first inspect the marsh to determine whether any salt marsh harvest mice or salt marsh wandering shrews are present. If any animals are present, they will be allowed to leave the area on their own, or the location of the in-marsh work will be adjusted slightly to ensure that no impacts to individual mice or shrews occur. As the construction personnel place a mat in the marsh on which to conduct that work, the biologist will monitor the placement of the mat and all activities conducted by personnel on the mat (until work within the marsh at that bent is completed). The biologist will have stop- work authority if any individual of a federally listed species is detected in an area where it may be injured or killed by construction activities. Applicant/Contractor During construction; biological monitor qualifications to be provided prior to issuance of a building permit Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 10 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation MM BIO-1.9: No Work during Extreme High Tides. To avoid the loss of individual salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews (as well as other vulnerable special-status salt marsh species, such as California Ridgway’s rail and California black rail), demolition and construction within or adjacent to habitat for these species will not occur within two hours before or after extreme high tides (6.5 feet or above, as measured at the Golden Gate Bridge and adjusted to the timing of local high tides), when the marsh plain is inundated, because protective cover for these species is limited and activities could prevent them from reaching available cover. Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment MM BIO-1.10: Limit Vegetation Removal. To avoid the loss of individual harvest mice and wandering shrews from any excavation, fill, or construction activities in suitable habitat, vegetation removal will be limited to the minimum amount necessary to permit the activity to occur. Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment MM BIO-1.11: Hand Removal of Vegetation. Within the pathway that will be used for temporary equipment and personnel to access the boardwalk from the existing levee, vegetation and debris that could provide cover for harvest mice and wandering shrews will be removed using only hand tools prior to the commencement of construction activities. Vegetation removal will occur under the Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 11 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation supervision of a qualified biologist. This vegetation will be removed on a progressive basis, such that the advancing front of vegetation removal moves toward vegetation that would not be disturbed. A qualified biologist will monitor the vegetation removal and make specific recommendations with respect to the rate of vegetation removal (to ensure that any harvest mice or wandering shrews present are able to escape to cover that will not be impacted), and whether vegetation needs to remain in a certain area temporarily to facilitate dispersal of harvest mice/wandering shrews into habitat outside the impact area. MM BIO-1.12: Exclusion Fence. Following the hand-removal of vegetation, exclusion fencing will be erected on both sides of the access pathway, between the access pathway and adjacent harvest mouse/wandering shrew habitat that is to remain intact to define and isolate protected harvest mouse habitat. This fencing will consist of heavy plastic sheeting or metal material that cannot be climbed by harvest mice, buried at least four inches below the ground’s surface, and with at least 1 foot (but no more than four feet) above the ground. Supports for the fencing will be placed on the inside of the work area. A four-foot buffer will be maintained free of vegetation around the outside of the exclusion fencing. The fencing will be Applicant/Contractor/Biologist During construction Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 12 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation inspected daily during construction, and any necessary repairs will be made within 24 hours of when they are found. If any breaks in the fencing are found, the qualified biologist will inspect the work area for salt marsh harvest mice and salt marsh wandering shrews. If any individuals are found, all work that could impact these individuals will cease until the individuals have left the impact area on their own. MM BIO-4.1: Cleaning of Construction Equipment. Construction equipment will be pressure washed prior to mobilization and upon returning to the staging area after each day of use to prevent the spread of weed propagules and ensure compliance with noxious weed regulations. Worker personal gear, including boots, shall also be cleaned and clear of plant material prior to entering the work area. Applicant/Contractor During construction Planning & Community Environment MM BIO-5.1: Post-Construction Restoration. After completion of the project, a qualified restoration ecologist will be consulted to determine if the construction access zone, where temporary marsh mats were employed, encountered substantial soil compaction, furrowing, or topographic alteration that would inhibit self-restoration of tidal salt marsh habitat in those areas. If it is determined that self- restoration is inhibited, the qualified restoration ecologist will develop a Wetland Restoration and Monitoring Plan, which will contain the following Applicant/Contractor/Restoration ecologist Prior to final inspection; during operations Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 13 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation components (or as otherwise modified by regulatory agency permitting conditions): 1. Goal of the restoration (to achieve no net loss of habitat functions, values, and restoration timing during the non- avian nesting season); 2. Restoration design: • Fill plan, if appropriate to raise the marsh to an elevation suitable for planting and/or colonization by native marsh vegetation • Soil amendments and other site preparation elements as appropriate • Planting plan (if appropriate) • Maintenance plan • Remedial measures/adaptive management 3. Monitoring plan, including final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc.); at a minimum, success criteria will include restoration of native marsh vegetation at a percent cover at least 90 percent of pre-project conditions, and provision of ecological functions and values equal to or exceeding those in the habitat that was impacted; and 4. Contingency plan for mitigation City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 14 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation elements that do not meet performance or final success criteria. If required, the City shall implement the Wetland Restoration and Monitoring Plan. Monitoring shall be conducted annually to document whether the success criteria are achieved, and to identify any remedial actions that must be taken if the identified success criteria are not met. Monitoring shall continue until the mitigation has been determined to be successful (i.e., success criteria are achieved). ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2775 Embarcadero Road, 17PLN-00217 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, Width, Depth None 25,007 sf 25,007 sf Minimum Front Yard(1) (2) 20 >20 No change Rear Yard(1) 10 >10 No change Interior Side Yard(1) 10 >10 No change Street Side Yard(1) 10 >10 No change Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Impervious Coverage No maximum requirement Max. Building Height 50 feet 13 feet, 3 inches to top of rail (9 feet, 9 inches to top of boardwalk) 17 feet to top of rail (13.5 feet to top of boardwalk) Daylight Plane Requirements Initial height of 10 feet then 1:2 angle (only required for site lines abutting a residential district) Not Applicable Not Applicable Max. Site Coverage 30% (7,052 sf) 14.6% (3,655 sf) Existing deck area 19.25% (4,815 sf) Proposed deck area Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 1:1 (25,007 sf) 0.12:1.0 (3,101 sf) No change (2) (1) The minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF public facilities district shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet. Attachment E Environmental Documents These documents are available to the public online, as described below, or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “2775 Embarcadero Road” and open record [17PLN-00217] by clicking on the green dot 3. Review record details on the right side and click the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2017-09 Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration” 6. Open the attachment named “Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” 1 | P a g e BAYLANDS BOARDWALK REPLACEMENT PROJECT WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES The proposed project is the replacement of the existing Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk. The existing timber boardwalk structure, which is shown on Figure 1, extends roughly 850 feet north across the Harriet Mundy Marsh towards the San Francisco Bay from the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center (Nature Center) and the San Francisquito Creek Trail. The existing boardwalk structure, which was constructed in 1969 and rehabilitated and widened by the City in 1980, is approximately four feet in width. As shown in Photos 1 and 2, the existing boardwalk has experienced substantial deterioration in the salt water tidal marsh environment and was closed in 2014 due to structural deficiencies and safety concerns. Figure 1 – Location of Existing Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk 2 | P a g e In March 2016, a Feasibility Study Report was completed, which evaluated various repair, rehabilitation, and replacement options to allow the boardwalk to be reopened to the public.1 In September 2016, after reviewing the findings of the Feasibility Study Report and considering input from the public, the Palo Alto Parks & Recreation Commission, and regulatory agencies, the Palo Alto City Council voted to pursue the option of replacing the boardwalk along its existing alignment. Photo 1: Existing Boardwalk Looking Easterly Photo 2: Existing Boardwalk Looking Westerly DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will replace the existing Palo Alto Baylands Boardwalk with a new boardwalk of the same length and on the same alignment. The width of the replacement structure will be five feet and the elevation of the top of the deck will be 13.5 feet NAVD88.2 This elevation is approximately 3.6 – 4.3 feet higher than the existing structure and was set in consultation with the staff of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to comply with BCDC’s policies that require projects to be resilient in accommodating projected sea level rise. The deck elevation of 13.5 is considered the upper bound of project feasibility since the only access point to the Boardwalk is through the existing Nature Center. Further raising of the deck could also have negative impacts to existing endangered wildlife by creating a more attractive perch for avian predators. The proposed 5-foot width, which compares to the 4-foot width of the existing structure, was selected to best meet ADA standards. Per discussions with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) a Shade Study was performed to assess the potential impact on vegetation growth below the wider structure. Coupled with the increased Boardwalk deck height, it was determined that vegetation would not be impeded from growing under the wider/ taller structure. The replacement Boardwalk will include an Observation Platform at the San Francisco Bay end of the Boardwalk to provide a panoramic view of the bay. The replacement Boardwalk will include four 1 Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc., Baylands Boardwalk Feasibility Study Report (Final), March 2016. 2 NAVD88 = North American Vertical Datum of 1988 3 | P a g e Intermediate Overlooks along its length. The existing Boardwalk has 2 overlooks. The overlooks will be spaced along the Boardwalk, and will serve to further improve access, allowing clearance for multi-mode users in wheelchairs to turn around and pedestrians to pass by. The overlooks will be designed to support exterior interactive exhibits to engage visitors in salt marsh phenomena. Both the Observation Platform and the Intermediate Overlooks will accommodate a 30 inch by 48 inch clear area for wheelchair users and a bench with arm rests. A redwood timber railing, 3.5 feet minimum in height, will be erected on each side of the boardwalk. Intermittent viewing panels will be provided at the intermediate overlooks and observation platform to enhance visibility for wheelchair users and small children. In consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in order to minimize the potential for birds to strike the panels, each panel will be no more than 18 inches in width and will contain either glass with bird-safe design patterns or wire mesh. Redwood is also proposed to be used for the deck of the boardwalk, which is the material used for the railings and deck of the recently renovated Nature Center. Interpretive signage on the railings will be installed as part of a future project. The boardwalk’s railings will be topped by raptor deterrent rollers such as those shown on Photo 3, which will function to minimize the potential for predation of endangered species that are present at this location (e.g., salt marsh harvest mouse and the Ridgway’s rail) by preventing raptors from perching on the railings to scan for prey. Such rollers are in place at other locations in the area, including the boardwalk at Alviso County Park. Photo 3: Existing bird perch deterrent rollers on the boardwalk at Alviso County Park. The site is characterized by soft soils consisting of deep layers of Bay Muds. A deep foundation system to accommodate anticipated long term marsh settlement will be required. The proposed typical span of the replacement boardwalk between foundations will be 12 feet in length, as opposed to the 10-foot spans of the existing boardwalk. This will reduce the number of wooden piles/posts in the marsh from roughly 186 (existing) to 159 (proposed). Each of the existing pressure-treated Douglas fir (PTDF) piles/posts will be removed down to the mudline. The replacement piles/posts and boardwalk structural elements will utilize Alaskan Yellow Cedar as it is a material that is naturally durable and decay-resistant. Additionally, Alaskan Yellow Cedar is a RWQCB recommended material for use in place of PTDF due to concerns with potential chemical treatment effects (most notably arsenic and copper) on the marsh environment. In accordance with the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, wood finishes will consist of Olympic 911 Natural Gray Stain and metal components will be painted with Benjamin Moore Sandy Hook Gray (HC-108). 4 | P a g e ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS The Boardwalk is located within the ecologically-sensitive Palo Alto Baylands adjacent to San Francisco Bay. The tidal marsh habitat of the Baylands is utilized by numerous animal species including those that are protected due to their status as endangered or threatened. Such species include the salt marsh harvest mouse, Ridgway’s rail, and the California black rail. The entire Boardwalk Project is within the habitat for the Ridgway’s Rail. Suitable breeding habitat for Ridgway’s Rail generally needs to be avoided during the Ridgway’s Rail breeding season from February 1 through August 31. If breeding Ridgway’s Rails are determined to be present during these surveys, activities will not occur within 700 feet. This buffer requirement during the prolonged breeding season will pose a serious constraint to the available construction window. The harvest mouse is listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a “fully protected” species. Avoidance and minimization measures are generally required to avoid killing or harming a harvest mouse during construction activities conducted in the pickleweed marsh. CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY Given the environmental constraints noted above, a key objective was to develop a construction methodology and schedule that will allow for the boardwalk to be replaced, while at the same time avoiding and minimizing impacts to these resources to the greatest extent practicable. To achieve this objective, the following parameters for constructing the replacement boardwalk will be observed: · To avoid disturbing nesting Ridgway’s rails, construction will be restricted to the non-nesting season of September 1st through January 31st. This restriction will also avoid nesting disturbance to other common and special-status bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. · The Contractor will utilize the existing Boardwalk as a staging platform to construct the replacement Boardwalk. · Only relatively light-weight equipment that can be supported by the existing Boardwalk (assuming some reinforcing of the existing boardwalk where warranted) will be utilized, which will avoid staging equipment in the marsh. · The new piles/posts will be located outboard of the existing Boardwalk footprint, which will facilitate installation from the existing Boardwalk. · Since only hand-held tools and small materials will be able to be carried to the Boardwalk via the deck of the Nature Center, temporary marsh mats will be installed to allow larger materials and equipment to access the boardwalk. The mats distribute weight and prevent excessive sediment disturbance and mobilization. · Construction personnel will be restricted to the existing Boardwalk and marsh mats. 5 | P a g e CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE The anticipated construction sequence is described below. Assuming a 6 day work week, panelized railing construction, sufficient lead time for material orders and average rainfall levels, construction is anticipated to be completed within one construction season. Final methods and means of construction will be the responsibility of the City’s Contractor: Task 1: Site Preparation: 1.1 Install temporary marsh mats to provide equipment and material access to the near end of the Boardwalk. 