Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-21 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 1.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 1.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: December 21, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals 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. 380 Cambridge [15PLN-00249]: Consideration of Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings Totaling 32,083 Square Feet and to Construct a New Three-Story Commercial Building Totaling 35,000 Square Feet. The Request Includes a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Project to Exceed the Height Limit by 8 Feet. In Addition, There is a Request to Waive an Off-Street Loading Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2370 Watson Court [17PLN-00306]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program That Would Allow for Changes to Donor and Tenant Names That are Consistent With the Master Sign Program Without _______________________ 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. 1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 1. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Subsequent Planning Review. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: ROLM (E)(D)(AD) (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing Subdistrict-Embarcadero With a Site and Design and Automobile Dealership Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. 4256 El Camino Real (17PLN-00357): Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for a new 51,266 Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 90 Guest Rooms 96 Parking Spaces. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 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. 1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 1. 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 Wynne Furth Vice Chair Peter Baltay Boardmember Robert Gooyer Boardmember Alex Lew Boardmember Osma Thompson 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 Noon two Wednesdays 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 _______________________ 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. 1. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 1. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 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 # 8759) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which rotate throughout the year. The second attachment transmits administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals since the Board’s last meeting. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2  Attachment A: Staff Approvals (DOCX)  Attachment B: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board Staff Approvals Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow the removal of four locust trees and replace with Red Maples. Applicant: Sara McMahon Address: 325 Channing Avenue, 17PLN-00371 Approval Date: December 13, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: December 27, 2017 1.a Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : S t a f f A p p r o v a l s ( 8 7 5 9 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) 2018 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/15/2018 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/19/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/3/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/17/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/7/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/21/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/19/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/2/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/16/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/4/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2018 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December 1.b Packet Pg. 8 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A R B M e e t i n g S c h e d u l e A s s i g n m e n t s ( 8 7 5 9 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8593) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 380 Cambridge Avenue: New Commercial Building (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 380 Cambridge [15PLN- 00249]: Consideration of Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings Totaling 32,083 Square Feet and to Construct a New Three-Story Commercial Building Totaling 35,000 Square Feet. The Request Includes a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Project to Exceed the Height Limit by 8 Feet. In Addition, There is a Request to Waive an Off-Street Loading Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a public hearing and continue the item to a date uncertain. Report Summary This is the first ARB review of the formal application for demolition of three commercial buildings (32,083 square feet) and construction of one three-story commercial building (35,000 square feet) at 380-410 Cambridge Avenue. The project includes a request to waive the one required off-street loading space and an alternative that requests a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for increased height to accommodate taller floor to ceiling space for each floor level. The project is located within the Retail Preservation Combining District and proposes retail space on the ground floor with office space on the upper two floors. The project was the 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 subject of a Preliminary ARB meeting in March of 2015, which did not contemplate a DEE or loading zone waiver. Since then there has been two zoning code changes that affected the project and as a result, the project has been revised. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the project requests and seeks direction from the ARB for a project recommendation at a subsequent meeting. Background Project Information Owner: Cambridge Investments, LLC/Alhouse Deaton Management Architect: Michael J. Castro Representative: Steve Pierce Legal Counsel: Not Identified Property Information Address: 380-410 Cambridge Avenue Neighborhood: Evergreen Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 100’ x 175’ (17,500 sf) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: None Historic Resource(s): None (HRE completed and found not eligible for listing) Existing Improvement(s): 32,083 sf; 2-stories; 22-26 feet; year built Existing Land Use(s): Office and Retail Uses Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-30 (Multi-family Residential) West: RM-30 (Multi-family Residential)/PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development) East: PF (Public Parking Lot) South: CC (2) (Offices) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps, CNES/Airbus/DigitalGlobe/US Geological Survey/USDA Farm Agency, 2017 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CC(2)(R) Comp. Plan Designation: Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Applicable, as discussed below Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary ARB: March 5, 2015 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46159 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDgEV6BgPp8&start=3897&width=420&height=315 Project Description The proposed project involves demolition of three mid-century modern designed commercial buildings (on three separate contiguous parcels) totaling 32,083 square feet (sf) and construction of a new three-story 35,000 sf contemporary designed commercial building. The underlying lots will be merged to accommodate the project. The project provides 14 parking spaces within an enclosed garage. The project includes two alternatives:  Alternative 1: A project that is consistent with the City’s development standards except for a waiver of one off-street loading space (Sheets 1 through 57). The overall height of the project is 35 feet.  Alternative 2: A project that proposes increasing the height of the building to accommodate greater floor to ceiling heights and a waiver of one off-street loading space (Sheets 58 through 63). The overall height of the project is 43 feet. Site Summary The project is located near the intersection of Cambridge Avenue and Birch Street within the Evergreen Park neighborhood. The California Avenue Train Station is within one-quarter of a mile of the project site and the site is one block west of California Avenue. The project site is 17,500 square feet in area and comprises of three lots. The project will maintain the existing 10 foot wide sidewalk along Cambridge Avenue and provide three short-term bicycle racks in between the existing street trees. The existing curb cut along the northern side of the property 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 will be removed and would likely result in one additional on-street parking space. However, to accommodate the location of the garage entry on the opposite side of the proposed building, a new curb cut will require the removal (and replacement) of one street tree and the removal of at least one on-street parking space. The first floor of the proposed building includes the parking garage, which is fully enclosed and located behind the retail tenant spaces and accessed from Cambridge Avenue. This entry will have a gate that will be open during business hours. Fourteen parking spaces are provided on- site. The remaining 102 required parking spaces were previously accounted for through the California Avenue Parking District. The garage also includes a trash/recycling area, an electrical room, a stairwell and long-term bicycle parking. Also on the first floor are two retail spaces containing 2,482 and 1,986 square feet, as well as a lobby and common area to support the upper floor office spaces. These spaces have direct access to the Cambridge Avenue sidewalk. The site also includes a 10-foot setback along the northeast abutting the public parking lot that serves as some open space area as well as access to utilities. In addition, the site includes a 10- foot setback in the rear, which provides a buffer between the building and the adjacent residential uses. No setback is provided along the southwest property line adjacent to an existing mixed-use building. Landscape opportunities for the site are limited to the setback areas, which would include low shrubs, small trees and in the rear bamboo plantings. The second floor includes 14,220 sf for office uses and the third floor includes 14,478 sf for office uses. A 121 sf deck is proposed on the third floor facing Cambridge Avenue. Roof top equipment is located centrally and fully screened from adjacent vantage points. Street trees are to be preserved except for the one that was noted previously to accommodate the new driveway into the garage. Additionally, all the vegetation on neighboring properties would be preserved. Elevations The project provides contemporary architecture for a commercial building with differing visual elements including a balcony, recessed entries for the retail spaces, a centralized entry at the ground level for the office uses, uniform fenestration and awnings along the street frontage. The portion of the building where the garage entry is located includes different fenestration treatment providing visual interest. Three sides of the building provide visual attention. One side is directly against an adjacent building where it is not visible from any vantage point. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Source: Project Plans, 2017 Half of the side of the building facing the public parking lot includes fenestration matching the front, while the other half is covered with stucco. The lower part of the building towards the rear includes a trellis flush with the wall to accommodate vertical vine growth. This side of the building includes the 10-foot setback that will have Japanese Maple trees. Source: Project Plans, 2017 The rear of the building includes fenestration on the upper floors. There is a 10-foot setback that would provide space for bamboo plant screening. Design Alternative 2 (Sheets 58 through 63) The applicant has submitted building design alternatives that increase the floor to ceiling height on each floor. This extends the building from 35 feet in height, permitted in this zoning district, to 43 feet in height. The interest for increased height is to provide greater floor to ceiling clearances for the retail and office spaces. Applicant has indicated an interest in seeking approval of this design alternative through a DEE. However, based on staff’s review of the code this request does not meet the intent, purpose or applicability requirements for a DEE. Applicant would need to seek a text amendment or variance to secure approval for increased height, and based on available information, staff is unable to support either request. Staff recommends the Board focus its review and attention on the Alternative 1 plans that include a code compliant building height. 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 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 consider an AR application are provided in Attachment B.  Design Enhancement Exception (DEE): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.050. DEE applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendation 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. DEE projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one of the findings requires project redesign or denial. The findings to consider a DEE application are provided in Attachment B.  Modification to Off-Street Loading Requirements: The process for evaluating this type of request is set forth in PAMC 18.52.080(e). The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non-residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding that: 1) the off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; and 2) the use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. Only one off-street loading space may be waived. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by medium intensity development, including two to three-story commercial, mixed-use buildings, surface parking and structured parking facilities. To the rear of the site, there are medium density multi-family neighborhood with primarily two-story buildings. Most of the architectures within the vicinity are mid-century 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 designed, except for the immediately adjacent mixed-use development that is a contemporary designed building. The proposed contemporary design of the building would be comparable to other newer buildings within the area. At the same time, the colors of the new building are muted, which would help the building blend within the district. Source: Project Plans, 2017 The site is located within the CC(2)(R) zoning district. Recently the Retail (R) combining district was amended to require ground-floor retail and eating and service-oriented commercial development on the ground floors. The maximum height allowed for structures in the district is 37 feet, however, if the property is located adjacent to certain residential districts, then the height is limited to 35 feet. Since the site is adjacent to RM-30 district (to the rear of the site), the height for the property is limited to 35 feet. This is the situation for many of the properties on the northwest side of Cambridge Avenue. This condition does not apply to other parts of the district since those properties abut PC or RM-40 districts. Cambridge Avenue is a secondary commercial area that supports California Avenue. The primary commercial use along Cambridge Avenue is professional office with some personal service commercial. Cambridge Avenue also includes surface and structured parking facilities. At the intersection of El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue there are retail establishments. The uses are different one block away along California Avenue, where there are more retail, restaurant and personal service uses. In the area, floor to ceiling heights at the ground level are mostly consistent in professional office buildings and office buildings that contain some personal service uses. These buildings do not provide tall floor to ceiling heights. However, for single-story commercial buildings, the floor to ceiling heights are more generous. Given the use characteristics of Cambridge Avenue, it is likely that personal service uses would continue to locate there in the future. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C and D. 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. Retail Shopping (R) Combining District 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The combining district requires that retail, eating and service-oriented commercial development be located on the ground floor. These uses typically activate the sidewalk and streetscape creating a friendly pedestrian ambiance. While not designed to accomidate uses with cooking facilities, the project is designed with transparent windows on the ground floor, and appears consistent with the (R) combining district standards. Proximity to residential The project is adjacent to multi-family residential. Alternative 1 is consistent with the zoning requirements as it relates to development standards that are sensitive to proximity, such as height, setbacks, and daylight plane standards. Alternative 2 is inconsistent with the height requirement. Design Alternatives While Alternative 1 intends to meet the zoning requirements with the waiver from on-site loading, the applicant sought to provide an alternative plan to accommodate increased floor to ceiling heights. Instead of integrating this design into a single proposal, the applicant created an Alternative 2 (Sheets 58 through 63 of the plan set), which is the same as Alternative 1, except with increased height. The following table summarizes the differences in floor to ceiling height between the alternatives: Floor Alternative 1 (35 feet overall) Alternative 2 (43 feet overall) Floor to ceiling Floor to dropped ceiling Floor to ceiling Floor to dropped ceiling 1st Floor 9’-5” 7’-8” 12’-5” 10’-8” 2nd Floor 8’-5” 6’-8” 10’-9” 9’ 3rd Floor 8’-5” 6’-8” 10’-9” 9’ As noted earlier, staff does not believe the requested height increase is permitted with a DEE. Context-Based Criteria The context-based design criteria include an emphasis on how the building façade interacts with the streetscape. A retail designed ground floor façade would typically include elements that meet the criteria. In contrast office uses tend to include opaque windows and do not engage with the sidewalk or streetscape since its uses are internalized to the building. Alternative 1 appears consistent with the context-based criteria. The project includes retail space on the first floor and in doing so provides pedestrian friendly design and relationship with the street through the placement of clear fenestration, and recessed entries with metal awnings. The project incorporates parking, solid waste/recycling within the footprint of the building. Retail spaces have direct entries to the street, while the office uses (situated on the second and third floors) have a centralized entry on the ground floor with a lobby. 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 The project includes a flat roof with strong horizontal and vertical elements providing articulation and visual interest at the parapet. The elevation planes are further articulated by recessed entries at the ground level, aluminum-framed fenestration and a balcony on the third level facing Cambridge Avenue. Metal awnings provide pedestrian level scale and opportunities for tenant signage placement. The segment of the building above the garage entry provides different fenestration treatment to provide additional visual interest and reduce mass along Cambridge Avenue. The building also meets the minimum setback requirements. Alternative 2 has challenges meeting the context-based criteria because the scale and massing of the building would be inconsistent with the character of surrounding development. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 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 Community Commercial, which includes a wide variety of commercial uses such as shops, offices and banks. There are Comprehensive Plan Elements (Land Use and Community Design & Business and Economic) policies and goals that are applicable to the project. A subsequent meeting will evaluate the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project is consistent with the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. The Plan creates the framework to increase walking and bicycling and other non-motorized transportation. This includes but not limited to programs to enhance crossings and bike lanes. The project is consistent with the plan in that it provides short-term bicycle parking at street level and long- term bicycle parking within the garage. The project also includes a design that fosters a pedestrian friendly streetscape. The project is subject to transportation impact fees that will fund projects identified in the Plan. Paying the fee and providing the bicycle parking supports the objectives of the Plan. The number of bicycle parking spaces provided is consistent with the number that is required by the PAMC. A condition of approval would require that short-term parking be located on private property and not within the public right-of-way. Vehicle Parking The project site is located within the California Avenue Parking District. The site has previously met its obligation to the district through an assessment. In addition, the existing layout of the site includes two on-site parking spaces. The project includes the net addition of 2,917 square feet. Of that total, 2,599 is attributed towards new retail space, while 381 square feet is 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 attributed towards office space. The new net square footage is subject to the parking requirements of the district. Based on the requirements of the district, the project requires 12 additional parking spaces. Vehicle parking is provided on the first floor in a garage located behind the retail/lobby spaces. Fourteen parking spaces are provided in the garage meeting the requirements of the PAMC. Loading Space According to the PAMC, the project requires one off-street loading space. The applicant requests that there be an adjustment for this requirement (PAMC 18.52.080(e)). In order to approve such an adjustment, the Director must be able to find that: 1) the off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; maximum reduction is one loading space; and 2) and the use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. According to PAMC 18.54.020C, each off-street loading space needs to consist of a rectangular area with a dimension of 12’-0” wide by 45’-0” in length. Each space needs to have adequate access including turning, maneuvering and have access to a public street at all times. The requirement for a single off-street loading space on site would occupy a significant portion of the project’s frontage along Cambridge Avenue. The loading space would likely require two curb cuts (one of which could be shared with the on-site parking facility). That would preclude the siting of a building that would meet the Context-Based criteria. For instance, the building would not be located along the sidewalk and parking would likely be in view from the street. This would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies to have centers be focal points and encourage a design that would reduce the effectiveness of a street frontage that contributes to retail vitality (Policy L-4.2). The project also preserves existing ground floor retail space (Policy L-2.9) by not siting a loading space on site. Environmental Review An environmental analysis is being prepared for this project and no action is anticipated at this meeting. Staff will return with an evaluation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 December 7, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 7, 2017, which is 13 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments 2 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 There has been extensive discussion between the resident that lives on the property behind the project site, the applicant and the City since the project was submitted for consideration. Attachment F includes a letter from the resident describing her concern with construction and operational air quality impacts associated with the project. None of these issues rise to the level of CEQA threshold significance, however, throughout the process staff has encouraged dialogue between the two parties and staff continues to encourage such dialogue. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Consultant Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings for Reference (DOCX)  Attachment C: Performance Standards (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Applicant's Justification for DEE (PDF)  Attachment F: Neighbor Correspondence (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 20 124 - 32- 04 5 124 - 32- 04 8 124 - 32- 04 9 124 - 32- 01 9 137 - 01- 12 5 137 - 01- 11 3 137 - 01- 07 0 137 - 01- 06 9 137 - 01- 03 4 124 - 32- 01 2 124 - 32- 04 6 124 - 32- 04 7 124 - 33- 04 6 124 - 33- 06 5 124 - 33- 04 3 124 - 33- 02 6 124 - 33- 00 5 124 - 33- 00 7 124 - 33- 00 6 124 - 33- 01 9 124 - 33- 01 8 124 - 33- 01 7 124 - 33- 01 6 124 - 33- 01 5 124 - 32- 04 3 124 - 32- 04 4 124 - 33- 02 5 124 - 33- 02 4 124 - 33- 01 2 124 - 33- 01 3 124 - 33- 01 4 124 - 31- 05 8 124 - 31- 06 0 124 - 31- 05 9 124 - 31- 05 5 124 - 31- 05 4 124 - 31- 06 3 124 - 31- 06 2 124 - 31- 06 1 124 - 31- 06 4 124 - 31- 06 5 124 - 31- 06 6 124 - 31- 05 3 124 - 31- 01 2 124 - 31- 02 6 124 - 31- 02 7 124 - 31- 01 3 124 - 31- 01 4 124 - 31- 01 5 124 - 31- 01 6 124 - 31- 01 7 124 - 31- 01 8 137 - 01- 15 2 124 - 31- 02 9 124 - 31- 01 9 124 - 32- 01 0 124 - 32- 01 1 124 - 32- 02 2 124 - 32- 02 1 124 - 32- 01 6 124 - 32- 07 2 124 - 31- 05 0 124 - 31- 05 1 124 - 31- 05 2 124 - 31- 07 0 124 - 31- 06 9 124 - 31- 06 8 124 - 31- 06 7 124 - 31- 04 9 124 - 31- 08 0 124 - 31- 07 9 124 - 31- 07 1 124 - 31- 04 7 124 - 31- 04 6 124 - 32- 00 7 124 - 32- 02 7 124 - 32- 02 6 124 - 32- 02 8 124 - 32- 02 9 124 - 32- 03 0 124 - 32- 03 1 124 - 32- 05 0 124 - 32- 02 5 124 - 32- 07 1 124 - 32- 00 9 124 - 32- 02 0 124 - 32- 01 3 124 - 32- 06 0 124 - 32- 06 1 124 - 32- 06 2 124 - 32- 06 3 124 - 32- 06 5 124 - 32- 06 4 124 - 32- 06 8 124 - 32- 06 7 124 - 32- 06 6 124 - 31- 03 0 124 - 30- 00 6124 - 30- 00 7124 - 30- 00 8 124 - 31- 03 1 124 - 31- 03 2 124 - 31- 03 3 124 - 31- 00 9 124 - 31- 01 0 124 - 31- 01 1 124 - 31- 00 8 124 - 31- 00 7 124 - 31- 00 6 124 - 31- 03 6124 - 31- 03 5 124 - 31- 03 4 124 - 31- 02 8 124 - 31- 00 5 124 - 31- 00 4 124 - 31- 07 6 124 - 31- 03 9 124 - 31- 04 0 124 - 31- 07 5 124 - 31- 04 3 124 - 31- 04 4 124 - 31- 04 5124 - 31- 07 2 124 - 31- 08 3 124 - 33- 05 9 124 - 33- 02 7 124 - 33- 00 1 124 - 33- 02 8 124 - 33- 02 9 124 - 33- 03 0 124 - 33- 02 3 124 - 33- 02 2 124 - 33- 02 1 124 - 33- 02 0 124 - 32- 05 1 124 - 32- 03 5 124 - 32- 03 6 124 - 32- 03 7 124 - 32- 03 8 124 - 32- 03 9 124 - 32- 05 2 124 - 32- 05 3 124 - 32- 05 4 124 - 32- 05 5 124 - 32- 04 0 124 - 32- 04 1 124 - 32- 04 2 124 - 28- 00 9 124 - 28- 01 0 124 - 28- 01 1 124 - 27- 02 7 124 - 27- 02 8 124 - 27- 02 9 124 - 32- 05 6 124 - 32- 03 3 124 - 32- 03 4 124 - 32- 00 5 124 - 32- 00 4 124 - 32- 00 3 124 - 32- 00 2 124 - 32- 00 1 124 - 32- 03 2 124 - 31- 04 2 124 - 31- 04 1 124 - 28- 03 6 124 - 28- 05 1 124 - 28- 01 2 124 - 28- 01 3 124 - 28- 01 4 124 - 28- 01 5 124 - 28- 01 6 124 - 28- 01 7 124 - 28- 00 8 124 - 28- 05 0 124 - 28- 02 1 124 - 28- 02 2 124 - 28- 02 0 124 - 28- 01 8 124 - 28- 01 9 124 - 28- 03 0 124 - 28- 03 2 124 - 28- 03 4 124 - 28- 03 5 124 - 28- 02 9 124 - 28- 05 3 124 - 29- 00 5 124 - 28- 00 3 124 - 28- 00 4 124 - 28- 04 5 124 - 28- 05 2 124 - 28- 05 6 124 - 28- 03 1 124 - 27- 02 6124 - 27- 03 0 124 - 28- 02 3 124 - 28- 00 2 12 4 - 3 2 - 0 6 9 12 4 - 3 1 - 0 8 2 12 4 - 3 1 - 0 8 1 124 - 32- 07 0 12 4 - 3 1 - 0 8 4 1 2 4 - 3 8 - 0 0 3 124 - 38- 00 5124 - 38- 00 2 124 - 38- 00 4 1 2 4 - 3 8 - 0 0 1 COL L E G E A V E N U E JAC A R A N D A L A N E AS H S T R E E T NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E E L C A M I N O R E A L CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E MI M O S A L A N E SE D R O L A N E CAM B R I D G E A V E N U E COL L E G E A V E N U E AS H S T R E E T OXF O R D A V E N U E OXF O R D A V E N U E STA N F O R D A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E CAM B R I D G E A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T BIRC H S T R E E T COL L E G E A V E N U E COL L E G E A V E N U E NO G A L L A N E JAC A R A N D A L A N E E L C A M I N O R E A L 230 5 217 2 228 0 555 559 220 0 232 5 233 1 490 233 5 227 5 480 225 1 42 5 409 407 465 463 461 459 447 445 43 7 - 441 433 - 4 3 5 245 8245 4 41 0 430 46 0 456 454 448 425 431 475 245 0 451 453 211 0 448 432 431 44 3 455 456 454 444 428 416 404 410 425 210 0 465 475 217 1 204 0 210 3 - 212 7 436 - 4 4 6 43 1 - 453 478 222 5 223 7 391 390 381 373 360 376 213 0 214 0 216 0 216 6 424 423 450 438 430 410 41 1 417 463 470 457 449 454 - 460 42 0 1 23 45 220 9 221 5 223 3 421 - 4 2 9 43 1 - 447 412 - 4 2 2 415 - 4 2 1 360 332 342 350 351 343 333 390 380 370 36 0 359 363 381 393 411 350 359 351 343 32 3 322 334 346 301 315 213 0 314 316328 440 414 406 - 4 1 0 392 360 364 415 243 8 415 421 321 361 241 5 442 - 4 4 4 433 - 4 4 7 405 - 4 0 9 403 - 409 381 - 395 341 - 347366 - 370 280 384 229 0 366 39 7 391 383 371 365 355 375 340 34 4 350 330 30 2 215 0 26 1 250285 31 5 325 335 350 318 30 6 320 310 277 231 3230 7 303 - 30 9 301 299 382 380 37 8 267 - 2 7 1 235 0 245 240 255 265 220 230 240 290 26 0 236 3 164 234 3 232 3 2155 2742145 22482250374 10 0 - 10 8 480 475 245 3 222 7 365 369 212 0 33 4 243 1 417 275 276 370 391 350 450 413 225 5 216 2 216 4 233 3 429 422 247 3 450 440 42 1 367 354 300 250 298 242 5 2260 202 1 210 1 333 44 7 222 1 216 0 223 1 228 7 231 5 213 7 420 2280 PF(R) PF(R) R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) CC(2) R-2 PF(R) CC ( 2 ) ( R ) PC-4127 PF( R ) CC(2)(R) R-2 CC(2) (R)(P) RM-30 PF PC-5069 CC ( 2 ) ( R ) PT O D ( R ) 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 Assessment Parcel Palo Alto abc Address Label (AP) 380 - 400 Cambridge 0'148' 380 -400 Cambridge Ave CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RAT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sahsing, 2017-12-04 15:29:00 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) CC (2) (R) 2.a Packet Pg. 21 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 380-410 Cambridge Avenue 15PLN-00249 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements would need to comply 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. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 2.b Packet Pg. 22 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A R B F i n d i n g s f o r R e f e r e n c e ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Design Enhancement Exception Findings The design and architecture of the proposed improvements would also need to comply with the Findings for Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district. (2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d). (3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Parking Adjustment for Off-Street Loading Requirements (PAMC 18.52.080(e)) The Director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non- residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding that: 1) The off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; maximum reduction is one loading space. 2) The use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. 2.b Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A R B F i n d i n g s f o r R e f e r e n c e ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Performance Criteria 18.23 380-410 Cambridge, 15PLN-00249 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Consistency will be finalized prior to a recommendation request of the ARB. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 2.c Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 2.c Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 380-400 Cambridge, 15PLN-00249 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth None 17,500 sf (0.40 acres) 17,500 sf (0.40 acres) Minimum Front Yard (2) 0 - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width 10-12 feet 10-16 feet Rear Yard None None 10 feet Interior Side Yard None West: None East: 0 feet to 10 feet West: None East: 10 feet Street Side Yard None Not Applicable Not Applicable Special Setback None None None Build-To-Lines 50% of the frontage built setback. (87’-6”) 94% (170 feet) 94% (170 feet) Max. Building Height 35 feet when within 150 feet of a residential district (other than RM-40 or PC Zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 22 feet to 26 feet Alternative 1: 35 feet Alternative 2: 43 feet Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone Limited to the first 10 feet from the property line (no daylight plane beyond 10 feet). (10 feet initial height and 45-degree angle. Not Applicable 10 feet Max. Site Coverage None 94% (16,375 sf) 85% (14,850 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1 (35,000 square feet) 1.83:1 (32,083 sf) 2.00:1 (35,000 sf) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.10.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Commercial/Parking Assessment District Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking Retail: Intensive 1 per 240 square feet 2,711 new sf/240 = 11 spaces Office: 1 per 310 square feet 205 new sf/310 = 1 space Project is part of Assessment District 2 spaces 14 spaces 2.d Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Bicycle Parking Retail: 1 per 2,400 sf Long term = 20% (0.37 spaces) Short term = 80% (1.48 spaces) Office: 1 per 3,100 sf Long term = 60% (5.56 spaces) Short term = 40% (3.7 spaces) 6 long term 6 short term None 6 long term 6 short term Off-Street Loading Space Retail: None Office: 1 space None None* * Applicant requests waiver of off-street loading spaces (PAMC 18.52.050) 2.d Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Ceiling Heights 400 Cambridge, Palo Alto CC(2) Code DEE Building Height 35 ft 43 ft Retail Floor to ceiling joist 9-5 12-5 Space for ducting and lighting (1-9)(1-9) Floor to dropped ceiling 7-8 10-8 Floor to floor 12-0 15-0 Office Floor to ceiling joist 8-5 10-9 Space for ducting and lighting (1-9)(1-9) Floor to dropped ceiling 6-8 9-0 Floor to floor 11-0 13-4 Parapet 1-0 1-4 Refer to pages 28 and 63 of October 3, 2017 submittal for crossections and pages 58 and 59 for DEE rationale. 2.e Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.e Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t ' s J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r D E E ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) November 3, 2017 To the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board: I am writing to you today to request a condition of approval, and some additions to the construction logistics plan, for the development at 380 Cambridge Ave. I own an adjacent property and have lived here for 29 years. I have an immune system disorder which makes me extremely vulnerable to air pollutants, both particulates and fumes. As a result, a large construction project spanning 12 to 18 months directly behind my house presents a severe health challenge. Greenheart Land Company, the Palo Alto Planning Department, and I have been in discussions over the last 3 years, working together to develop plans to protect my health as much as possible with the minimum necessary accommodations. My disability requires that my air quality be controlled both during and after the construction. Greenheart has been open to discussions and has already agreed to some accommodations, which I greatly appreciate. For example, they will use hypo-allergenic plantings, and will keep me apprised of the weekly construction schedule so I know when I need to shelter in place. At this point there are still some very substantive issues outstanding. I have proposed that Greenheart use low odor/VOC construction materials compatible with the LEED 4.0 EQ Low- Emitting Materials Credit (the Schools and Healthcare version). The low off-gassing materials improve everyone’s air quality, and align with Palo Alto’s city code and the Green Building initiative which encourage the construction of “environmentally responsible and healthy buildings.” I also proposed that a 2 story temporary construction barrier would help protect my second story residence from the unavoidable airborne dust and fumes. Greenheart is investigating the feasibility of these proposals. We will continue to work with them in the current spirit of cooperation to find other mutually agreeable solutions as necessary. My goal is to protect my health while facilitating this project’s progress. My request of you is that you make our successful resolution a condition of approval for this project, and add the agreed upon solutions to the construction logistics plan. The outcome of this matter has very significant impacts on my health, so I deeply appreciate your consideration and support. Sincerely, Robin Pfaff 383 College Ave 2.f Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : N e i g h b o r C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Attachment G 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: 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 “380 Cambridge” and click the address link 5. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3291&targetID=319 2.g Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 5 9 3 : 3 8 0 C a m b r i d g e A v e n u e : N e w C o m m e r c i a l B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8531) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2370 Watson Court: Master Sign Program Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2370 Watson Court [17PLN-00306]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program That Would Allow for Changes to Donor and Tenant Names That are Consistent With the Master Sign Program Without Subsequent Planning Review. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: ROLM (E)(D)(AD) (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing Subdistrict-Embarcadero With a Site and Design and Automobile Dealership Combining District). 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. Recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings in Attachment B and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment C. Report Summary The project includes a request for Major Architectural Review approval of a Master Sign Program for a commercial building with up to six tenants. The proposed project includes an approved single freestanding sign of less than five feet that complies with all requirements outlined in PAMC Section 16.20.120. The location, size, materials, and colors of the sign were approved in a previous Minor Architectural Review application. The purpose of the request is to 3 Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 allow for donor and tenant names on the proposed sign to be changed in the future without subsequent Architectural Review. This Master Sign Program would outline the approved design, colors, and other details for future additions/changes to donor and tenant names. In addition, the applicant has proposed a change to the type of light fixture that will be used for the sign. Lighting would still be focused directly on the sign and designed to avoid spillover light. Background Project Information Owner: Milestone Holdings, LLC Architect: DGA Architecture Representative: Vivian Jones, Stanford University Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 2370 Watson Court Neighborhood: Baylands Lot Dimensions & Area: 57,075 sf; 212 feet (Watson Court frontage); 230 feet (East Bayshore Road frontage) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Applicable; protected London Plane street trees Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 26,761 sf; two stories; 27 feet in height; built 1978, improvements in 2016 Existing Land Use(s): Research Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: ROLM(E)(D)(AD) Zoning (Research Office Land Use) West: PF Zoning (Highway 101) (PF land uses) East: ROLM(E)(D)(AD) and CS (D) Zoning (Research Office Land Use and CS Land Uses) South: ROLM(E )(D)(AD) Zoning (Research Office land uses) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Geographic Information systems Technology Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: ROLM(E)(D)(AD) (Research Office Limited Manufacturing; Site and Design Combining District; and Automobile Dealership Combining District) Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park 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; discussed below El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Applicable; discussed below Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None 3 Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Project Description The project includes a request for Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program to allow for changes in the donor and tenant names on a previously approved double sided freestanding sign that is five feet in height and 5 feet 3 inches wide. The total sign area is 26.5 square feet, consistent with the Sign Code, which allows up to 27 square feet for a freestanding sign of five feet or less in height with a frontage of over 200 feet. The materials for all tenant and donor names would be flat cut out acrylic, painted black (Mathews Color Blackstone-202 Satin finish), and installed on a one-half inch thick aluminum panel painted gray (Mathews color closest to De6366 Silver Spoon). The letters would be between approximately 2 and 5 inches tall. The project plans are included in Attachment D. 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. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located on the corner of Watson Court and East Bayshore Road. The adjacent intersection at Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore Road is considered the entrance to the Baylands. The project site includes an existing commercial building, which has recently been re- landscaped and renovated. Across the street is another recently constructed commercial building. The location, height, materials, and colors of the sign were approved as part of a separate Minor Architectural Review package (File No. 15PLN-00507) and the sign is designed to be consistent with the adjacent sign at 2452 Watson Court. Compliance with the Sign Ordinance—Freestanding Signs Five Feet or Less in Height 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. 3 Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Freestanding signs of five feet or less in height are permitted in all zoning districts. The standards for these types of signs, as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.20.120, include the following: 1. Every such sign shall be wholly on the owner's property. 2. There may be no more than one such sign for each frontage. 3. Freestanding signs constructed back-to-back, with faces in approximately parallel planes (such as both sides of a single panel) shall count as only one sign both as to number and area (i.e. only one side need be counted). 4. 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. In addition, the allowed area of the sign is based on the size of the site’s street frontage. The street frontage is 212 feet; therefore a sign totaling approximately 27 square feet is allowed. The request for approval of revisions to the sign to change out donor and tenant names does not affect the previously approved sign’s compliance with these requirements in accordance with the Sign Code. The previously approved sign is 26.5 square feet and is located wholly on the owner’s property. There is only one sign along this frontage. The sign was previously approved with a small tube light at the bottom. The proposed project includes a slight revision to the type of light fixture proposed; but would be similar to what was previously approved. No light bulb or filament would be visible from the front of the sign or from beyond the property line. Zoning Compliance2 The approved sign is consistent with the zoning requirements for the ROLM(E) Zone District. The project includes changes to the donor and tenant names on this previously approved sign. These changes to the names would not affect the size or location of the sign. Therefore, the project would not affect the sign’s consistency with the zoning code. The project site has a site and design overlay; and is therefore subject to the code provisions outlined in Chapter 18.30 (G) of the zoning code. However, because the project does not include a new building or propose a new land use, the project is not subject to site and design review, as outlined in PAMC Section 18.30(G).040. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 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. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research/Office 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 3 Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Park, which is intended for office, research and manufacturing establishments whose operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses. On balance, the project is consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided under Architectural Review Finding #1 in Attachment B. Airport Land Use Plan The project site is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone as identified in the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Plan. However, the project would have no effect on air traffic patterns or safety. The proposed lighting is minimal, lighting only the small sign and not directed upwards. Baylands Master Plan and Baylands Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for the Palo Alto Nature Preserve The proposed revisions to the approved signage to swap out donor and tenant names complies with the Baylands Master Plan and Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve as they would be mounted on the existing sign, which is low to the ground, would use the same muted colors for the panel, and would use a low-maintenance material. Consistency with Application Findings As outlined in the draft Findings included in Attachment B, the proposed project is consistent with the findings for Architectural review. 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 in accordance with Section 15311, which provides exemptions for accessory structures such as on premise signs that are appurtenant to commercial uses. 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 December 8, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 8, 2017, which is 14 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; 3 Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 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 Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Architectural Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 83 13 9 . 0 ' 18.7' 139.8' 1 6 2 . 5 ' 20 . 0 ' 4 5 2 . 1 ' 23 0 . 0 ' 47.1' 129.2' 25.1' 84.3' 18.7' 13 9 . 0 ' 206.3' 16 2 . 5 ' 47.1' 129.2' 25.1' 2 37 0 2 46 5 W A T S ON C OU R T 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 abc Easement abc Dimensions (AP) abc Address Label Arterial Street Railroad Current Features 0'67' 2370 Watson Ct 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, 2017-12-11 15:21:39 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 5 3 1 : 2 3 7 0 W a t s o n C o u r t : M a s t e r S i g n P r o g r a m ) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2370 Watson Court 17PLN-00306 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project is in conformance with the following Comp Plan Policies:.  Policy L-6.1: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.  Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. The project is consistent with the zoning code in that the previously approved sign complies with the sign code and all applicable zoning regulations for the ROLM (E)(AD) Zone district, including the allowed size (26.5 sf), number of signs, lighting of the sign, and placement of the sign. Changes to the donor and tenant names, as proposed would not change the sign’s consistency with the zoning code. The project site is located within the Traffic Pattern Zone as identified in the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Plan. Small signage, as well as buildings, are allowed in this Traffic Pattern Zone. The project would have no effect on air traffic patterns or safety. The proposed lighting is minimal, lighting only the small sign in a manner that reduces spillover lighting above or to the sides of the sign. The existing site and signage is consistent with the Baylands Master Plan and Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for the Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve in that the sign is low to the ground and designed for practicality (i.e. won’t weather and would require nominal, if any future maintenances). Although the sign utilizes the signature Stanford red on one panel, similar to the approved sign across the street, the proposed project, which includes future changes to donor and tenant names, would change out the grey panels with the same grey panels, a neutral color consistent with the muted tone of the baylands theme. 3.b Packet Pg. 85 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 8 5 3 1 : 2 3 7 0 W a t s o n C o u r t : M a s t e r S i g n P r o g r a m ) Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed project would allow the tenant and donor names on the previously approved sign to be swapped out. The previously approved sign is integrated into the landscape plan and the sign is small and harmonious with transitions in scale, mass and character. It is similar in size and style to the sign on the adjacent corner. The new donor and tenant names would be added in the same font and made from the same material, etc. as the existing approved sign. Therefore, there would be no effect on the unified and coherent design at the site. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project includes changing the donor and tenant names on a previously approved sign. As noted, above, and new tenant or donor names that are added to the sign would be done in the same material, colors, font, and size as the name that it would replace. These colors and materials were previously found to be of high aesthetic quality and to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The new project also proposes a minor change to the previously approved lighting for the project which requires minor additional trenching. Any minor trenching to extend the conduit by an extra foot would be done utilizing the same required tree protection techniques as used for the original conduit trenching. Therefore, appropriate construction techniques would be utilized. 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.). 3.b Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 8 5 3 1 : 2 3 7 0 W a t s o n C o u r t : M a s t e r S i g n P r o g r a m ) The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The proposed project would have no effect on pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle circulation. The existing sign size and location allow for ease and safety of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic and is visible for directional purposes but does not detract for the building or the frontage. There would be no change to the size or location of the existing sign as a result of the proposed project; therefore, the project is consistent with Finding #4. 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 at the site was recently redesigned with native, low water use vegetation that better fits the Baylands character. No new landscaping is included in the proposed project. 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 future changes to the donor or tenant names on the sign would have no effect on water conservation, landscaping or site planning. The proposed lighting is substantially similar to the previously approved lighting. The lighting is minimal and shielded from the public right- of-way. The landscaping was recently revised around the site to utilize native species with lower water use. 3.b Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 8 5 3 1 : 2 3 7 0 W a t s o n C o u r t : M a s t e r S i g n P r o g r a m ) ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2370 Watson Court 17PLN-00306 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Planning application for monument sign at 2370 Watson Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 APN:008-03-074,” stamped as received by the City on November 22, 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. BUILDING 3.c Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 5 3 1 : 2 3 7 0 W a t s o n C o u r t : M a s t e r S i g n P r o g r a m ) The following comments 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.: 7. A building permit is required for the construction of the monument sign and designed to the current applicable building codes. 8. 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 5 3 1 : 2 3 7 0 W a t s o n C o u r t : M a s t e r S i g n P r o g r a m ) Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to board 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: 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 “2370 Watson Court” and click to view the project plans OR Follow this direct link to view the project plans: https://tinyurl.com/2370WatsonCt 3.d Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 5 3 1 : 2 3 7 0 W a t s o n C o u r t : M a s t e r S i g n P r o g r a m ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8589) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4256 El Camino Real: New Hotel (Prelim) Title: 4256 El Camino Real (17PLN-00357): Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for a new 51,266 Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 90 Guest Rooms 96 Parking Spaces. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. 4 Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: Catherine Huang Huang Architect: Studio T Square Representative: Mircea Voskerician Legal Counsel: Not Identified Property Information Address: 4256 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Palo Alto Orchards Lot Dimensions & Area: 163.5’ by 147.3’ to 95.2’; 25,960 sf Housing Inventory Site: Yes; maximum yield of 17 units, realistic yield of 12 units Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: 5 Street Trees; 4 Redwoods; 2 Cedars Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 3,296 sf; Single Story; Built 1964 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Use (Eating & Drinking Services; Su Hong Restaurant) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CS (Residential Multi-Family) West: CS (Residential Multi-Family) East: CS(H) (The Sea Steak House & Dinah’s Poolside) South: CS (General Business Office) Aerial View of Property: 4 Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (CS) Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes, see discussion below Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes, see discussion below Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, see discussion below Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action 4 Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary Review (August 17, 2017) Project Description The proposed project would demolish the existing the 3,296 sf single story building which is occupied by the Su Hong restaurant to construct a five story 51,266 square foot (FAR of 2.0:1) hotel with 87 hotel rooms and below grade guest amenities and parking. The new hotel is proposed to have a maximum height of 46 feet along the El Camino Real frontage and will taper down to a height of 30 feet at the rear of the hotel. The project includes three, two-story suites that are detached from the hotel and are located at the rear of the property. The design also incorporates a driveway that features an oversized porte-cochere and on site loading area for deliveries. The parking garage will utilize valet parking for the proposed 96 spaces (90 spaces via 3 level parking lifts; 2 valet spaces; 4 accessible spaces, 2 at grade). The applicant requests ARB’s consideration of the project’s compliance with the applicable design guidelines, in additional to feedback regarding the overall design. The proposed project has a contemporary architectural style and utilizes wood siding, stucco, stone, and exposed metal beam in the design. The colors palette for the project is beige, brown, white, and dark grey shades. The El Camino Real Frontage features wood paneling on the exterior of the upper floors and decorative seafoam tile at the center of the porte-cochere. The existing redwoods provide screening between the project and the adjacent multi-family residential developments. The project is designed in an A-symmetric layout with the northern section of the hotel being half the length of the southern section. The design includes an expansive Japanese themed landscaping which runs throughout the development, beginning at the lobby and running along the rear of the property in a T-shape layout. The projects’ design also includes 12 foot wide sidewalks along the El Camino Real frontage. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): This project would be subject to the criteria found within PAMC 18.77.070. Architectural Review applications are reviewed by the Architectural Review Board whose recommendations are then forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Actions by the Director are appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Architectural Review projects are evaluated against specific findings which must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires a project to be redesigned or to be denied. Discussion 4 Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Access to the site  Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Background Section)  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any The following key issues have been identified by planning staff and may warrant further discussion from the ARB: Housing Element The Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan has identified the project site as a housing inventory site. Based on a preliminary review of the project, staff notes that the subject property has a maximum yield of 17 units and a realistic yield of 12 housing units. In preparation for the last housing element, the City anticipated some housing sites may be redeveloped for non-housing purposes. Additional housing sites, beyond the City’s regional housing obligation, have been identified so the loss of a housing opportunity at this property could possibly be accommodated. However, it should be noted that 38 potential housing units were lost with the approval of a hotel at 744 San Antonio Road (File No. 15PLN-00314). Zoning Compliance Based on a preliminary review of the project, staff notes the following concerns principally related to parking, circulation, vehicle access and design. These issues require further analysis and would benefit from ARB comments: 1. The parking garage includes area that would count towards gross floor area causing the project to exceed the Code allowed FAR for this property. 2. There are insufficient standard parking spaces provided with the use of mechanical parking. Per PAMC Section 18.54.020(b)(4)(G), 10% of the required spaces must be available outside of the lift system. The current project provides two (2) standard parking spaces when at least nine (9) standard parking spaces would be required. 4 Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 3. Staff remains concerned over the ability of the proposed tandem parking lift configuration to effectively and efficiently meet the parking demands of the site. At this preliminary stage, the applicant has not submitted sufficient information regarding the proposed lift system for staff to be able to analyze the necessary queuing space. If a formal application is submitted, staff will continue to investigate the functionality of the parking lift system to ensure a throughput that would keep cars from queuing onto the garage ramp and possibly into the street. 4. Insufficient information is available to determine if the garage ramp meets the required slope and vertical clearance required by PAMC Section 18.54.070. This Section allows a maximum slope of 22%. 5. The loading zone proposed is short of the required length and would conflict with the accessible path of travel and vehicle circulation. 6. The automobile court is expansive and not used for arriving guests, who are anticipated to be directed to the below grade parking. This design impacts building orientation and pedestrian access as a large portion of the frontage is dedicated to automobile circulation. As a result, this layout may conflict with context based design criteria related to pedestrian and bicycle friendly design and connectivity. Resolution of these issues could result in changes to the site plan. Transportation Analysis A project of this scale would potentially generate between 30 and 50 net new peak-hour automobile trips, requiring the preparation of a focused transportation impact analysis by a qualified transportation planning or engineering professional if a formal application is submitted. The analysis would include trip generation estimates, access and circulation evaluation, and traffic operations assessment at several nearby intersections for existing conditions, existing plus project, and background scenarios. Protected Redwood Trees A significant number of redwood trees existing along the perimeter of the property. Excavation required for construction of the below grade parking facilities may impact trees both on site and those directly adjacent to the property. The applicant has submitted an updated arborist’s report that provides additional information for tree protection during construction. In addition, the arborist has inspected the trees on the neighboring property which run along the common property line with the project site. As a part of any formal application, the City’s Urban Forester will require a detailed tree preservation report (TPR) that outlines protection measures for each tree to ensure their survival and health during and post-construction. This report would likely require an advanced survey of the root system of each tree to determine the proper course of action. Utilities Analysis The project has proposed a large transformer located to the right of the driveway, under the cantilevered upper floors of the hotel. This location would not provide the required overhead 4 Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 installation clearance of 30 feet. As a result, the proposal would require modifications to the design and or relocation of the transformer to accommodate the required clearance. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. Public Comments During review of this project, one letter was submitted that reflects comments from the neighbors who live within the adjacent multifamily complex known as the Palo Alto Redwoods. The adjacent residents are concerned about the project’s impacts on the mature redwood trees, traffic, noise from construction, privacy, the overall size of the project, and the projected shadows that would be cast by the project onto their property and common space. The applicant has been in contact with and held meetings with the HOA board to gather resident feedback on the proposal. Staff has also met with neighborhood representatives. Comments from the Palo Alto Redwoods residents can be found within Attachment D. The Palo Alto Redwoods HOA has also submitted an arborist report that can be found within Attachment F. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrexz@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Neighbor Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment E: Applicant Arborist Report (PDF)  Attachment F: PA Redwoods Arborist Report (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 97 4.a Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4256 EL Camino Real 17PLN-00357 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.595 acres (25,960 sf) 0.595 acres (25,960 sf) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 12’8” 12 foot sidewalk width Rear Yard None 110’-2” 17’-34’ Interior Side Yard None 31’-3” 13’5” & 10’ Street Side Yard None N/A N/A Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) N/A N/A Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback Not Known 50% Max. Site Coverage None 12.69% (3,296 sf) 50% (12,973 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than RM- 40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Not known 47 feet Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 (10,384 sf) 18.18.060(e) 2.0:1 for hotels 18.18.060 (51,920 sf)(d) 3,296 sf 51,266 sf Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) N/A N/A (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 4.b Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotel use Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per guestroom; plus the applicable requirement for eating and drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial or other as required for such uses, less up to 75% of the spaces required for guestrooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking study of parking generated by the mix of uses. 46 spaces 90 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per 10 guestrooms, plus requirements for accessory uses (drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial or other) Not known 7 spaces Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000 - 99,999 sf Not known 1 space, may conflict with pedestrian and vehicle circulation 4.b Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 4256 El Camino Real 17PLN-00357 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 4.c Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 1 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Palo Alto Redwoods December 4, 2017 City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 4256 El Camino Real - Preliminary Architectural Review - 17PLN-00233 PAR Comments for Second Study Session, December 22, 2017 Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board, Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association (PAR) is submitting the following comments for your review for the second study session scheduled December 22, 2017 regarding the proposed development of the Su Hong Restaurant property by HXH, LLC. In PAR's written submission dated August 3, 2017 for the initial study session we raised a number of concerns. In addition we provided public comments at the August 17, 2017 hearing about these issues. Following the meeting, PAR provided a list of remaining concerns to the developer and had an in-person meeting to go over the developer's revised project design . Although the developer attempted to address some concerns raised by PAR and by the ARB, the measures incorporated into the revised project plan are inadequate. Our remaining concerns include, but are not limited to the following:  Impacts to Redwood trees;  Adverse project impacts on traffic, safety, noise, air quality, etc. minimized and mitigated;  Construction process managed to mitigate noise and construction impact;  Bulk of buildings do not cast shadow upon PAR homes or pool area;  Minimized massing respects privacy of PAR homes, reduces number and size of rear windows;  Consistency with all provisions of zoning code, specifically height;  Consistency with Comprehensive Plan;  Assurance that noise from HVAC and outdoor spaces cannot be heard from PAR homes;  Adequate drainage to avoid runoff or flooding of PAR;  Consideration of converting project to mixed-use or housing. Given that we have already submitted comments in our previous letter, we will not reiterate each of our concerns here. Instead we will detail some of our most significant concerns at this time. Any issues not addressed here remain concerns and our decision not to highlight them at this time does not indicate acceptance of changes to date. Thank you for carefully considering our request that the proposed development be significantly scaled back and include neighborhood benefits. PAR CONCERNS REMAIN * Density * Traffic Safety * Height * Parking * Tree Health * Hotel Saturation * Light Reduction * Environmental Impact * Air Flow * Health and Safety 4.d Packet Pg. 102 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : N e i g h b o r C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 2 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Tree Health Redwood trees are one of the oldest living species on the planet. The residents of PAR consider ourselves caretakers of these valuable assets, which contribute greatly to our quality of life. We are proud to be residents of the City of Palo Alto, where its moniker is El Palo Alto in honor of Redwood trees. PAR has well over 117 trees, mostly Redwoods, with a number of them eligible for heritage Northern California Redwoods status. PAR has utilized the services of Henry Ardalan of City Arborist for almost 20 years to maintain tree health. Given the proposed 50-foot high building proposed next door, we are concerned for the health and care of the 28 Redwood trees in the Area B grove and the 4 Redwood trees in our entry area near the property line that will be directly impacted. PAR met with the developer's arborist, Kielty Arborist Services, to allow access to our property to measure tree diameter and distance from the common fence area. In his report, our trees were identified to be in fair or poor condition, although we have been diligent in taking care of them throughout all water conditions. PAR then retained the services of a independent arborist, Moki Smith of Smith Tree Specialists, to provide us with an assessment of the condition of our trees, with the view of determining the potential impact of construction on the Redwood trees. Mr. Smith's initial report has identified our trees as being in good condition, showing evidence of consistent and appropriate care, including irrigation. This is the opposite of the assessment by the developer's arborist. (see Arborist Smith's attached report) PAR trees located in Area B Grove In order to acquire a deeper assessment of our trees condition, we expect the city to perform the following tests to assist with analysis of potential project impacts on PAR trees:  soil tests to determine mechanical and chemical profile of the soil;  water analysis to determine composition of irrigation water; and  live tissue testing to determine nutrient status of the trees. 4.d Packet Pg. 103 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : N e i g h b o r C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 3 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 PAR has three main areas of concern related to potential impacts on trees: 1. Above ground  Trees provide privacy screening, air quality, and quality of life for the homeowners and benefits to the overall aesthetics to the community. We are concerned that the amount of sunlight and wind, which is vital for healthy trees, will be severely compromised with a 50-foot high building.  We consider the so-called shade study, as presented, to be inadequate, and request that the city perform an independent shade study showing all of the potentially impacted areas, including residential areas, pool/clubhouse area, and entry area that will be next to the massive 50 foot structure.  Loss of sunlight would ultimately result in loss of lower limb structure in Redwoods, compromising the privacy screen, with tree growth limited to the very top, if at all. Homeowners would only have tree trunks outside their windows. The loss of light would leave PAR buildings susceptible to dry rot resulting in significant costs of repair over time. 2. Below ground  The impact of grading and excavating for a multilevel building so close to the drip line, and encroaching on the root base and anchorage of the trees, will severely impact the root system of the trees. Redwood trees have shallow lateral roots and are co-dependent on each other, as their roots are all intertwined.  Trenching and foundation footings must be carefully considered to avoid uprooting and long-term tree damage. When the root structure is damaged in any significant way, not only does that tree begin to decline over time, but it also affects the other trees it is connected to. 3. Impact to trees and mitigation  Impacts to the trees and the mitigation for those impacts cannot be fully identified until there is a final plan for development, including an engineer’s grading plans. Only once those exist can an arborist give an accurate assessment of what mitigation is necessary.  We are not opposed to welcoming a new neighbor, but we ask for the design to be reconsidered to address our concerns for our Redwood trees and the value they bring to the community as a whole. With a 50 foot hotel as high as trees, sky views will be blocked and sunlight and airflow reduced. 4.d Packet Pg. 104 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : N e i g h b o r C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 4 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Parking and Traffic Safety The proposed hotel creates several unacceptable traffic and safety problems for our stretch of El Camino and raises more questions than it answers. Each of these safety concerns is described briefly below.  The proposed porte cochere design will result in backed up traffic onto El Camino. What happens when multiple residents are bringing their vehicles out of the garage, the carport is full of rideshare drivers and passengers unloading, and cars are trying to enter the car port from El Camino? What happens when UPS and FedEx show up at the same time? Where is the garbage truck supposed to park when another delivery truck is already in the commercial loading area? Traffic will back up onto El Camino, blocking at least one of the three lanes. This will worsen traffic especially during peak hours. The proposed entrance is also immediately after the exit to PAR. Vehicles exiting PAR will encounter queued hotel traffic that is problematic and unsafe.  The proposed location provides insufficient distance for exiting cars to make the turn light. Drivers who want to head north on El Camino after exiting the hotel will attempt to make it to the left turn light. There is not enough distance for drivers attempting to cut over to the left turn light at Dinah's Court, but they are going to attempt it anyway. This creates a safety hazard for passing cars. We already see this with cars exiting Su Hong, and it will be far worse with hotel traffic.  Experimental puzzle parking technology is unproven. Puzzle parking requires excavating much deeper than for regular parking, which poses risks to PAR infrastructure. The more moving parts something has, the more likely it is to fail. If there's a malfunction retrieving one car, it renders the remaining cars inaccessible. What happens when there's a mechanical malfunction when multiple owners are retrieving their cars? How does this affect traffic in the car port? Will tiered puzzle parking work and be a desirable option over time?  Illegal and dangerous parking will occur in front of the hotel, despite no parking zones. There is currently no proposed location for tour buses to park to unload passengers. As we see frequently at the Hilton Garden Inn, tour buses and Uber drivers WILL park illegally in front of the hotel despite signage and red curbs, and despite a similarly designed (and larger) car port there. This blocks visibility for drivers exiting the hotel as well as drivers passing the hotel. Since the hotel does not have responsibility for enforcing traffic laws, it has no reason to enforce the no parking zone. This is also a low priority for law enforcement. We only need to look at Edgewood Plaza, where this is an ongoing problem despite an established commercial delivery area. It would be naive to pretend that this won't occur at this site as well. This impact should be evaluated during the environmental review process. These and other negative impacts related to parking, traffic, and congestion this proposal will exacerbate the unsafe traffic conditions that already exist on El Camino. Hotel Saturation / Density in the Neighborhood Our neighborhood was declared a “hotel corridor” in city plans some time ago, but it has been allowed to become “all string and no pearls”, as the PA Weekly put it, in part because hotel tax revenues will increase city coffers. The hotel burden should be more equitably shared throughout the city, particularly given traffic implications. Our neighborhood needs to be one that neighbors can easily navigate while enjoying amenities, but instead it is increasingly being defined by massive hotel facades. Our concerns include:  PAR is a diverse multi-family residential neighborhood of 275 people enjoying outdoor walkways shaded by more than 100 trees, mostly Redwoods, and a number of oases of green spaces. We also have easy access to public transportation, good schools, work places, and community services. We are exactly the kind of housing that the new Comprehensive Plan wants to see more of, and that Palo Alto should protect. 4.d Packet Pg. 105 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : N e i g h b o r C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 5 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113  In 2008 an Economic Resource Associates report commissioned by the City said there were 1,865 hotel rooms in all of Palo Alto. Now, within walking distance of PAR, there are 19 hotels with 1,595 rooms on El Camino alone. One of these has already submitted plans to nearly triple from 36 to 97 rooms. That’s over 1600 rooms in a stretch of less than 2.5 miles, just in the blocks of El Camino Real between 3200 and 4500. If we expand out to within five miles, including the massive Marriotts planned for San Antonio, there will be thousands of rooms.  This particular dense hotel project, 80+ rooms with three time-share units, and a long stretch of 50’ high walls, is unsuitable in the neighborhood.  The bulk of the project as proposed remains out of scale with the adjacent neighborhood and would significantly affect daylight for many of our units (including all 12 BMR units facing the Area B grove).  Despite some glass and landscaping, the building design takes the “defensive walled approach” and at five stories high for the full facade on El Camino, is another in a series of massive and unwelcoming buildings being built in South Palo Alto.  We recognize that the property at 4256 El Camino is zoned for commercial services use. We have lived peaceably with both Denny’s and Su Hong as next-door neighbors over decades. We would welcome a well-designed commercial enterprise or mixed use housing that serves the community, that is respectful of its neighbors both in its design and its uses, and that adds to the liveliness and spirit of the neighborhood rather than detracts from it. This project as proposed does none of these things, and offers nothing of benefit for those of us who live in South Palo Alto. The project’s design fails to provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses, fails to enhance conditions in adjacent neighborhood, and fails to include pedestrian-centric amenities. Environmental Impact We have environmental concerns that we previously raised but the developer has not adequately addressed, including:  Health impacts from air, sound and noise pollution, both during and after construction;  Smoke impact - PAR is a non-smoking environment, and the proposed development must designate specific areas that will not impact PAR, or designate the entire project non-smoking;  Loss of light - developer's shade study included in packet does not adequately address loss of light; an independent light study should be a requirement;  Safety risks for children riding to school at peak commute times on bikes need to be addressed;  Safety hazards as a result of illegal and dangerous double parking, including vision impairment and blocked right lane on El Camino need to be addressed;  Loss of privacy - the revised proposal diminishes the privacy of all windows facing the development. Guests in 27 hotel units will look out directly into the living rooms, bedrooms, and balconies of 18 of our homes; this is unacceptable; These are potentially significant impacts that should be thoroughly evaluated through the environmental review process. We hope the ARB will give serious consideration as to how this project will impact our residents and the neighborhood. 4.d Packet Pg. 106 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : N e i g h b o r C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 6 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Required Findings Finally, the ARB cannot make the necessary findings to grant the requested approvals. In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code As discussed in detail throughout this letter and the PAR letter dated August 3, 2017, the revised plan does NOT provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses, and it does NOT enhance living conditions in adjacent residential areas. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with required ARB Finding #2. Until the project is redesigned to reduce the scale and mass of the buildings and to integrate with the existing neighborhood, the required findings cannot be made. Summary PAR is a hidden gem that is similar to the kinds of residential neighborhoods called for in the revised Comprehensive Plan. The ARB should take definitive steps to protect our unique oasis as a model to be replicated, not one to be overshadowed and made unsafe for residents and drivers. Unresolved and undesirable issues remain - many which the ARB previously raised with the developer. We will appreciate the ARB’s support of our efforts to scale back this development proposal. As mentioned in August, we invite the Board to visit our complex anytime to understand our perspective and passion for our homes. Sincerely, Board of Directors, Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association 4.d Packet Pg. 107 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : N e i g h b o r C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) Kielty Arborist Services Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 April 27, 2017 revised October 9, 2017 Catherine Huang Huang, HXH Property LLC 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 2000 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Site: 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Dear Ms. Hauang, As requested on Monday, April 24, 2017, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. New construction is planned for this site and your concern as to the future health and safety of the trees as well as the neighboring trees has prompted this visit. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The trees in question were located on a site plan provided by you. The trees was then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees’ condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the tree was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. 4.e Packet Pg. 108 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 4256 El Camino/4/27/17 (2) Survey: Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SP Comments 1 London plane 2” 70 15/15 Good vigor, fair form, street tree. (Platanus acerifolia) 2 London plane 13.2 75 30/35 Good vigor, fair form, street tree. (Platanus acerifolia) 3 London plane 13.1 70 35/30 Good vigor, good form, poor live crown (Platanus acerifolia) ratio. 4 London plane 10.6 55 35/30 Good vigor, poor-fair form, codominant at (Platanus acerifolia) 12 feet. 5 London plane 10.7 65 30/35 Good vigor, fair form, codominant at 20 (Platanus acerifolia) 6* Redwood 26.7 65 45/30 Fair vigor, fair form, one of five. (Sequoia sempervirens) (5.5 feet from property line.) 7* Redwood 14.3 65 35/20 Fair vigor, fair form, one of five. (Sequoia sempervirens) (4.0 feet from property line.) 8* Redwood 17.2 60 40/30 Fair vigor, fair form, one of five. (Sequoia sempervirens) (7.5 feet from property line.) 9* Redwood 20.2 60 40/30 Fair vigor, fair form, one of five. (Sequoia sempervirens) (4.0 feet from property line.) 10* Redwood 22.4 65 40/25 Fair vigor, fair form, one of five. (Sequoia sempervirens) (8 feet from property line.) 11 Deodar cedar 21.8 55 45/40 Good vigor, fair form, heavy lateral limbs. (Cedrus deodara) 12 Deodar cedar 18.3 55 45/40 Good vigor, fair form, heavy lateral limbs. (Cedrus deodara) 13 Redwood 23.1 60 55/30 Fair vigor, fair form, in south corner. (Sequoia sempervirens) 14 Redwood 24.1 60 55/30 Fair vigor, fair form, in south corner. (Sequoia sempervirens) 4.e Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 4256 El Camino/4/27/17 (3) Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SP Comments 15 Redwood 29.9 65 60/30 Fair vigor, fair form, in west corner. (Sequoia sempervirens) 16 Redwood 29.2 65 60/30 Fair vigor, fair form, in west corner. (Sequoia sempervirens) 17* Redwood 16.5 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (5.5 feet from property line) 18* Redwood 17.6 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (4.5 feet from property line) 19* Redwood 9.3 50 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (4.0 feet from property line) 20* Redwood 15.5 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (6.0 feet from property line) 21* Redwood 12.1 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (4.0 feet from property line) 22* Redwood 9.9 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (8.0 feet from property line) 23* Redwood 17.1 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (5.0 feet from property line) 24* Redwood 14.1 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (6.5 feet from property line) 25* Redwood 15.8 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (9.0 feet from property line) 26* Redwood 18.3 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (6.0 feet from property line) 27* Redwood 18.0 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (7.0 feet from property line) 28* Redwood 17.6 55 40/20 Poor-fair vigor, fair form, water stressed. (Sequoia sempervirens) (2.5 feet from property line) *Indicates neighboring trees. 4.e Packet Pg. 110 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 4256 El Camino/4/27/17 (4) Non-protected trees to be removed with canopy size: Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SP Square feet of canopy 11 Deodar cedar 21.8 55 45/40 1,256 12 Deodar cedar 18.3 55 45/40 1,256 A Fruitless mulberry 6.9 50 15/15 176 B Fruitless mulberry 8.2 55 20/20 314 C Fruitless mulberry 3.1 60 15/10 78.5 D Fruitless Mulberry 3.0 60 15/10 78.5 E Fruitless mulberry 2.0 60 15/10 78.5 F Avocado 3.1 55 15/10 78.5 G Fruitless mulberry 7.2 50 20/20 314 H Peach 4.8 55 15/15 176 I Podocarpus 6x2” 50 10/20x4 80 J Fruitless mulberry 8.3 50 15/20 314 K Fruitless mulberry 7.7 40 15/10 78.5 L Fruitless mulberry 7.8 40 15/15 176 J Fruitless mulberry 8.8 50 15/15 176 Total square feet of canopy 4,630.5 4.e Packet Pg. 111 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 4256 El Camino/4/27/17 (5) Summary: The trees on site consist of five street trees, four redwoods and two cedars. The street trees are all London plane trees and are in fair condition. Impacts to the trees are expected to be minor with no long term impacts expected the trees will be protected with type three tree protection. The cedars are located in a landscape finger which protrudes into the property. The cedars will be removed to facilitate the construction. The four redwoods are located in the rear corners of the site ideal for construction. The vertical shoring and excavation should be no closer than 10 feet from the trunks of the redwood trees. The redwoods will be protected with a modified type 1 tree protection. The neighboring trees will be protected by property fencing and no negative impacts are expected. The following tree protection plan should be followed to help reduce impacts to the trees on and off site. Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for tree protection should be 6’ tall, metal chain link material supported by metal 2” diameter poles, pounded into the ground to a depth of no less than 2’. The location for the protective fencing should be as close to the dripline of desired trees as possible, still allowing room for construction to safely continue (Type 1 Tree Protection). On this site type 3 tree protection will be used for tree #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 as the curb and sidewalk will limit the fence-able area. The tree protection fence for the trees must be maintained throughout the entire project. The following distances for tree protection should be maintained for the entire length of the project: • Tree #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5, London Plane trees the tree protection shall be straw wattle wrapped with orange plastic fencing. • Trees #13, #14, #15 and #16, redwoods tree protection will be at 10 feet (edge of vertical shoring) and extend to 10 x DBH where possible. (Type 1 tree protection). • The neighbor’s redwoods will be protected by property line fencing. The above are the radius for tree protection and are the minimum distance the fencing should be installed at. The fencing should extend to the 10 times the DBH from the trunk where possible per Tree Technical Manual. No equipment or materials shall be stored or cleaned inside the protection zones. Areas outside protection fence, but still beneath the tree’s driplines, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4-6” of chipper chips covered with plywood. The spreading of chips will help to reduce compaction and improve soil structure. 4.e Packet Pg. 112 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 4256 El Camino/4/27/17 (6) Demolition and Staging Prior to the start of the demolition process, all tree protection measures must be in place. An inspection prior to the start of the demolition is required. A pre-demolition meeting with the site arborist will be required. The city of Palo Alto often times has their arborist attend this meeting. All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if possible. Existing pavement should remain and should be used for staging. If vehicles are to stray from paved surfaces, 4 to 6 inches of chips shall be spread and plywood laid over the mulch layer. This type of landscape buffer will help reduce compaction of desired trees. Parking will not be allowed off the paved surfaces. The removal of foundation materials, when inside the driplines of protected trees, should be carried out with care. Hand excavation may be required in areas of heavy rooting. Exposed or damaged roots should be repaired and covered with native soil. Tree protection fencing may need to be moved after the demolition. The site arborist should be notified and the relocated fence should be inspected. Root Cutting Any roots to be cut shall be monitored and documented. Large roots (over 2” diameter) or large masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist, at this time, may recommend irrigation or fertilization of the root zone. All roots needing to be cut should be cut clean with a saw or lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. The over dig for the foundation should be reduced as much as possible when roots are encountered. The site arborist will be on site for all excavation when within the dripline of the trees listed above. Tree Trimming Some minor trimming may be required to facilitate the building of the structure. No negative impacts are expected from the trimming. Trenching Trenching for irrigation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand when inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of pipes below or besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to the tree. All trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted to near its original level, as soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of time (24 hours), will require the covering of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The trenches will also need to be covered with plywood to help protect the exposed roots. Irrigation and Fertilization Normal irrigation shall be maintained on this site at all times. During the warm season, April – November, I typically recommend some additional heavy irrigation, 2 times per month. During the winter months, it may be necessary to irrigate 1 additional time per month. Seasonal rainfall may reduce the need for additional irrigation. These trees need to be irrigated 2 times a month for the duration of the project. This type of irrigation should be started prior to any excavation. The irrigation will improve the vigor of the tree and the water content of the tree. The on-site arborist may make adjustments to the irrigation recommendations as needed. 4.e Packet Pg. 113 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 4256 El Camino/4/27/17 (7) Inspections The City of Palo Alto requires monthly tree inspections on construction sites of this nature. An inspection of the tree protection measures is required prior to the start of demolition. The inspections must be carried out by the site arborist. The inspection letters will require the contactors contact information including the phone # of the site superintendent. These inspections must be documented with letters provided to the City Arborist, property owner, and contractor. Other visits will be on an “as needed” basis. The site arborist shall be on site during the excavation process. Additional information on tree protection requirements may be accessed in the Tree Technical Manual, published by the City of Palo Alto. This publication is available at the city’s planning offices or can be accessed on line. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE# 4.e Packet Pg. 114 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : A p p l i c a n t A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) License #678321 ~ Arborist #WE-6620A ~ Insured PL/PD ~ Workers Compensation ~ 408-722-8942 ~ arborist@garlic.com ~ moki@smithtreespecialists.com Palo Alto Redwoods December 1, 2017 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Purpose As per your request we visited the site shown above, The Palo Alto Redwoods, in order to begin preparation of this report with a view to determining what may be the impact of nearby construction on the Redwood trees located there. The trees under consideration provide a privacy screen and are an integral part of the aesthetics of the existing condominium complex, its architecture and landscaping. Because the Redwood trees are so critical to the continuing use and value of the property by its residents, it is especially important that their health and safety are not threatened by construction on an adjacent lot. Assessment of Tree Health We have two main areas of concern regarding tree health; above ground and below ground. Below ground include root systems, anchorage, soil environment, soil borne fungi, pests, water sources and irrigation. The above ground portion of the trees are primarily organic layer or topsoil, canopy structure, health, competition with adjacent trees or structures, pests, pathogens and bacteria. Health of Trees on Site We concur with the general description of the trees height, canopy spread and diameter at 4’ above grade contained in the report which was provided by Kielty Arborist Services. However, upon initial visual inspection of the trees from the ground, they appear to be in fair to good condition, both in form and vigor, and show evidence of having received consistent and appropriate care including irrigation. The process of visually assessing the health or condition of trees is largely subjective. Arborists typically begin by learning what a specimen o fa given species would look like in excellent condition and then rate the other specimens of the same species using that example. The only scientific approach to assess a trees condition is to conduct tests on the tree and surrounding environment to determine the conditions the tree is growing in and the trees’ response to those biotic or abiotic factors. The Kielty report listed the 12 Redwood trees #17-28 that are situated near the north property line as being in Poor to Fair condition. 11 of these 12 trees are given a numeric condition rating of 55 /100 with one tree, #19, rated 50/100. However, the only method described to assess the condition is visual from the ground. Additionally, the rating is said to be based on a 50% vitality and 50% form. Upon visually inspecting the trees myself, I found their condition to be what I would classify as Good to Very Good and nearly Excellent. They have even foliage throughout their canopies, their color is good, green to dark green and their form is good, and excurrent. Single main stems (trunks) with evenly spaced lateral branches beginning near the ground and continuing to the top of the canopies. Benefits of Trees on Site The above ground portions of the trees are providing primary benefits to the to the environment of the development and include shade, privacy screening and air-quality. They also provide a windbreak to slow down high winds that would otherwise hit the building directly. 4.f Packet Pg. 115 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P A R e d w o o d s A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) Palo Alto Redwoods December 1, 2017 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ~ Smith Tree Specialists, Inc ~ arborist@garlic.com ~ 408-722-8942 ~ moki@smithtreespecialists.com 2 Potential Impacts to Trees from Adjacent Construction Redwood trees have shallow lateral roots that expand for a considerable distance beyond the drip line of the canopy and it cannot be accurately determined without excavation. Thus, below ground impact of grading and excavating for multilevel buildings close to the canopy and encroaching on the root base and anchorage of the trees will likely severely impact the root systems of the trees. Impacts to the trees’ root systems can result in thinning of the foliage, disease and death of all or part of a tree. Above ground competition with buildings will present lighting limitations that will ultimately result in loss of lower limb structure and compromise the privacy screen. Any shading of the canopy should be avoided. Tree Protection and Mitigation I have reviewed the proposed Tree Protection Plan for the constructions impacts to the trees in the Kielty report and concur with the plan with the following exceptions: The Protection Zones wording “as close to dripline as possible” should be changed to “as far outside drip lines as possible”. Fence – 6’ tall chain link with 2” diameter metal poles can be used with cement footings above ground rather than by installation into the soil. The overseeing site arborist can ensure that the parameters are maintained for safety and the fencing should not be moved or encroached within. ‘Neighbors Redwoods will be protected by property fencing’ – This assertion assumes that the existing fence or sound wall on the North property line is adequate to protect trees #17-28 from all changes to the surrounding soil environment on the adjacent property. The Tree Protection Plan and Tree Protection Zone should be based upon the assumption that the root systems of these trees extend far beyond the North property line. Specifically, a thorough review of the construction and grading plan that is finally approved will need to be done to determine the necessary preservation measures. For example, trenching for foundations footings must be carefully conducted to avoid creating an uprooting hazard due to decay and compromise to anchorage. It is imperative that a tree Protection Plan be updated once the final parameters of the construction are known. The Kielty report uses wording ‘as possible’ or ‘where possible’ and recommends protective fence as close to the drip line as possible still allowing room for construction. The project should be designed to allow for a protection zone as far outside the dripline as possible from protected trees. Construction should be executed in such a way as to ensure that the trees continue to grow with the least amount of encroachment as possible. Excavating and root ‘cutting’ - The previous report states that hand excavation may be required in certain areas. We disagree with this approach and assert that the boundary lines of all excavation be clearly outlined and protected by fencing and monitored by the site arborist to ensure that they are not encroached upon. Further we recommend that once the line has been established that the area along this line be pneumatically excavated a depth of 12” in order to locate any roots of 2” diameter or more. All lateral anchoring roots should be hand pruned, clean cut and treated with fungicide. The Keilty report makes reference to the site arborist - We recommend that the appointment of a site arborist be contracted by the Redwoods HOA and that the developer reimburse the HOA in order to ensure that the best interests of the trees be served and that there be no conflict between construction site oversight and tree preservation oversight. 4.f Packet Pg. 116 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P A R e d w o o d s A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) Palo Alto Redwoods December 1, 2017 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ~ Smith Tree Specialists, Inc ~ arborist@garlic.com ~ 408-722-8942 ~ moki@smithtreespecialists.com 3 Lastly, a vital aspect of the tree protection plan is not addressed in the Kielty report, that being the effect of shade by nearby structures on the canopy density. The benefit of these trees to the home owners depend on the maintenance of full and relatively dense canopies from approximately 7’ above the ground to at least the height of the buildings. Canopy density is dependent on available sunlight. If a trees light availability is reduced or removed the result will be a thinning canopy and the loss of privacy. Further Assessment Recommendations In order to acquire a more accurate assessment of the trees condition, we recommend performing the following tests; Soil, in order to determine the mechanical and chemical profile of the soil, water analysis, in order to determine the composition of irrigation water, live tissue, testing live tissue nutrient status will indicate the actual nutrient status of the trees. The information from these three analyses will give us a much better idea of exactly what kind of condition these trees are in and how best to protect them. Please feel free to request any additional information or clarification. Respectfully submitted, Moki Smith Arborist #WE-6620 4.f Packet Pg. 117 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P A R e d w o o d s A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) Palo Alto Redwoods December 1, 2017 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ~ Smith Tree Specialists, Inc ~ arborist@garlic.com ~ 408-722-8942 ~ moki@smithtreespecialists.com 4 4.f Packet Pg. 118 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P A R e d w o o d s A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) Palo Alto Redwoods December 1, 2017 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ~ Smith Tree Specialists, Inc ~ arborist@garlic.com ~ 408-722-8942 ~ moki@smithtreespecialists.com 5 4.f Packet Pg. 119 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P A R e d w o o d s A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) Palo Alto Redwoods December 1, 2017 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ~ Smith Tree Specialists, Inc ~ arborist@garlic.com ~ 408-722-8942 ~ moki@smithtreespecialists.com 6 4.f Packet Pg. 120 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P A R e d w o o d s A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) Palo Alto Redwoods December 1, 2017 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 ~ Smith Tree Specialists, Inc ~ arborist@garlic.com ~ 408-722-8942 ~ moki@smithtreespecialists.com 7 Some general observations: • Root – Anchorage - Redwood trees have shallow lateral roots and it is recommended that they are planted no less than 15’ from hardscape. (1) (2) • Sunlight Restrictions and understory shedding - Due to growth and shade understory growth for the Redwood is often subject to ‘shedding’ or loss of understory growth. Although there is no information readily available that measures the amount sunlight needed to prevent shedding, however, it is commonly known that the density of forested areas causes shedding to occur as sunlight is limited; Further research is being done in order to clarify this point. (3) • Other Concerns - Redwood leaf debris causes soil to become acidic as it breaks down. Few plants can grow in the shady/acidic understory and this may make alternate privacy screen foliage growth prohibitive. (4) • Shedding of understory can occur when sunlight is limited. (5) Note: Previous report provided by Kielty Arborist Services, Certified Arborist WE#0476A, P.O. Box 6187, San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 on or about April 27, 2017 revised October 9, 2017. Report was created for Catherine Huang Huang, HXH Property LLC 2225 E Bayshore Rd Ste 2000, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Sources: 1. https://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/sequoia/sempervirens.htm 2. http://treeassociates.net/a-horticultural-considerations.html 3. Joshua Fengel, arborist, Boulder Creek, CA. Personal Communication. 4. http://northcoastgardening.com/2011/05/plants-under redwoods/ 5. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1151 4.f Packet Pg. 121 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P A R e d w o o d s A r b o r i s t R e p o r t ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) ) 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: 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 “4256 El Camino Real” and click the address link 5. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4124&TargetID=319 4.g Packet Pg. 122 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 5 8 9 : 4 2 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l : N e w H o t e l ( P r e l i m ) )