1.2 Remove existing railing, reinforce the existing Boardwalk and modify the deck width as required to accommodate construction operations Task 2: Timber Post/ Pile Installation 2.1 Vibrate/push lower segment of timber post/ pile to ground line 2.2 Splice upper segment of timber post/ pile to partially installed lower segment of timber post/ pile 2.3 Vibrate/push spliced timber post/ pile to specified tip elevation and cutoff top of post/ pile to cutoff elevation Task 3: Substructure/ Superstructure Installation 3.1 Install timber bent cap 3.2 Install timber cross bracing 3.3 Install timber rim joists and blocking 3.4 Install timber decking 3.5 Remove existing Boardwalk to mudline when no longer required for construction operations 6 | P a g e Task 4: Timber Railing Installation 4.1 Install timber railing on completed superstructure 4.2 Remove marsh mats 4.3 Complete site clean-up Attachment G Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to boardmembers. 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: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2. On the left hand side click “Development Proposals” 3. In the drop down window click “Pending Projects” 4. Scroll to find “2775 Embarcadero Road” and click to view the project plans Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8537) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/19/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2747 Park Blvd: Master Sign Program (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2747 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00122]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow a Master Sign Program. The Master Sign Program is for a Previously Approved 33,323 Square Foot Office Building Currently Under Construction. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The 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/58853. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background On August 3, 2017 the ARB reviewed the project. The excerpt of the minutes of the August 3, 2017 hearing on the project are included in Attachment F of this report, and a video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJ4YO-8GNIw. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response The 9 foot high monument signs are too tall given the surrounding context and should be reduced to 6 feet in height. Two monument sign design options are now presented, one at 7.5 feet and another at 6 feet in height. The skyline wall sign at the apex of the building should be relocated to a flat location. Two wall sign options are now presented on the flat portions of the street-façade, one facing Sheridan Avenue and another facing Park Boulevard. Provide a photographic example describing the mounting of the sign on the glass curtain wall to demonstrate how the sign will relate to the building. The plans now show a photographic example. 3-D renderings would help illustrate the signage in the site context The plans now include 3-D renderings. The address sign should be centered on a stone block The plans now center the address sign accordingly. Analysis1 As noted above, the project plans have been modified to address the specific comments raised in the first hearing. The two monument signs are now presented as two design options. Option A includes a sign height of 7.5 feet and an area of 48 square feet, and retains the approximate proportions of the sign presented at the August 3, 2017 hearing. Option B includes a sign height of 5’-10” and an area of 44 square feet, and modifies the proportions to present a wider sign. The material and color of these signs were briefly discussed by Board members at the August 3, 2017 hearing, with some indicating support while others indicating that the materials were not integrated with the materials of the building. The applicant has indicated that this is an intentional choice in order to avoid the perception that the signs are “mini” buildings that mimic the architecture of the main building. The Board expressed agreement that the wall sign located at the apex of the building should be relocated. In response to this comment, the applicant has provided two relocation options for the Board’s consideration. Option A shows the sign on the far northern end of the Sheridan 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Avenue frontage. This option would be most visible from the east-bound direction of Park Boulevard, as well as potentially visible from the Oregon Expressway. Option B relocates the sign to the Park Boulevard frontage, where it would be most visible from northbound Page Mill Road. Staff believes that either option could meet the Findings for approval, and recommends that the Board provide direction as to the preferred location. The wall sign facing Caltrain was not discussed at length at the first hearing, and its location has not changed. The plans now show a photographic example of a curtain wall-mounted sign which utilizes race tracks scaled to and integrating the window mullions. The subject application proposes a similar design, with the exception that the race tracks would not be integrated with the mullions, but would instead be painted to match the building. Staff believes that the wall signs could be more fully integrated with the building by mirroring the approach shown in the photograph and attaching one of the race tracks at the same horizontal plane as the adjacent mullion. Alternatively, the race tracks could be painted to match the spandrel glass color to reduce their visibility. Zoning Compliance2 The August 3, 2017 staff report in Attachment E contains a detailed analysis of the project’s conformance with the zoning ordinance. The revised plans reduce the height and size of the monument signs, as well as the size of the wall signs. Given these changes, the proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits, permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 Policy L-50 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”. As indicated in the August 3, 2017 staff report, staff believes that the location of the wall signage is consistent with the other signs in the area, and is appropriate for the Park Boulevard corridor. Additionally, the new locations provided by Options A and B achieve the balance of visibility and high aesthetic quality. As with the initial plans, staff recommends conditions limiting the height of the wall sign letters to 2.5 feet, and wall sign logos to 4 feet. The materials of the monument signs has not changed with the revised plans, and consist of painted aluminum, and the chosen color palette of silver, tan, and cream is understated and would easily blend into the surroundings given the surrounding office park environment. The height of the proposed freestanding signs remains taller than others in the area, however, staff believes that the 5’-10” height provided by Option B is aesthetically acceptable and achieves the applicant’s need for visibility. Consistency with Application Findings Draft findings for the approval are contained in Attachment B of this report. 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 4 Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15311 (Accessory Structures), item (a) “On-Premise Signs” of the CEQA Guidelines. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on 10/6/17, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on 10/5/17, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Applicant's Revised Project Summary (PDF)  Attachment E: August 3, 2017 Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment F: August 3, 2017 Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 132-32-034 132-17-080 132-17-075 132-25-006 132-18-095 132-18-076 132-25-050 132-17-077 132-36-131 132-32-036 124-29-025 124-29-027 124-29-026 1 2 3 house North County Mental Health Center Gas Station #2 A PARKING GARAGE K A 567.5' 755.8' 55.3'60.3' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6'32.0' 17.5'34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 163.0' 138.8' 20.3' 19.0'17.0'17.0' 101.7' 113.0' 100.0' 12.5' 80.9' 123.0'90.0'100.0' 90.0' 100.0' 90.0' 127.4' 191.0' 12.0' 223.2' 142.5' 191.0' 127.4' 29.3' 65.2' 285.8' 257.2' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.8' 134.5' 105.8' 140.3' 59.0' 102.8'59.0' 102.8' 51.0' 102.8' 51.0' 102.8' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 52.8' 114.8' 85.5'110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0'104.3' 114.7' 71.7' 110.0' 52.0' 110.0' 52.0' 110.0' 75.0' 110.0' 75.0' 110.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 22.7' 46.8' 142.5' 68.6' 136.0' 65.7' 142.5' 65.7' 142.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0 60.0' 1 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 45 50.0' 134.5' 98.0 48.0' 134.5' 88.0' 140.3' 110.0' 77.8' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 52.8' 110.0' 52.8' 110.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 65.0' 110.0' 65.0' 110.0' 110.0' 60.0' 11 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 78.9' 114.7' 46.3' 110.0' 60.0' 114.7'86.7' 114.7' 30.0' 3.9' 30.0' 117.5' 30.0' 117.5'117.5' 60.0' 117.5' 60.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 75.0' 110.0' 75.0' 110.0' 117.5' 60.0' 117.5' 60.0' 285.0' 132.4' 285.0' 100.0' 285.0' 141.0'92.0' 12.0' 26.7' 92.6' 15.2' 76.4' 235.0' 100.0' 142.6' 99.3' 132.5' 142.7'92.8' 23.6' 73.7' 53.2' 83.7' 150.0' 10.0'0.0' 118.6' 15.7' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 130.0' 351.6' 160.0' 351.6' 351.6' 100.0' 30.0' 15.7' 59.1'13.4'44.4' 28.8' 36.8' 105.7' 136.6' 22.8' 51.3' 64.0' 15.7' 283.0' 12.5' 145.0' 181.6' 142.5' 92.6' 2.5' 89.0' 95.3' 29.3' 95.0' 37.2' 95.0' 54.0'95.0' 54.0' 165.8' 69.6' 165.3' 83.3' 261.2' 99.4' 261.2' 100.4' 63.3' 168.2' 48.7' 167.5' 170.0' 170.0' 351.6'89.0' 263.0' 170.4' 160.0' 142.5' 14.0' 133.0' 140.3' 134.5' 45.8' 85.8' 118.0' 18.0' 79.0' 79.0' 50.6' 44.5' 18.6' 70.0' 24.0' 18.0'35.5' 72.0' 147.0' 88.1' 76.1' 143.0' 31.0' 149.0 450.4' 263.1' 452.' 223.8'223.8'292.1' 291.2' 185.0' 75.0' EET SHERMAN AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD CO L O RA DO A V E NUE C O L O R A D O A V E N U E E M E R S O N S T R E E T HIGH STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET OREGON EXPRESSWAY OR E SHERIDAN AVENUE BIRCH STREET GRANT AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD M-40 CC(2)(R) PC-2224 PC-4268 0 PC-4 3 PC-3 028 R M -30 RM-15 R M -30 RM-40 ROLM GM GM (AD) RMD PTOD CC(2) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 200' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto jgerhar, 2017-03-13 15:18:25Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2747 Park Boulevard / 17PLN-00212 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: As discussed in the staff report, the project as conditioned is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the project conforms to Policy L-50: “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The master sign program presents a framework for future tenant signage for the purposes of wayfinding and site visibility. The proposed signage uses consistent materials and colors that is unified and coherent, and will assist in creating a sense of order on the site. As conditioned, the site signage is appropriately scaled for the site and reflects the character of the surrounding commercial context. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The master sign program makes use of aluminum and clear plastic materials that are durable while also being simple, clean, and aesthetically pleasing. The color palette of tan, cream, and silver proposed for the metal sign material complements the earth tones used on the building currently under construction on the site. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: Signage has been placed to assist in wayfinding for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists entering the building and site from a number of locations. The signage conforms to the City’s requirements regarding visibility triangles at intersections, and would not impair the function and safety of the drive aisles serving the site. As conditioned the size and amount of signage is under the maximum permitted for each sign type and/or building face, and the signs would be appropriately scaled for a commercial context. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. A landscaping plan was prepared and approved in conjunction with the approved building on this site and will continue to be implemented. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed signs include LED lighting which is energy efficient and long-lasting. ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2747 Park Boulevard, 17PLN-00122 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2747 Park Blvd Exterior Wayfinding Signage,” stamped as received by the City on October 11, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. The plans submitted for building permit shall incorporate the following changes: a. The two freestanding tenant monument signs shall be as shown in Option B. b. The two “skyline” wall signs on the site shall consist of letters no greater than to 2.5 feet in height and logos no greater than 4 feet in height. To the extent feasible, all mounting racetracks shall align with the building’s horizontal mullions, and shall be painted to match the adjacent surfaces of the building. c. All wall signs shall not protrude more than 10 inches from the mounting surface. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. 5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION 7. A building permit is required for the monument signs. Environmental Graphic Design 415.773.1000 Fax 773.1008 city@kkainc.com 1045 Sansome Street, Suite 202 San Francisco, CA 94111 Kate Keating Associates, Inc. 10 October 2017 Project Summary – 2747 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA The 1.5-acre project site at 2747 Park Boulevard in Palo Alto, CA includes a 33,323 sq. ft. office building spanning three levels, with both enclosed underground and surface parking. In collaboration with Jay Paul Company and DES Architects, Kate Keating Associates has developed an exterior sign program to address signage and wayfinding at the project site. Per DES Project Description, dated 9 April 2016: “This project is designed as a Research and Development building with a focus on technology, software and innovation companies...The total building area is 33,323 sq. ft. at 0.5 FAR. Taking advantage of it’s proximity to the California Ave Caltrain station, this project will have a robust TDM program in addition to the 133 on-site parking stalls to satisfy the parking requirement (133 cars). A parking garage will be constructed under the Research and Development building. A new building entry plaza, paved walkways, outdoor patio and landscaping will be part of the site improvements.” The Project Team is requesting Master Sign Program (MSP) approval via City of Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) process. The MSP approved by Palo Alto’s ARB will serve as a Tenant Signage Guidelines package and streamline the approval process for future tenants. The package itself will include illustrations and descriptions detailing the tenant signage opportunities in terms of aesthetic, size, and sign type limitations for single and multi-tenant leases. ■ Sign type and location of installation: SEE “Exterior Wayfinding Signage, Submittal for Master Sign Program” dated 25 July 2017, SHEET 1.01 ■ Sign number: QUANTITY 10 ■ Materials and construction methods: SEE “Exterior Wayfinding Signage, Submittal for Master Sign Program” dated 25 August 2017, SHEETS 2.02 - 2.05 and 3.02 ■ Colors: SEE “Exterior Wayfinding Signage, Submittal for Master Sign Program” dated 25 August 2017, SHEET 2.01 ARB comments to the MSP presentation on August 3, 2017 highlighted concerns regarding: general integration of all “WS” skyline signs and attachments into the architectural façade; sign location of skyline “WS-1” at the intersection of Sheridan Ave and Park Blvd; integration of the “AD” address wall signage into the façade’s stone coursing pattern; and the 9’-0” height of the “EX” site entry monuments. In response to these concerns, KKA’s revised MSP package includes: rendered elevations and perspectives showing integration of the “WS” skyline signage and “AD” address sign with the architectural façade; photographic project references and mounting details showing integration of the “WS” skyline signage with the architectural façade; two options for the “WS-1” sign type on either Sheridan Ave or Park Blvd (preferred location to be determined by tenant); and reduced sizing options for the “EX” site entry monument with a KKA recommended vertical orientation and alternate horizontal orientation (preferred option to be determined by the ARB). The revised MSP is scheduled to be presented to the ARB on October 19, 2017. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8288) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/3/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2747 Park Blvd: Master Sign Program (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2747 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00122]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow a Master Sign Program. The Master Sign Program is for a Previously Approved 33,323 Square Foot Office Building Currently Under Construction. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The proposed project is for a master sign program for a new R&D building currently under construction on the site. The master sign program provides a framework for future tenants of the building to follow, with sign design provisions describing the number, location, materials, and lighting of future tenant signs. Individual signs are typically considered minor projects requiring staff review only, however, pursuant to Section 18.76.020 of the Municipal Code, master sign programs are considered major projects and are subject to review by the ARB. With the approval of a master sign program, subsequent individual signs that conform to the program do not require additional architectural review. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: 2747-85 Park Boulevard LLC Architect: Not applicable Representative: Shawn Reese – Kate Keating Associates Inc. Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 2747 Park Boulevard Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 1.53 acres Housing Inventory Site: Yes Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, Live Oaks will be planted on the site as a component of the landscaping plan Historic Resource(s): Not a historic resource Existing Improvement(s): 33,323 square foot, 3-story R&D building currently under construction Existing Land Use(s): Vacant; R&D building currently under construction Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PF Zone (Caltrain ROW) West: Zoning (land uses) East: Zoning (land uses) South: Zoning (land uses) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: GM General Manufacturing Comp. Plan Designation: LI Light Industrial Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, across Page Mill Road from the site Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 HRB: None ARB: The ARB reviewed the application (14PLN-00388) for the 3-story building currently under construction on the site at study sessions on November 19, 2015 and December 17, 2015 and recommended approval of the project at a hearing on March 17, 2016. A link to the staff report for the hearing on March 17, 2016 is provided here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51515 Project Description The applicant proposes a master sign program for the R&D building currently under construction at the site. The program consists of a site plan, sign elevations, and material boards. Tenants have not yet been identified for the building project, and the purpose of the master sign program is to provide future tenants with a framework that guides future site signage. The following signs are requested with the master sign program: x Two (2) freestanding monument signs at the vehicle entrances to the site along Sheridan Avenue and Page Mill Road. Signs are proposed to be constructed of aluminum and clear plastic, with a total height of 9 feet. The signs would be 54 square feet and would be illuminated by upward-facing site lighting. x Two (2) freestanding signs at the entrances to the building along Park Boulevard and the main entrance to the surface parking lot. Signs are proposed to be constructed of aluminum and clear plastic, with a height of 5 feet. The signs would be 12.5 square feet. These signs would not feature any illumination. x Two (2) “skyline” wall signs at the apex of the building fronting Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue and on the east elevation facing the Caltrain right-of-way. Signs are proposed to be a maximum of 120 square feet (sf) of surface area, with individual letters no more than 2.5 feet in height and logos no more than 4 feet in height. The bottom of the letters would be located 40 feet above grade. The individual letters of the sign would be internally illuminated. x One (1) pedestrian scale wall sign at the southern corner of the building facing Park Boulevard. The sign would be located between 5 feet and 14 feet above grade and have a maximum size of 15 sf. No illumination is proposed for this sign. x Three (3) address numbers facing Sheridan Avenue, Park Boulevard, and the Caltrain right-of-way. Address letters and numbers are not considered signs for the purposes of compliance with the Sign Code. The address numbers would have no illumination and would be one foot in height. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: x Architectural Review – Master Sign Program: In accordance with PAMC Section 16.20.030 "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. The master sign program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the master sign program, subsequent individual signs may be erected without further design review. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve this application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Light Industrial (LI), a Zoning designation of General Manufacturing (GM), and is located on the northwest side of Park Boulevard. The neighborhood is characterized by a mix of medium sized research/office buildings, light industrial, transit-oriented residential, and single-family homes. Two overpasses link the site to the California Avenue commercial area and the California Avenue Caltrain Station. Future plans for the area envision a similar mix of transit-oriented uses. Existing signage in the area include small freestanding monument signs, as well as illuminated wall signs (approximately 2 feet in height) mounted near roof level. The scale of the existing signage in the area is appropriate given the mix of uses in the area. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 the requested permits, permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The standards for freestanding signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.20.120, are listed below: x Area and Height. Freestanding signs over five feet in height shall be permitted only on nonresidential properties in the Hospital zone, GM zones and on El Camino Real in the CN and CS zones and for service stations, restaurants and shopping centers elsewhere. The maximum area and height of such signs is set forth in Table 2.* Complies; the site is located in the GM zone where signs in excess of 5 feet are permitted. See below for discussion of permitted sign area. While the freestanding signs do not exceed the maximum limits established in Table 2, they would be the largest along Park Boulevard. x Location. Every sign shall be wholly on the owner's property, except that for any site that encompasses a minimum of ten acres in size and contains a minimum of 50,000 square feet of retail square footage, but does not have its primary frontage on a freeway, expressway, or major arterial, a freestanding sign may be located offsite on private property with frontage on the nearest major arterial roadway. The sign size and height shall be governed by the criteria set forth in Table 2*, using the average site length dimension as the lot frontage for calculation purposes, but in no case shall the sign size exceed fifty square feet. The sign shall comply with all other regulations of this chapter, the total site signage (including the offsite sign) shall not exceed the total allowed for the site, and all other signs on the offsite property must comply with sign regulations for that site. Would Not Comply Outside of an Approved Master Sign Program; As proposed the nine foot tall freestanding signs would exceed the maximum 50 sf. x Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be one such sign for each frontage and one additional sign for any portion of frontage in excess of two hundred fifty feet. The size of any additional sign shall be determined from Table 2* by counting as frontage that portion thereof which is in excess of two hundred fifty feet. In the case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies having a common frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be that of the shopping center or commonly used parcel and not the frontages of the individual businesses or occupancies. Complies; the project includes one freestanding sign per frontage, which includes a sign at the rear door. x Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; the signs are constructed of aluminum and clear plastic. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 x Lighting of Freestanding signs. No freestanding sign shall be constructed in such a way that any light bulb or filament is visible from the front of the sign or from beyond the property line. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit signs of neon tubing or similar self-illuminating material of equivalent or less intensity. Complies; external illumination will be minimal and focused on the two signs. The standards for wall signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.20.130, are listed below: x Area. The maximum wall sign area for each building face shall be as indicated on Table 3. Complies; the total proposed wall sign area for each elevation is 120 square feet, which is below the maximum permitted by Table 3. For comparison, the nearby “Groupon” signs are approximately 2 foot 3 inches in height and 32 square feet in total area. x Height. No part of any wall sign shall extend above the top level of the wall or in front of which is situated. Any such sign which is suspended or projects over any public or private walkway or walk area shall have an overhead clearance at least seven feet. Complies; signage does not extend above the wall nor project over the walkway. x Thickness or Projection. No such sign, including any light box or other structural part, shall exceed a thickness of ten inches. In any sign consisting of cutout or raised characters, said characters shall project no more than six inches from the mounting surface, except that when the average area of the individual characters exceeds six square feet, the projection may be increased by one-half inch for each additional square foot of average area over six feet, in no case exceed fifteen inches. Will be compliant with adherence to the draft Conditions of Approval; wall signage will not project more than six inches from the mounting surface. x Number. Subject to provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be any number of such signs for each building face, but in no case shall the total wall sign for each face exceed that shown in Table 3. No building shall have more than four building faces. Complies; wall signage does not exceed Table 3 requirements. As noted above, "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. Overall, this Master Sign Program is only asking for one variation from the Code, which is an increase in size for two freestanding signs while minimizing the size of signs in other areas. However, all of the proposed signs would be the largest in the area and possibly set a precedent for new signs at other sites. See further discussion below. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 Policy L-50 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”. The location of the wall signs has been designed to provide visibility corridors at the apex of the building at the corner of Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue, as well as from the Caltrain right-of-way. The location of these two signs is consistent with existing signage in the area, and would be uncluttered while still providing visibility from several angles. The materials are proposed to consist of painted aluminum, and the chosen color palette of silver, tan, and cream is understated and would easily blend into the surroundings given the surrounding office park environment. The height of the proposed freestanding signs is taller than similar signs in the area, and staff believes a lower overall height is needed in order to maintain an appropriate scale. Draft Conditions of Approval limit the height of all proposed freestanding signs on the site to 6 feet. The Board is encouraged to comment on the appropriateness of a height limit of 6 feet relative to the applicant’s request for 9 feet for these signs. Additionally, the total requested area for the “skyline” wall signs is 120 square feet, which staff believes greatly exceeds the size of similarly-positioned wall signs for other buildings in the area and would potentially detract from the architecture of the building. While staff believes that a lesser total wall sign area would better fit the character of the surrounding area, it is acknowledged that longer business names would inherently result in greater sign areas. Given this, staff has recommended conditions limiting the height of the wall sign letters to 2.5 feet, and wall sign logos to 4 feet. Consistency with Application Findings Draft findings for the approval are contained in Attachment B of this report. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15311 (Accessory Structures), item (a) “On-Premise Signs” of the CEQA Guidelines. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 21, 2017, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 17, 2017, which is 17 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) x Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) x Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) x Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES: August 3, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2747 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00122]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow a Master Sign Program. The Master Sign Program is for a Previously Approved 33,323 Square Foot Office Building Currently Under Construction. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: Gm (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Lew: The next item is number three. It’s a public hearing for a quasi-judicial matter, 2747 Park Boulevard. Recommendation on applicant’s request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to allow a Master Sign Program. The Master Sign Program is for a previously approved 33,323-square foot office building currently under construction. The environmental assessment is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA in accordance with guideline section 15311 for accessory structures. The zone district is general manufacturing and our project planner today is Graham Owen, welcome. Mr. Graham Owen, Project Planner: Thank you, Chairmen Lew. So, yes, I’m Graham Owen and I’m a planner with the City. I’ve been working with the applicant on the application that is here before you today. So, as you said this is a Master Sign Program for the new R&D building which is currently under construction at 2747 Park Boulevard. This Master Sign Program is essentially a – it’s a way of providing a framework for feature tenant signage. So, no tenants have been selected at this time for the building which is under construction but the applicant has expressed an interest and the developer has expressed an interest in providing feature tenants with basically a framework document that has basic design parameters for feature tenants. The benefit for a Master Sign Programs is that once that framework document – once the Master Sign Program has been approved, no further architecture review is required as long as signage is consistent with the Master Sign Program. So, this – the plans that are before you today do show logos and companies but those are just examples as no tenants have been selected at this time. This is a site plan showing the build outs of the 27247 Park Boulevard project. The building is located at the apex, right at the corner of Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue in the Ventura neighborhood and there are ten total signs that are being requested with this application. Two are free standing tenant monument signs which would be located at the vehicle entrances. Those would be 9-feet in total height and 54-square feet. There are two that would be two free standing monument signs which would be located at the building entrances, right at the apex and then also facing the parking lot. Three wall signs, one of which would be at the pedestrian level directly facing Park Boulevard and another that would be or two, excuse me, that would be located closer to the parapets of the building at the top. One facing the apex at the corner and then one facing the Caltrain right of way. Then there would also be two signs which would essentially be addressed so 2747 numbers. This is an example of the freestanding monuments signs which would be located at the vehicle entrances. So, as I mentioned, 9-feet in total height, 54- square feet in total sign area. These signs would be made out of aluminum, as well as a clear plastic material to go on the cabinet. The signs would be externally illumination from below shining onto the sign. This is another example showing a different cabinet which shows three tenants instead of just one. This is an example of the type of sign which would be proposed at the building entrances, slightly smaller at 5-feet in total height and smaller sign area of course. These – the two that are 2 proposed at the building entrances are not proposed to be illuminated. Then this is an example of the wall sign which would be located -- as I call them skyline signs but signs that would be located near the parapets of the building. This is proposed in two locations and this example is slightly different from the iteration that you saw in the earlier plans that we provided in the packet. This shows an example of a total sign area of 120-square feet for the sign – total sign area and 2 ½-feet in total height for the letters; which is what is requested with this application. The signs – the two signs that are mounted at the top of the building would be channel lite so internally illuminated signs. So, Staff is recommending approval of this application at this time. We would want to highlight two conditions of approval that are significant for the project. The freestanding monument sign, as I mentioned a couple times, is 9-feet in total height as proposed. We felt that along the Park Boulevard corridor, you don’t actually see that many monument signs to begin with so we felt that a 9-foot high sign might be inappropriate for the neighborhood. We are requesting through the conditions of approval that total height is lowered to 6-feet. The other is to ensure that the walls signs are compatible with the area. We’re just reiterating that the letters for the wall signs be no more than 2 ½-feet in total height, which is consistent with what it is in the plans. I believe that the applicant has a presentation as well but I’m happy to answer any questions. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Graham. So, let’s do the applicant presentation and you have 5-minutes. Ms. Julie Vogel: Is this on? That’s good, thanks, Graham. My name is Julie Vogel and I’m from Kate Keating Associates and this is Shawn Reese. I am president and Shawn is project manager for this particular project. Graham did a really great describing that there are only ten signs. There’s not really an elaborate presentation that we can expand on a great deal more. I think that one – a couple of things that we just want to highlight on an overview and that one is that the signs have been designed to the best of our abilities to be compatible with the site and with the architecture. The goal is to have the opportunity for the tenants to display their brand in a way that will give them the identity and still have a really nice site and experience on the street and that’s been the goal of the project all along. We’ve kept the setbacks that are required and one of the things about making – from our perspective is the potential of making the sign a lot shorter means that the footprint would expand considerably instead. Then we’re trying to keep the sign out of the sightlines for the vision triangle and a very safe distance for viewing for people who are turning in and out of the parking lot. If you see, this sign is the one that Staff is suggesting that we lower the size and one of the reasons that we’re concerned is that right now, if this was to be reduced by 6-feet – to 6-feet. That’s a thirty percent reduction and right now, things like – these all make belief companies and we just make these – load these us ourselves but for example, the Techglow logo, the Techglow is only presently 5- inches tall and the smaller the sign becomes, the more – the smaller the font has to become. Ideally, what we’re trying to achieve here is a clear area that allows for these logos not to be kind of smashed on top of each other and if the building were to lease one tenant per floor, that they all have enough clear space so it doesn’t look kind of junky out there. That’s the goal is that the font of the logo is large enough, the logos are not on top of each other and they all have clear space and that each of the three tenants potentially has the opportunity to be identified on the street. That’s the goal and kind of how we got to where we are. Again, the sign itself is of the same coloration and materiality of the building. Then also the one at the door here is we’re planning to co- locate the card reader into it to kind of clarify the elevation as you enter the building. Those are really the only things that I wanted to add to Graham’s presentation so if you guys have any questions, we would be happy. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I do want to open it up to public comments. I don’t have any speaker cards and I think we also do need to do disclosures with this item. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I’d like to disclose that I had an email exchange with Tom Gilman, the architect of the project, just asking questions about the wall sign. 3 Chair Lew: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Board? Vice Chair Kim: I have a quick question. I am wondering if this is maybe more comment oriented but you’re showing a multi-tenant monument sign on the street but the free-standing door tenant monument, you’re only showing a single tenant. So, what are your plans if you’re going to have multi- tenants for that door tenant monument? Ms. Vogel: That’s a good question. The idea of both of those signs is if the whole building goes with one tenant… Vice Chair Kim: Then it’s easy. Ms. Vogel: …that – they would – it would either look like that Elogic or the Techglow but if the building went with three tenants, both of the signs would have a similar layout where you would have the (inaudible). Vice Chair Kim: Where you would divide the door tenant signage into three as well? Ms. Vogel: Yes. Vice Chair Kim: You’re confident that you can get your desired height for lettering? Ms. Vogel: Well, at that point the sign is basically a greeting for the front door. It’s more of a pedestrian scale and the goal is not really to have a vehicular experience with that sign. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Peter? Board Member Baltay: Two questions please and I don’t if it’s for the Staff or the applicant but down the street from this is the Groupon building. It’s sort of brick building and how tall are the letters of the Groupon logo? Mr. Owen: We looked at that up and they are 2-feet 3- inches. Board Member Baltay: The second question for the applicant, I dug up a perspective rendering of this project as we approved it and I’m wondering if on this rendering can you say where the large Techglow, as you’ve put it, the logo would be as the building curves around. Your elevation on sheet 3.02 doesn’t really specify where in the curve it would be if you’ve decided that but there seems to be a roof overhang that varies in thickness and depth; I think that would matter. Ms. Vogel: The intention is to have it at the apex of the corner. The plan kind of describes that a little bit better. Board Member Baltay: So, right in the middle, sort of half way around the curve. Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Board Member comments? Peter? 4 Board Member Baltay: Yes, thank you. I share Staff’s concern that the monument sign is just too tall, in fact, I think 6-feet is even too tall. As I go around that neighborhood there really are no monument signs and that’s the size sign you would have for when you’re traveling down El Camino or even a larger street moving 30 MPH. Nobody drives that fast, this is a pedestrian dominated area and it will become much more pedestrian dominated. Signs that are 1 ½ times the height of a person as you’re drawing so aptly demonstrates is really inappropriate. I can share your concern about the height of your fonts and stuff but your talented sign makers. I’m sure you can come around making signs that are pedestrian scaled. I’ve said this about many buildings and projects in this area. This Park Avenue, south of Oregon is a rapidly changing area in our community and it is astonishing how many people are walking around on foot in that community. I think we all need to really consider that as a pedestrian area and the signage has to reflect that. These are signs made for high vehicles passing by, that’s your intent, that’s your objective. You are doing it and it works for that but that’s not the right place for it. I think of a minimum; the signs have to go down to 6-feet and I’d like to see it less than that. My second concern is with the large logo on the wall of the building. As I just pointed out, I pulled up the architectural rendering of it and I just don’t understand how you put a channel mounted a big sign on a glazed curtain wall. I don’t see how that’s integrated into the building when the faced is curving one way and the roof overhang is a little bit different. It just seems to me that it’s sort of stuck on as a logo and that’s not integrated into the building. So, I’m eager to hear what my fellow Board Member’s think and I’m happy to pass around this rendering but I don’t think that a large sign on the wall of the building is integrated into the architecture. Other than that, I think the materials are fine. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I agree that the monument sign probably is too big for what it is based on the comments you’ve already said so I’ll just leave it at that. The problem with a lot of these signs that go in front of curtain walls is either they secure them from the roof down so you see the support system behind to make it somewhat free standing. I find it a strange place to put it right at the curve. I think it ought to either go – if you’re going to put the sign it ought to be on either this end or that end if it has to be at that front end. I – but I don’t want to see it – I wouldn’t really want to see it right at the bend. First of all, I think it’s going to be a situation that if you’ve got something that’s free standing letters but if you end up having something that is some sort of different configuration, it might even be difficult to make it on a bend like that. Other than -- like I said, it’s not rocket science so I’m not too upset – most of it is ok other than the sign, I think needs to be smaller and I’m not a big fan of the larger sign right at the bend. Chair Lew: Ok and Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, thank you for presenting the Master Sign Program package here. I will agree that I think the free-standing monument signs at the parking entrances are a little too large. I don’t think that they’re – they would be too large if these signs were on a busier street but I think considering the pace of traffic along these two minor streets off of Park and the dominance of pedestrian traffic. I do think that they will begin to dwarf the people and almost give the building a sense of a standoffish feeling, almost. I think it would be better if they could be reduced in size and maybe present the building as a little bit more welcoming and pedestrian scale. The concern there, of course, with the area and the size of it are not so much the actual area of the logos. I think there are ways you could keep the logos and their areas the same while reducing the sign in overall size so I think there’s something that can be done there. I disagree with the previous comment that the materials are ok. For me, these tenant monument signs that are freestanding, to me they actually lack a little bit of depth. I think it’s a little bit too plain and I’m almost curious to see what these look like in 3-D with the shape of the curve and the plastic. How much reflection we get? I think 5 there needs to be a little bit more thought into the depth of the materials and I was looking at the materials board and the materials that were used on the building itself. I don’t know if there is another material that can be picked off from the building and incorporated into the signage. I do share concerns about the wall mounted sign, less so about the one facing the train tracks but more so about the one facing Park and Sheridan. I’m also curious to know how that’s going to work on a curved surface but more so than that, just the fact that we’re kind of slapping that on to the glass surface. I don’t know if that’s the best way to go about that. I also have questions and concerns regarding the raceway connecting the letters in that case. Somebody brought up previously that often these are not just directly mounted onto the glass but hung off the roof. That was something that I was going to possibly suggest but I realized that the roof changes in depth there, the (inaudible), so I don’t know if that’s possible. Yeah, I guess I’ll leave it at that, thank you. Chair Lew: We’re going back to Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I have one comment and this is probably just being totally anal on my part but on 2.05 where the actual building address is. I have a real problem with the relationship of the letters to the material in the back of it. In other words, the seam right in between the 4 and the 7. It – I know – like I said, that is – either it gets shifted so that the address is completely centered on one tile or something like that. Like I said, it’s an anal comment and maybe by the time they get done and depending on the size of the joint, it may not be an issue but like this, it just really rubbed me the wrong way. So, if nothing else, it’s on the record. Chair Lew: I think my comment is that the – it seems like we higher standards for signs in the City and in particular in the adjacent Research Park. So, for example, Stanford – on Stanford land, they don’t allow any wall signs. So (inaudible) down Page Mill Road, you won’t see any walls signs and all of their monument signs, most of them are all very, very low. I – from my point of view, I think they are too small. I think I understand that – your sign makers point of view that you want them to be readable and I think what I found in – at least in the Research Park, is that when they have a multi- tenant building and they required the monument signs to be really low. They put them side by side in these really small fonts and I don’t think they look very good and to me, they are hard to read. That’s Stanford, that’s their rules for signs there but it creates a really beautiful landscape environment. Then I think the hard thing that I’ve been struggling with on your site is I think it’s – I think I agree with Board Member comments that it’s the – there’s a lot of pedestrian activity like at lunch time. I find the intersection on this particular site to be very confusing. If I was a visitor I wouldn’t really know exactly where I was supposed to go and where to park. I would think that if I were the building owner, I wouldn’t want Caltrain people to park in the lot because it looks – it’s right adjacent to the parking – Caltrain parking lot. I think I understand the desire for the placement of the monument signs for the parking lot. I think I would just – not – I don’t have a smaller proposal – the 6-foot proposal but at the moment I would just say that I would concur with the Staff condition of approval. I think it would be a question – I guess a question for the Board would be, do you want to see this again or do you want to just let the Staff recommendation or the Staff’s condition of approval to make it smaller to just let it stand and we have – without having seen it. If we continue it, it would allow them to make another case for something in between. I think that’s an open question from me. On the… Board Member Gooyer: Well, I mean if you want an answer to that. I have actually a more problem with the wall sign than I do the monument sign. Chair Lew: Yeah, I was going to get – you’re right, I was going to get to that. Board Member Gooyer: If I was going – I mean I would trust the judgment of either proportionally 6 going from 9-feet down to 7 ½-feet or something like that. Even if it doesn’t go all the way down to six because I can understand where the applicant is coming from. The wall sign is what I have more of a problem with. Chair Lew: Ok, then on the wall sign, I would say the – previously the Board had a lot of issues with the Survey Monkey sign, which was hung with a structure – you know if it was hung from the cornice of the tower and that was an issue. It’s still got – well, it did -- they left pretty quickly. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: But the sign did go up and the armature to hold the sign up was not beautiful but I think we made it better. I just want to remind the Board that for us to – when buildings come through, to ask for placeholder locations for signs on the other projects because it’s an issue. Then I guess at the same time is the – I think we have to sort of acknowledge that the desire for signs on buildings is changing. At one time really, we really didn’t have any office tenants putting wall signs up on the cornice of buildings but it is an issue and we do want them; even here in the downtown district. I just want to sort of put that out there that things change. I think I’m in agreement with the placement of the wall sign on the curve; it seems strange. I think I would rather have it on one end or the other. I’m ok with the one on the back, the one on the back seems a little strange to me in terms of placement. I think what my take on it is that I think you guys want them to come back to the Board, is that where… Board Member Baltay: Well, I’m certainly not ready to approve it with the wall sign and I’m skeptical that they will be able to find a place on that curved façade to make it work. A sign of the size that they are talking about, you just don’t have a chunk of a building that supports that. Maybe the question really to ask is that they are asking for a Master Sign Program so there’s not even really any firm proposal of where… Chair Lew: Right, it would depend on the tenant. Board Member Baltay: In my email exchange with Tom Gilman, he made that very clear that this is still very dependent. Maybe what we can do is approve the sign program with the change to the monument but just don’t approve the wall sign and that has to come back as an ARB project when they figure out what they want to do exactly. So, we can see the mounting details and the exact specific sign. I think it’s important on a building like this with a fairly dramatic appearance that the sign should not just be stuck on the glass wall. Board Member Gooyer: But that’s the – why you do a Master Sign Program so that you don’t have to come back and we can’t yes, we’ll approve the Master Sign but you have to come back anyway. Then you sort of defeat the purpose of. Board Member Baltay: Well, then maybe a Master Sign Program is inappropriate for this situation. Board Member Gooyer: That could be but I mean that maybe that is why they are doing it. (crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: I hear you but I am not able to approve the wall sign. Chair Lew: Right, I mean I think the Board… Board Member Baltay: Maybe Staff can chime in 7 (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Lew: I think the Board could recommend no and then the Staff could come back with a response on how to proceed. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I’m open to whatever mechanism is appropriate. I have a big issue with that wall sign the way it’s presented. Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: I think it’s up to the Board how you’d like to proceed. I mean we can certainly bring it back. If we were to bring it back, it would need to be probably September 21st though. We – I mean you also have the subcommittee option if you felt like there were some smaller refinements that needed to be made. Board Member Gooyer: Well, let me suggest that if you’re ok with the sign on the back. Is that basically because it’s facing the railroad tracks or is it because it looks better or works better on that portion of the building? Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, for me it was that it works better on that side of the building but I am still curious to see the actual mounting details. Board Member Gooyer: What I was going to suggest, if that’s the case, then maybe on the front we don’t allow the sign to go on the curve portion and put it on the far end of the building, on the south end of the building at the corner. Chair Lew: Which is actually a better – in my mind is a better location because it would give you (crosstalk) (inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) basically a sign that – or I should say a mounting situation that basically mirrors the two and they could be the same and then there isn’t a difference. I mean that’s (inaudible)… Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, I’d be ok with that. Ms. Vogel: Hi, can we comment on that? Chair Lew: Yes, please. Ms. Vogel: The thinking of the location on the curve and the apex is that this is capturing specifically Oregon Express Way and the traffic that’s moving through the neighborhood. To put it further to kind of mirror what’s facing the Caltrain is – and put it towards the corner of Park and Page Mill, there’s a lot of trees and there’s an adjacent development. You would actually never see that sign from the sight lines so the locations are chosen by sight lines of what’s actually visible. If I can speak a little bit to how it’s attached. The way we would detail these – we’ve done a lot of these with DES, is that the (inaudible) system itself gets brackets and it has support and nothing comes over the roof. Then all of the raceway is generally as minimal as it can be to handle the LED equipment which is much smaller than it use to be and it’s painted to black out. This is on glass but it’s spandrel glass so it’s not visual glass so it’s basically a solid surface anyway. The goal is to have these letters be up there kind of floating and you just don’t have a lot of perception by the location. Even though it’s on glass, it has the framework and the raceways are all painted to kind of black out. 8 Board Member Gooyer: Well, part of that is that let's say that spandrel glass was stucco. It’s not even so much what that is, I just don’t really like the thing right on the curved corner of the building. It’s not so much that it – I mean it is – I mean you’ve got two things there working against it but like I said, even if that was a solid band I would have a problem with it right on the apex of the curve. Board Member Baltay: As I look at it more I find even the sign on the back, just seems to me haphazardly across the moulin and the windows and then the solid wall and it’s not – it’s just not integrated with the architecture. Board Member Gooyer: That (inaudible) what I said with the sign – the address sign. It’s put on but it doesn’t relate to the wall behind it. Board Member Baltay: I mean I think you’re – with all respect, your renderings even to us, show us a sign in a 2-dimensional rendering on a curved façade, the letters are all the same dimension. There is no sense of graphic curving to it. You’re not even thinking about the curve in your signage. I guess I’m just having trouble with the big wall sign on this building. Questioning whether we even really show have a wall sign here at all honestly. Somehow the Groupon sign is some much more subdued. You see that from a distance and it’s just a big brick building. This – we have to make a finding that it’s integrated with the architecture and I’m unable to do that the way it’s presented. So, the only solution is to say no or to continue it. Chair Lew: Ok, well I think my recommendation to the Board would be to continue it because they are allowed – the sign code allows them a certain amount of (crosstalk)(inaudible)… Board Member Gooyer: Absolutely. Chair Lew: …so I would say let them have another stab at this… Board Member Gooyer: That’s fine. Chair Lew: …and continue it to – I think the Staff was saying September 21st. MOTION Vice Chair Kim: So, I will move that we continue this item so that it comes back to the Board for September 21st and have the applicant reconsider the wall signs and how they relate to the building so they do better relate to the actual architecture of the building. Also, to reduce the free standing tenant monument signs at the parking lot entry to be a maximum of 6-feet tall. Board Member Baltay: I’ll second that motion. Chair Lew: We have a motion by Board Member Kim, seconded by Baltay. All in favor? Opposed? None, so that passes 4-0 with Board Member Furth absent. Ok, thank you. We’ll see you in September. MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER FURTH ABSENT Attachment G Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “2747 Park Boulevard ” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2747 Park Boulevard – Master Sign Program”. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Wynne Furth, Robert Gooyer, Peter Baltay Absent: Chair Lew: Can we have roll call please, Claire or Alicia? Great and we expect Board Member Baltay to be here soon. Oral Communications Chair Lew: Now is the time for oral communications. The public may speak to an item that’s not on the agenda. I don’t have any cards for that. 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 Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [16PLN-00097 and 16PLN- 00220]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow for Construction of a Four-Story Mixed-Use Development With 19,800 Square Feet of Retail and 30 Residential Units in the CS Zone as Well as a Three-Story Multi-Family Residential Building With 20 Units in the RM-30 Zone. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Preliminary Parcel Map for a Lot Merger to Allow for the Proposed Development, a Design Enhancement Exception, and a Parking Adjustment for Shared Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Review from July 3, 2017 to August 2, 2017. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial), RM-30 (Multi-family Residential), and R-1 (Single-family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Lew: Then we can move onto the first item which is number two, a public hearing for a quasi- judicial item for 3001 El Camino Real. Recommendation on applicant's request for approval of a Site and Design Review to allow for construction of a four-story mixed-use development with 19,800-square feet ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: October 5, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 of retail, 30 residential units in the CS zone, as well as a three-story multi-family residential building with 20 units in the RM-30 zone. The project also includes a request for a Preliminary Parcel Map for a lot merger to allow for the proposed development, a Design Enhancement Exception, and a parking adjustment for shared parking. The environmental assessment is a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review from July 3, 2017, to August 2, 2017. The zone district is Service Commercial, RM-30, and R-1. Our Project Planner is Claire Hodgkins, welcome. Ms. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Thank you, good morning Board Members; Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner. The proposed project is located at 3001 El Camino Real and just a brief overview, 19,800-square feet of commercial retail and 50 residential rental units. It includes two separate building, one in the CS zone that’s mixed-use and one in the RM-30 that’s multi-family residential. The site is located on three parcels so it would be merged into one as part of Preliminary Parcel Map. It includes split zoning so it’s partially CS, partially RM-30 and partially R-1 and it also has split land use designations. It’s currently developed with 9,100-square feet of retail commercial surrounded by surface parking. This is just a brief overview of the project site with the zoning. Key project changes, I won’t go into detail on these I know the applicant will in their presentation but the applicant further defined the base, body and roof of the CS building, lowered the elevation of the RM-30 building, added more bike parking at grade, added indigenous plants and increased the planting on El Camino Real, added details as requested for balconies and awnings and provided an improved materials board that’s located over here. Then key considerations, the project provides multi-family residential rental housing on a housing inventory site which fulfills a need for the City. It’s also close to office and transit and this use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan vision for this area. There are two requested exceptions, one for a parking adjustment and one for a Design Enhancement Exception to allow the garage ramp to encroach into the rear set back. Just briefly on the process, the PTC recommended approval of the project on July 12th. We’re going for ARB recommendations and this is a Site and Design Review so Council will make the ultimate decision on the project. Staff recommends that the ARB take the following actions, consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting plan and recommend approval of the Site and Design Applications, parking adjustment and Design Enhancement Exception to City Council based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval included in the record of land use action and that’s all for me. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Claire, and now we have 10-minutes for the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Rob Steinberg: Good morning. Good morning, I’m Rob Steinberg and it’s good to be back with you again. Last time we met there were six items in the motion that you asked us to go back and look at and we can kind of go through those one by one. I think the most important was to try to lower the CM building so that the first finish floor was no more than 6-feet above grade. We were asked to look at the parapet detail on the El Camino building. There was – even though it’s not required, we were asked to see if we could have relocated some of the bicycle long-term parking above grade. We were asked to enhance and bring a little bit better material board to you. We were asked to see if we could add a little bit more landscaping on El Camino and widen the planters a little bit and then lastly, there was a request to see some of the details and to study those a little bit further. We have done all of that and I hope you like what you see. Let’s start with number one which is we have shown the grades around the building. This is Acacia and you can see that the lowest grade on Acacia is 31.6-feet and our finish floor is 37.5 so we have basically lowered the building another approximately 18-inches to respond to the request so that’s number one. Number two on the expression of the top of the building, there is sort of two responses here, one is we’ve modified the elevations a little bit. When we started studying the details we realized that we needed a solid panel to separate one balcony from the other balcony. So, what – first observation is there’s a base to the building, there is a middle which is sort of capped out here where there’s the solid panel, the railings that go across and then drop off on the top which gives a top to the building. Then in addition to that, we’ve developed a detail where the parapet stops and it steps back so we get an extra shadow line and an extra horizontal – a little bit of detail, a little bit of expression at the parapet so there’s a two-step response to item number two. The third item was, is it possible to put some of the long-term bicycle parking above grade? We’ve shown you an illustration of the long-term bike and we have been able to do that. We’ve been able to locate one on Olive, one near the retail and City of Palo Alto Page 3 the vertical axis and we’ve been able to locate two lockers along Acacia. Each of the lockers accommodates two bikes so we have been able to respond to that request as well. We have – next, to Jonathan we have our color board and we are using a fairly simple pallet and materials. We are keeping the continuity between the two building which we think is important. The only comment that I would make about this is that the metal will be a darker grey then we’re showing. We’re showing you a mill finish and that’s only because it’s very hard to get a custom color for a little sample so I think that actually will be part of this sort of more subtle refined, quite elegant palette so that’s number four, our color and materials. Number five, there were two things, there was the request to see if we could increase the native planting as compared to the ornamental planting. We have been able to revise that proportion and increase the native planting by thirty percent and the green is the non-native and the -- or olive or brown color is the other and you can see those proportions. We basically have changed the proportions of about thirty percent to respond to that request. Then I just wanted to tell you that we also added the width to the planters in the front of the building and increased the amount of planting on El Camino. This was actually – sounded like a little thing but it turned out to be fairly complicated because we had to look at the parking and where the car doors open and how people got out and where the existing trees where. Then the additional width of the planting – the planters that you did ask us to increase a little and the City likes 8-feet through (inaudible). So, we had to work with the City to kind of get this meandering 8-feet in order to make all of these pieces work but we have been able to accomplish that as well. Then lastly you asked about some of the details and to just look at those a little bit more carefully so there are several sheets here. We can look at first the storefront and you can see that we’re alternating between the planters, which are widened to 2-feet and some – introducing the wood-like material and the benches so that we’re not obscuring the view into the retail. We’ve looked at the balcony railings and how they’re being fastened and trying to get a common vocabulary between all of the details. We’re trying to balance the water penetration to the decks so they’re being fastened on the verticals compared to the horizontal. We’re letting the rail sort of float and it all has one common vocabulary and then a similar sort of strategy on the balcony framing and details for the building further back on Acacia. The privacy wall and opening it up; if you remember, there was some cross bracing that we’ve altered a little bit so that everything is one family. We’ve applied that same strategy both to the canopies at the motor court over here where we’ve got sort of free-standing columns and overhang to give a sense of arrival and finally to the stairs as well. Those are the six items that you asked for and we have been through a lot of back and forth together. This is our third time visiting with you and we are pleased what we have to present to you. I feel good about putting my name on it and I hope you will support us so we can move forward today, thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Steinberg. Now we do want to open this up for public comment but I don’t have any speaker cards at the moment so are there any Board Member questions? Peter. Board Member Baltay: Yes, good morning and for the architect, I just want to be clear that the metal mesh, you mentioned if I understood correctly that it will be dark metal finish and not the shiny metal that we see in front of us? Mr. Steinberg: Yes, that’s correct. Board Member Baltay: I just want to really be clear that this metal finish is going to be dark metal like a mill finish? The mesh itself? Mr. Steinberg: It is – it’s going to be a medium grey and right now it’s a little – I can’t quite see what you’ve got but I believe it’s a mill finish. Currently, it’s a little shiny and a little unfinished and it will be darkened up a little bit. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Lew: Wynne, do you have any questions? Board Member Furth: Yeah, just a minor one, (inaudible)… City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Lew: Microphone, please. Board Member Furth: Looking at, I guess it’s sheet 3.2, the sketched labeled one, there’s a tree up there. Is there really a tree up there in the staircase element? At least there’s something pink and green with stems. Mr. Steinberg: (Inaudible- off mic) come on up and -- we’ll have our landscape architect to address that. Board Member Furth: Right. Mr. Steinberg: Thank you. Mr. Nick Samuelson: You’re looking at – that’s some planting that’s on the second level terrace in the back so there’s a planter up there that has a row of trees. Board Member Furth: Ok, thank you. I would see them on the plan… Mr. Samuelson: Yeah, the plan – I don’t know if you have the plan to plant… Board Member Furth: I don’t think we have a second level… Mr. Samuelson: Oh, that’s really the second-page rendering – I think – is that in there? I don’t think that’s in this set. Board Member Furth: I don’t know that if we have a second level architect – landscape plan. Mr. Samuelson: It’s in the submittal drawing but… Chair Lew: We do. Board Member Furth: I have looked at it if you have it. Mr. Samuelson: If it’s the full set that was submitted it’s on 4.2. Board Member Furth: L-102? Mr. Samuelson: 4.2. Chair Lew: We do have the landscape – the second-floor landscape up at the podium. (crosstalk) Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) landscaping on this building. Ms. Hodgkins: So, L-4.2 has the landscape plan for the upper podium and then on the second sheet of the one that we were just looking on A-3.2, you can see the opposite side which would be looking at it from the parking lot, essentially looking at the podium. Board Member Furth: Got it. I’m looking at it from Olive, got it. Thank you. Chair Lew: Any other questions? I have a question for Staff. I think the Staff report asks us to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration or just the mitigation measures for that and I think, if I understand it correctly, that the PTC did that. Then I don’t think that we have the attachment for that. I was looking for it yesterday and I didn’t see it. Ms. Hodgkins: (Inaudible) City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Lew: With the mitigation measures or are they incorporated – are they completely incorporated into the conditions of approval? Ms. Hodgkins: They are – so they will be incorporated as conditions of approval but the (inaudible -mic off). Chair Lew: Ok and then is that – so in our condition of approval it mentions Exhibit A but we haven’t – I just want to – I haven’t seen – I haven’t read an Exhibit A and I don’t see it in here. I just wanted to make sure – just clarify that. It seems to me that it’s being reviewed else – by… Ms. Hodgkins: I – say that one more time? Chair Lew: If we go to the conditions of approval which is page 26 and so like number five. Ms. Hodgkins: I’m not finding it. Chair Lew: It mentions the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Oh… Chair Lew: It says its attached here as Exhibit A and I just want to clarify that I haven’t seen it. I don’t see it in here and I might have missed it. Ms. Hodgkins: I apologize. Chair Lew: I just wanted to clarify that. Ms. Hodgkins: Thank you, yeah it should have been attached as Exhibit A. We also did include it as a separate attachment with links to it, along with the mitigation monitor or sorry, along with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The final – I think as we were preparing this in draft form Council… Chair Lew: Sure. Ms. Hodgkins: …and we’ll be attaching it to the record of Land Use Action. Thank you Board Member Furth: What does CEQA require that as an advisory body do with respect to the environmental review? Ms. Hodgkins: Consider the environmental document. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: Any other questions? No, ok, comments? Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you for the modifications and I think it’s a really handsome building. I’d like to focus on just two items that I think maybe we could consider a small adjustment. One is the modification to the parapet cap as the architect called it along El Camino and I don’t think that’s very successful. I think what we had before was a cleaner design and I know I was the source of requiring something or requesting some sort of base, middle and top. However, I think that particular detail will just cause water to run down the façade a little bit and stain things and it just looks fussy to me. I’m happy when I look at the corner elevation in the rendering to consider that the heavy roof form on the corner at least is clearly the top element. I would prefer just to not have that detail on the middle pieces; that’s easy enough. The second thing is really sort of a concern with these stair tower features at the corner. I’m looking at the corner rendering on A-4.1 which can also be seen on aerial view on sheet A- 3.8, drawing number one. I have to say that looking at this new rendering it doesn’t look very residential City of Palo Alto Page 6 or very welcoming. It looks sort of like a parking garage or a prison honestly; a staircase inside a metal mesh. I think the colors are fine and I think that the balconies with the same treatment will be quite successful but as I understand it, you have three different places with this stair tower enclosed in a wire mesh like this. Maybe I’ll just say to my fellow Board Members that I would be very interested to see what everybody else thinks about that. I definitely don’t want that to slow down the project but it’s just something that catches my eye. Aside from that, I’d like to see what everybody else has to say, thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. I think it’s a nice building but I guess the biggest concern having sat up in – up here for a while and in other municipalities also, is that I’m really getting tired of seeing flat roof buildings. I mean I understand that that’s become sort of the way we have to deal with things because you can only go up a certain amount of distance and so you’re trying to get the full capacity that you can. So, you end up with a flat roof and that’s very understandable but the problem is that after a while that’s all you ever see is a flat roof building. They change slightly and this one, although well done, is really no different than a lot of other ones or at least similar to a lot of other ones coming in. It – I’m not blaming the architect for doing that but he has to do it within the set of perimeters that he has. I’m just tired of seeing it and after a while, every new building that comes in is almost the same sort of shape, it’s got the – what I call the sort of mirror architecture where you take various sections, you plop them next to each other and there you go, you’ve got another new building. It’s – in itself I think you’ve done a nice job and I do agree the mesh makes it look a little prison looking. There’s also – not that I’m – it really needs to have a strong bottom, middle and top but I think here the middle and the top aren’t that much different. I don’t think that’s really as successful but I’m really sort of on the fence with this one. Again, nothing based on what you’ve done, you followed the instructions that you had too and based on the requirements that the City has but like I said, I’m just tired of seeing these buildings. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for sticking through the process and coming back to us for the third time. I think I was pleased with the last iteration and I know that we asked for some minor reconsiderations. I thank you for clearly laying that out and explaining to us the new changes that have been made. I also agree that the recessed parapet detail is a little too much. I think I was one that I said I was fine with the base, middle and top as it was. The recessed parapet really, to me doesn’t look right and I agree with Board Member Baltay that perhaps we could just go back to the previous design. I also felt that the auto court area and the stairs for the bar building on the right and then I guess also for the building on the left, it being that dark grey with a lot of the wire mesh just doesn’t feel quite as welcoming. I agree that we don’t want to hold up the process but I don’t know if there’s something that can be done to reconsider either the amount of wire mesh material or if maybe the color can be changed. I think we want this to have more a residential feel and the way that the stairs look right now, I don’t think it looks like too much of a place where you’d want to take the stairs. I think we want to encourage people to take the stairs wherever possible so perhaps there can be just a little bit of re-looking at that and maybe that can come back to us as a subcommittee item. Overall, I’m very pleased with the changes that you’ve made and that little bit of 18-inches that you’ve dropped the bar building, to me makes a huge difference. I know maybe to some it seems only like a foot and a half but I think it will make a really big difference in the long run; especially as the building gets built. I do have kind of one thing that I noticed which doesn’t bother me but I did just want to put it out there is that it looks like on the original renderings for the main entrance to the bar building along Acacia that the portion of the lobby with the glass and the upper railing I think to use to be glass. At least that’s what it looked like in the renderings and I know that it's changed to the wire mesh. I know that it ties in with the wire mesh of the stair tower but perhaps it can be re-looked at, especially if we’re looking at the amount of wire mesh. Maybe the glass does enough to make it feel a little bit more refined and less standoffish but thank you for providing the aerial renderings. I think that’s also something that I asked for previously and also, I noticed some other modifications to the below-grade parking in the main building. I think overall, I know it goes to Council but I don’t have any hesitation of recommending approval for the project, thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: A question for Staff, what’s the bicycle parking requirement for a residential unit? Ms. Hodgkins: Hold on one second. I think it’s – I want to say it’s one per unit but let me just verify that. Let’s see, yeah, it’s one per unit and then… Board Member Furth: That’s long-term? Ms. Hodgkins: Then one per every ten units for guest parking as well. Board Member Furth: Ok, so 1.1. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Thanks for the well designed and informative materials. I was really impressed with the information that you provided about landscaping, even if I had trouble reading one of the plans. I think this – it looks like the project is going to work really well on El Camino. I agree with Robert that we’re losing a really – we’re losing a sense of place along El Camino when I think of the series of projects that we’ve approved and how many of them have similar rhythms in materials. I wonder how we’re going to figure out which block we’re on. We probably don’t want the extreme sense of place provided by some of our more eccentric motels but this is going to be interesting. This does, however, look like something that’s going to work well on the street. I appreciate how hard it is to design street furniture that works around that 8-foot clearance and the swinging doors and the trees and I’m grateful that you made the effort because I think it makes a huge difference. It comes up with every single project we look at and of course, it has nothing to do with us but it’s the Council and the applicant but the use you’re proposing seems to be one that’s a great benefit to the City as a whole. I don’t think the change to the top is particularly useful. I am concerned about the stairwells or the stair towers and you come up the stairs and you go outside on the third level and go back inside, is that right? There’s a balcony that then takes you around to the corridor that links the units. Ms. Hodgkins: You can go outside, you don’t have to go outside but yeah, at the second level you can go outside. Board Member Furth: So, there is a balcony space there? Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Board Member Furth: I don’t think it works as it stands. Actually, when I saw your shiny metal I thought oh, that will make it a little less forbidding but I understand that’s not what you intend. I think those stairwells need more work. I don’t know if you can take advantage of the fact that you have that outdoor space adjacent to one. I’m particularly concerned about the one on the residential building. It does not seem to me to be particularly well integrated into the rest of the building and it’s a surprisingly big element. So, if anybody has any thoughts about how to make that work better, by which I mean more attractive and more welcoming and lighter, I would be interested but with that exception, I think the project is a good one. Ms. Hodgkins: Just to clarify, when you say one on the RM-30 building, are you referencing the staircase or the outdoor area or … Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Ms. Hodgkins: Ok, thank you for clarifying. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Lew: I think it’s a little confusing because the plans show it as the deck area is being open to the lobby below, am I reading that correctly? Vice Chair Kim: I think that’s the first floor because it’s kind of a split level. (crosstalk) Chair Lew: (Inaudible) ok, so it’s just – it’s on the upper -- ok, thank you for that. Thank you, Wynne. I can support the project. I think it’s very handsome and I think it’s what you can do on this particular site given the way the height limit – within 150-feet of a residential – single-family residential zone and that makes you step down the height. So, I think you are forced into having the large mass on El Camino. I think to Robert’s point about the flat roofs, I think we’ve talked about this before on other projects or maybe actually on this one, is that the – there is a height limit but there’s also the El Camino Design Guidelines that actually recommend flat roofs and discourage – yeah, but I think that if – in the past at some of our retreats I’ve shown images of boulevards – beautiful boulevards in other Cities and they do have pitched roofs and false – there are a whole bunch of what we call fake decorative elements and to me they work. I think that we should have a separate discussion that if there’s something – if we think that there is something wrong or it those – all the buildings are looking to similar, which I would think that I probably agree with, then we should go ahead and work on… Board Member Gooyer: You see I’m fine with that. I wasn’t going to pick out just this one particular one, I just… Chair Lew: Right, that’s why I’m saying… Board Member Gooyer: …when you drive down or pass any building these days, you can almost -- without even looking at it say we’ll it’s going to have a flat roof and it does. Chair Lew: I think we should continue the discussion and we’ve had it before but have not really ever recommended making a change to the guidelines. On the – on the plans – thank you for all the changes, I think it looks good. I think you’ve been very responsive to the Board’s comments and I think the project has gotten better. I just have a couple comments, that I think last time the Staff had asked us to comment on the DEE for – at least for the garage ramp and the screening required for the – to the adjacent house and I didn’t comment on it last time. I do want to say that I support the substantial sizes pittosporum hedge being proposed and the setbacks and there’s aren’t that many windows looking directly down into the house so that I can – I can support that. On the findings I did have some comments for Staff, on page 20, the second to last sentence of the paragraph it says that the project has been designed to highlight natural materials which is wood and the colors are subdued in accordance with the El Camino Design Guidelines. I think I might just rephrase that and I think the El Camino Design Guidelines discourage having – was it more like having three bright colors but I wouldn’t say black or dark grey and white is subdued. I would just sort of say that it’s not – there are no bright colors on there. On the next page, on page 21 under finding three which is about the design quality. You do have a sentence in there that says the design (inaudible) setbacks substantially provide space between the proposed buildings and nearby single-family residential uses. I think that you actually already have that in the – under finding two so I think it’s just a – it may be a – I think it’s just not needed there because I think it’s already covered before there. Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: Just to be clear, are you striking – you are suggesting (crosstalk)(inaudible)… Chair Lew: I was just saying striking it because it’s – yeah, because the setback isn’t really about materials, right? The setback is about finding two and making transitions. Mr. Lait: Ok, we may want to add a little bit more if we’re going to be replacing that sentence. Chair Lew: Then on the next page, page 22, on the very first – on the very top of the page it says that the project would not impact the existing bike path along El Camino and I don’t know what that is. So, City of Palo Alto Page 9 we don’t let bike lines – are we just saying that existing bicycle uses or was that maybe referencing Park Boulevard/Bicycle Boulevard? Ms. Hodgkins: It’s actually two things and I mean I guess it’s saying that it wouldn’t impact the ability to use the bike lane but more importantly, it doesn’t impact the potential for a larger bike lane to be built – a class two bike lane along that road. That’s something that Cal Transit is looking at in the future; I’ll clarify that. Chair Lew: So, you’re saying – right, so you’re sort of saying no bulb-outs that would sort of protrude into the right of way? Ms. Hodgkins: There are going to be bulb-outs but we’re designing them to be only 4-feet so it would allow that space. Chair Lew: Yes, Wynne? Board Member Furth: I agree with you that there is no existing bike path. Chair Lew: Well, but there are – I would say there are bicyclists that use it. Board Member Furth: Yeah but that’s not a bike path. It seems to be misleading to talk about an existing bike path. Mr. Lait: So, we’ll strike the existing and replace it with a future. Chair Lew: Great. Then under finding five which is about plants, it says the plant species proposed are primarily indigenous, approximately seventy percent indigenous as shown on sheet L-4.11 and I don’t think that’s quite – I think that could be read incorrectly. I think it would say – if you look at the plant list and it does have (inaudible) which ones are native and which ones are not native. If you’re just looking by species type, it’s in the minority but if you’re looking at plant quantities, it could be in the majority so I would just make that distinction under there. Then I think also I had mentioned previously under the mitigation monitoring, which is a condition of approval five, is that I think the Board has not seen Exhibit A. My understanding is that this went to the planning – this got approved by the Planning and Transportation Commission and they reviewed all of the environmental documents. So, that’s all that I have on this one and I would support if the Board wants to modify the parapet cap and the stair towers. I would be willing to go along with that. On exterior stair towers, I think that – the thing that I’ve noticed on the buildings that I’ve worked on is that the -- it may – it could look good at – in the daytime and then at night time all of the exit lighting shows and it can look completely different. I think the interior colors of the stair tower and just any design that happens in there is actually important in how they look. I don’t necessarily think that the building has to look residential. I think in this area it all use to be railroad warehouses and it has kind of an industrial look; the neighboring Equinox building and the Fry’s Maximart site. All of those are fairly industrial looking and I think it’s ok to tie into some of that. Board Member Gooyer: Now, do you want to bring that back to… Chair Lew: Subcommittee? I don’t think the Board – I think the Board is pretty clear. (Crosstalk) (inaudible). I think there’s a majority – I think – it sounds like we’re on the same page about that. Any other follow up comments? Does somebody want to try to make a motion? MOTION Board Member Furth: If you’ll coach me, I would move that the Board recommend approval of this project based on the findings and with the conditions set forth in the Staff report, with the following changes. On page 22, the project would not impact a future bike path in line one and then down in City of Palo Alto Page 10 finding number three, last paragraph, rather than the plant species proposed, are the planting proposed is primarily indigenous. What was your first one? Mr. Lait: There where two other changes to the findings. Finding one had a change to replace subdued colors with not bright colors and finding number three striking the… Board Member Furth: Redundant. Mr. Lait: …third sentence in that paragraph. Board Member Furth: Exactly and adding a condition that the design of the – did you call those stair towers and the cornice? The upper – the roof element? Roof parapet is referred to a subcommittee for further review and approval – recommendation. Chair Lew: I just want to clarify that it’s a recommendation to Council and not the Planning Director; at least not this time. Board Member Furth: Included in that is our recommendation of approval to the Design Enhancement Exception and our review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Board Member Baltay: I can second that. Chair Lew: All in favor? Opposed? None and that passes 5-0. MOTION PASSES 5-0 Chair Lew: Thank you and congratulations and we’ll see you at the Council. Ok and then we’re ready for the next item. We’ll take a 2-minute break for them to get set up. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 Hamilton Avenue (17PLN-00171): Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Improvements to an Existing Hotel. The Proposed Changes Include: Replacing the Ground Floor Store Fronts Along the Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street Entries, Replacing the Existing Awning at the Emerson Street Entry, New Façade Finishes on the First Floor and Part of the Second Floor. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: We’re ready for the next item and it’s a public hearing for a quasi-judicial item; 180 Hamilton Avenue. Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to allow for exterior improvements to an existing hotel. The proposed changes include replacing the ground floor storefronts along the Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street entries, replacing the existing awning at the Emerson Street entry, new façade finishes on the first floor, and part of the second floor. The environmental assessment is that it’s exempt from the provisions of CEQA per guideline Section 15301 and the zone district is CD-C(GF)(P). Our project planner is Samuel Gutierrez, welcome. Mr. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning to the Board and thank you. My name is Samuel Gutierrez and I’m the project planner for this project. It is located here in downtown at 180 Hamilton; just a few blocks from where we sit right now. I’m going to go into a little history of the building before we go into the project overview. It is one of the more prominent buildings in downtown and has gone before the Board for review previously. It is currently a hotel use with an auxiliary restaurant on the ground floor and per today's code, it is legally not conforming for FAR and its height. Although, there are no proposed changes to that so we’re not increasing or decreasing any degree of the non-conformity. It’s purely an application for exterior changes to the building. Moving forward, the exterior changes include City of Palo Alto Page 11 changes to the ground floor as mentioned and the projecting second-floor balcony area and a new awning that goes along Emerson entrance and it projects over the sidewalk and the planters along the Hamilton Avenue face (inaudible) propose a change. The new colors and finishes are also going to change on the building. This would include the doors, the moldings, the trims, the railing, and the new entry pavers along the Hamilton side of the building. That will match the new textured stone façade that is more prominently show along the Emerson side of the building on the first floor and wrap around to that entrance around the corner of Hamilton there. The existing conditions of the building, I have some images shown and you can see that the more prominent change that would be most noticeable would be the changes to the ground floor there. Where you can see a daytime view of the perforated panel, which during the day it’s not as discernable what that perforation truly is but in the evening, you start to notice oh, it forms a tree mosaic which actually connects to the large mosaic that’s long standing on the side of the building of El Palo Alto, which of course, is our namesake in the City. The building is even more prominent because of the surrounding area. You’ll see much smaller buildings directly across the street, you’ll see the Creamery building that’s a single-story building, on the other corner directly across from that we’ll see a historic two-story office building and then directly across from the subject site we see a newer building; it is mixed-use office, retail and ground floor. I do want to mention that the adjacent at 620 Emerson will also mirror some of these proposed changes at the 180 Hamilton site. There’s currently an active application to propose a new building there at 620, which will tie the ground floor restaurant in the hotel at 180 Hamilton and expanding it into the 620 Emerson space. Since we do have an application, I did want to mention that because that will come from the – before the Board in the coming months. The proposed changes that are shown here and I won’t go into too much greater detail because I’m sure the applicant will fill you in on the fine details but you can see the differences here on the ground floor façade in particular. The textured stone finish on the ground floor does change what had previously been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board back in 2012. That was the – kind of (inaudible) of the Staff’s review in saying that perhaps this should go before the Board again, amongst other things. We saw some conflicts possibly with the Comp. Plan where we would have some Comprehensive Plan and goal conflicts potentially. The pedestrian overlay was another thing because the zoning does state that you need to avoid blank walls and that’s where Staff felt potentially this design change could form a new blank wall. Then the ARB findings for the compatibility with the project design for the site in particular and the surrounding areas, these are some of the key considerations that Staff is seeking the Boards feedback and comments on. The recommendation that Staff has is to review and provide formal comments for this application or possible continue to an uncertain date. Thank you and that concludes the presentation. Chair Lew: Great, thank you and so now is the time for the applicant presentation. Yes, Wynne? Board Member Furth: I need to say that when I was looking at this site on one of the several times that I went to look at it, somebody on Staff graciously took me through the building and also through 620 Emerson to see what those spaces looked like and what the current use where. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Are there any other disclosures? No. Ok, welcome. Mr. Greg Stutheit: Thank you and good morning. My name is Greg Stutheit and I’m with Montalba Architects and I’m just here to give you a brief presentation this morning about our little project down the street here. This is at the corner of Hamilton and Emerson and it’s currently or actually until a few days ago, was formerly the Epiphany Hotel. It’s not being transformed into Nobu Hotel. The intent is to keep the hotel open while we’re doing this so we’re going to be working on some of the interiors and a little bit of exterior here as we’ll get into. You can see here, this is the building as it exists right now. There’s currently an eight-story building with rooms facing north and south and we have kind of a strong belt course that runs around the building and divides the ground floor from the rest of the levels up above. There’s a canopy right here that demarcates the pedestrian entrance off of Emerson and then the interior of that, as you mentioned, is the lobby. Then a small lounge on the second floor and some office spaces, as well as a couple of rooms. Then the bottom over here is the new Nobu restaurant and you can see here on the next image is the restaurant is actually finished and operating currently. The majority of our efforts is – are on the ground floor. We’re going to be replacing wall finishes as Samuel mentioned, City of Palo Alto Page 12 refinishing the existing belt course, a new canopy here at the entry and it’s intended to be a little bit lighter than the canopy that’s there now. Then above, the only real thing that we’re doing is replacing this screen so that it separates the balconies at the upper levels. We’re not proposing main changes to the upper portion of the building; the massing stays the same. Then, of course, the El Palo Alto mosaic on the corner remains as is. I just wanted to touch briefly on the lobby revisions that are planned. Here you can see a few images of the interior and we think this is important because it kind of – it shows that we’ll be updating our design with traditional materials that are used in a very kind of clean and modern way. It’s also interesting to note that these materials are all much lighter in color than the existing. The existing lobby, I don’t have photos of it but it’s very dark and what that does is it actually kind of turns the entrances into mirrors at night. So, you really don’t get much of a sense of the inside of the building. The other thing that’s on this image is the new Nobu restaurant that will remain as is and stay in operation again while we’re doing this effort. The next slide here you can see the Nobu restaurant with the doors open and the lights on inside and you can actually see how it draws the eye in and really kind of connects to the street in a very powerful way. That’s one of the things that we’ll be looking to hopefully accomplish with the lobby as well. If I move to the next image here, we’ve got the corner of Hamilton and Emerson. We’re going to be replacing some of the plantings down at the bottom here. Not – actually, the planting basically remains as is but we’ll be replacing the planters. There’s a little planter on the second floor but that’s not very visible from the street but connects more directly to the second floor. If I move onto what we’re proposing for the ground floor, this is a textured stone wall that kind of creates a base to the building below the belt course. We’re proposing the texture to kind of give it some interest as you’re walking by on the pedestrian level. Then if I flip to the next page here, the proposal is to light this at a very slight angle from above which calls attention in the evening and at night to the texture and it sort of washes the surface with light that plays across the surface. The other thing that this does is provide a sort of soft backlight for the pedestrians that are walking by on the street. Kind of turning them into the activity as opposed to perhaps the building so much. The next image here just shows our proposal for the canopy which is much thinner and lighter than the existing. Again, you can see here the lighter colors interiors drawing your focus into the building a bit more; people silhouetted against the wall and the background. This slide just focuses briefly on the upgrades to the balconies between the – these screens between the rooms. They’re just being basically changed out to give them a bit more of a sort of Japanese aesthetic. The intent is to color them similar to the way that they are colored now so that they work with the dark colored window frames and railings but also tie into the new bronze elements that the canopy and the new entry doors. A quick overview of the materials here so these are our existing materials that we’re playing off of. We have this kind of faux wood wrapping up and around the building. Again, that is all proposed to remain and then this sort of black paint colors here. The rest of the materials are not really anything we’re playing off of so we didn’t mention them here. Then the new materials, in rebuilding the belt course we’re – in order to put lighting in and we’re suggesting to finish it in an actual wood material that would play with the surrounding faux wood facing on the sides and up around the top. The dark-colored metals and oil rubbed bronze and then we have our textured stone and as Samuel mentioned, this lighter stone flooring that sort of spills out here – out of the entry onto Hamilton. As you can see, it’s – our proposal is fairly simpler, we’re not doing a whole lot. We thank you for your time and we look forward to working with you to make this a successful project. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Are there any – oh, I should open it up to the public on any public comments but I don’t have any speaker cards. Are there any questions from the Board? Peter. Board Member Baltay: Sure, some technical questions for the architect I guess. Help me read your plans, the canopy that projects over the pedestrian entrance off of Emerson, is that being changed in scope or shape? Does it project further out along Emerson? Mr. Stutheit: In overall scope, it does not project out any further. It is thinner than the existing canopy and the existing canopy, if I can go back a few here, is this kind of – the belt course wraps around and then actually wrap up and around the canopy which… City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Baltay: That’s exactly my questions. Where is steps out over at the entrance, does it extend the scope of the amount that steps out? Mr. Stutheit: No, the actual footprint is the same. It’s just the profile that’s (crosstalk)(inaudible). Board Member Baltay: Thank you, I want to be clear about that. Secondly, how is the Teak detail – you’re putting genuine Teak boards I see on that belt course as you call it. Which direction are the grain running and a little bit more detail? How big are the boards or how is it done? Mr. Stutheit: Currently, we’re proposing to run the boards in the same direction that we’re showing here so they will be vertical boards. There are limitations to the size of Teak in an outdoor application, especially, so they will not be overly large but perhaps up to 8-inches or so but likely not much larger than that. The tone will be similar to the tone, especially the darker color you see here. Board Member Baltay: Is there a detail of that parapet in this package? I’m just – how is the end grain exposed on the bottom and how do you weather protect it on the top and things like that. I don’t mean to be overly detailed but it’s just so critical that this work and Teak is really tough to work with on an exterior. Mr. Stutheit: Let’s see, the best place to see it in this package is probably on this detail here. I don’t really have a page number but it’s textured defuse luminosity at the top of the page. It will have a parapet cap that will kind of wrap over the top in a very minimal way and then the end grain will be exposed on the bottom and kind of forming a drip edge there at the bottom. To be honest, it’s not entirely vetted through but that’s the intent. Board Member Baltay: Then the last question is this has to do with the Nobu and is what I would call an open restaurant because most of the time those doors are wide open to the street. Is there any change or any change proposed to the way that functions? Mr. Stutheit: No, the only thing we’re proposing currently in that area is changing out the planters and that’s more just to get a little bit of a more refined material that works with the rest of our pallet at the planters themselves. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Lew: Any other questions? I have a question for you. Has the – on the Teak awning, has that – have you reviewed that with the Building and Fire Departments because that’s an issue often times because it’s a combustible material in the egress path. Mr. Stutheit: Well, this is all exterior. Chair Lew: No, but that’s what I’m – I’m actually saying that is a grey area in the code that pops up. I’ve been burned by that, so to speak on projects at Stanford. Usually, they will allow – sometimes they will allow it if it’s heavy timber but not if it’s little sticks. Mr. Stutheit: Our intent would be to utilize it similar to the way that an interior finish would be done. So, it would be backed by a non-combustible material and held off in a limited fashion so that it – while it’s combustible, it provides enough protection. To answer your question, I specifically have not talked to the Building Official about it but thank you for the suggestion. Chair Lew: My recollection is that the faux wood that’s on the building had an issue with the Building Department and that’s not the first choice of materials. That was the one that was – that met the fire whatever – fire class – you know fire class rating and so I do want to encourage you to do that. Mr. Stutheit: Yes, we will, thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for bringing this to the Board. I think it looks really nice. I think this kind of a (inaudible) to it where your kind of making things a little bit more defined for the minimalism and simplifying the materials. Also brightening up the spaces, which I think will make a big difference. I had some questions that have already been answered with your presentation but looking at the materials board, there was a smoother limestone that I think is supposed to go on the entry ramps. Could you just clarify which entry ramps you mean? Mr. Stutheit: So, that’s right here. Vice Chair Kim: Oh, it’s on the Emerson and Hamilton side? Mr. Stutheit: Well, it comes out to the door at the Emerson side but the entry ramp that was really -- I think we’re addressing this one here because it actually slips out through the door and then down to the sidewalk. So, it sorts of – it’s almost like a carpet that’s extended out to bring people in. Vice Chair Kim: My only concern with that would be, you know I love the material but of course, we don’t get to much rain here but can it be a slippery hazard and that’s something to consider. Mr. Stutheit: Yes. Vice Chair Kim: Something I didn’t notice until this morning was actually the change to the Emerson awning. I never really liked the way that the belts popped out like that I think the way that you’re addressing it is much cleaner. Originally, I was thinking does it make sense to make the awning the same width as the middle panels coming down but I see that you’re changing some things there. You’re adding a new metal panel to where some of that tree metal is currently so I think it works pretty well the way you have it. I wouldn’t make a change to that awning from the way that you have it proposed. The biggest concern that I have is the pedestrian overlay requirements and some of the other things in our code that ask for the building to be more open and transparent. I think it’s tough because at least from the floor plans that we received and I don’t know what’s exactly there currently but I don’t think it’s possible or, maybe is it? Is it possible to add a couple more windows and make it a little bit more visible to the interior? I think the notion of Nobu having moved into this space and now it becoming Nobu Hotel, whiles it’s great to some, it feels like a very expensive place where I can’t go. I just don’t want the Jerusalem stone and this heaviness to make it feel even more so like a place where it’s only for people that can afford to go there. At the same time, I think that I really like the texture of the stone and while it, in a sense, may feel heavy because it is a stone. I think it also feels very light and the colors that you are using and the ways that you’re lighting that surface so that you see the articulation. Again, I would ask to see if there can be a little bit more porosity between the lobby and the exterior. Overall, I think it looks great and I’m sure it will be well maintained but I’m looking forward from hearing from the rest of the Board and perhaps your responses to some of our comments. Thank you. Chair Lew: And Wynne? Board Member Furth: Thank you. I had two areas where I needed more information. One was could you tell – you were here, could you tell us a bit about the last round of discussions and how we got the project that we have now? Chair Lew: You’re referencing the previous ARB (inaudible)? Board Member Furth: I am. Chair Lew: The – if you guys remember – if you recall the original building, the Castle (inaudible) building, it had a garage entrance on Emerson Street so it was a huge change to get – a big change there to improve the – to put the lobby there and to close the garage. The Board still had concerns about City of Palo Alto Page 15 the corner and it use to be brick and it’s a fire stair and elevator so you can’t really add windows there. It was really a dark and dead corner, especially at night. In the daytime, you didn’t really notice it so much but at night time it really seemed to kill the connectivity between the different sections of the Emerson Street restaurant row. The illuminated perforated panels were the designer’s idea and that came after the preliminary review and the Board really liked it. If you’ve seen the inside of the building, it ties into the interior design or at least the previously interior design of some of the rooms. Did that help? Board Member Furth: It does. Chair Lew: The metal – the faux wood and the depth of the cornice and stuff, that was under debate. That was debated and some changes were made at the subcommittee level and not everybody was happy with the results of the change – with the changes. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Then for Staff and maybe the applicant, can you explain more about the proposal for 620 Emerson? I understand there’s a proposal for a party space or social space on the second story that ties into the hotel. My real question is how does this integrate into the hotel and what’s proposed? If this was a CEQA project, we’d be saying don’t project split but here we’ve got a somewhat different issue which is we know that step two is going to be more of this frontage along Emerson and we’ll have a better idea of what we need in the hotel section if we know a bit about what might be going next door. Mr. Gutierrez: Sure, the proposal for 620 Emerson building which is more commonly known as the flower shop. Board Member Furth: Stanford Florist. Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, it’s been a flower shop for several years and it was purchased and is currently proposed to be demolished essentially and rebuilt roughly at the – pretty much at the same footprint in size but it would have… Board Member Furth: But they’ve already maxed out their footprint, right? Mr. Gutierrez: Right, they are pretty much maxed out but the other thing is that they are mainly seeking to expand the Nobu restaurant into that space. Currently, it’s limited to the side of Hamilton Avenue that you can see from the street and that’s pretty much the entire restaurant. Board Member Furth: Would there be internal connections between the two buildings? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, they are proposing an internal connection. Board Member Furth: So, it’s going to be an integrated project? Mr. Gutierrez: Right. Board Member Furth: Sort of like the Masons but more so. That’s a reference to another project down the street. Thank you. Ok, well I often go by this building because it’s on my way to the grocery store and it’s also on my way to dinner or to visit friends. I went and looked at it again and I must say, everything looks beautiful in the early morning light but this looked particularly nice. I think the two frontages are very different in terms of their success, in terms of the pedestrian overlay and in terms of finding number four that we have to make about the pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area. I’m going to give up on the bicycle issue here. On Hamilton, there are a lot of things going for it and the restaurant makes an interesting thing to look at, to see, and to hear. The fact that you have essentially elbow height landscaping, that’s not going to change? It’s very nice for pedestrians and I think that’s all good. It isn’t particularly welcoming because it’s quite a specialized use but it’s an attractive thing to walk by. I don’t think it discourages pedestrians. There is no seating anywhere along that frontage and there could City of Palo Alto Page 16 possibly a bench over by the service section of the building. It is all a great improvement over the garages that use to be there. There did use to be in fact a storefront there; there was a beauty shop. When we come around to Hamilton, that sidewalk doesn’t work and I was trying to figure out why and I had this memory of being pushed into the dirt there and I thought how can that be? There’s not dirt but there is and back in the era when double-wide strollers were more common, I frequently found myself being urged into the dirt. As it is, that is the side where there are valet parkers, where people check in, those people aren’t – the Staff is unfailingly polite but that takes up space on a very busy sidewalk. There’s nowhere to get out and there is a lot of dirt – City owned dirt on that sidewalk with one lone podacarpus that really isn’t very successful in that spot. I mean it interferes with the base of the mosaic and for me is not a very successful street tree. So, I think for this frontage to work, we need to readdress that sidewalk and I mean I would be in favor of digging up the tree and planting a new one or replanting it. Whatever you need to do to change the grade so that we can get either with metal grading – the usual street furniture approach. So, that we get a full usable work with the sidewalk there because as it stands now, it doesn’t work. The idea of having this extremely elegant and exclusive hotel fronting on that is really inappropriate and I think it would add to the sense of peons in the dirt. It just isn’t a good transition between the sidewalk and the people in the dirt is what I mean so I would like to see that figured out. It’s a matter of using the building the space and the City space to have a functional sidewalk. I’d prefer in many ways the design and materials that are being proposed. There is an existing sort of window vitrine to the left of the entrance on Emerson and I don’t think it works at all. It’s darks, you can’t see anything, it’s not inviting and it’s not interesting at least in the daytime so I think that needs to be rethought. I’m also concerned that this is not meeting out pedestrian overlay standards no matter how beautiful the stone, it’s a long stretch of uninterrupted wall. Me, I would settle for a bench and there are a few places where the façade goes in and out and I would even probably settle for a bench next door. I think as it stands, it doesn’t meet our standards. Chair Lew: Thank you, Wynne and Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. I pretty much have to agree with what my fellow Board Members have said. I’ve never been a real fan of the mosaic or (inaudible) call them, mosaic. I mean it works well at night but in the daytime, unless you really carefully – you don’t even really understand what it is. So, I’m not too worried about that aspect of it... Chair Lew: (Inaudible), I mean the perforated metal because there is a mosaic as well; the tree. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Chair Lew: Let’s make sure it’s (crosstalk) (inaudible). Board Member Gooyer: I’m talking about at the ground floor and not the tree. That’s what I’m talking about, the perforated metal if you want to call it. It – so, I mean I like the treatment with the brick but I also agree that it doesn’t fit the criteria of the interest on the sidewalk type situation. Although, it’s not really making it any worse than it is now, not that that’s a good thing. I think it lightens it up and it’s one of the interesting things that – this picture that you have on the screen right now, also I have a bit of a problem and I know it’s probably – my wife would be the type to say that only you would notice things like that. You’ve got a cool white or off-white color above the awning and a warm white below the awning and to me, those two just really clash. I know that’s probably a minor point but to me that – those two don’t work together. I think if you’re going – they ought to be at least – the materials don’t need to be the same but at least the color ought to be the same pallet. I agree with Wynne, probably something like some seating or whatever would help greatly. I don’t think you need to put windows everywhere to make it more interesting for – while someone is walking by. I also agree I think the sidewalk needs to be part of that whole project on Emerson as far as – in the sense of cleaning that area up. I like the canopy, it’s a definite improvement. I also agree that I’ve had the same thing and not to re- mention the pun of being burned but the wood on the exterior, the fire marshal will probably say something about it. I mean there are enough faux products out there and I think you could probably get a pretty close copy of what your intent is. All in all, I think it’s definitely an improvement. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Robert and Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Yes, I find everybody’s comments pertinent and important and interesting. To me it sorts of summarizes up, the issue is we have a pedestrian overlay requiring, especially corners, to be open and visible and this is clearly not and it never has been. I think as Alex has pointed out, it’s not really capable of having windows put in there. What I see is in the past the Architecture Board also struggled with this and they came up with this perforated metal screening and I agree, during the day it just looks muted but I find at night it to be extremely vibrant. I find combining that vibrant, extremely brightly lit façade with the incredibly busy activity going on in the restaurant next to it easily overwhelms – overweighs the – meets the requirements for pedestrian-friendly activity on the street and the corner. It’s one of the most pedestrian-friendly corners in town at night and it’s just always buzzing. I was really trying to sort of look at why is that the case? Why is it so friendly and buzzing and busy and I think there are two things, one is the active restaurant. Even more so with Nobu and everybody wants to see who’s eating there tonight. You drive right by and you can see in and the second thing is this tree lighting quasi-sculpture is really interesting at night or different or captures your attention. That’s what makes it work, I think. I’m saying that because to me when I look at this project, clearly the materials are of high quality, the design is high quality, the use is appropriate and everything else is fine. So, what I am trying to do is find ways that we can – what changes are reasonable that still meet the past Architecture Board efforts and the guidelines of the town. I’ve come up with what I think are perhaps four ideas of how to meet that goal. One of them would be to take the new stone and perhaps put two kinds of lighting on it. If you have it recessed in the ground and very bright up lights with the texture of the stone at night, that would really make it bounce and be powerful on the corner. I think the stone – just down the street is another stone building, Roxy Rapp building, with bright uplighting on the stone and it has that same effect. It really struck me walking by there yesterday – I think it was yesterday night and how strong that is. Something like that is just a slight design enhancement to the stone to make it punch and be strong. Combined with the softer downlight the architect was talking about might be enough to get – replicate some of the efforts of the tree design that’s there now. Secondly, I think the sidewalk could certainly be improved and seating and public areas and do something to offset Kyu’s comments that this is a very expensive and elite restaurant and hotel now. It is important that everybody in town feel comfortable on that corner and I understand what he’s talking about when I joke that we all want to see who’s dining there now. I don’t want to feel like I have to cross the street because I’m with the Creamery crowd and not the Nobu crowd. So, if you put on that corner nicer landscaping, maybe a different paving on the sidewalks, some benches or seats or something to just make it feel more friendly to the whole town; as a public jester. I think it would also just make it a nicer entrance to your hotel but it could be very minimalist style benches or bike rakes or something but some improvements; that would help a lot. Thirdly, I just want to reiterate that it’s really important that the restaurant remain functioning the way it is now where it really opens to the street. It’s really what allows the rest of that to be closed and if that restaurant where for some reason to decide they wanted to close it off and quiet fine dining, that would really change the whole block for the worse. That would affect the thinking we have going, at least for me, around the corner so I know that’s functioning right now the way I’m proposing but I’m just putting it for the record that that’s an important function. Lastly, around the corner at 620 Emerson, I think Wynne points out some good things about. It would be nice to see what that façade is going to look like as well. Certainly, these are a combined project with the same organization doing it and it seems to me that we should see that whole length of the façade to be confident with it. That’s my comments and I think we could make those changes to it. Probably have to have the project come back through to see that. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Peter. I have one question for the architect, is the – what are you planning to do with the existing exit door from the staircase? Mr. Stutheit: The intent with the exit door is to do essentially similarly what’s been done now, which is to cover the exit door in a way that from the outside you really don’t see anything. It’s only an exit and it goes away as much as possible and so the intent right at this point is to face it with a honeycombed City of Palo Alto Page 18 backed stone so that it’s still light enough to operate as it needs to but goes away essentially in the façade as much as we can make it – have it. Chair Lew: Tricky – yeah, tricky to do, ok, thank you. I think that I can support the project. The – my take on it is that the – going back to the original building design, it’s just that it was dark – I mean it was blank but it was also dark and it seems like – I think with the lighter color and lighting and if there are sidewalk improvements, that – I think it could work. I like the existing perforated metal at night. I think that looks great but I don’t think that this is – yeah, I don’t think that the proposed design is – I think that would – what do I want to say? I think that could meet our findings. I think that I’m on board with that. I do worry about the wood that’s being proposed and so I do want that to be reviewed by the Building Department and the Fire Department. Then I think I had – the last comment is on the uplighting. I think we do have some – I think we have some conditions in our performance requirements of the code about discouraging up lighting. I don’t know if they are trick – if they are necessarily triggered in this particular situation because I don’t think there’s any residential use next door but I would just have to look at the exact language of that of that code. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Right and if it’s angled too, I think that could help. Anyway, so I’m in support of the project. If I read the Staff correctly, I think you’re recommending continuing it – this project if we – it seems like the Board is on the same page. If we recommend this coming back to subcommittee, would Staff be ok with that or do you think it’s better for this to come back? Mr. Gutierrez: We would differ that to the Board if you feel that it would come back to subcommittee. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Ok, so I’m done so any motions? Board Member Furth: Do you have a date in mind for us to continue this? Mr. Lait: It sounds like there is some additional work that needs to be done. MOTION Board Member Furth: We’re hoping to – so moved that the matter is continued to a later date to be determined by Staff. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. Chair Lew: All in favor? Opposed? None. Ok, so we will see you in the future at a date uncertain, thank you. MOTION PASSED 5-0 Approval of Minutes: 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 7, 2017. Chair Lew: We have one last item which is the meeting minutes for September 7th, 2017. Are there any comments from the Board? I had one so it was a subcommittee item there for Avenidas and the subcommittee approved those items. It was just paint color, trellis detail, lighting fixtures so if that could just be added into the minutes. Board Member Furth: I have a couple of typos – transcript typos that I’ll give to Staff. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Vice Chair Kim: I think this was a meeting where Board Member Baltay has a recuse – possibly recused himself in the middle of a garage discussion, which turned out to be not the case but I don’t know if that effects the voting on the minutes. I guess it doesn’t. Mr. Lait: No, you can vote on the minutes to the extent that you were able to participate – to the parts that you were here for you can certainly vote (inaudible) for that. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, just be… Mr. Lait: (Inaudible) Board Member Baltay: It triggers my memory that I, at Staff’s request, wrote up a bunch of comments that I was prepared to make and does that become part of the minutes or is that part of the record? Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) had the opportunity to read them because you didn’t have to leave yet, the way I remember it. Mr. Lait: So, the answer to your question, as part of the administrative record that we have it in our records and we’ve communicated it to the applicant. It is not a part of your minutes because it was – did not take place here at this meeting. Board Member Baltay: But it’s not something communicated to my fellow Board Members as… Mr. Lait: That is true and it will be communicated when the item returns and we can include that information. Board Member Baltay: Ok, I’ll leave it up to however you think is the proper way to do that. Mr. Lait: Yeah, let me give it some thought; maybe we can get it in advance. Board Member Furth: That would be good for the applicant to have, surely,… Mr. Lait: The applicant does have the… Board Member Furth: …which is you. Board Member Baltay: Board Member Lew pointed out to me that it is important and I had emailed them to him (inaudible) as the Chair and he said I shouldn’t be doing that because it (inaudible) constitutes a Brown Act violation meeting or potentially does. So, I’m referring to Staff for some guidance on that but I felt strongly about those comments and wanted to be sure that the Board got to hear them one way or another. Mr. Lait: Sure, (crosstalk)(inaudible). Board Member Baltay: At least at the Staff – thank you. Chair Lew: Then for the Brown Act, you can send me something but then I can’t talk to somebody else about the project and that causes – yeah, that causes some problems. All in favor? (crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: I am going to abstain from that. Chair Lew: Yeah, I don’t even know – do we even have a motion? Can somebody make a motion? MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Furth: It was an implied motion to approve the minutes but there’s no second. Chair Lew: All in fav -- Yes. Mr. Lait: Who seconded it? I heard… Vice Chair Kim: I’ll second it. Chair Lew: All in favor? Opposed? None. Board Member Baltay: I abstain. MOTION PASSES 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER BALTAY ABSTAINING Chair Lew: We are adjourned, thank you. Subcommittee Item Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment