Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-06 Architectural Review Board Agendas_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: April 6, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1.Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 JOINT SESSION WITH THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. REVIEW OF MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2016 (ARB/HRB) 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-00380]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit (SOFA I) to Allow the Demolition of an Existing One-Story Medical Office Building and Construction of Two (2) Two-Story Homes, Each With a Full Basement and Secondary Dwelling Unit Above a Detached Two-Car Garage. A Preliminary Parcel Map Application (16PLN-00381) Requesting Subdivision of the Existing Parcel Into Two Parcels Will be Reviewed Through a Separate Process. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Certified SOFA Phase 1 EIR has Been Prepared to Clarify Minor Site-Specific Issues That Were Addressed in the Certified EIR. Zoning District: DHS _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. District in the SOFA I CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICAL. 901 High Street [15PLN- 00052]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit for a 17,942 Square Foot Mixed Use Building With Retail and 25 Residential Units on a Vacant 20,288 Square Foot Parcel. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated From February 26, 2016 to March 17, 2016. Zoning District: RT-35. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Margaret Netto at margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org THE HEARING WILL CONTINUE WITH JUST THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDMEMBERS. 5.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of an Architectural Review for the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-Use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square Foot Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required Rear Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on March 6, 2017 and the comment period will end on April 7, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For more Information, Contact Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us 6.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Avenue [15PLN-00314]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Commercial/Office Buildings at 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue and Construction of Two, Five-Story Hotels (Courtyard by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by Marriott with 143 rooms). The Site Will Include Surface and Two Levels of Basement Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has Been Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Comment Period for the DEIR is From March 27, 2017 to May 10, 2017. Zoning District: CS. For More Information, Contact Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 7.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2555 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00064]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Architectural Review of a Minor Project to Allow Design Changes to Exterior Materials and Architectural Features of a Previously Approved Project to Construct a 23,269 sf Three-story Office _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Building with One Level of Below-grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report was Certified and Statement of Overriding Considerations was Adopted on June 1, 2015. Zoning District: CC(2) District. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 8.March 16, 2017 Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Alex Lew Vice Chair Kyu Kim Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember Wynne Furth Boardmember Robert Gooyer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7964) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 4/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Schedule and Staff Architectural Review Approvals Title: Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals From: Hillary Gitelman 1 Packet Pg. 5 2017 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Canceled 1/19/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/16/2017 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter Baltay 3/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/4/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/18/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/8/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/22/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/15/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/29/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2017 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) July August September October November December (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) 8/18 (Kim/ Furth) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) 1.a Packet Pg. 6 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : 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 ( 7 9 6 4 : S c h e d u l e a n d S t a f f A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w A p p r o v a l s ) Architectural Review Board Project Description: ARB review to allow exterior improvements and storefront window to the façade and entry of the exiting building. Applicant: Jason Smith of Landshark Development Services Group Address: 180 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00417 Approval Date: March 28, 2017 Request for hearing deadline: April 11, 2017 1.b Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : S t a f f A p p r o v a l s ( 7 9 6 4 : S c h e d u l e a n d S t a f f A r c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w A p p r o v a l s ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7837) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 400 Channing Avenue: Four Units in SOFA I CAP Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-00380]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit (SOFA I) to Allow the Demolition of an Existing One-Story Medical Office Building and Construction of Two (2) Two-Story Homes, Each With a Full Basement and Secondary Dwelling Unit Above a Detached Two-Car Garage. A Preliminary Parcel Map Application (16PLN-00381) Requesting Subdivision of the Existing Parcel Into Two Parcels Will be Reviewed Through a Separate Process. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Certified SOFA Phase 1 EIR has Been Prepared to Clarify Minor Site-Specific Issues That Were Addressed in the Certified EIR. Zoning District: DHS District in the SOFA I CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed new homes including the requested minor exceptions to allow front yard setbacks of 20 feet 6 inches (Unit Two) and 21 feet (Unit One). Report Summary This report is provided to facilitate the ARB and HRB discussion and public hearing of a proposal for the construction of two new two-story, single-family residences and two accessory cottages (Accessory Dwelling Units, above detached parking garages) on two proposed residential lots in 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 University South neighborhood. The project is subject to the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan and Coordinated Development Permit process, which requires review and recommendation from a combined ARB and HRB to determine whether the project is consistent with SOFA Phase I CAP development standards and design guidelines specific to the DHS (Detached Houses on Small Lots) zoning district. The existing single-story building to be demolished, located on a 10,625 square foot lot at the corner of Channing Avenue and Waverley Street in the University South neighborhood, is a significantly modified, former residential building determined to be ineligible for listing as a historic resource in a recent historic evaluation (Attachment H). The project will provide four new housing units to increase the City’s housing inventory and as designed, the project meets the applicable DHS development standards, with a minor exception for the proposed front yard setbacks. Additional details are requested to ensure design components fit with the selected architectural styles. The joint board is encouraged to review the project in the context of the surrounding neighborhood character, development potential and design aesthetic. Draft findings and conditions are included with this report, including special project-related findings and conditions related to reducing the required front yard setback along Waverley Street to 20 feet 6 inches for Unit Two and 21 feet for Unit One. The joint board may continue the project or forward a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on the draft findings and conditions, which may be modified by the Board. Background In March 2000, the City Council adopted the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan- Phase 1 (SOFA 1 CAP), for the neighborhood located south of Forest Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto. The SOFA 1 CAP includes the designation of the subject site as DHS (Detached Houses on Small Lots). The site currently has its address and front yard along Channing Avenue. The pattern of residential development on three of the four corners at this intersection is front yards facing Waverley, the side street. Prior to the DHS zoning, the site was zoned in a manner that permitted office use. The building was used by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) prior to the adoption of the SOFA CAP; it was most recently in medical office use, which is not a permitted use in the DHS zone district. The (DHS) zoning district designation prescribes unique development standards and design guidelines (reference SOFA CAP, p. 95-100). Additional background information is found in the Analysis section of this report. Project Information Owner: GLWS LLC Architect: Jing Quan of WEC & Associates Representative: Jing Quan of WEC & Associates Legal Counsel: Not applicable 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Property Information Address: 400 Channing Avenue Neighborhood: University South Lot Dimensions & Area: 85.00 feet x 125.00 feet Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes; one (1) redwood; one (1) Valley Oak; and three (3) Coast Live Oaks Historic Resource(s): No, as further evaluated in Attachment H Existing Improvement(s): 3,304 sf Office Building circa 1920 Existing Land Use(s): Medical Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-2, DHS West: DHS East: R-2, PC South: R-2 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) Comp. Plan Designation: Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) Context-Based Not applicable 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Design Criteria: Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: SOFA 1 CAP (note: the plan contains outdated chapter references such as parking regulation, now in PAMC Chapters 18.52 and 18.54) Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): The site is located within and adjacent to residential uses and districts Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed demolition, orientation of the new lots, and new homes on the site are intended to reflect the existing density and lot pattern found in the immediate vicinity. The non- conforming office use will be replaced by conforming residential uses within the zone district. The existing 3,304 sf one-story office building would be demolished and replaced with two new two-story single-family residences, each with a full basement and detached two-car garage with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above the garage. The project designs have taken into consideration the existing trees on the lot. The development application was submitted in conjunction with a separate preliminary parcel map application (16PLN-00381) requesting to subdivide the 10,625 sf lot into two separate 5,312.5 sf parcels with frontages oriented along Waverley Street. The new lots would exceed the specified maximum lot size of 5,000 sf. However, provisions outlined in the DHS Development Standards do allow for variations to the minimum and maximum lot sizes. The proposed corner lot immediately adjacent to Channing Avenue is defined as Unit Two and provides driveway access off of Channing; the interior lot is defined as Unit One and provides driveway access off of Waverley. The proposed home designs differ from one another, incorporating exterior design cues from Craftsman and English cottage architectural styles respectively. Attachments D & E provide the proposed dimensions and coverages of each unit/lot with respect to the DHS zoning district’s development standards. Unit One Proposal Unit one is proposed as a two-story residence designed in the English Cottage architectural 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 style featuring steeply pitched roof profiles. The proposed entry would be located at the front- facing gable with a ‘catslide’ roof that is steep and straight on one side and artistically curved on the other. The front entry door is shown arched, with decorative hardware. The exterior materials would consist of smooth finished stucco and dark brown colored composition shingle roof. The windows would feature small paned bands of casement. A slightly curved wood connector under the gable is proposed to soften the gables. The applicant requests approval of a detached two-car garage with a small cottage on top of the garage. The materials proposed for the garage/cottage structure would be consistent with the materials selected for the primary housing unit. Unit One’s front walkway is curved out of the Canary Island Palm’s dripline to lessen any surface level impact on its root system. Unit Two Proposal Unit Two is proposed as a two-story Craftsman-style residence. The home would feature slightly low-pitched gabled/hipped rooflines with wide, unenclosed eave overhangs, exposed decorative roof rafter tails and braces under the gables. The partial wide entry porch would be supported by squared wood column. The exterior materials would consist of painted horizontal wood siding and stone wainscot at front of the building and chimney. The roof would be finished with charcoal colored composition shingle roofing material. A wood stained entry door with high window is proposed for this residence. The project includes a detached two-car garage with a small cottage on top of the garage. The material for the garage/cottage would be consistent with the main house materials. The front setback of Unit Two was increased approximately 2.5 feet to add clearance between the structure and the canopy and root system of the existing Coast Live Oak. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Coordinated Development Permit: The Coordinated Area Plan Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 19.10) requires that a coordinated development permit is issued prior to any alteration, demolition or construction of structures or site improvements located within the Plan Area. This permit shall only be issued if proposed development is consistent with the policies, programs and regulations of the Coordinated Area Plan and other applicable code requirements. Analysis1 The project would replace an office building that has been used for medical office purposes in recent history (since the early 1990s) including clinical offices and since 2005, used as the home of Simon Med Imaging. These office uses are not permitted in the DHS zoning district; they 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. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 existed prior to the adoption of the SOFA CAP I (2000) and were allowed to continue in the manner of existing use under the provisions outlined in Section 1.5 – Non-conforming Uses/Non-conforming Facilities of the DHS Development Standards. The applicant is seeking to develop the land in accordance with the permitted uses of the DHS zoning district, proposing the detached home with rear unit design prescribed in the residential prototypes for the DHS zoning district (reference SOFA CAP, p. 101-102). The respective home designs are in keeping with the DHS Design Guidelines, given compatible architecture that fits into the surrounding neighborhood aesthetic. The proposed homes would be consistent with many of the primary aspects outlined in the DHS Design Guidelines, including roof forms that are consistent in styling detail and materials, detached garages placed in the rear of the lots and preservation of existing protected trees and vegetation. The subdivision and development would reconnect the corner parcel with the existing residential land use pattern along Channing Avenue and Waverley Street, continuing an expanded range of available housing types and increase in the total number of housing units in the area. Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is across the street from the relatively recent DHS development at 865 Waverley Street and diagonal to the University Park development. The subject parcel is situated in a predominantly two family residential (R-2) zoning district block comprised of one and two-story early-twentieth-century and modern residential structures on dissimilarly shaped lots ranging from 5,000 sf (smallest) to 22,500 sf (largest) in size. The City planter strip along Channing Avenue is well stocked with street trees, including valley oak and Southern magnolia specimens, which help to visually define the streetscape and buffer the massing of the closely placed homes along this corridor. The existing parcel is bound by Channing Avenue and four mature Canary Island palm trees that line the northwest lot line. Waverley Street is less densely canopied with street trees of varying maturity planted sporadically, providing less screening of the deeper front yards found along this segment of the block. The proposed lots abut a one-story duplex (426 & 428 Channing Avenue) at the northeast lot line and a two-story single family residence (915 Waverley Street) at the southeast side lot line. The development was initially proposed with the lots fronting Channing Avenue, but later revised to the current orientation that is more consistent with the historic development pattern and to allow homes that would lessen the visual impact to both neighboring properties equitably. The proposed lot configurations result in relatively deep but narrow lots (42’-6” wide) that dictate the floor plan layouts and help restrict the front massing of the main residences at street-level. The primary residences are both proposed as two-story homes and are consistent with the existing two-story profiles along this segment of Waverley Street. The Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), featured on top of the detached garages on both lots are located in the right corners of the rear yards, would be partially hidden from street views along Waverley Street, in part due to the narrow lot dimensions and the width of the main residences that would obscure such views. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The primary and accessory structures on both lots are located outside of the required side and rear yard setbacks, preserving privacy and exposure to natural light for both the subject properties and neighboring lots. Overall, the project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the SOFA Plan Phase 1 Area and specific to the DHS zoning district. The one exception to this is the proposed front yard setbacks; these would be non-compliant if a strict application of the development standards were applied without regard to the intent of the standards. The City’s consulting architect reviewed the proposed project and his findings concluded the project conforms to the established DHS Design Guidelines. The City’s consulting architect’s complete analysis is provided in Attachment G. Compliance with SOFA 1 CAP Land Use Policies and Development Standards2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. Summary tables are provided as Attachments D & E. As the project is located within the SOFA 1 CAP, it is subject to compliance with the policies and development standards that were adopted as part of this plan. Chapter V of the SOFA 1 CAP includes a list of general standards for development within this area, as well as the specific standards of the DHS zone. These tables also summarize how the project complies or does not comply with these development standards. In summary, the project as proposed and conditioned, complies with all but one of the required development standards. As discussed above, the project includes a request for exception from the front setback standard set forth in the DHS zone. However, the exception is considered minor in conjunction with the SOFA 1 CAP and justified as described below. Exceptions from SOFA Plan Development Standards: Front Setbacks The proposed exception is a reduction to the required front setback for both new lots. The DHS development standards and design guidelines state that the minimum front yard setback should be set at 15 feet or per the block face average to maintain the existing setback pattern. As such, a strict interpretation of the language would require the subject properties to be set back approximately 29 feet 6 inches to match the block face average along Waverley Street, which would severely impact the development potential of each lot and would not meet the intent of the DHS zoning, which is to provide housing units. It would also cause the front yard setbacks to be comparably incongruent to the properties within the immediate vicinity. In reviewing the project, the City’s consulting architect determined the block pattern along Waverley Street is split by the large multifamily building (925 Waverley Street) centered on the block that is set back 23 feet 3 inches itself. To the right of the multifamily building there is a pattern of homes with front yard setbacks ranging from 33 to 36 feet. To the left of the multifamily building there is one residence (915 Waverley Street) which features the shallowest existing front setback on the block at 21 feet. The front yard setback of Unit One, which abuts 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca add SOFA - http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/25608 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 915 Waverley Street, is proposed at 21 feet and Unit Two at 20 feet 6 inches. These proposed front setbacks are in harmony with the two properties to right of the subject lots, as well as with the relatively short front setbacks of the residences near the intersection of Channing Avenue and Waverley Street. The City’s Arborist has reviewed project and provided no comments or conditions related to the front setbacks, though a request was made that the applicant agree to a long-term (e.g. three years) monitoring agreement to ensure the health of all existing trees on both lots to be maintained through construction and for a period extending post-construction. Exceptions from SOFA Plan Development Standards: Exceeding the Maximum Lot Size The site development regulations outlined in the development standards for the DHS zoning district specify 5,000 sf as the maximum lot size/site area. However, variations to the maximum lot size are permitted if, in the judgement of the Director of Planning & Community Environment, the lot configuration is consistent with the goals of SOFA Plan and is necessary to promote orderly lot patterns. The existing subject lot (APN: 120-17-043) belongs to the DHS zoning district but is located at the corner of a block primarily zoned for R-2 (Two Family Residence District) development. The proposed 5,312.5 sf lots would be comparatively similar in size to the abutting property at 915 Waverley Street (6,250 sf) and slightly larger than the 5,000 sf lots at 468 Channing Avenue and 904 Cowper Street, which are the smallest lots on the block. The additional lot area helps the project to meet the SOFA Plan goal for provision of additional housing. Architectural Style The DHS Design Guidelines provide an emphasis on new construction possessing coherent design that is compatible with the existing architectural styles and historical heritage of the surrounding neighborhood. Further, neighborhood character and aesthetic diversity is encouraged by limiting exterior designs from being repeated more than once every three lots on a block to prevent homogenous streetscapes. The City’s consulting architect worked with the project applicant to develop and refine the proposed English Cottage style of Unit One and Unit Two’s Craftsman style and determined both residential designs are compatible with (or similar to) the existing architectural or historic heritage of the SOFA area and Professorville neighborhood as noted under DHS Guideline 2.1 (a) and 2.1 (d). Unit One (interior lot facing Waverley Street) can be broadly categorized as referencing English Cottage style, while Unit Two (the corner lot) can be broadly categorized as referencing Craftsman style. Both styles would be compatible or similar to the existing architectural or historic heritage of the South of Forest area and nearby Professorville neighborhood, as noted under Guideline 2.1 (a) and 2.1(d). Environmental Review In March 2000, the City Council certified the SOFA Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Development of the subject site is addressed in this FEIR. As the project would not result in any new significant impacts that had not been previously addressed and mitigated, an 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Addendum to the FEIR has been prepared primarily to address additional site-specific information and provide clarification and confirmation on environmental issues and conclusions previously addressed in the FEIR. The two significant street trees (a Southern Magnolia & Valley Oak) adjacent to the project site, in the planter strip parallel to Channing Avenue, will be maintained and protected through construction using modified type II tree protection measures; therefore, no impacts are anticipated to these trees. A Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) report was prepared for staff by Page & Turnbull. This report found the property ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Places under any criterion, and therefore 400 Channing Avenue did not qualify as a historic resource for the purpose of review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Please see Attachment H for the complete HRE report, which provides additional background about the project vicinity. 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 March 24, 2017, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 23, 2017, which is 15 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments A resident at 915 Waverley Street submitted a comment to the Planning Department regarding the project. The applicant met with the neighbor and made significant design modifications. These changes generated additional comments from the neighbor, which are detailed in Attachment J. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 16 120-17-1 120-17-017 120-17-018 120-17-032 0-17-033 120-17-025 120-17-030 120-17-059 120-17-060 120-17-049 120-17-045 120-17-044 120-17-042 120-17-067 120-17-027 120-17-028 120-17-066 120-17-046 120-17-048 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 50 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0'50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 100.0' 51.7' 100.0' 51.7' 50.0' 78.0' 50.0' 78.0' 50.0' 34.5'50.0' 34.5' 37.5 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 39.5' 75.0' 5.5' 50.0' 20.0' 12.5' 25.0' 112.5' 100.0' 50.0' 125.0'125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0'50.0'50.0' 0.0' 135.0' 50.0' 135.0' 50.0' 135.0' 62.5' 135.0' 62.5' 85.0' 125.0' 85.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 90.0' 250.0' 90.0' 250.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 5 150.0' 00 0.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0'65.0' 12.5' 135.0' 62.5' 65.0' 150.0' 65.0' 150.0'50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 175.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50 100.0' 50.0' 100.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 115.1' 38.0' 115.1' 37.9' 38.0' 115.1' 38.0' 115.1' 38.0' 115.1' 80' 115.1' 38.1' 115.1' 38.0' 38.0' 114.8' 38.0' 114.8' 114.8' 48.3' 100.3' 48.3' 100.0' 85.5' 74.8'85.7' 75.0' 50.0' 80.2' 50.0' 80.0' 942 832 920 912 362 370 900 459 840836834 845 400 928 930 931933 835-837 451 453 980960 990 959 947 925915 933 935 425 449 458 460 440 428 426 904 912 468 918 865 857 441 441A 821 829 818-824 2A 842 852A 852 862A 862 872A 872 351A 351 A 425 936350 915 45 352 354 940 Y ST REE T NG AVEN UE R EET C HANNING AVEN UE W AVERLEY S TRE ET PF DHS P This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Staff-Coverage Districts, Project Review Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk Underlying Lot Line abc Easement Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'80' 400 Channing Avenue 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 ebrenna, 2017-03-20 11:18:43Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) SITE 2.a Packet Pg. 17 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 ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 400 Channing Avenue 16PLN-00380 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. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The applicable Comprehensive Plan polices and the project’s conformance is described in the table below. Comprehensive Plan Applicable Policies: Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS). The project continues the DHS land use. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The proposed project accomplishes the stated goal by redeveloping an existing parcel by replacing a medical office, which is a non- permitted land use in the DHS zoning district and replacing it with a residential development that efficiently utilizes the 10,625 sf lot. The attractive architectural design and use of high-quality materials will enhance the streetscape and help integrate the new development into the existing neighborhood aesthetic. 2.b Packet Pg. 18 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The proposed lot sizes are comparable to the abutting properties and those within nearby vicinity of the subject lots. The sizes (i.e. square footage) of the homes are within the prescribed allowances specified by the DHS Development Standards and Design Guidelines and in appropriate context of the surrounding neighborhood properties. Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods. The project will add four new dwelling units to the City’s housing inventory which serves in helping to address local housing needs, as well as regionally. Goal L-2: An Enhanced Sense of “Community” with Development Designed to Foster Public Life and Meet Citywide Needs. The project converts the previously non-permitted medical office land use to permitted residential use, which results in more intuitively connected land use patterns in the context of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Goal L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct Character and Within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places. The project sites are located in the University South neighborhood and within approximately 3-4 blocks to the eating, retail and service establishments found along both Hamilton and University Avenue and within half block of Heritage Park. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The proposed residential layout complies to the DHS-1 Residential Prototype (i.e. detached houses with rear units) and designed after compatible architectural styles that harmonize with the existing home designs found in the SOFA and Professorville neighborhoods. Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. The project maintains the existing sidewalk network and features engaging residential designs visible from the street and walkways of both primary residences leading to the sidewalk. The project will also preserve the existing street trees and mature Canary Island palm trees that line the pedestrian corridor along Channing Avenue. 2.b Packet Pg. 19 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) South of Forest Area (Phase I) Applicable Policies: South of Forest Area (Phase I) Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to South of Forest Area (Phase I) Policies The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS). The project continues the DHS land use. Land Use Policy L-1: Provide approximately 300 or more units of new housing in the Plan Area, with upward of one-third of the proposed new units to be accommodated on the former PAMF sites to increase the probability they will be developed in the near term. The project fulfills the policy by developing land owned or leased by PAMF, providing in-fill housing development that will increase the City’s housing inventory with four new dwelling units. Policy L-4: Limit non-residential uses on previously PAMF owned land within the SOFA area east of Ramona Street to those that support residential uses, encourage historic preservation and/or facilitate acquisition of public facilities or open space. Office uses made non-conforming will be allowed only where they are required to preserve historically significant buildings or where housing reuse may not be feasible. Allow continued use of the Roth building as residential, PAMF satellite medical facility or other office use, if the City does not acquire the building for a public use. The project fulfills the policy by converting the previously non-permitted medical office land use to permitted residential use, which aids in limiting non-residential uses on previously PAMF owned land east of Ramona Street. Policy L-5: All PAMF owned properties, with the exception of the Roth building and 737 Bryant Street shall be converted to uses consistent with the land use designation within this Plan. The project converts a previously PAMF owned property to a permitted residential land consistent with the land use designation within the SOFA I CAP. Housing Policy H-1: Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the Plan Area, with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAMF sites. The project fulfills the policy by contributing four new dwelling units to the City’s housing inventory. Policy H-3: Provide for increased residential densities including additional lower cost ownership and rental housing within traditional historic housing types. Encourage the use of second units where permitted, however, mitigation measures to minimize potential impact should be incorporated, including but not limited to, increased setbacks, stepbacks in height, installation of trees, etc. The project increases residential density, providing an accessory dwelling unit on each lot (i.e. second units), as permitted in the DHS zoning district, which have the potential to serve as lower-cost rental units. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Policy H-6: Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities, and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes. Each proposed lot is comprised of a large primary residence in the front of the lot with a separate accessory dwelling unit (“cottage”) constructed on top of a detached garage in the rear. This lot layout provides multiple housing types that can accommodate traditional family sized units, as well as single working professionals, college students, independent retirees, et cetera. Design Character Policy DC-1: Preserve and protect existing street trees, planning new development so that damage or removal of existing healthy street trees is minimized. The two street trees (a Southern Magnolia & Valley Oak) adjacent to the project site, in the planter strip parallel to Channing Avenue, will be maintained and protected through construction using modified type II tree protection measures. Policy DC-2: Driveways, walkways and structures shall be located so as to preserve existing street trees wherever possible. Protective measures should be taken in construction and landscaping to assure the continued health to assure the continued health of existing street trees where appropriate. The project designs have taken into consideration the existing trees on the lot. Unit One’s front walkway is curved out of the Canary Island Palm’s dripline to lessen any surface level impact on its root system. The front setback of Unit Two was increased approximately 2.5 feet to add clearance between the structure and the canopy and root system of the existing Coast Live Oak. Architectural Design Policy DC-19: Promote quality design as defined by style, detail, massing, materials, etc. Implementation of the design guidelines should allow for flexibility and diversity in relation to the overall content of the neighborhood area. The project designs were reviewed by the City’s consulting architect to ensure the quality and cohesiveness of design was in keeping with the proposed architectural styles, conformance with the DHS Design Guidelines and neighborhood context. The applicant worked with the consulting architect to refine aspects of the design to reduce massing and scale and enhance the overall quality and presentation of each home. Policy DC-25: No development inconsistent with the development standards and design guidelines included in this Coordinated Area Plan shall be approved. Exceptions may only be granted in accordance with the exception process described in Chapter IV. The proposed project is consistent with the specific DHS Development Standards and Design Guidelines provided in the SOFA I CAP. The required findings necessary for granting a minor exception to allow for modified front setbacks on both lots can feasibly be made under the criteria described in Chapter IV. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The project reconnects the land use to the surrounding residential land use pattern, removing a non-permitted medical office use and replacing it with residential units that will visually enhance the streetscape along Waverley Street and Channing Avenue. Structural footprints on each lot were designed to incorporate the natural existing features, preserving both protected and notable trees that are characteristic to the lot and intersection. Building heights, mass and scale are respectful of abutting properties and congruent with the surrounding block patterns. Finding #2.c. is not applicable to this site, as the Municipal Code does not provide context- based design criteria for the Detached Houses on Small Lots zoning district. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The proposed designs utilize traditional Craftsman and English Cottage styles that help meld the homes into the surrounding architectural aesthetic. The use of high-quality materials and finishes help define and clarify the respective architectural motif of each primary residence convincingly. The City’s consulting architect and applicant worked together throughout the process to improve the scale and composition of forms, integrate appropriate design details to accentuate visual appeal and refine the design to better relate to 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.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: 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 : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) The lot configuration places the frontages of both lots along Waverley Street; Unit Two providing its driveway access off of Channing Avenue; and Unit One providing its driveway access off of Waverley Street. This configuration was deemed to be the most functionally intuitive design, providing separation of properties, open space areas and preventing a larger hardscaped rear yard area that would be necessary for accommodating a shared driveway and uncovered parking spaces. Visual sight lines when egressing from Unit One’s driveway onto Waverley Street may be obstructed due to a four foot fence and proposed landscaping strip along the fence toward the public-right-of-way. This obstruction may be mitigated by utilizing low-profile landscaping hedges or bushes in the planter strip. 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 layouts of both lots were purposefully designed to work with the natural existing features on the lot. Consideration was given when designing and placing the primary and accessory structures on each respective lot to preserve the existing protected and notable trees that serve in softening the structural profile and streetscape of the new homes. Further enhancements utilizing xeriscaping techniques and indigenous drought tolerant plant material can be included in more developed landscaping plans. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The project is in accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations and satisfies the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. 2.b Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 400 Channing Avenue 16PLN-00380 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “New Two-Single Family Residences – 400 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301” stamped as received by the City on March 16, 2017, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $254,417.72 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 7. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PCE TRANSPORTATION 8. BICYCLE PARKING: One long-term bike parking per unit shall be provided as part of this project consistent with bike design standards within Section 18.54.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Depending on the product type, minimum clearances between the rack and vertical obstructions are necessary for functional and practical use. Show the location of the required bike parking on the site plan and include the 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 : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) supply on the parking inventory/lot coverage compliance table, and provide a product specification for the proposed bike parking fixture. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 9. SUBDIVISION: Map types and review procedures vary depending on the number of units proposed. Depending on the number of units proposed, the applicant shall submit a minor or major subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Parcel or Tentative map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. Tentative/Final maps are submitted under a Major Subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Public Works will review and provide comments on the documents provided as part of the submittal. Please be advised that under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, off-site improvement plans are processed as an extension of the subdivision application process and the applicant may be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and provide security for work shown in the plans. 10. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 11. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of- Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 12. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” 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 : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 13. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 14. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Applicant shall install a water station for the reuse of dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed next to the right-of-way and shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station shall also be sued for onsite dust control. Applicant shall meet with Public Works to coordinate the design details. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 15. WATER FILLING STATION: Due to the California drought, applicant shall install a water station for the non- potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 16. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, 2.c Packet Pg. 26 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 ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 17. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 18. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 19. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 20. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right- of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 21. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 22. RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 23. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of- way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, 2.c Packet Pg. 27 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 ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public- right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” BUILDING INSPECTION PRIOR TO ANY FUTURE RELATED PERMIT APPLICATION SUCH AS BUILDING PERMT, EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANE, STREET WORK PERMIT, ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, ET CETERA: 24. A minimum of 500 sf of dedicated roof area is required for the solar ready infrastructure for each (N) dwelling unit. (PAMC 16.17) 25. Detached garages shall be protected by fire sprinklers where the garage walls has been designed based on Table R302.1(2). (CRC R309.5) 26. 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. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT: 27. An agreement is required with the neighbor to protect oak trees #11 and 12 as described in the tree protection report on page T-2. A story pole should be used to measure and document the height and position of overhanging branches that may need to be pruned. No branches larger than 4 inches in diameter should be pruned without approval of the Urban Forestry Section. The project arborist must monitor all construction activities within identified tree protection zones (TPZs). Additionally the project arborist will closely supervise demolition within TPZs, root cutting, pruning of branches, soil compaction or excavation, and other activities that may impact trees. 28. Provide a written agreement with the neighboring property owner that the project arborist will inspect, monitor, protect, and provide needed maintenance for any protected status oak trees as described in the tree protection report. A copy of the agreement shall be provided to the Urban Forestry Section with the Certification Letter at the time of building permit submittal. Landscaping must be compatible with the health and vitality of native oaks, including prohibiting any turf grass within 25 feet of the main trunk. Landscaping and irrigation recommendations and cautions shall be added to the tree protection report on sheet T-2. 29. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures as a condition of the building permit, Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final 2.c Packet Pg. 28 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 ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. 30. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 31. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. WATER, GAS & WASTEWATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT The comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 32. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). 33. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 34. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 35. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 36. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 37. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 38. A new 2” HDPE pipe water service line installation for domestic & fire protection usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 39. A new 1” PE gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. 2.c Packet Pg. 29 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 ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) 40. A new 4” HDPE pipe sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. 41. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. 42. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 43. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 44. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS NOTICE FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER 6/22/15.: Please be advised that the Palo Alto City Council has approved Energy Ordinance 5326 and Green Building Ordinance 5326 for all new permit applications with an effective date for June 22nd, 2015, as summarized below. To review the specific changes, visit the Development Services webpage .On the left hand side under “explore”, hover over “Green Building” and select “Compliance” You may also email Melanie Jacobson at Melanie.Jacobson@CityofPaloAlto.org for specific questions about your project. 45. GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project is a new construction residential building of any size and therefore must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy Reach Code section below. b) EMERGENCY DROUGHT REGULATIONS: The project is a residential new construction project with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2 in accordance with the Emergency Drought Regulations effective June 1st, 2015. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the ET adjustment factor (ETAF) of 0.55 for 2.c Packet Pg. 30 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 ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) landscaped areas. Vegetable gardens and other areas that qualify as Special Landscape Areas (SLA) will be given an ETAF of 1.0. (PAMC 16.14 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) and the Emergency Drought Regulations link below. The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/2015TriCycle/BSC-Meetings/Emergency-Regs/HCD-EF-01-15-ET- Pt11.pdf c) The project is a residential construction project of any size and therefore must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at tier 2 (75% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) d) The project is a new detached single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) as shown in : (a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100- ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420 (Ord. 5234 § 2, 2015) 46. LOCAL ENERGY REACH CODE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project includes new residential construction of any size and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential, the performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (Ord. 5324 § 1 (part), 2015) b) The project includes renovated residential construction greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code and shall comply with one of the following: (1) OPTION 1: Performance: For renovated single-family residential projects, the performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 5% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (2) OPTION 2: Prescriptive: For all renovated single-family residential, the prescriptive approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate compliance and shall meet the following if included in the scope of work: (a) For complete roof alterations that are not considered repairs, the roofing surface material shall have an Aged Solar Reflectance rate greater than or equal to 0.28. (b) For exterior walls on addition projects, the walls shall have a u-factor of 0.48 or lower. Additional Green Building and Energy Reach Code information, ordinances and applications can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions regarding Green Building requirements please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179. 2.c Packet Pg. 31 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 ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 400 Channing Avenue, 16PLN-00380 Unit One Table 1: Compliance with SOFA I CAP – DHS Development Standards Regulation Requirement Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area 2,800 sf/5,000 sf 5,312.5 sf Min. Site Width No requirement 42.5 sf Min. Site Depth No requirement 125 feet Front Setback (Waverley Street) 15 feet or block face average in which the subject property is located 18 feet Side Yard Setback (interior lots) 6 feet (either side) for primary residence; no req. for garages/detached accessory structures 6 feet (left side); 10 feet (right side) Rear Yard Setback Min. 20 feet; min. 3 feet for detached accessory cottage (second unit) 46 feet 8 inches; 3 feet for garage (4.5 feet for cottage) Floor Area Ratio 65% for lots with a detached accessory cottage 64.41% Floor Area Max. for Detached Accessory Units 750 sf maximum for accessory unit exclusive of covered parking 448.2 sf Site Coverage No requirement 37.65% Building Height 30 feet for primary residence; 25 feet for accessory cottage 29 feet 2 inches (primary); 21 feet 7 inches (accessory cottage) CONFORMANCE WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS Type Requirement Proposed Vehicle Parking 1.5 spaces/unit for 2 units (min. 1 covered space per unit) 3 spaces (2 covered; 1 uncovered) Bicycle Parking none 2 (40”W x 74”L x 48”H) long-term bike storage lockers provided 2.d Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : U n i t O n e ( a k a P a r c e l O n e ) P r o j e c t D a t a T a b l e ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 400 Channing Avenue, 16PLN-00380 Unit Two Table 1: Compliance with SOFA I CAP – DHS Development Standards Regulation Requirement Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area 2,800 sf/5,000 sf 5,312.5 sf Min. Site Width No requirement 42.5 sf Min. Site Depth No requirement 125 feet Front Setback (Waverley Street) 15 feet or block face average in which the subject property is located 18 feet Side Yard Setback (street side lots) 10 foot min. (street side) for primary residence; 6 foot min. (interior side); no req. for garages/detached accessory structures 10 feet (left side); 6 feet (right side) Rear Yard Setback Min. 20 feet; min. 3 feet for detached accessory cottage (second unit) 46 feet 8 inches; 3 feet for garage (4.5 feet for cottage) Floor Area Ratio 65% for lots with a detached accessory cottage 64.06% Floor Area Max. for Detached Accessory Units 750 sf maximum for accessory unit exclusive of covered parking 448.2 sf Site Coverage No requirement 37.65% Building Height 30 feet for primary residence; 25 feet for accessory cottage 26 feet 8.5 inches (primary); 21 feet 2 inches (accessory cottage) CONFORMANCE WITH PARKING STANDARDS Type Requirement Proposed Vehicle Parking 1.5 spaces/unit for 2 units (min. 1 covered space per unit) 3 spaces (2 covered; 1 uncovered) Bicycle Parking none 2 (40”W x 74”L x 48”H) long- term bike storage lockers provided 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 : U n i t T w o ( a k a P a r c e l T w o ) P r o j e c t D a t a T a b l e ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) 2. f Pa c k e t P g . 3 4 Attachment: Attachment F: Applicant's Project Description (7837 : 400 Channing Avenue: Four Units in Page 1 of 4 Development Review - Department Comments City Department: Planning Staff Contact: Arnold Mammarella (Consulting Architect) 510-763-4332 arnold@mammarellaarchitecture.com Date: 3/28/2017 Project Address/File #: 400 Channing Avenue/16PLN-00380 GENERAL INFORMATION: The proposed houses are subject to Section 2.0 Design Guidelines for Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) of the SOFA Coordinated Area plan. The guidelines are referenced here. DHS DESIGN GUIDELINES — EVALUATION Please see comments below for units one and two as labeled on the revised plans filed on March 16, 2017 with color and materials boards submitted separately. Also of note one neighbor, the neighbor at 915 Waverley Street, has provided public comment on the proposal. The comments related to concerns about privacy impacts from the secondary unit above the garage at Unit 1 that abuts their property. The neighbor references the nearby development at 857 Waverley Street, where the garage is contained in a one-story structure. This neighbor also expresses concerns about impacts on coast live oak trees on their property adjacent to the proposed garage/second unit structure. Notes: Evaluation comments are limited to topics and criteria set forth in the DHS Design Guidelines. Tree protection is evaluated separately by the City’s Public Works Urban Forestry Division. 2.1 ARCHITECTURE Unit One (interior lot facing Waverley Street) can be broadly categorized as referencing English Cottage style, while Unit Two (the corner lot) can be broadly categorized as referencing Craftsman style. Both styles would be compatible or similar to the existing architectural or historic heritage of the South of Forest area and Professorville neighborhood as noted under Guideline 2.1 (a) and 2.1(d). Guideline 2.1 (b) indicates that no similar exterior single-family residential design and style may be repeated more than once on any three lots on a block, to encourage diversity in design and character. The proposal shows adequate variation in rooflines, detailing, etc. to be seen as separate designs and styles. 2.g Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C i t y C o n s u l t i n g A r c h i t e c t ' s D e s i g n R e v i e w ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) In regards to Guideline 2.1 (c), which covers architectural characteristics of the design related to the selected style(s) both units are adequately convincing as follows: • Lot/Unit 1 has light color stucco with dark stained wood doors and deeply recessed dark brown wood casement windows with square muntin bar patterns as well as distinctive cast stone surrounds reminiscent of English Cottage style homes. The steeper roof pitches with slate coloration to the roof shingles, nested gables with curving up kick edge, and decorative half- timber like trim at eaves and bay window also reference the period style. • Lot/Unit 2 has lower pitch, mostly gable, rooflines with deep overhangs detailed with shaped rafter tails at eave sides and diagonally supported wood brackets at rake sides. The windows have a traditional Craftsman 2 over 1 lite pattern with casement operation and wood trim. Windows are dark brown and trim at windows and elsewhere white. Wood siding is weatherboard style with about a 7-inch exposure and a grey solid stain. Accent materials are fieldstone veneer at the front wainscot and chimney and board and batten under eaves. Materials, forms and detailing generally fit the Craftsman architecture references. In regards to Guideline 2.1(d) both Craftsman and English Cottage Revival styles are found on nearby blocks. Subsection (e) of this guideline calls for variety of unit design and floor plan. The floor plans and programs are very similar. Only a few minor variations occur in floor plan layout. Given that there are only two homes in the development; however, this may not be a significant issue. Note: Some variation in layout has been created by using different entry and porch configurations for the two homes. These differences relate to the homes’ varied architecture. 2.2 ENTRIES Per subsections a and b of this guideline entries face the street and utilize porches. Units also have a walkway from the public sidewalk to the entry to be consistent with this guideline, and porch designs are consistent with the building architecture. 2.3 GARAGES Garages are detached from the units at the rear of the lot per Guideline 2.3 (a) and have two individual garage doors per Guideline 2.3 (b). 2.3 SETBACKS This guideline states: “Maintain existing setback pattern by building to the average setback line for the block in which the building is located. If no pre-existing setback pattern exists, minimum setbacks apply per section 1.3 (b).” Contextual setbacks typically reference front yard setbacks as opposed to street side yard setbacks unless a special setback is indicated for a street. Front setbacks are those on the short side of the lot a corner lots. For this reason the average setback would only be considered at the Waverley Street side. Sheet A.2.2 indicates an average setback along this side of Waverley Street of 27’- 11”. The calculation excludes the two corner lots with front yards facing Waverley Street. The 400 Channing lot has a 27’-1” setback and based on Google Maps the 959 Waverley lot has a setback matching the adjacent 947 Waverley lot, which is noted as being 34’-0”. In considering this guideline, there is minimal guidance around whether or not to exclude from the calculation the deepest or shallowest setback or the front setback at a multi-family lot as would be done in the R-1 Zone. 2.g Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C i t y C o n s u l t i n g A r c h i t e c t ' s D e s i g n R e v i e w ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) What the guideline makes clear is that a pattern should be maintained. On this block the large multifamily building splits the block. To the right of the multifamily building there is a pattern of homes with 33 to 34 foot front setbacks. To the left of the multifamily building, which itself has a 23’-3” setback the most shallow front yard setback is 21 feet for the 915 Waverley Street home. The proposed homes should relate to this setback to create consistency along this end of the block. While meeting DHS development standards for setbacks may be viewed differently in terms of applying this guideline, it would appear that the block pattern could be maintained with a front yard setback of around 21 feet for lots 1 and 2. The proposal shows Lot 1 at 21 feet to the front wall of the living room with additional setback at the corner of the building nearest 915 Waverley Street. Lot 2, the corner lot, is shown with a setback of 20’-6” to the front wall and porch, which would align well with the Lot 1 home. The proposal, therefore, shows attention to setback conditions per this guideline. 2.5 ROOF FORMS/DESIGNS As discussed under Guideline 2.1, the roof forms generally complement the building style for each home as required by this guideline and summarized here: The English Cottage styled home has moderately steep 8.5 to 12 pitches and uses nesting gables at the street edge with a curve sweep/kick at the eaves. This is most distinguished at the entry. Eaves use cornice trim at the soffit for detail, while rakes have vents and half-timber like details to reference the style. The roofing material is composition shingle but has slate like color variation to reference the style, while the carriage house cottage would have a shallower roof pitch but maintain similar if simpler detailing. The Craftsman styled home uses 5 to 12 pitched rooflines with 24-inch overhangs at eaves and rakes. Detailing includes rafter tails with exposed, shaped edges and half round gutters at eave. Traditional diagonal brackets support rakes. Roofing would be charcoal colored composition shingles with a wood shake pattern. The carriage house cottage would have the same roof pitch with abbreviated eaves. The detailing would include an eave extension over the garage door with diagonal support brackets. 2.6 WINDOWS Among its concerns this guideline indicates windows should be consistent with the building style and glass should be inset from the exterior wall surface. On unit one, the English Cottage style house, the casement windows with square lite patterns would be reasonably authentic in appearance. The windows are recessed from the wall face about 3 inches to the window frames and 3.25 inches to the glass. Trim is limited to cast stone sills. Major windows at the front would have a pre-cast “hood” style surround at the tops that wrap the corner of the jamb side with some stylized detailing to mimic a stone surround suggested by historical references. The bay window also has a generally authentic appearance for the building architecture. On unit two, the Craftsman house, the general pattern and groupings of windows as well as the exterior window trim appear to be in line with this guideline. A window detail has been included with the plans showing wood windows with simple, wide 2x wood trim at all window sides that would be generally consistent with the architecture. These windows are not inset, but the wide 2x casings provide definition around the window. Given the siding is wood rather than stucco the inset condition is not as essential, although it would be preferred. 2.7 LOTS AND BLOCKS 2.g Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C i t y C o n s u l t i n g A r c h i t e c t ' s D e s i g n R e v i e w ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) This guideline recommends variation in lot size, but with only two lots and one being a corner condition, variation does not appear to be needed. 2.8 DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING AREAS Hollywood strips and decorative paving are used as described in subsections of this guideline. There is existing landscape near the entry points of both driveways, and new landscape along the shared lot line and the lot/fence line with 915 Waverley Street house has been shown on the site plan (note: plants not specified). Overall, the treatment of paving at driveways and parking areas conforms with the intent of this guideline and due to the wood gates should be minimally visible from the street. 2.9 FENCES AND WALLS The guideline indicates that the design and style of fencing and walls is encouraged to be consistent with the primary residential structure. The wood driveway gate for lot one would have a vertical board pattern and curved top rail to reference the entry door. At Lot 2 fencing and gates are limited to 4 feet tall along the street and are stained wood. As shown on the streetscape elevation the wood fence and gate have alternating widths to vertical boards, which references fences typical of Craftsman architecture. Additionally for this house, guardrails at stairs and light wells visible from the street use flat boards that have notched out shapes. An enlarge fence elevation or detail provided with building permit drawings should reflect the streetscape elevation for this house. 2.10 LANDSCAPE AND OPEN SPACE Guideline 2.10 (a) indicates that the planting strip should be landscape with grass or ground coverings. The site plan needs to be amended to indicate planting in the planting strip unless a separate landscape plan is provided. The revision could be included with building permit plans Guideline 2.10 (b-1) indicates that street trees are required at a maximum spacing of 25 feet on center along all frontages. Considering existing trees this suggests at least two new street trees will need to be planted within the planting strip on each frontage. The applicant/designer should coordinate with the Public Works arborist on tree selection and placement. Guideline 2.10 (c) indicates heritage, protected trees and other significant landscape should be preserved. The site plan shows the canary palms, oaks and redwoods to be preserved. Note: there may be some preservation issues to resolve, which would be reviewed by Public Works Urban Forestry. Guideline 2.10 (d) encourages usable open space on-site. The driveway/back-up areas are situated between the house and garage and directly accessible to the family rooms of the homes and to the entry stair to the cottages. The areas are designed similar to courts with decorative paving and can function as informal open spaces to be consistent with this guideline. 2.11 LIGHTING This guideline requires information on lighting in parking areas to minimize glare and intrusion on adjacent property. Decorative LED wall sconces are shown on the exterior materials board. The fixtures match the building style well and cast light out and down but not up on the building. Lighting locations are not shown on the plan but the fixtures if used sparingly (entries, porches and garage doors) should meet this guideline. If landscape lighting is to be provided, it would need additional review. 2.12 SPECIAL PROVISIONS These provisions do not apply to this application. 2.g Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C i t y C o n s u l t i n g A r c h i t e c t ' s D e s i g n R e v i e w ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Page & Turnbull 400 CHANNING AVENUE, PALO ALTO HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION (HRE) [16323] PREPARED FOR: CITY OF PALO ALTO PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 22, 2017 FINAL 2.h Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) 2.h Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 Page & Turnbull, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... 2 II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS .............................................................................. 3 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES .................................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 3 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ..................................................................... 3 PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .................................................................................................. 3 PALO ALTO HISTORICAL SURVEY UPDATE ....................................................................................... 4 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 5 SITE ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 400 CHANNING AVENUE ................................................................................................................... 6 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................................ 10 IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 12 PALO ALTO HISTORY ....................................................................................................................... 12 UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD ......................................................................................... 15 V. PROJECT SITE HISTORY ...................................................................................... 17 CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY ................................................................................................. 21 OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANT HISTORY....................................................................................... 22 VI. EVALUATION ....................................................................................................... 26 CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES .................................................................... 26 VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 29 VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 30 PUBLISHED WORKS .......................................................................................................................... 30 UNPUBLISHED RECORDS ................................................................................................................. 30 INTERNET SOURCES......................................................................................................................... 30 2.h Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 1 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. I. INTRODUCTION This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department for the building at 400 Channing Avenue (APN 120-17-043) in Palo Alto, California (Figure 1a). The building was originally constructed as a residence in 1920 and is currently used as a medical office; it is located three and one-half blocks southeast of University Avenue in the University South neighborhood. The building is set back at the east corner of the rectangular lot, and a parking lot extends from the southwest edge of the building to the sidewalk within the remainder of the parcel. Figure 1a. Aerial view of 400 Channing Avenue, site outlined in red. Source: Google Earth, edited by Page & Turnbull. The building has not been previously listed to, or found eligible for listing to, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or local City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory, nor is it located within the boundaries of any recorded historic district. METHODOLOGY This Historic Resource Evaluation provides a summary of previous historical surveys and ratings, site description, historic context statement, and an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected at various local repositories, including the Palo Alto Public Library, Palo Alto Historical Association, City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department, Ancestry.com, and various other online sources. Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit in January 2017 to review the existing conditions and to photograph the property in order to prepare the descriptions and assessments included in this report. All photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull in January 2017, unless otherwise noted. 2.h Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 2 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Upon evaluation of 400 Channing Avenue, Page & Turnbull finds the property ineligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Places under any criterion, and thus 400 Channing Avenue does not qualify as a historic resource for the purposes of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2.h Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 3 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to the building at 400 Channing Avenue. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. 400 Channing Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually or as part of a registered historic district. CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. 400 Channing Avenue is not currently listed in the California Register of Historical Resources individually or as part of a registered historic district. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE Properties listed by, or under review by, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) between “1” and “7” to establish their historical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR). Properties with a Status Code of “1” or “2” are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National Register, or are already listed in one or both of the registers. Properties assigned Status Codes of “3” or “4” appear to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally require more research to support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of “5” have typically been determined to be locally significant or to have contextual importance. Properties with a Status Code of “6” are not eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of “7” means that the resource either has not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation. 400 Channing Avenue is not listed in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database as of 2012. This means the property has not been formally evaluated using California Historical Resource Status Codes and/or the status code has not been submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation. PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory, completed in 1979, lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The survey that produced the inventory encompassed approximately 500 properties and was largely limited to areas in and near the historic core of Palo Alto. 2.h Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 4 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. The inventory is organized under the following four Categories: Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character. Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained. Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. 400 Channing Avenue is not listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under any category. PALO ALTO HISTORICAL SURVEY UPDATE Between 1997 and 2000, a comprehensive update to the 1979 Historic Inventory was undertaken by historic preservation firm Dames & Moore. The goal of this update was to identify additional properties in Palo Alto that were eligible to the National Register. This effort began with a reconnaissance survey of approximately 6,600 properties constructed prior to 1947. The reconnaissance survey produced two Study Priority lists. Approximately 600 properties were identified as Study Priority 1, indicating they appeared individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C (Architecture). Approximately 2,700 properties were identified as Study Priority 2, representing those properties that did not appear individually eligible to the National Register under Criterion C (including common local building types) but retained high integrity. The reconnaissance survey was followed by an intensive-level survey of all Study Priority 1 and 2 properties. Historic research was conducted on the owners, architects/builders, and past uses of the Study Priority 1 properties. Research also informed the preparation of historic context statements on topics such as local property types, significant historical themes, and prolific architects and builders, in order to identify any potential significant associations of Study Priority 2 properties. In January 1999, Dames & Moore prepared an interim findings report that listed preliminary evaluations of the National Register and California Register eligibility of Study Priority 1 and 2 properties. 291 properties were found potentially eligible as individual resources to the National Register and California Register. 1,789 further properties were found potentially eligible to the California Register only. The survey update effort concluded with California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms prepared for those 291 properties that initially appeared eligible for listing in the National Register. Of the 291 properties, 165 were ultimately found to be eligible to the National Register. These DPR 523 forms were submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation. Because the survey focused on determining National Register eligibility, the project did not finalize the preliminary evaluations regarding potential California Register eligibility. 400 Channing Avenue was not surveyed in either the Study Priority 1 or 2 categories, and thus was not identified as a property for preliminary evaluation. 2.h Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 5 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION SITE 400 Channing Avenue is a one to one-and-one-half-story vernacular-style building with Craftsman elements located at the eastern side of the rectangular parcel, situated at the east corner of the intersection of Channing Avenue and Waverley Street in Palo Alto’s University South neighborhood. The subject lot is graded flat and measures 85’ in width by 125’ in length. The parcel measures a total 10,625 square feet. The building at 400 Channing Avenue is located within the eastern one-third of the parcel, and features two primary gable-roofed façades and three projecting additions; a parking lot covers the approximately remaining two-thirds of the parcel (Figures 1b & 2). 914 Waverley Street is located adjacent to the southeast lot line, and 426 Channing Avenue is adjacent on the northeast side. The parcel is bound to the northwest by Channing Avenue and four palm trees, and to the southwest by Waverley Street. Fences line the northeast and southeast edges of the subject lot. A wood trellis frames the main entry path to the front door and a wood plank fence restricts access on the north to the side yard. Figure 1b. Aerial view of 400 Channing Avenue, building additions shaded. Source: Google Earth, edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 2. 400 Channing Avenue, viewed facing southeast. 2.h Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 6 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. 400 CHANNING AVENUE 400 Channing Avenue is primarily a one-story vernacular cottage (one-and-one-half stories at the rear northeast side), originally constructed as a residence in 1920 (Figure 2). The main and original volume of the building features an L-shaped plan and intersecting gable roofs; it also contains three gable-roofed projecting additions (Figure 1b). The building has a concrete foundation and is clad in wood board and batten siding with areas of brick siding on later additions. The northern portion of the building also features stucco siding on the side and rear. The roof consists of wood and composite shingles. Architectural features common to all façades of the building include exposed rafter tails beneath the overhanging eaves, wood paneled soffits, and wood-sash windows. Primary (Northwest and Southwest) Façades The primary (northwest) façade of the 1955 addition (northernmost wing of the building), features a gable roof and board and batten siding. From left to right there is a slightly projecting, wood-framed 12-lite wood-sash window and a pairing of full-height wood-sash fixed windows with transoms (Figure 3). Around the corner at the southwest façade of this volume, there is another full-height window with transom at the left side (Figure 4). At the right side of the southwest façade (facing the site’s parking lot and main entry) is a horizontally-oriented, fixed and 12-lite wood-sash window. The wood trellis intersects the right side of the southwest façade and extends to the ground above a path and wood bench (Figure 5). The northwest façade of the 1980 addition extends perpendicular to the main building and fronts the parking lot (Figure 6). This façade is mostly clad in board and batten siding but is flanked by bands of vertical brick siding. A pair of vertical fixed windows, divided into two lites each at the bottom, is centered on the façade. Figure 3. 1955 northwest façade (primary at Channing Avenue), looking east. Figure 4. 1955 southwest façade to left of entry, looking northeast. Figure 5. Entry path, bench, and trellis between two projecting portions of building, looking northeast. Figure 6. 1980 northwest façade (secondary), looking southeast. 2.h Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 7 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. The trellis and bench mark an entry path, which leads to the front doors between the two projecting, gable-roofed additions of the building. The secluded front entry area contains a paved concrete path adjacent to the 1980 addition’s board and batten northeast façade. A small planted area divides the path from the board and batten southwest façade of the original volume. There are three fixed nine- lite windows on the southwest façade adjacent to a paired door. This portion of the building also appears to contain a brick foundation and has exposed knee brackets beneath the eaves. The southern portion also features an area of horizontal wood siding (Figure 7 & 8). Figure 7. Entry area at trellis, looking east. Figure 8. Entry area at French doors, looking east. Side (Southwest and Northwest) Façades The southwest façade of the 1980 addition faces a mulched area and the paved parking area that extends along the west side of the subject property (Figure 9). The southwest façade features board and batten siding with a band of brick siding at the left side. Left of center is a fixed nine-lite wood sash window, while right of center is a small shed-roofed projection. There is a fixed six-lite wood sash window on its northwest-facing plane. The northwest side of this volume, fronting the parking lot, features brick siding and two partial height four-lite and aluminum sash pivoting windows with brick sills at either side. An ADA-accessible concrete ramp is adjacent to the brick façade and leads to a multi-lite fully-glazed side door around the corner on the north side. A secondary side façade of the 1980 addition also faces the parking lot and is the southwest-facing portion of the perpendicular projection. This façade features wood siding on the left half and board and batten siding on the right half. A wood utilities enclosure is adjacent to this façade and the ramp (Figures 10-14). 2.h Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 8 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 9. Overall southwest façade, looking northeast. Figure 10. 1980 addition’s southwest façade, looking northeast. Figure 11. 1980 addition’s northwest façade, looking southeast. Figure 12. 1980 and 1955 additions’ southwest façade, looking northeast. Figure 13. Side door in recessed portion of 1980 addition’s northwest façade, looking northeast. Figure 14. Detail of northwest brick façade window. Rear (Southeast) Façade The lower gable-roofed portion of the rear (southeast) façade includes additions from 1955 and 1980 and features board and batten siding. From left to right on this southern portion of the façade, there are two projecting utility enclosures, followed by a fixed multi-lite wood sash window (six-lite) (Figure 15). The northern section of the rear (southeast) façade projects a few feet to the southeast and is likely part of the original “L” volume of the building. Board and batten siding transitions between the two portions of the rear façade, while the northern section features stucco siding. Five aluminum-sash nine-lite windows are evenly spaced along the stucco portion of the façade with pivoting upper sashes. A concrete path extends along the rear façade to the yard on the northeast side and a high wood plank fence divides the path and the adjacent property at 914 Waverley Street. 2.h Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 9 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 15. Southeast façade, looking northeast. Figure 16. Southeast façade, looking southwest. Side (Northeast) Façade The northeast façade (southern portion) of the original volume is the one-and-one-half story part of the building, which features stucco siding and contains two openings. A vent is centered on the façade toward the gable peak and two vertical nine-lite windows with pivoting upper sashes flank this portion of the façade. Overhanging eaves are supported by knee brackets, similar to the front entry. A mulched yard and the path extend along the northeast side of the building (Figures 17-19). Figure 17. Northeast façade (southern portion), looking northwest. Figure 18. Detail of northeast and southeast façade typical window with pivoting upper sash. Figure 19. Detail of overhanging eave rafter tails and knee brackets. Figure 20. Northeast façade (southern portion), looking southeast. 2.h Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 7, 2017 - 10 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. A wood plank fence with a gate divides the stucco portion of the northeast façade from the rest of the northeast side of the building, which is recessed back from the property line about fifteen feet. The fence leads to a private rear brick patio and two rear double doors. The northwest façade of the original portion of the building features board and batten siding and a French double-door with a single brick step and threshold. The recessed portion of the rear northeast façade similarly features board and batten siding in the area adjacent to the brick patio. From left to right, the façade contains an aluminum sash, pivoting and multi-lite window (six-lite) followed by a slightly projecting portion of the façade with another French double door with a brick step and threshold. A wood base extends around this portion of the façade (Figure 21). The recessed section of the façade abuts the gable-roofed 1955 addition at the northwest side of the property. The southeast façade of this portion, facing the brick patio, features board and batten siding and contains a vertically-oriented, full-height multi-light window (12-lite). Another high wood plank fence with a gate mirrors the fence on the opposite side of the patio. The northeast façade of the gable-roofed projection features stucco siding and faces a trash area enclosed on the north side by another wood plank fence and gate. The property is bounded on the northeast side by a concrete masonry wall with plantings at the top (Figure 22). Figure 21. Northeast façade (recessed center portion), looking west. Figure 22. Northeast façade (north side addition), looking northwest. SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD 400 Channing Avenue is located within the University South neighborhood, which lies southeast of downtown Palo Alto and is characterized by a mixture of residential, commercial, and institutional uses with varied densities and eras of construction. The subject block is on the periphery of the residential area outside of the city’s core commercial district, located northwest of Hamilton Avenue. It is located one block to the northwest of Palo Alto’s Professorville district, which begins at Addison Street. The subject property is surrounded by one and two-story early-twentieth-century and modern residential buildings (Figure 23-26). As mentioned, a surface parking lot occupies the western portion of the subject property and is accessed from both Channing Avenue and Waverley Street. Although the directly adjacent blocks are lined primarily by detached houses, other building types nearby include churches, medical offices, and multi-unit residential complexes. 2.h Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 11 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 23. 862-872 Waverley Street (cattycorner to subject property), looking southwest. Figure 24. Adjacent residence at 426 Channing Avenue, looking southeast. Figure 25. Nearby residential complexes at 503 Channing Avenue, looking north. Figure 26. Modern style residence at 458 Channing Avenue, looking southeast. 2.h Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 12 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT PALO ALTO HISTORY The earliest known inhabitants of the present-day location of Palo Alto area were the Ohlone people. The region was colonized by Gaspar de Portola in 1769 as part of the Spanish territory of Alta California. The Spanish and Mexican governments carved the area into large ranchos, and the land that later became Palo Alto belonged to several of these land grants, including Rancho Corte Madera, Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, and Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.1 The subject building at 400 Channing Avenue was located on what was formerly Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito, which, at more than 2,200 acres, covered all of the original Palo Alto town site. The northern boundary of the rancho was defined by San Francisquito Creek, while the southwestern boundary was located near El Camino Real, and the southeastern boundary lay parallel to the current-day Embarcadero Road.2 These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the United States during the 1840s, but parcels were subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth century. The earliest township within the current boundaries of Palo Alto was called Mayfield. In 1882, railroad magnate and California politician, Leland Stanford, purchased 1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield to add to his large estate in northwestern Santa Clara County. Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. After Leland and Jane Stanford’s teenage son, Leland Jr., died in 1884, the couple chose to create a university in his honor. The Stanfords wanted a co- educational and non-denominational university, which contrasted with many contemporary institutions.3 On March 9, 1885, the university was founded through an endowment act by the California Assembly and Senate. Using their Stock Farm land, the Stanfords began constructing Leland Stanford Junior University, which ultimately opened in 1891. While the university was in its planning stages, Leland Stanford considered Mayfield an appropriate service town to support the school’s operations. However, the Stanfords believed that the university’s mission and community would be negatively affected by the presence of alcohol.4 With 13 popular saloons then operating in the town, Mayfield rejected the Stanfords’ request to go dry. Seeking an alternative, Stanford decided in 1894 to found the town of Palo Alto with help from his friend Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Hopkins purchased and subdivided 740 acres of the former Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito.5 Known as both the Hopkins Tract and University Park, the townsite was bounded by the San Francisquito Creek to the north, the railroad tracks and Stanford University campus to the southwest, and Embarcadero Road to the south (Figure 27). 1 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia, accessed March 24, 2016, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. 2 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993), 16-17. 3 “History of Stanford,” Stanford University, website accessed March 24 2016, http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. 4 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora, accessed March 24, 2016, http://www.quora.com/How-is-the- historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA. 5 “Comprehensive Plan,” City of Palo Alto, section L-3. 2.h Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 13 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 27. Map of the original Palo Alto townsite. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University Following the Stanfords’ wishes, Palo Alto was founded as a temperance town where no alcohol could be served. A new train stop was placed along University Avenue, and the new town flourished around the young university. Palo Alto grew to be much more prosperous than its southeastern neighbor, Mayfield. Many people who were employed at Stanford University chose to move to Palo Alto, which was considered the safer and more desirable alternative of the two towns.6 The residents were mostly middle and working class, with a pocket of Stanford faculty members clustered in the neighborhood named Professorville. The development of a local streetcar in 1906 and the interurban railway to San Jose in 1910 facilitated access to jobs outside the city and to the university campus, encouraging more people to move to Palo Alto.7 Mayfield continued its decline, and its residents voted to become a “dry” town in 1904—although allowed the Mayfield Brewery to continue operation. However, the town was plagued by financial issues and could not compete with Palo Alto’s growth. In July 1925, Mayfield was officially annexed into the city of Palo Alto.8 Palo Alto was one of the first California cities to establish a City Planning Commission (CPC). In 1917, this advisory commission considered zoning matters in order to control new development and 6 Matt Bowling, “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.org, accessed March 24, 2016, http://www.paloaltohistory.org/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php. 7 Dames & Moore, “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000,” prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, February 2001, 1-4. 8 “A Flash History of Palo Alto,” Quora. 2.h Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 7, 2017 - 14 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. design within the city. The CPC’s purview included regulations on signage, public landscaping and lighting, and residential development. Palo Alto’s regulations on development have resulted in its relatively low density and consistent aesthetic. However, zoning controls in the early part of the twentieth century contributed to racial segregation in the city and the exclusion of certain groups from residential areas. Several neighborhoods were created with race-based covenants, which persisted until this practice was ruled unconstitutional in 1948.9 Like the rest of the nation, Palo Alto suffered through the Great Depression in the 1930s and did not grow substantially. However, the United States’ involvement in World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the San Francisco Peninsula. When the war ended, Palo Alto saw rapid growth. Many families who had been stationed on the Peninsula by the military or who worked in associated industries chose to stay. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 to 33,753 in 1953.10 Stanford University was also a steady attraction for residents and new development in the city. Palo Alto greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s, as new parcels were annexed to house offices and light industrial uses (Figure 28). As a result of this development, the city evolved somewhat beyond its “college town” reputation.11 Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land west of the Foothill Expressway (Interstate 280) between 1959 and 1968. This area has remained protected open space. Small annexations continued into the 1970s. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University, its largest employer. The technology industry currently dominates other sectors of business, as is the case with most cities within Silicon Valley. Figure 28. The expansion of Palo Alto from 1894 to 1952. Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University 9 Dames & Moore, “Final Survey Report,” 1-7. 10 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, accessed March 24, 2016, http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. 11 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4. 2.h Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 15 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. UNIVERSITY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD The current University South neighborhood was located in the southern portion of the original University Park track platted by Timothy Hopkins. It was the core part of the early city, along with today’s Downtown North neighborhood (located northwest of University Avenue, the main commercial corridor within the original core of Palo Alto). The neighborhood contains the residential and commercial areas that lay southeast of University Avenue, although does not encompass Professorville (one block to the southeast of the subject property), the residential neighborhood closely associated with early Stanford faculty members and their families. As a result, the neighborhood is U-shaped, bounded by University Avenue at the northwest, Alma Street and the railroad tracks at the south, and Middlefield Road at the northeast. The southeast boundary follows Embarcadero Road but steps northwest to Addison Avenue, excluding Professorville. The 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map illustrates that stores were located along University Avenue, and were particularly concentrated at its southwestern end, where a large lumberyard stood near the railroad (Figure 29). Residences were scattered along the street just east and west of University Avenue on Hamilton and Lytton Avenues. A few churches, hotels, and boarding houses also stood among many vacant lots. Contemporary newspapers called the homes that housed artisans and merchants in this area “neat cottages”—which stood in contrast to the houses occupied by Stanford faculty members, located to the southeast in what is today the Professorville neighborhood. Some grander homes for more affluent residents were sprinkled throughout the current-day University South neighborhood.12 Figure 29. 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map of Palo Alto showing the street layout within the core of the city. The future subject property lot is marked by the red star. Upper left is north. Source: Digital Sanborn Maps, San Francisco Public Library By 1901, Palo Alto had grown beyond its original core. Houses filled in the lots on the blocks around the railroad, while scattered residential development extended up to and beyond Middlefield Road. 12 Palo Alto AAUW, …Gone Tomorrow? “Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences” (Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986) 5. 2.h Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 16 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Additional institutions, such as schools, had been built in the area. During the first decade of the twentieth century, the University South neighborhood appears to have been built out with one- and two-story residences. Since the early decades of the twentieth century, the University South neighborhood has evolved from primarily residential in character to containing a mixture of uses. One of the earliest signals that the city’s downtown was spreading southeast of Hamilton Avenue was the construction of the city’s central post office between Gilman Street and Waverley Street during the 1930s. In the subsequent decades, many properties containing early residences in the University South neighborhood have gradually been redeveloped as multi-unit residential buildings—or converted for commercial and institutional uses, including the subject property. The neighborhood currently transitions from commercial and civic tenants concentrated along the University Avenue corridor, toward the less dense character of adjacent residential blocks. 2.h Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 7, 2017 - 17 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. V. PROJECT SITE HISTORY The current location of 400 Channing Avenue is located on Block 57 of the University Park plat, the original Palo Alto town site. The earliest available Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps for Palo Alto, published in 1895 and 1897, illustrate one- and two-story dwellings spread across the surrounding blocks to the north, but the subject block was not yet shown at that time (Figure 30). A 1900 map of Palo Alto indicates that the block had still not yet been subdivided for development (Figure 31). The Sanborn map published in 1908 illustrates that Block 57 had been mostly subdivided and developed with several dwellings. The subject parcel appears to have been contained within a large lot that filled a full quarter of its block. This lot contained a residence (likely in the current location of 925 Waverley Street), rear garage, and two adjacent outbuildings (Figure 32). The portion of this lot located at the corner of Channing and Waverley streets, in the current location of the subject property, remained empty at this time. Figure 30. 1895 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map. The subject block is not yet depicted but exists just to the right of map. Source: Digital Sanborn Maps, San Francisco Public Library Figure 31. 1900 map of the original Palo Alto townsite; while some blocks had been subdivided at this time, Block 57 had not (outlined in red) Source: UC Berkeley Bancroft Library Figure 32. 1908 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map. A residence and several outbuildings had been constructed on the parcel, which was larger at that time. The future subject parcel is outlined in red. Source: Digital Sanborn Maps, San Francisco Public Library 2.h Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 18 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. The large corner lot represented in the 1908 Sanborn map was subsequently subdivided. The original building at 400 Channing Avenue is first depicted on the 1924 Sanborn map, after it was likely constructed in 1920 based on city directories (no original building permit exists). The 1924 map indicates that the residence then had a plan that the building somewhat exhibits today, but without doors in their current locations. The building is marked as a dwelling, though its L-shaped floor plan and orientation on the site is unusual for a vernacular cottage-style residence. It is possible that 400 Channing Avenue was originally designed with partial commercial use in mind, though city directories in the 1920s-1940s indicate single-family ownership. Records of occupancy also indicate few residents remaining for longer than one year—suggesting that the house was often used as a rental property and likely occupied by individuals associated with Stanford University. It is also possible that the layout was designed around two large oak trees (general locations indicated below). An account from a former employee of the building in the early 1980s recalled that one of the trees next to the building (at approximate lot center) lost a large branch and was subsequently removed. The 1949 Sanborn map (1924 edition with pasted updates) indicates that the residence retained its original L floor plan at least until this time (Figures 33 & 34). Figure 33. 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 400 Channing Avenue is shown outlined in red. Large oak trees on the site at that time are indicated in green. Source: Digital Sanborn Maps, San Francisco Public Library Figure 34. 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 400 Channing Avenue is outlined in red. Source: Digital Sanborn Maps, San Francisco Public Library 2.h Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 19 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Based on permits, a plot plan from the mid-1950s, and revisions made to the Sanborn map up until the early 1960s, it is evident that two additions had occurred by this time and that the building was converted for office use based on building permits and city directories (Figures 35 & 36). In 1954- 55, a slightly offset extension of the original main volume of the main building (southwest corner) was added, and in 1955, a small detached office building was constructed at the northern corner of the lot, across from the original volume. The open space on the parcel was converted to a parking lot, as it remains today. Though no historic photographs of the property were found during the preparation of this report, the open space bordering Channing Avenue likely contained a driveway and was otherwise planted until the early 1950s. A permit from 1962 described interior remodeling to divide the buildings into three distinct office spaces. It is also likely that the nearly uniform wood siding that remains today was added during these renovations. Businesses that occupied the building during the 1950s-1960s included law and construction companies and building management offices. Figure 35. 400 Channing Avenue Plot Plan, 1955, proposed new office addition shaded a darker grey. North is left. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association Property Files Collection. Figure 36. c. 1960 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 400 Channing Avenue is outlined in red. The detached office building had been constructed by this time. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. 2.h Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 20 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. The law firm Spaeth, Blase, & Farman (later Spaeth, Blase, Valentine and Klein) moved into the building as early as 1966 and remained there through the late 1970s. Two major additions were made to the building in the late 1960s through early 1970s to expand the firm’s existing office space. These alterations included a connection between the original main volume and the detached 1955 office building, and a perpendicular rectangular volume added near the center of the building; These two volumes framed an entry path leading to the front door in the original portion of the building. Both the new building additions at this time were clad with a combination of brick and wood and batten siding. A lawyer who worked at the building during the 1970s mentioned that there was also extensive remodeling during the early 1970s of the wing perpendicular to Channing Avenue. He explained that the building suffered significant damage when a driver lost control of his/her car, ran off the road and through the parking lot, crashing into the building. He could not recall if the accident caused these major repairs or occurred later, but it was possibly a reason for remodeling this portion of the building.13 In 1980, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation purchased the 400 Channing Avenue property, along with several blocks in the surrounding area, and converted the building to be the ‘Office of the President’.14 The Palo Alto Medical Clinic, a private physician’s partnership, had merged with the former (nonprofit) Palo Alto Medical Research Foundation to create the nonprofit Palo Alto Medical Foundation in 1980-81. Several parcels on the blocks to the northwest were developed for additional office and clinical facilities (Figure 37). The wood trellis was added above the main entry to the building in 1982 based on permit drawings (Figure 38). 400 Channing Avenue served as the Medical Foundation President’s Office during the 1980s and was remodeled as clinical office space in the 1990s.15 It was converted to a medical resonance imaging (MRI) facility, Palo Alto Imaging, in 2005, and remains an imaging office. See Figure 39 for a timeline diagram of the property’s additions. Figure 37. Palo Alto Medical Foundation Campus, drawn c. 1980, 400 Channing Avenue outlined in red and indicated as the ‘Office of the President’. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association Property Files Collection. 13 Email exchange with former lawyer, Larry Klein, at 400 Channing Avenue (January 12, 2017). 14 Palo Alto Historical Association, Medical Foundation property file collection. 15 Palo Alto city directories, 1970-1990. 2.h Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 21 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 38. 400 Channing Avenue early sketch rendering of trellis at entry (1981). Source: Drawing by Stoecker and Northway, Inc. (1981), Palo Alto Planning Department. Figure 39. 400 Channing Avenue detail of Medical Foundation sketch depicting time periods of additions. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association. Edited by author. CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY The following tables provide a timeline of construction activity at 400 Channing Avenue. Building permit applications found with the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment are fairly complete, and no permits before 1954 remain. Some earlier permit information was transcribed from the Palo Alto Times by researchers associated with the Palo Alto Historical Association, but 400 Channing Avenue was not included as part of that unofficial permit collection. The information below presents the additions and alterations that can be dated approximately based on available sources, in addition to lists of observable alterations that were identified during the site visit, but remain undated. 400 Channing Avenue Date Scope of Work Source 1920-21 Residence constructed 1954 Permit and 1924 Sanborn Fire Insurance map c. 1954 Potential extension added at southwest corner; office variance permit issued to reduce setback from 24 feet to 16 feet to build new office building and carport was approved in 1953 Permit #I253 and property assessment stating a remodel occurred in 1954 (Planning) 2.h Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 22 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Date Scope of Work Source 1955 Detached office addition on Channing Avenue Property assessment form dated from 1955; Plot Plan (1955) 1962 Interior Partition Remodeling; interior divided into 3 office spaces Permit #21711; property assessment form from 1962 1966 Interior Partition Remodeling Permit #A26208 1968 Office Addition Permit #A27301 1968 New Sign Permit #S2668 1969 Addition of 644 square feet of office space Permit #A28682 1973 Interior alterations to form office Permit #32350 1981 Addition of new doors and windows Permit #B-81-976 1982 Exterior trellis addition Permit #B-82-57 1996 Remodel kitchen, 2 bath, new closets, windows Permit #96-2964 2000 Replace sewer line from building up to sidewalk; no work at sidewalk Permit #00-1358 2005 Tenant Improvements for Palo Alto Imaging and mandatory seismic upgrade; minor exterior window replacements/removal Permit #05-00070 and Project construction drawing set (Ken Hayes Group) OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANT HISTORY The following table lists known owners of the subject parcel, based on available records in city directories and additional sources. Date Owner 1920-1925 G.G. Williamson 1926-c.1937 Henry Fischer 1937-1941 R.C. Olmstead 1944-1954 H.E. Lewis 1954-1962 G. Carey & H.J. White 1962-c.1980 Spaeth, Blase, Valentine & Klein 1981 400 Channing Partnership 1982-1995 Palo Alto Medical Foundation 1996-c.2005 Mark Opperman 2005- Premier Properties The following tables list the known occupants of the subject buildings, based on review of available Palo Alto city directories and federal census records. City directories were reviewed for all years prior to 1930; following this year, Page & Turnbull reviewed city directories every two years in order to capture representative occupants. 2.h Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 23 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. 400 Channing Avenue Date Occupants Occupation Notes 1920-1925 George G. Williamson, Amy (wife), George (son) Proprietor Wholesale confectioner 1926-1927 Henry Fischer, Viola (wife) Unknown Unlisted in 1928 1929 Mrs. G.J. Barnes Mrs. J.O. Plant Unknown 1931 Graham H. Beebe, Charlotte (wife), Dorothy (daughter) Traveling salesman Publishing 1933 Hariett P. Stevens, Harold (son), Florence (daughter) Unknown Widowed 1935 Edward C. LaMontagne, Otella Realtor 1936 Howard Pease, Pauline (wife) Writer 1937-1941 Ray C. Olmstead, Anna (wife) Delight (daughter) Music and dance teachers Lessons studio at home; accordion 1942 Vacant 1944-1954 Harry E. Lewis, Lois (wife) Engineer 1955-1958 Arthur J. Cathcart, Martelle (wife) Lawyer Building converted to office use in 1954-55 1958-1962 Arthur J. Cathcart Ray Lindsay, Dos Robles and Carlton Properties Lawyer and contractors 1963-1965 Woodland Arms Apartments Mermaid Inn El Monte Arms Apartments Dos Robles, Colson, Donald Bennion contractors Property management offices and contractors Likely administrative offices and not rented apartments or an inn 1966-c.1980 Spaeth, Blase, & Farman (owners) (Valentine & Klein later joined firm) Lawyers Valentine & Klein joined by 1967; Spaeth left in 1973 1981-c.2005 Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Office of Dr. Robert Jamplis, Department of Community Relations, Nutrition Department office, Education division office Foundation president’s offices Publicity and Marketing and doctor’s offices 2005-current Palo Alto Imaging, Simon Med Imaging MRI/Catscan Selected Owner/Occupant Biographies: The brief biographies included in this section present additional details of employees of 400 Channing Avenue. Most occupants of the buildings lived there for only one or two years during its period as a single-family residence (1920s through mid-1950s), except for the Lewis family (10 years). However, no additional information was found about Harry Lewis or his wife, Lois. The following individuals were chosen because they worked at the building for several years during the 1970s and 1980s, and both played influential roles in the local community and as leaders of their respective organizations. 2.h Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 24 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Lawrence (Larry) Klein | Attorney at 400 Channing Avenue (1967-1980), Repeat City Councilman and former Mayor or Palo Alto Larry Klein is a Miami native who attended Harvard Law School and joined the firm, Spaeth, Blase, Valentine, and Farman in 1967. He worked in the building at 400 Channing Avenue until 1981. In 1981, Klein began his political career in his first Palo Alto City Council term and served as City Mayor three times, in 1984, 1989, and 2009. He received the city’s “Tall Tree” award in 1994 for his service to the community and as “Citizen of the Year”. Klein became an attorney with the firm, Dorsey and Whitney, and in 2005, he returned to serve on the city council. Klein’s early specialization as an attorney was in taxation and has expanded his expertise to corporate, estate planning and trust administration.16 Klein has advocated at the front lines for almost every major initiative in Palo Alto, ranging from approving the green building ordinance to tax policies to selecting the city manager. Klein continues to serve on the Council and as an attorney in Palo Alto.17 Figure 40. Larry Klein, 1989. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association Historic Photograph Database. Dr. Robert Jamplis | Doctor and President of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation at 400 Channing Avenue (1981-c.1995) Robert Jamplis grew up in Chicago and was educated in University of Chicago-affiliated schools. Originally planning to become a pediatrician, Jamplis’s experiences serving overseas in the Navy and as a surgeon at a missionary hospital in China, Jamplis returned to the Mayo Clinic to train as a general and thoracic surgeon. He also earned a Masters degree in surgical pathology from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Jamplis took over the presidency of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic (begun in the 1930s) in 1982 after the passing of one of its founders, Dr. Russell Lee. Jamplis’s new office occupied the longer main wing of the building at 400 Channing Avenue during the 1980s and early 1990s. His executive assistant of 14 years described how “He lived life to the fullest…Everything about ‘Jamp’ from his personality to his long-term goals for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, was expansive, energetic, and enthusiastic.18” While considered a visionary in medicine, Dr. Jamplis was known more as a skilled politician, who could convince anyone of anything. He was friends with Ronald Reagan and President Gerald Ford had asked him to be U.S. Secretary of Health, which he turned down in order to focus on his own medical practice. 16 Thoits Law. “Lawrence A. Klein.” Accessed January 13, 2017 at www.thoits.com/attorneys/lawrence-a-klein/ 17 Sheyner, Gennady. “Larry Klein.” Palo Alto Online. Uploaded October 2, 2009 and accessed January 13, 2017 at http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2009/10/02/larry-klein 18 “Dr. Robert W. Jamplis.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Accessed January 13, 2017 at http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/jamplis.html 2.h Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 25 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Jamplis was also a professor of surgery at Stanford and the author of two books and about 50 research papers. His good nature and affability earned him several honors as a physician and successes as a fundraiser, especially during the 1980 reorganization of the clinic into a nonprofit foundation and the 1990s capital campaign for the Foundation’s new Palo Alto campus. Many remember his leadership of the Foundation as inspirational, and he was admired “most for his ability to hold on to a vision. He never saw barriers, only opportunities to achieve that vision.” Jamplis considered his greatest achievement to be the formation of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. In 1992, the Foundation merged with Sutter Health, as it remains today.19 Dr. Jamplis passed away in February 2003 at the age of 82, leaving behind two children, three stepsons, five grandchildren, and his second wife, Cynthia, whom he married after his wife, Roberta, passed away in 1995.20 Figure 41. Dr. Robert Jamplis in his office at 400 Channing Avenue, 1981. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association Historic Photograph Database. 19 “Dr. Robert W. Jamplis / Thoracic surgeon, health care pioneer.” SF Gate. February 6, 2003. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/DR-ROBERT-W-JAMPLIS-Thoracic-surgeon-health-2672879.php 20 “Dr. Robert W. Jamplis.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Accessed January 13, 2017 at http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/jamplis.html 2.h Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 26 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. VI. EVALUATION CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens. The California Register of Historical Resources follows nearly identical guidelines to those used by the National Register, but identifies the Criteria for Evaluation numerically. In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant under one or more of the following criteria. Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values. Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. The following section examines the eligibility of 400 Channing Avenue for listing in the California Register. Criterion 1 (Events) 400 Channing Avenue does not appear to be individually significant under Criterion 1 in association with historical events important to the history of Palo Alto, the state of California, or the United States. The building was constructed during the later period of central Palo Alto’s development and contributed to the wider build-out of available parcels within the University Park tract. None of the office tenants of the building after c. 1950 appear to have made significant contributions to Palo Alto, California, or United States history. Several residences in the neighborhood were similarly converted to office or mixed use, especially as part of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation campus; while this is an identified pattern of events within the surrounding neighborhood beginning in the middle of the twentieth century, it does not rise to the level of significance required to bestow eligibility for listing in the California Register. Thus, the property is also not significant within this context. As a result, 400 Channing Avenue does not appear significant under Criterion 1. Criterion 2 (Persons) 400 Channing Avenue appears to have been owned and occupied as a single-family residence from its construction in 1920 up until the 1950s, when it was converted for office use, and most of its early residents changed frequently during this period – typically once every one or two years. Some residents resided for longer (up to ten years) but little information was found about them. Residents were employed locally as salespeople or professionals (musicians, lawyers, and an engineer), who potentially taught at Stanford University as well. Based on information available, it does not appear 2.h Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 27 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. that any individual occupant made important contributions to local, state, or national history in a manner that would bestow the residence with significance under Criterion 2. After the building converted to an office space in the mid-1950s, the longest-term tenants of the building were a law firm, Spaeth, Blase, Valentine & Klein (c.1967-1980), and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s Office of the President (1981-1995). Two employees at the building were selected as notable in the local community – attorney Larry Klein (c. 1973-1980) and Dr. Robert Jamplis (1981- c.1995). Since his tenancy in 400 Channing Avenue, Larry Klein has played a significant role in the city of Palo Alto for several decades, serving as city mayor three times and as a member of the City Council. He continues to provide legal services related to finances and taxes for small businesses and at the university. Similarly, Dr. Robert Jamplis was known to be a well-liked and prominent physician in the local community and as the President of the Medical Foundation. Though both men have been influential in the city of Palo Alto and surrounding communities, they do not appear to have made contributions to local or California history to the level that would be required for California Register eligibility, especially in association with their offices at the subject property. As a result, 400 Channing Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2. Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) 400 Channing Avenue was constructed in 1920 by an unknown builder, though no original building permit was found. The original portions of the building that are shown on the early Sanborn Maps (through 1949) are visible today primarily at the entry area and at the side (southeast) and rear (northeast) façades. However, these areas of the building were also likely altered during remodeling in the mid-1950s (replaced doors, aluminum frame windows, wood and stucco siding), but a few original elements remain, including its overall L-shaped floor plan, massing, and overhanging roof eaves with exposed rafter tails and knee brackets. The building has experienced several alterations and additions, which are described in the property history and brief discussion of integrity that follows this section. Though no historic photograph or drawing exists, the result of these alterations, and particularly the insertion of the wing perpendicular to the original building, is that nearly none of its original features, materials, and form remain discernible. While 400 Channing Avenue exhibits some Craftsman design features, there are several better examples of the style elsewhere within the neighborhood. As a result, 400 Channing Avenue does not appear to be eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. Criterion 4 (Information Potential) The “potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of California” typically relates to archeological resources, rather than built resources. When Criterion 4 does relate to built resources, it is for cases when the building itself is the principal source of important construction- related information. Based on historic research and examination of existing survey records, other examples of bungalow residences exist in Palo Alto; 400 Channing Avenue is not significant for it ability to provide information important to the history of California and are therefore not eligible to the California Register under Criterion 4. Integrity In order to qualify for listing in the National Register of the California Register, a property must possess significance under one of the aforementioned criteria and have historic integrity. The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California Register and the National Register. The same seven variables or aspects that define integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association—are used to evaluate a resource’s eligibility for listing in the California Register and the National Register. According to the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, these seven characteristics are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. 2.h Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 28 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure and style of the property. Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s). Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history. Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. The building at 400 Channing Avenue exhibits significantly compromised integrity of setting, design, feeling, workmanship, and association, although it retains integrity of location, since the original portion of the building has not been moved. Due to the building’s simple vernacular design and restrained use of ornamentation, changes that occurred between the 1950s and 1980s have had a significant and discernible impact on its overall visual character. Though no historic photos were found of the property, it is evident that several original windows and doors have been altered or replaced in past remodels to accommodate the new additions, which have significantly altered the building’s original floor plan and massing. Moreover, the original setting of the subject property has been compromised due to the construction of the parking lot on two-thirds of the site, three distinct and highly visible building additions, as well as its conversion from a residence to office use. These alterations to the property are considered substantial enough to compromise the building’s overall integrity. 2.h Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 29 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. VII. CONCLUSION Constructed in 1920, 400 Channing Avenue contributed to the tail end of Palo Alto’s early twentieth- century residential development within the original town site. Built on a single corner parcel, the existing original residence portion of the building exhibits design features that conform to the classical bungalow type, which was employed throughout Palo Alto to house the city’s early middle- and working-class residents. As a result of several alterations and additions which occurred at the property beginning in the mid-1950s, the building can no longer be said to embody the distinctive visual character and design of an early-twentieth-century classical bungalow such that it is eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3. Additionally, two men who worked at the building after it was remodeled as an office were found to be influential in the local community; however, neither was found to be significant in association with the building to the extent that it would require for listing under Critierion 2. Therefore, Page & Turnbull has found 400 Channing Avenue not to be eligible under any criterion to the California Register, and thus it does not appear to be a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA review. 2.h Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 30 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. VIII. REFERENCES CITED PUBLISHED WORKS American Association of University Women, Palo Alto Chapter. …Gone Tomorrow? ‘Neat Cottages” and “Handsome Residences.” Palo Alto: American Association of University Women, 1971, revised 1986. California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistant Series No. 7, How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historic Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001. Gottfried, Herbert and Jan Jennings. American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors, 1870-1960. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009. Hodgson, Fred T. Practical Bungalows and Cottages for Town and Country. Chicago: Frederick J. Drake & Company, 1906. Palo Alto city directories at Palo Alto Public Library. San Francisco Planning Department. San Francisco Preservation Bulletin No. 18 – Residential and Commercial Architectural Periods and Styles in San Francisco, January 2003. Ward, Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993. UNPUBLISHED RECORDS City of Palo Alto Development Center. Building permits. “Comprehensive Plan.” City of Palo Alto. Revised 2007. Dames & Moore. “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000.” Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. February 2001. Dames & Moore. “Study Priority 1 and Study Priority 2 Properties: Preliminary Assessments of Eligibility for the National Register or California Register.” Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. January 1999. Palo Alto Historical Association. Research notes and Property file collection. INTERNET SOURCES “Dr. Robert W. Jamplis.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Accessed January 13, 2017 at http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/jamplis.html “Dr. Robert W. Jamplis / Thoracic surgeon, health care pioneer.” SF Gate. February 6, 2003. Accessed January 23, 2017. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/DR-ROBERT-W- JAMPLIS-Thoracic-surgeon-health-2672879.php 2.h Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Historic Resource Evaluation 400 Channing Avenue Final Palo Alto, California March 6, 2017 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. “A Flash History of Palo Alto.” Quora. Accessed March 24, 2016. http://www.quora.com/How-is- the-historical-city-Mayfield-CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA. “Depression, War, and the Population Boom.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health. Accessed March 24, 2016. http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. “History of Stanford.” Stanford University. Accessed March 24, 2016. http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/. “Our History.” Cambria. Accessed August 22, 2016. http://www.cambria.com/about.asp. “Palo Alto, California.” Wikipedia. Accessed 24 March 2016. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. Palo Alto Historical Association historic photograph collection. Accessed January 2017. http://archives.pahistory.org/. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps. Accessed January 2017. http://archive.org. Sheyner, Gennady. “Larry Klein.” Palo Alto Online. Uploaded October 2, 2009 and accessed January 13, 2017. http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2009/10/02/larry-klein Thoits Law. “Lawrence A. Klein.” Accessed January 13, 2017. www.thoits.com/attorneys/lawrence-a-klein/ United States federal census records. Ancestry.com. Accessed January 2017. www.ancestry.com. Walker, Richard. “Classy City: Residential Realms of the Bay Region.” 2002. Accessed 2005. http://geography.berkeley.edu/PeopleHistory/faculty/R_Walker/ClassyCity/html. 2.h Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) 2.h Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 415.362.5154/ 415.362.5560 fax 2401 C Street, Suite B Sacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH MATERIALS CONSERVATION www.page-turnbull.com 2.h Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : H i s t o r i c R e s o u r c e A n a l y s i s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “400 Channing Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “400_Channing-revisions_v.3_3.16.2017.pdf” and dated 03/21/2017 2.i Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) From:Baumgarten, David L To:Brennan, Phillip Cc:Hali Weiss Subject:RE: 400 Channing Avenue Development Proposal (Palo Alto) Date:Monday, November 21, 2016 3:25:33 PM This is a follow-up to the below e-mail to provide more specificity of our concerns: 1) Building 2nd story above the garages along property line à Privacy + Impact on the residence next door (915 Waverley St.). 2) 2 oak trees (on the 915 Waverley St. property, along shared property line) –> Concern about multi-story structure (garage + 2nd story) under existing trees The below reference to 857 Waverley Street. A good example of a high density house on property… the garage does not have 2nd story on top. A very sensitive way to bridge existing property with the new development. Thank You David & Hali From: Brennan, Phillip [mailto:Phillip.Brennan@CityofPaloAlto.org]  Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:09 AM To: Baumgarten, David L  Subject: RE: 400 Channing Avenue Development Proposal (Palo Alto) Hello Mr. Baumgarten, The Planning Department has received your comments and will include it in the application file for proposed project at 400 Channing Avenue. I will also be forwarding a copy of this email to the applicant for their review. Please utilize https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning to stay abreast of the latest developments with subject applications. Thank you, Phillip Brennan From: Baumgarten, David L Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 7:52 AMTo: Brennan, PhillipSubject: 400 Channing Avenue Development Proposal (Palo Alto) As neighbors (915 Waverley St), we are very supportive of residential usage at 400 Channing Avenue in Palo Alto.  2.j Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) We hope the new development will be architected and developed with sensitivity to the neighborhood and neighbors. As the neighbors next door, we do have concerns specific to the proposed garage/units along the 915 Waverley property line.  It is important that the sensitivity to existing homes and broader neighborhood is taken into consideration. You may also want to look at 857 Waverley street where the previously new development is adjacent to an established home.  The garage has been contained to one story structure.   We would like to be “kept in the loop” specific to this project including review dates for both the ARB and Historic Review Board meetings. Please feel free to call anytime.  I can be reached at mobile 415-860-6715 Thank You David Baumgarten & Hali Weiss 2.j Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: David Baumgarten Brennan, Phillip haliweiss; david.baumgarten 400 Channing Street Development (Palo Alto) Thursday, March 23, 2017 2:07:00 PM Phillip, As previously communicated, we are very supportive of the transition of this property to residential. We are also supportive of the re-orientation of houses to face Waverley Street. We have several protected Coastal Live Oak trees (3.5 feet and 2.5 feet in diameter) along the common property line with the proposed project. We are concerned that the proposed construction close to the trees could damage the trees and/or their root system in a manner that both potentially threaten the health of the trees and the safety of residents. Furthermore, the presence of the protected oak trees limits the degree to which hedges or other screening plantings can be employed to preserve resident privacy. We also continue to have concerns specific to compatibility and sensitivity of this project to existing neighbors (including sight lines, daylight plane…). These new properties will be the transition from high density to single family dwellings. 1.The garage with apartment along the 915 Waverley street property line is not compatible with existing neighbor's homes. Recommendation: remove 2nd storyapartment. a. As a Reference: 857 Waverley street property also transitions high density to single family. There is no 2nd story apartment above the garage. Property built to 56%, not 65%. 2. Deck off the master bedroom (Lot One) looks down into 915 Waverley family room, bedrooms, and yard. Recommendation: Consistent with other DHS properties… should not include deck. 3.2nd floor windows facing 915 Waverley street property line. Recommendation: Utilize Clerestory Windows to increase privacy. 4. Family Room windows. These will potentially look directly into 915 Waverley Street Family Room and yard. Having lived in Palo Alto for 25+ years, we understand the importance of getting this development done right. We’ve had conversations with many of our neighbors in the extended neighborhood who have voiced similar concerns. We have not yet been notified of the date, time and location of the Architecture Review Meeting. We would appreciate if you could please provide details. Thank you, David Baumgarten and Hali Weiss 2.j Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 7 8 3 7 : 4 0 0 C h a n n i n g A v e n u e : F o u r U n i t s i n S O F A I C A P ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7175) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 901 High Street - Mixed Use Development in SOFA II CAP Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICAL. 901 High Street [15PLN- 00052]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Coordinated Development Permit for a 17,942 Square Foot Mixed Use Building With Retail and 25 Residential Units on a Vacant 20,288 Square Foot Parcel. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated From February 26, 2016 to March 17, 2016. Zoning District: RT-35. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Margaret Netto at margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary It has been one year since the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the proposed project. At that time, the applicant was proposing 11 residential units; 5,000 square feet of office; and 1,000 square feet of retail. The project was also subject to the interim office growth meter ordinance. Since then, the project has been revised to include more and smaller units (25), eliminated the office component entirely, and redesigned aspects of the building and parking circulation to respond to the ARB/HRB comments. 3 Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 This report clarifies the application review process and the specific roles of the two Boards reviewing the project and offers some comments regarding the project design that may require subcommittee review. Background The proposed mixed use development is located in the South of Forest Avenue (Phase II) Coordinated Area Plan, or SOFA II. The subject application was filed in February 2015. After nearly one year, the project was presented to the ARB and HRB at a joint meeting. At the time, the project was also subject to the City’s interim regulations regarding the construction of net new office space. However, since then, the office component of the project has been removed and it is no longer subject to that review process. The previous staff report and video presentation of the meeting are available online, respectively, at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51540 and http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-40/. Prior ARB / HRB Comments Boardmembers were generally supportive of the project from a conceptual level citing several positive attributes related to the proposed housing and retail land uses, incorporation of the corner plaza, retention of significant trees, the prominent location for a public art display, and tying in design elements that acknowledged the historic resources across High Street and Channing Avenue. However, there were a variety of other comments that related to the overall mass of the building, fenestration, roof forms, landscaping and transition to the properties east of the project site that warranted further study. The proposed surface parking lot was another challenging aspect of the design, which also included parking lifts. The HRB commented on the proposed structure in regards to the two historic resources across the street. Generally, the HRB found the project respectful of those buildings and appreciated the accent color used to reflect or mirror the color found on the Creamery building and the masonry brick on the Watercourse Way building across Channing Avenue. The HRB did request this color accent be more subtle and subordinate to the adjacent buildings; requested a correction in the mitigated negative declaration; and, sought to have the transition in scale at the third floor adjacent to High Street be improved. Revised Project As detailed more fully in the project plans and the applicant’s response letter to the board (Attachment F), the applicant has made several refinements to the project. Notably, the applicant eliminated the office component, but retained a retail presence. The housing density has increased from 11 to 25 units. This has reduced the required parking and resulted in the elimination of parking lifts, however, surface parking is still proposed. The applicant reports that full buildout of a basement level to accommodate parking is restricted by mature trees along the perimeter of the site reducing the number of spaces that could be accommodated within a subterranean garage. 3 Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The applicant has also made other refinements to the colors, materials, placement of balconies, increased building setbacks at the upper levels and articulation, improved the fenestration, and updated the landscape plans in an effort to respond to boardmember comments. Below are some the issues and applicant responses: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Long term bike racks are in located in the rear of the site, not very convenient, appears to be designed as an after thought Sheet AS-5 shows the long-term bike racks near the elevator in the garage. The butterfly roof contradicts the architectural design and is not a roof form found in the area Sheet AS-9 shows a series of flat roofs instead of a butterfly roof. Project is inadequately landscaped due to surface parking, underground parking is a solution Sheet L-1 shows additional landscaping along the perimeter and wall vines on the High Street and Channing Avenue elevations. Parking seems awkward with the parking lifts Parking lifts are no longer proposed. The project is fully parked with surface and tandem spaces. There will be restrictions on the parking: tandem parking will be for residential use only and the surface parking along the rear will be used for retail use. Clarify the height of the building Sheet AS-9 and AS-11 clarifies the height limit at 35 feet. One flat roof element is shown slightly above the 35-foot height limit; a condition has been added to require compliance with the height limit. Add balconies to the High Street elevation to create a friendlier neighborhood feel Sheet AS-9-shows balconies have been added on the 2nd and 3rd level units to articulate the façade including using larger windows at the living/dining room and smaller windows in the kitchen. Concern with the modulation on High Street A revised Sheet AS-9 shows the High Street elevation has been redesigned by reducing the accent color to just the retail area, more glazing has been added to the storefront and the 2rd floor has been changed from stucco to metal panel. Concern with the uniformity of the balconies on the south side The balconies on the south elevation have been stepped back to provide modulation. 3 Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Does not comply with the SOFA 2 compatibility requirements The project has been revised with the intent of achieving better compliance with the SOFA 2 Compatibility Requirements (see analysis below). ARB and HRB Purview This section of the report provides a brief summary of application review process for SOFA II projects. New development governed by a coordinated area plan (CAP) requires a Coordinated Development Permit, as opposed to an Architecture Review or other entitlement. Since adoption of the SOFA CAP, Phase I, review of this permit has been conducted at a joint meeting with the ARB and HRB. However, SOFA CAP Phase II established its own review process, which more closely resembles the City’s generally applicable review procedures. Specifically, projects in the SOFA II area are subject to review by the ARB in a manner that is consistent with this Board’s review of any other project. The HRB’s role, as it relates to SOFA II, generally extends to reviewing projects that involve a transfer of development rights, when related to historic rehabilitation; changes to the SOFA II historic resources list; the demolition or moving of historic resources; and, alterations and additions to Category 1 and 2 structures (and all structures in an historic district, but there are no historic districts in SOFA II). Since the subject application does not include any of the above triggers for HRB review, the HRB’s role is quite limited and advisory to the ARB. If a future hearing regarding the subject application is required, this would take place before the ARB as opposed to a joint meeting with the HRB. Analysis1 Review of the project is subject to a number of policies, design criteria, compatibility requirements and findings. Code compliance for the project is evaluated to the development standards set forth in the SOFA II CAP (see compliance chart, Attachment D). The project is also subject to the typical ARB findings (Attachment B). When reviewing those findings, there is specific mention to reviewing compliance with applicable provisions of the CAP. There are several policies that this project relates to that the Board is asked to evaluate in its review of the project, including: Land Uses: Policy L-1. Promote varied residential development and neighborhood services while sustaining the character and vitality of the commercial and public facilities. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Policy L-6. Enhance the vitality and livability of the South of Forest Area by allowing a mixture of residential and neighborhood serving commercial land uses. Housing: Policy H-1. Within SOFA, Phases 1 and 2, provide for a total of 300 residential units and promote the retention of existing housing units and encourage the development of new housing units throughout the South of Forest Area. Policy H-2. Use SOFA 2 as a transition between the existing single-family uses to the South and the commercial uses in the downtown area to the north by providing opportunities for medium and high density multiple family housing within the area. Policy H-5. Allow a variety of housing types in SOFA 2, including, but not limited to, the following: units in a mixed-use configuration; apartments; townhouses; and studio units. Transportation: Policy T-5. Reduce impacts on residential areas adjacent to SOFA 2 area from the parking impacts of the downtown area and the Residential Transition Districts by encouraging shared parking facilities and below grade parking. Policy T-6. Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street level parking garages by encouraging parking for mixed use and multi-family residential parking to be either underground or otherwise not visible from adjacent roadways through the use of landscape screening. Allow parking reductions and flexibility for historic buildings to avoid conflicts between preservation and provision of parking. Community Facilities: Policy CF-2. Encourage private development proposals to accommodate publicly accessible open spaces and connections to other open spaces where feasible. Encourage establishment of usable outdoor pedestrian open spaces, plazas, etc. with pedestrian amenities. Design and Character: Policy DC-1 Promote quality design as defined by massing, detail, materials, etc. Implementation of the design guidelines should allow for flexibility and diversity in relation to the overall context of the neighborhood. Policy DC-2 With new development, require new street trees, storefront treatment of front facades, pedestrian scale signage, pedestrian/seating, sidewalk widening, and other improvements to improve pedestrian experience throughout SOFA 2. 3 Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Policy DC-4 Incorporate transition techniques into new buildings to blend higher density housing or mixed-use projects into the existing lower density residential housing adjacent to the southeastern portion of SOFA 2. Policy DC-15 Encourage new development to provide public art within all major projects. The art is to be reviewed and approved by the Public Art Commission Public and Private Trees: Policy PPT-3 Any new development or substantial renovation of an existing building within SOFA 2 should consider the replacement of any “missing” street trees at an interval of approximately 20-25 feet on center. Policy PPT-6 Protect and maintain Heritage Trees. In addition, promote preservation of Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak, which are not yet large enough to qualify for protection under the Tree Protection Ordinance. Incorporate planting of these native oak species in established open spaces, plazas, etc. and in other appropriate locations in SOFA 2. On balance, staff concludes that the project is generally consistent with the above policies, but encourages the Board to review in particular polices T-5, T-6, DC-1 and DC-2. The policies chapter of the SOFA II CAP is provided in Attachment B, which provides more detailed language as to the intent of these policies. In addition to the above, SOFA II projects are subject to Compatibility Requirements and Design Guidelines. These standards are excerpted from the SOFA II CAP and included as Attachment I. Generally, however, these standards attempt to ensure new construction is compatible with the existing neighborhood and character by focusing review on the following: 1. Siting, scale, massing, materials; 2. The rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; 3. The pattern of roof lines and projections; 4. The sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways; 5. The location and treatment of entryways; 6. The shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; 7. The treatment of landscaping. The SOFA II CAP states that compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with that existing in the neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. The Guidelines, also included in Attachment I, address several design features related to the building architecture, paseos, 3 Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 plazas, entrances, height, massing/building articulation, driveways, landscaping, lighting, parking and other standards. Staff has reviewed the project to the guidelines and finds, on balance, the project meets the intent of these provisions. The applicant has made significant improvements, reducing the height, replaced the butterfly-styled roof with a series of four flat roofs, added more thoughtfully designed outdoor space for the units, and created pedestrian-scaled entrances to the residential units adjacent to High Street. The structure strikes an appropriate balance of increasing upper level building setbacks while increasing the number of housing units. There are, however, two areas that staff believes warrant additional consideration from the ARB. Both relate to screening the surface parking lot from Channing Avenue and High Street. The Channing Avenue elevation near the driveway approach is the proposed location for the building transformer. More information is needed to understand how landscaping in this area will successfully screen the transformer and the surface parking spaces behind it. The choice of landscaping material is important to consider as there is a water sensitive oak tree in proximity to this location. Also, the bench is a welcome amenity, but it seems oddly placed and insignificant. The Board is asked to explore whether a more substantial wall that incorporates a bench and/or irrigated landscaping that does not impact the oak tree is a preferred design solution. Adjacent to High Street, there are lattice structures that appear to be intended to support climbing vines or plant material to eventually screen from view the surface parking lot beyond. The Board is requested to examine this feature more fully and offer recommendations as appropriate. 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. Based upon the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), it was determined that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A Minor Modification to the IS/MND was prepared updating the project description, no new impacts were identified. As of the preparation of this staff report, no comments have been received. Specifically, the project has potential for soil and groundwater contamination. The area of potential contamination will be excavated, sampled and disposed of by a licensed waste disposal facility. With mitigation, the impact will be considered less than significant. 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 3 Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Weekly on March 24, 2017 which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 27, 2017 which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Margaret Netto, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 796-5828 (650) 329-2575 margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 86 120-28-100 120-28-066 120-28-067 120-28-058 120-28-057 120-28-030 120-28-091 120-28-074 120-28-085 120-28-084 120-28-051 120-28-086 120-28-090 120-28-087 120-28-088 120-28-082 120-28-081 120-28-080 120-28-079 120-28-078 120-28-077 120-28-076 120-28-075 120-28-073 120-28-072 120-28-071 120-28-070 120-28-069 120-28-068 120-28-053 120-28-065 120-28-064 120-28-059 120-28-109 120-28-029 120-29-050 120-29-051 120-28-113 120-28-036 120-28-099 120-28-026 120-28-007 120-28-112 120-27-075 7-074 120-27-070 120-30-003 120-30-004 120-30-005 120-30-023 120-30-022 120-30-021 120-30-035 120-30-036 120-30-050 120-30-001 120-30-002 120-30-024 120-30-025 120-30-026 120-30-027 120-30-028 120-30-031 120-30-032 120-30-033 120-30-034 120-30-046 120-30-047 120-30-048 120-30-049 120-30-029 120-28-046 120-28-045 120-28-114 120-28-089 120-28-092 120-28-093 120-28-094 120-28-095 120-28-096 120-28-097 120-28-049 120-28-050 120-28-048 120-28-098 120-30-030 120-33-002 120 34 006 120-34-007 120-34-008 120-34-009 120-34-010 120-34-013 120-34-014 120-33-001 120-28-004 120-28-005 120-28-037 120-28-032 120-28-031 120-28-033 120-28-028 120-28-027 120-28-003 120-28-006 120-28-038 120-28-039 120-28-040 120-28-041 120-28-042 120-27-076 120-28-101 120-28-105 120-28-106 120-28-104 120-28-103 120-28-107 120-28-108 120-71-001 120-71-003 120-71-004 120-71-006 120-71-007 120-71-008 120-71-009 120-71-010 120-71-011 120-71-012 120-71-013 120-71-014 120-71-015 120-71-016120-71-017 120-71-019 120-71-020 120-71-021 120-71-022 120-71-023120-71-024 120-71-018 120-71-025120-71-026 120-71-027 120-71-028 120-71-029 120-71-030 120-71-031 120-71-032 120-71-033 120-71-034 120-71-035 120-71-036 120-71-037120-71-038 120-71-039120-71-040 120-71-041 120-71-042 120-71-043 120-71-044 120-71-045 120-71-046 120-71-047 120-71-048 120-71-049 120-71-050 120-71-051 120-71-052 120-71-053 120-71-054 120-71-055 120-71-056 120-71-057 120-71-058 120-71-059 120-71-060 120-71-005 120-71-062 120-71-063 HIG H STREET U E E M E RS O STRE ET H O MER A V B R A D DISO N A VE N U E RA M O N A STREET R A M O N A STREET LA NE B EAS T AST E M ERS O N STRE ET E M ERSO N STREET HIG H STREE T HIG H ST R EET A L M A STR EET AL M A STREET A L M A CH A N NIN G A VEN UE A V E N U E A D DISO N A V EN UE E N C I N A A V E N U E L A N E 8 W EST L A N E A W EST L A N E B W ES T C H A N NIN G A V EN UE 936 934 934-944 938 944 927 927 932 932 233 233 933 933-937 200 200 162 8-732 1004 10 1000 1017 1001 1001 1060 1043 1043 1080 1040 1040 1028 1028 1053 1055 1019 1019 1027 1027 A B 1035 1035 1052 1052 1044 1044 107 1045 1045 1028 1028 1020 1020 160 160 1001 1001 1005 1005 1009 1009 1015 1015 1027 1027 1037 1037 1010 1010 1024 10241004 1004 930 930 975 975 945 945 929 929 931 931 948 948 181 181 940 940 960 960 145 145 900 900 955 955 999 999 875 875 853 853 925 925 81 8 1 901 901-907 909 909 87 8 7 98 9 8 1038 1038 1036 1036 917 917 921 921 925 925 849 849 847 847 842 842828 828 820 820 248 48 232 230 230-232 212 212 825 825 829 829 833 833 839 839 800 800 812 812 818 818 882 882 165 165 831 831 801 801 815 815 809 809 801 841 841 791 791 153 774 774 795 201 09 834 834 836 836 845 895 895 926 926 190190 934 934 942 942 948 948 203 203 209 209 219 219 225 225 929 929 200 200 240240 904 904 910 910 926 926 270 270 935 935 904 904 909 909 909A 848 848 918 918 903 903 903A 210 210 214 214 800 800 806 806 9 918 918 936 936 940 940 944 253 241 241 919 919A 919 264 264 920 920 949 949 943 943 941 941 935 937 827 827 904904 100 100 161 161159 159 157 157 777 7 152 152 965 965 140 140 945 945 1012 1012 206 206 840 840 901 901 781 903 905 907 151 160 160 998 998 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'150' 901 High St. Vicinity Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altoelee2, 2016-02-18 11:20:24 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg. 87 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 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 901 High Street 15PLN-00052 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The project, as conditioned, complies with applicable provisions of the zoning code. The project site is located within the South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan, Phase II, or SOFA II. There are several policies in SOFA II that relate to this project, including the following: Land Uses: Policy L-1. Promote varied residential development and neighborhood services while sustaining the character and vitality of the commercial and public facilities. Policy L-6. Enhance the vitality and livability of the South of Forest Area by allowing a mixture of residential and neighborhood serving commercial land uses. Housing: Policy H-1. Within SOFA, Phases 1 and 2, provide for a total of 300 residential units and promote the retention of existing housing units and encourage the development of new housing units throughout the South of Forest Area. Policy H-2. Use SOFA 2 as a transition between the existing single-family uses to the South and the commercial uses in the downtown area to the north by providing opportunities for medium and high density multiple family housing within the area. Policy H-5. Allow a variety of housing types in SOFA 2, including, but not limited to, the following: units in a mixed-use configuration; apartments; townhouses; and studio units. Transportation: Policy T-6. Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street level parking garages by encouraging parking for mixed use and multi-family residential parking to be either underground or otherwise not visible from adjacent roadways through 3.b Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) the use of landscape screening. Allow parking reductions and flexibility for historic buildings to avoid conflicts between preservation and provision of parking. Community Facilities: Policy CF-2. Encourage private development proposals to accommodate publicly accessible open spaces and connections to other open spaces where feasible. Encourage establishment of usable outdoor pedestrian open spaces, plazas, etc. with pedestrian amenities. Design and Character: Policy DC-1 Promote quality design as defined by massing, detail, materials, etc. Implementation of the design guidelines should allow for flexibility and diversity in relation to the overall context of the neighborhood. Policy DC-2 With new development, require new street trees, storefront treatment of front facades, pedestrian scale signage, pedestrian/seating, sidewalk widening, and other improvements to improve pedestrian experience throughout SOFA 2. Policy DC-4 Incorporate transition techniques into new buildings to blend higher density housing or mixed-use projects into the existing lower density residential housing adjacent to the southeastern portion of SOFA 2. Policy DC-15 Encourage new development to provide public art within all major projects. The art is to be reviewed and approved by the Public Art Commission. Public and Private Trees: Policy PPT-3 Any new development or substantial renovation of an existing building within SOFA 2 should consider the replacement of any “missing” street trees at an interval of approximately 20-25 feet on center. Policy PPT-6 Protect and maintain Heritage Trees. In addition, promote preservation of Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak, which are not yet large enough to qualify for protection under the Tree Protection Ordinance. Incorporate planting of these native oak species in established open spaces, plazas, etc. and in other appropriate locations in SOFA 2. The proposed project is, on balance, consistent with the above policy objectives. The project integrates the character of the neighborhood into the project and conforms to the South of Forest Phase 2 Coordinated Plan Area Architectural Guidelines. More specifically, the proposed project is a medium density mixed use development, providing 25 additional housing units in a transitional, mixed use neighborhood. Pedestrian features are included in the design, such as residential entries near sidewalk-grade along High Street, human scaled landscaping, a corner plaza that not only includes pedestrian amenities such as tables and chairs, but also reflects the courtyard at the large housing development at the opposite street corner, all promote and contribute to the 3.b Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) positively to a walkable neighborhood. Vehicular access to the site is provided from two adjacent streets and is located at grade and is screened in part by the building and landscaping; however, this is not an ideal design feature given the size of the lot. An underground parking structure was considered, but it was determine that such a structure would negatively impact two significant Oak trees located around the perimeter of the site. This constraint results in the proposed surface parking lot design and it does not substantively detract from the environment. The overall building design incorporates appropriate transitions in scale to the adjacent properties along High Street and Channing Avenue, provides an articulated façade and residential balconies at upper levels. The proposed building materials, finishes and colors are appropriate to the surrounding context. The exterior design has the accent color overhang with the aluminum frames and storefront window at Channing Avenue facing the plaza area to mimic the original Peninsula Creamery colors and textures. The exterior wall would be high-quality stone veneer to complement the clay tile walls at the historic Watercourse Way building across Channing Avenue. Additionally, as required by code, the project is providing publically accessible art, which would be located prominently on the building adjacent to Channing Avenue. 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: As described in Finding #1, the overall design incorporates appropriate transitions in scale to the adjacent properties along High Street and Channing Avenue, provides an articulated façade and preserves two significant Oak trees. The project is consistent with the adjacent land uses and provides transition with the commercial and mufti-family uses by providing façade articulation, outdoor seating and pedestrian activity. A plaza area can be found at the corner of the project and there are other clear paths of travel that will encourage pedestrian activity. The building and its pedestrian orientation are compatible with the existing context of the commercial South of Forest Phase 2 Coordinated Plan Area in that the project meets the intent of the development guidelines established for this area. 3.b Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the building is located within a South of Forest Are Coordinated Plan where other buildings of similar size and scale are common. The design is a reflection of its residential and commercial use. Individual entries and detailed materials reinforce a pedestrian scale. The forms are informal and varied reflecting a residential and commercial character. The design concentrates the bulk at the middle of the site. The project includes a corner plaza that provides interest and a gathering space on Channing Avenue and High Street. Decks are proposed on the upper floors along High Street and Channing Avenue. The project maintains the two Oak trees and provides new trees and other landscaping within the parking areas and vines on the elevations. In addition, the project provides additional landscape fingers to support trees, making the project compliant with the parking lot shading plan. The design is compatible with the sidewalks, roadway, utilities and other existing improvements. The proposed front landscaping will enhance the improvements both on and off site. The project’s design on the covered parking provides visual consistency with the main building by using similar materials. The covered garage is consistent with the surrounding properties and does not detract from the adjacent uses. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The design of the new building is consistent with contemporary development within the City and the use of the space as residential and commercial on the ground floor. The site layout provides common area for the residents and the patrons, and enlivens the Channing Avenue and High Street corner with the outdoor plaza area and seating. Public art is proposed as part of the project. Overall, the amount of open space exceeds the amounts required in the RT-35 zoning. Each unit is provided with a private balcony and access to a common open space. There is a clear path to the building for the residences and visitors from the street. Storage for waste and recycling has been accommodated. The project has been designed to encourage pedestrian activity and is convenient for cyclists and vehicles. The transformer is screened from public view. 3.b Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 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. Natural features will be preserved by retaining the protected trees and providing new landscaping and new street trees along Channing Avenue and High Street. Drought tolerant landscaping is proposed throughout the project site and efficient irrigation systems are to be provided as reflected in the proposed irrigation plans. Natural features will not be displaced. Landscaping along the side property line softens views of the site from the adjacent land uses. The materials, textures and colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression to the design and function and compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. To meet this requirement the project includes bicycle parking, reduction in water use in irrigation, light pollution reduction, and using low odor-emitting materials. The project incorporates various green building strategies including high quality and long life-cycle rain screen façade system, recessed windows, high efficiency glazing systems, LED lighting, and abundant daylighting. 3.b Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 901 High Street 15PLN-00052 Planning Division 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated on January 19, 2017, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or City Council. 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. This complete approval document shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. 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. ZONING COMPLIANCE. The project plans shall be modified as appropriate to comply with the City’s building height limit for the subject property. 6. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $97,925.42 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 7. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with Ordinance No. 5226, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received final approval of the art plan , or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. All required artwork shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit. 8. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE 3.c Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 9. 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. 10. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final Inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Margaret Netto at mnetto@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. Public Work Department PRIOR TO A GRADING OR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 8. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: Since the project site is located within two parcels 120-28-091 and 120-28-050 a certificate of compliance for a lot merger is required. Applicant shall apply for a certificate of compliance and provide the necessary documents. As shown on the attached link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2273 Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building or grading and excavation permit. 9. MAPPING: If the applicant intends to sell portions of the building (the retail space, office space or the residential units) a Minor or Major Subdivision Application will be required. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map process can also merge the two existing lots and therefore eliminating the certificate of compliance process. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map requirements. If a Map is required, it shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit or excavation and grading permit. The applicant shall be aware that they may not be able to do a condo conversion after the structure is built. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 10. GRADING PERMIT: An Excavation and Grading Permit is required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 3.c Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 11. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following (if applicable): pad elevation, finished floor elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring or limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), existing grades along the property line, etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 12. SHORING: If applicable, provide shoring plans for excavation. If shoring soldier piles are required they shall be located completely within the private property, clearly including tiebacks (if any). Tieback shall not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City’s right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. The shoring plans shall clearly show the property line and the dimension between the outside edge of the soldier piles and the property line for City records. 13. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian access along the frontage, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries areas, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, temporary construction trailer, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact information and tree protection measures. The existing hydrant shall remain accessible to Fire Department at all times. The construction fence shall be located at the property line, and construction fence gates shall be shown to open inwards, travel lane closures will not be permitted. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading Plan and the Grading and Excavation Permit. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. 14. DEWATERING: Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the 3.c Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 15. WATER FILLING STATION: Due to the California drought, applicant shall install a water station for the non- potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 16. GROUNDWATER USE PLAN: A Groundwater Use Plan (GWUP) shall be submitted for review for any project which requires dewatering. The GWUP, a narrative that shall be included in or accompany the Dewatering Plan, must demonstrate the highest beneficial use practicable of the pumped groundwater. The GWUP shall also state that all onsite, non-potable water needs such as dust control shall be met by using the pumped groundwater. Delays in submitting the GWUP can result in delays in the issuance of your discharge permit as Public Works requires sufficient review time which shall be expected by the applicant. 17. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide a note on the Rough Grading Plan that includes the comment above as a note. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 18. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 19. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill in CY), pad, finished floor elevation at every at grade door entrance (based on existing curb grades and 2% max slope), area drain and bubbler locations and TG’s, slopes, TC, FL, etc. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for additional items.. Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splashblocks (2-feet long min) and any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. For additional grading and drainage detail design See Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter or connected directly to the City’s infrastructure, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscape and other pervious areas of the site. Plan shall also 3.c Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) include a drainage system as required for all uncovered exterior basement-level spaces such as lightwell, stairwells or driveway ramps. 20. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. 21. Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. If a backflow preventer is required, it shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly if a transformer upgrade or a grease interceptor is required it shall also be located within the private property. Plot and label these on the Utility plan. 22. The following note shall be shown on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan: “Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 23. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. At minimum the curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage shall be shown to be replaced. 24. PAVEMENT: Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan adjacent to the public right-of-way: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Channing Avenue and High Street based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite or within private property. 25. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie-backs for the basement or construction access provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent 3.c Packet Pg. 97 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties. Applicant shall also be aware that the 930 Emerson Street will also be under construction. Applicants and contractors shall coordinate directly with one an another. 26. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to San Franscisquito Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Similar medallions shall be installed near the catch basins that are proposed to be relocated. Provide notes on the plans to reference that medallions and stencils. 27. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR: Parking garage floor drains within covered levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be located within private property. 28. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan. 29. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION – The plan set shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” An electronic copy of this plan is available on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 30. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 31. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 32. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas-wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 33. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and 3.c Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 34. The city’s wastewater distribution map shows no wastewater main available in High Street for this project. 35. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 36. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 37. The applicant's engineer may require to submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 38. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 39. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval) reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 40. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 41. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 3.c Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material. 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. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 42. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. 43. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. 44. PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 45. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system if such drains are installed. 46. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. 47. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 48. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 49. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 50. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 3.c Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 51. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. 52. Undesignated Retail Space: PAMC 16.09 - Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met (as further described in comments supplied by the Water Quality Team: Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project: A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation were supplied in comments from Water Quality  All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality.  Please note that the 750 gallon interceptor shown on the plans may not be sufficient depending on the type of restaurant. Utilities Department 53. The meter room shall be at grade level, have 24/7 access for Utilities and have direct access to outside with a double lock mechanism. The total bend for the secondary conduit s shall not exceed 270 degree. 54. All clearance between utilities conduits shall meet CPAU standard. Sanitary sewer shall be at least 12” vertically and 48” horizontally clear of electric. 55. Applicant shall grant easement for transformer (10’x10’) and 5’ for conduit access. Conduit path and vault are marked for preliminary purpose only. Actual plan might change depending on the final design. Urban Forestry Conditions for Public & Private Trees PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 56. TREE DISPOSITION. As identified on the tree survey sheet T-1.2, four trees shall be protected thru final inspection (#1, 2, 3 & 5), inclusive of two protected oaks shared by the abutting property and two red maples on public land, Channing planter strip. One publicly owned right-of-way tree (#4) is authorized for removal. Three new public trees shall be added to the High Street frontage (24” size Hornbeam); provided with Kiva Tree Grates, and 800 cu.ft. of engineered soil mix per tree in the locations shown on Sheet L-1, dated 7/17/2015. 57. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. The Building Permit submittal set shall be 3.c Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) accompanied by the project site arborist’s certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes and are consistent with City Tree Technical Manual Standards, Regulations and information: a. Provide a project arborist’s Updated Tree Protection Report (TPR) with building permit level mitigation measures, (e.g., resolve grading proximity issues with Public trees; exact TPZ scaled in feet). Provide plan revision directions to minimize root cutting conflicts that are obvious in the civil, basement, sidewalk improvement sheets. See TPR below. b. The arborist report shall designate the optimum tree protection zone (TPZ) scaled out on all site plans as a no encroachment area. Variable distances currently proposed are not definitive enough for grading and improvements proposed within the tree’s dripline. Plans shall show the TPZ scaled out with no utility or grading impacts that are foreseeable. Spot grades to eliminate curb cuts in TPZ. c. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. 58. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of an updated construction level TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, Deborah Ellis, MS, dated 2/25/2015, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 59. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: In addition to showing TPZ fencing, add the following Notes on the specified Plan Sheets. a. Note #1. Civil sheets shall be corrected to reflect the specified area of engineered soil mix for the sidewalk base consistent with Sheet L-1. Show as cross-hatched or shaded area, provide cross section indicating (D x L x W). Plans shall locate all utilities and transformer outside of the oak tree protection zone. b. Note #2. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. c. Note #3. The civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at decah@pacbell.net, 408-725-1357"; d. Note #4. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the 3.c Packet Pg. 102 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” e. Note #5. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496-5953.” f. Note #6. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 60. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly-owned or Protected) to be removed as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit only after issuance of the building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a. Add the plan note for each tree to be removed: “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953). 61. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES--PLAN REQUIREMENTS. New trees shall be shown with a 10’ clear radius zone from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut, in coordination with all relevant plans (site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc.) a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plans shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and include relevant Standard Planting Dwg. #603, #603a or #604 (reference which), and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. c. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. d. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of- way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” e. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. 62. NEW TREES ON SITE—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, new trees in landscape areas or small finger islands shall be provided with 800 cubic feet of rootable soil area to achieve mature tree size (identify d/w/l area by cross-hatch). Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, excluding high compacted areas. Sidewalk or asphalt base underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] shall use an Alternative Base Material method such as Engineered Soil Mix (see below). Note: these details requires coordination with the civil engineer, arborist and landscape architect. 3.c Packet Pg. 103 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) a. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Channing Trees & Plaza Oak: 1,200 cu.ft.; High Street trees: 800 cu.ft. b. Landscape Plan. When qualifying for parking area shade ordinance compliance (PAMC 18.40.130) trees shall be labeled (as S, M or L). c. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). When approved, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas (five finger islands=10 area identified) for parking, sidewalk base or channeling to a landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603a. Designated areas will be identified by cross-hatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. 63. LANDSCAPE PLANS a. Along the southeast landscape border add seven new trees evenly spaced between the proposed shrubs to shade the parking spaces (replacing 3 Prunus sp.). Specify 24” size Chitalpa, Chinese Pistache or approved equivalent. b. Correct the Agonis ‘After Dark’ symbol. c. Change the Carpinus betulus to European Hornbeam (not hackberry) and 24” size. d. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist. e. Show details for public sidewalk approved 48” Kiva Tree Grates. f. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). vii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2- inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1- inch. ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency 3.c Packet Pg. 104 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. g. Provide a shade plan for the parking area open to the sun, per Zoning Ordinance, PAMC 18.40.130. See attached handout for 50% shade goals. h. Specify the type of pervious surface or pavers (e.g. RimaStone) i. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: i. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. ii. A turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) required for best tree performance. j. Add note: “Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification to the City. The LA shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for the following: i. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building Permit set of plans. ii. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. iii. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. iv. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. DURING CONSTRUCTION 64. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 65. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 66. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, decah@pacbell.net, 408-725-1357 or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 67. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 68. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required 3.c Packet Pg. 105 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 69. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 70. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 71. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). 72. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 73. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 74. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650- 329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 75. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. 3.c Packet Pg. 106 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 901 High Street, 15PLN-00052 Table 1: Compliance with SOFA 2 CAP RT-35 District Regulations Regulation Requirement Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area No minimum 20,288 sf 20,288 sf Min. Site Width No minimum 162’-6” 162’-6” Min. Site Depth No minimum 124’-10” 124’-10” Front Setback High Street 15’ may be reduced to zero by the Director or Council if consistent with the building pattern of the area N/A 3’ (stairwell 10”) Front Setback Channing Avenue 15’ may be reduced to zero by the Director or Council if consistent with the building pattern of the area N/A 3’ (stairwell 10”) Side Yard 15’ may be reduced to zero by the Director or Council if consistent with the building pattern of the area N/A 9’ Rear Setback 15’ may be reduced to zero by the Director or Council if consistent with the building pattern of the area N/A 44’ Daylight Plane-side and rear lines None N/A N/A Floor Area Ratio 1.15:1 N/A 0.821:1 Site Coverage No maximum N/A .50 Building Height 35 feet maximum N/A 35’ Residential density- max average unit size 1,250 sf N/A 661 sf Street Trees Street trees shall be spaced no further than 20 to 25 feet on center N/A Trees planted on center, 20 to 25 feet CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 and 18.54 (parking/landscape) Type Requirement Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space for each 250 sf of gross floor area = 18 spaces N/A 45 Accessible Parking One accessible parking stall for 19 spaces N/A 2 Bicycle Parking 10% of auto parking = 1 space N/A 26 long term 4 short term 3.d Packet Pg. 107 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 l i a n c e T a b l e ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 5.050 RT District-Performance Standards PAMC Performance Standards Residential, non-residential and mixed use projects shall comply with PAMC 18.64. Noise, Odors and Clutter Noise, odors, and clutter shall be screened effectively from streets and adjacent properties. Project Consistency The project is in compliance with the noise thresholds established by the City. The trash enclosure is located away from the residential units and adjacent to the parking area. Roof top equipment is located centrally and a screen is provided that will further attenuate sound emissions. Trash and Service Equipment Trash and service equipment, including but not limited to satellite receiving dishes, dumpsters, recycling containers, and air conditioning units, shall be located on the rear of buildings or otherwise out of public view and shall be enclosed or screened with 100% opaque materials around all sides, including landscaping where permissible. The project‘s trash enclosure is located on the east side of the property adjacent to the parking area out of public view. The project’s wall obscures the view and will attenuate the noise of servicing the facility. Trash Recycling Ares Trash recycling areas and similar offensive areas shall be entirely enclosed (top and sides) and screened with 100% opaque materials when located adjacent to or in close proximity to existing residential, proposed residential uses, and residential uses and residentially zoned properties. The project‘s trash enclosure is located on the east side of the property adjacent to the parking area. The trash enclosure is on the opposite side of the residential units. Reduction of Noise and Visual Impacts New commercial and mixed use projects, including such noise generating uses as vehicle, automobile repair, automobile service station, and transportation centers shall be designed to reduce potential noise and visual impacts on adjacent uses with particular attention existing residential users. The mixed-use project includes residential and commercial uses. The project does not propose noise generating uses. 3.d Packet Pg. 108 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 l i a n c e T a b l e ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) Reduction of External Noise Impacts All new development or substantial remodeling of existing uses, which might be impacted by such uses shall incorporate design features to minimize potential impacts from noise producing uses on future building tenants and users. No proposed uses on the project site include noise producing uses. All roof top equipment is adequately screened and a screen is provided that will further attenuate sound emissions. Storage Yards All commercial uses with outside service or storage yards, including vehicle storage yards, shall provide attractive, opaque screening around the entire perimeter of these yards. Screening shall include dense landscaping in combination with an opaque fence if feasible. No outside services or storage yards are proposed with this project. Elimination of Odors and Fumes All uses producing strong odors and fumes, which can be detected from off or adjacent to the property shall install equipment or containment areas in order to eliminate such detachable odors and fumes. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odors or fumes. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. Light Sources Light Sources Interior and exterior light sources shall be shielded in such a manner as to prevent visibility of the light sources and to eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. As demonstrated on the photometric plan, the project’s site lighting will be contained with the project site. Prohibition of Nuisance All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or characteristics, including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance, humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illumination. Prior to issuance of a building permit or occupancy permit, or at any other time, the chief building official may require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices have been No proposed uses on the project site would produce offensive conditions. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. 3.d Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : Z o n i n g C o m p l i a n c e T a b l e ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) provided to insure and protect the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition. Private Useable Open Space Residential and Mixed Use development shall provide useable private open space in a yard, patio, porch, deck, balcony, French balcony at least two feet in depth, or loggia for each dwelling unit. The type and design of the useable private open space shall be appropriate to the architectural character of the building, and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy. Notwithstanding PAMC Section 18.04.030 (65)(A), loggias up to 80 square feet per dwelling unit shall be excluded from gross floor area. Spaces enclosed with windows are not open space. The project complies with the private open space requirement providing 132 square feet per unit. Common Useable Open Space Residential and Mixed Use development in the RT-35 and RT-50 zones shall provide common useable open space. The design of the common useable open space shall be suitable for a variety of user groups, including families with children. The common useable open space shall be intentionally designed for the use and enjoyment of the residents and as an integrated composition with the building, with particular attention to solar access, protection from wind, visibility both into and from the area, quality and durability of paving and furnishings, and use of appropriate and attractive plant materials. The size and dimensions of the common open space(s) shall be adequate and suitable for the number of units served by the open space(s). The project complies with the private open space requirement providing 2,826 square feet. The useable open space is available to the residence and patrons. 3.d Packet Pg. 110 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 l i a n c e T a b l e ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 5.120 All SOFA 2 Districts - Environmental Protection Noise (1) Design of all residential development within the RT-35 and RT-50 districts located in an area where the Ldn exceeds 60 dBA shall be subject to modeling of interior noise levels by acoustical engineers prior to construction to ensure compliance with City of Palo Alto standard of 45 dB Ldn for residential development set forth in PAMC Title 9 (2) All residential development proposed in a noise environment of 65 dBA Ldn shall be designed so that all required exterior open space shall have a noise environment not exceeding 65 Ldn Project Consistency The proposed project would be required to adhere to the California Residential Code (CRC) interior noise requirements, Sound Transmission, which requires noise attenuation for residential uses to ensure interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dBA (California Building Code, 2014). Geology Project applicants shall, if determined necessary by the building official, contract with a qualified soils or geotechnical engineer to perform a detailed geotechnical study for any development proposed within SOFA 2. All mitigation measures identified in the geotechnical report shall be implemented in order to reduce geologic-related impacts to a less than significant level. The geotechnical report shall be subject to review and approval by the Palo Alto Building Division prior to grading activities Murray Engineers Inc. (Murray Engineers) prepared a geotechnical investigation report for the project site. All recommendations identified will be incorporated into the project. Hydrology Development within SOFA 2 shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMP’s) as defined within Policy N-21 of the Comprehensive Plan, into project plans. The project applicant shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan identifying the specific BMP’s to be followed during the project. Incorporation of the BMP’s identified in the prevention plan shall be completed prior to the issuance of any grading permit, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Public Works Engineering Division BMP’s will be incorporated into the project. Groundwater or Soil Contamination (1) For all redevelopment projects on sites suspected by the city of containing HAZ-1 HAZ-1 Mitigation Measure The following mitigation measure would be required to reduce impacts related to off- 3.d Packet Pg. 111 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 l i a n c e T a b l e ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) groundwater or soil contamination within the planning area, the City shall require that the project applicant hire a qualified environmental testing company to collect and test random soil samples for analysis of soil and groundwater contamination. The environmental consultant, hired and paid for by the applicant, shall comply with all regulations governing sampling methodologies, shipping and handling procedures, and testing methodologies. The analysis shall comply with the planned schedule and analytical procedures for providing the information specified in the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA). gassing of TPHmo to a less than significant level. Soil and Groundwater Contamination. Soil excavation around the leaking drum should be 3 feet by 3 feet, and the vertical limit of excavation should be 2 feet below the surface. Excavation shall be placed in a 55- gallon DOT drum for disposal. The area of excavation should be back filled with compacted soil and covered with a steel plate. Following excavation another soil sample shall be performed. The 55-gallon drum shall be transported by a certified waste hauler to a licensed waste disposal facility. Waste manifests shall be transmitted to Benchmark Environmental upon receipt. Upon receipt of field notes and analytical results, a brief Technical Memorandum shall be prepared by environmental consultant, LACO discussing the results of excavation, sampling and disposal. Asbestos All development projects shall be comply with City of Palo Alto Fire Department standards and procedures for asbestos containing material. No structures are located on-site. Demolition Waste All development projects subject to ARB or joint ARB/HRB review shall prepare construction recycling plans as part of the project approval process. The construction recycling plan shall be implemented through explicit provisions in demolition and construction contracts. The construction recycling plans shall include the following specific steps: (1) Recovery of concrete, asphalt, and other inert solids; (2) Recovery of scrap metals; (3) Salvage of building fixtures and other re-usable items; and (4) Siting containers at the construction site for cardboard, beverage containers, wood, and other recyclable materials. Incorporated as a Condition of Approval. 3.d Packet Pg. 112 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 l i a n c e T a b l e ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) Solid Waste Disposal All new development projects subject to ARB review shall prepare operation recycling plans as part of the project approval process. The ongoing programs shall describe the proposed diversion rates for different material types and the location to which they will be diverted, as well as locations, areas, types of bins, etc. In addition, the program should contain the following specific information: (1) Specific locations, square footage, and equipment that would be used to hold and handle recyclables and solid waste; (2) The locations of containers within the retail facility near high volume pedestrian areas to encourage waste minimization and recycling; and (3) Store layouts that incorporate space for the storage of recyclable material, principally cardboard, prior to its movement to another area for processing and transport. Incorporated as a Condition of Approval. Archaeological Resources- In the event that archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. Any discoveries shall be reported to the City of Palo Alto community development director for forwarding to the historic resources board. The site has been previously graded with an existing surface parking lot. New ground disturbance would be substantially below the level of past disturbance. As a result, there is the possibility of encountering undisturbed subsurface cultural or paleontological resources. In the unlikely event that such resources are unearthed during construction, applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to the handling and treatment of such resources would be followed. If archaeological or paleontological resources are identified, as defined by Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site would be required to be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code as appropriate. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. 3.d Packet Pg. 113 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 l i a n c e T a b l e ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 1 4 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 1 5 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 1 6 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 1 7 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 1 8 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 1 9 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 2 0 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 2 1 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 2 2 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 2 3 Attachment: Attachment E: March 17, 2016 ARB/HRB Staff Report without attachments (7175 : 901 High 900 High Street, Suite One, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel: 650/853-1908 March 12, 2017 (revised) City of Palo Alto Planning Department To: Architectural Review Board (ARB) In reply to: ARB Hearing Comments dated March 17, 2016 Re: Plan Check #: 15PLN-00052 Project Name: 901-925 High St Mixed-Use Development Project Address: 901-925 High St, Palo Alto Dear ARB members: I am writing this itemized letter with our revised drawings in response to your comments during the last ARB hearing on March 17, 2016 as following:   1. We adjusted the parking lot at grade level and eliminated puzzle lift to meet all the required parking for the retail tenant, and residential units. (See our parking tabulation on the resubmitted cover sheet for break downs on total required 45 stalls and total provided 45 stalls on each category.) This project provides enough parking spaces to meet the city parking ordinance requirements. In responding to the ARB comment of below grade parking, we layout the potential underground parking garage, due to the preservation of existing live oak trees and the requirement of the ramp in limited site area, it only get total 23 stalls including 3 tandem parking. Our assumption is that the underground parking garage is not feasible for this project. 2. We relocated the bike lockers to the center of the building at the open atrium area with natural lighting; added more landscape areas to the parking lot including bigger landscape setback at the eastside by large setback on the building 2nd and 3rd floor plates. 3. We redesigned the south (High Street) elevation by reducing the accent red color overhang at open plaza for the retail space as entry feature. We revised to have narrower storefront window mullion to increase the glazing areas, and changed the ground level residential unit wall finish from stucco to stone veneer. We added more balconies on the 2nd and 3rd level for the residential units to articulate the facade by using the larger windows at the living/Dining room and smaller windows at the kitchen and bed rooms. 4. In response to the ARB comment on the butterfly roof, we eliminated the large sloping (butterfly) roof to four smaller sections of flat roofing. The design intent is to scale down with the residential character by maintaining the higher ceiling for living room and lower ceiling height in bedrooms in order to reflect the form following function. The project meets 35’-0” maximum height limit requirement. 5. The project is located on a housing inventory site in the part of housing element which yields to minimum 14 units are required. We are meeting this goal and exceeding the requirement from original design of 14 residential units to current design of total of 25 residential apartment units without increase floor areas. Thank you very much for your attention, and please contact us at (650) 853-1908 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter Ko, AIA Ko Architects, Inc. 3.f Packet Pg. 124 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : A p p l i c a n t ' s A R B R e s p o n s e L e t t e r 3 - 1 2 - 1 7 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) Attachment G CEQA A printed version of the environmental documents is available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. These documents may also be reviewed on online: 1. Go to: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planningprojects 2. Go to the “Commercial and Mix Use projects” webpage 3. Search for “901 High Street” 4. Review the record details and click on the address for more details A direct link to the project page is also provided here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55931 3.g Packet Pg. 125 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : I n i t i a l S t u d y a n d M i t i g a t e d N e g a t i v e D e c l a r a t i o n [ R e v i s i o n 1 ] ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “901 High Street” and open record by clicking on the blue/green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Go to Page 3 of the Attachments 6. Open the attachment named “901 High-planning resubmittal 1-17-2017.pdf” 3.h Packet Pg. 126 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 127 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 128 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 129 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 130 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 131 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 132 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 133 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 134 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 135 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 136 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 137 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 138 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 139 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 140 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 141 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 142 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 143 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 144 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 145 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 146 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 147 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 148 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 149 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 150 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 151 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 152 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 153 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 154 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 155 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 156 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 157 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 158 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 159 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 160 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 161 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 162 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 163 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) 3.i Packet Pg. 164 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S O F A I I C h a p t e r s 3 & 4 ( 7 1 7 5 : 9 0 1 H i g h S t r e e t - M i x e d U s e D e v e l o p m e n t i n S O F A I I C A P ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7847) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3877 El Camino Real: Mixed Use Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of an Architectural Review for the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-Use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square Foot Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required Rear Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on March 6, 2017 and the comment period will end on April 7, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For more Information, Contact Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us From: Hillary Gitelman 4 Packet Pg. 165 4.a Packet Pg. 166 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 ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) ATTACHMENT B ARB, DEE and SITE & DESIGN FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3877 El Camino Real 14PLN-00464 A. Architectural Review Findings The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development.  Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces.  Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities.  Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale.  Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible.  Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City’s residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts.  Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development.  Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses.  Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas.  Policy L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. 4.b Packet Pg. 167 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t )  Policy L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Center though an aggressive maintenance, repair and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and landscaping.  Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces.  Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.  Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City.  Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood.  Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling.  Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on- site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details.  Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety.  Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities.  Goal B-5: Attractive, Vibrant Business Centers, Each with a Mix of Uses and a Distinctive Character. The El Camino frontage is Service Commercial, while the Curtner Avenue frontage is Multi-Family. The project is consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The project redevelops a site into a horizontal and vertical mixed-use project. The project is consistent in mass and scale and considers appropriate transitions between commercial and residential properties. The project has streetscape consideration along El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue providing context-based treatment. The project redevelops a site and is considered infill. The El Camino component includes a vertical mixed-use along El Camino. The mixed-use component along El Camino Real includes a large sidewalk consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project also includes an outdoor plaza area for the ground floor retail. The buildings onsite are placed orderly and provide sufficient open space and connectivity between the streets, entrances and open spaces. The parking for the site is provided below ground, which frees up space on the ground level for the buildings, and landscaping. The project provides plazas that are open to the public. The project supports full height tenant facades to help create a streetscape. The project will pay the in-lieu fee to support the public art program. The project includes on-site bicycle parking for the commercial and residential uses. 4.b Packet Pg. 168 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Code with the exception of the request to deviate from the rear setback requirement for the below-grade garage. This request is supported through the affirmative findings for the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) request. The project is consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines. The project creates a wide sidewalk along El Camino Real and provides the required build-to setback and massing for the building is considered by stepping the upper floors back. 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 area is comprised of various commercial buildings of differing heights and size. The project proposes to construct a building that is taller and includes residential along El Camino as well as removing a surface parking lot and creating townhouses to the rear with frontage along Curtner Avenue. The project’s design includes consistency throughout with similar colors and provides plaza spaces near commercial spaces and other areas in the residential component of the project site to allow for connectivity and gathering places. The mixed-use building along El Camino Real is taller than the adjacent buildings on either side, however, the building provides both commercial and residential, which a taller building is appropriate to accommodate both uses. The balance of the site with the residential buildings are consistent in height with other surrounding development. The project is consistent with the context-based design criteria for the applicable zone district: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides bike racks near the building entrances for short term use as well bike lockers in the garage to support the bicycle 4.b Packet Pg. 169 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) environment. In addition, the townhouses include bicycle lockers. The project meets the requirements for vehicular egress along El Camino Real that limits conflicts with pedestrians since it is one-way. Vehicular access is two-way off of Curtner Avenue and provides sufficient sight-distance at the driveway curb cut. As required, the project creates a 12-foot sidewalk along the frontage of the building. (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project’s mixed-use building provides a 12-foot sidewalk and maintains a build-to line setback (50% of the property frontage). The entry plaza is designed to guide pedestrians to the building entry. A planter is located in the front to provide visual interest. The residential component provides a larger setback to accommodate a vehicular ramp and elevator access to the basement garage. (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project complies with the CS zoning development standards and the design is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines since the project complies with the height and setback requirements and the performance standards for projects adjacent to different land uses. Additionally, the use of balconies, light colored materials and appropriate fenestration facilitates the appearance of reducing the mass of the mixed-use building. The residential components include angled roofing that reduces the mass of the building and provides visual interest, while providing a uniform design. As with the mixed-use building, the colors palette is warm with balconies and fenestration provide adequate relief. Setbacks and open spaces are provided that include vegetation and trees that help offset perceived massing. (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. This finding is not applicable to the project since there is no low- density residential development adjacent to the site. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides a plaza near the entry of the mixed-use building and between the building and the residential component. In addition, the project provides balconies for the enjoyment of the employees and residents. The residential component includes open spaces for outdoor gathering. (6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be 4.b Packet Pg. 170 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) made in the affirmative in that the project provides all of its parking below grade. The El Camino Real access to the garages is limited to a one-way ingress into the garage, while access from Curtner Avenue is two-way. Curtner Avenue at El Camino Real is signal-controlled intersection. The basement design requires a deviation from the required rear setback through a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). However, no changes are required on the surface to accommodate this request. Providing the basement parking for the project allows for the site to be used efficiently for site planning of buildings and open space with limited amount of space required for the ramps from the basement to the streets. (7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites. Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is consistent with the contemporary development patterns of the vicinity. The project is adjacent to the newly constructed multi- family project (six-units) on Curtner Avenue that has similar design themes. (8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2). 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 proposes a contemporary style that is compatible with recent development along El Camino Real. Likewise, the residential component is consistently designed and is similar to the newly constructed multi-family (six-unit) project adjacent to the project along Curtner Avenue. The project as a whole includes metal, smooth troweled stucco finish, and composite wood paneling. All of which work cohesively to portray a high-quality mixed-use project. The mixed-use building along El Camino Real is consistent with the residential townhouses on the balance of the site. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design of the new building is consistent with contemporary development within the City and the use of the space as office and retail on the ground floor for the mixed-use building. The site layout provides common areas for employees, patrons, residents and enlivens El Camino Real with the outdoor patio space adjacent to the building entry. 4.b Packet Pg. 171 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) For the residential component, the design includes appropriate setbacks and separation between buildings. The design is consistent in massing and design to the surrounding development. The project provides all of its parking below grade. The El Camino Real access to the garages is limited to a one-way ingress into the garage, while access from Curtner Avenue is two-way. Curtner Avenue at El Camino Real is signal-controlled intersection. The basement design requires a deviation from the required rear setback through a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). However, no changes are required on the surface to accommodate this request. Providing the basement parking for the project allows for the site to be used efficiently for site planning of buildings and open space with limited amount of space required for the ramps from the basement to the streets. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project will protect off-site trees during construction. The project provides a variety of drought- tolerant species. The site proposes open space areas that are designed to encourage gathering and connectivity between the mixed-use building and the residential units to the rear. The trees would provide appropriate habitat for wildlife as a part of a bigger neighborhood and community wide system. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A number of green building is included in the design and construction including a reduction in heat island effect, light pollution reduction, water efficiency with low-irrigation systems and appliances; and reduction in material and resource waste through reduction in cement use, pre-cut materials and details, pre-finished building materials. B. Design Enhancement Exception Findings (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district. The site is “L”-shaped, has frontage on two streets and includes two separate zoning and comprehensive plan land use designations. There are no other properties within the vicinity with similar design and shape characteristics that would support a mixed-use project. While the adjacent property has a similar “L”-shape with frontage on two streets, there is not sufficient 4.b Packet Pg. 172 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) area in the rear to anything more than a driveway and parallel parking, unlike the project site where there is sufficient land area to develop. The project proposes to transform a vacant restaurant building and adjacent surface parking lot into a vertical and horizontal mixed-use project that would be compatible with the zoning development standards and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. To do so, the parking for the site would need to be underground, which is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the context-based findings for development. The only vehicular designed area that would be visible from the streets would be the ramps leading down to the basement. The exception is to allow a reduction in the required rear setback that applies to the basement from 10-feet to six feet. This would allow for the necessary space to provide drive aisles, appropriate turning radius and back-up distance and parking spaces to accommodate the project. (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). Not granting the setback deviation from 10-feet to 6-feet would necessitate surface parking and would compromise the congruent design of the site introducing negative aspects of vehicular activity. Having the parking below ground allows for the site above ground to have more flexibility in site design. These leads to more open space for gathering and wildlife to flourish. (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. Allowing the setback deviation of four feet below ground does not affect the surrounding development above ground. The above ground project provides an additional four feet at the surface than what is required. Traffic associated with the site would enter either from El Camino Real or Curtner Avenue, while traffic exiting the site will only exit onto Curtner Avenue and it is expected that traffic would then use the signalized intersection of Curtner and El Camino Real, rather than traverse through the residential neighborhood. The design of the frontage and vehicular ramp at Curtner Avenue would have sufficient sight-distance to ensure that pedestrians would not be at any unduly risk. 4.b Packet Pg. 173 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) For Informational Purposes: C. Site and Design Findings The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Site and Design Review as required in Chapter 18.30(G) of the PAMC. (a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. According to the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the project’s construction would result in some temporary impacts; however, they would not result in any incompatible activities. A logistics plan is required to ensure that construction activities would not be harmful to the neighborhood. Regarding the operation of the site, the site would comply with regulations regarding late-night uses, noise ordinance, and solid waste handling. These are in place to ensure compatibility between different sites and uses. While at this time, there is no specific use proposed, the project would develop commercial spaces that would include retail and office uses. Those uses are consistent with other uses along El Camino Real and the surrounding neighborhoods that include both commercial and multi-family residential. Future specific uses would need to be consistent with the City’s regulations. The design of the site includes appropriate separation between the mixed-use building and the solely residential component and the adjacent multi-family properties. The project is consistent with the City’s Performance Standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.23, ensuring compatibility between commercial and residential uses. Proposed lighting is directed downward to prevent spillover to adjacent properties. Trash enclosures are located in the basement of the project. The project provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. Mechanical equipment areas are screened appropriately. The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short- term and long-term bike parking. On-site vehicular traffic will be directed underground, leaving the above-ground for pedestrians and bicyclist. Wide walkways and plazas surround the commercial areas and provide connectivity to the residential areas. In compliance with the City’s affordable housing requirements, the project proposes to include two below market rate dwelling units. This makes the project eligible for the State’s density bonus concessions. In which the project proposes to provide additional square footage to the project (2,596 square feet). Even with the additional square footage, the design of the project blends the additional square footage into the overall site design. 4.b Packet Pg. 174 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) (b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project proposes a transformation in the site from a vacant commercial building with a large surface parking lot into a mixed-use (vertical and horizontal) site that is consistent with current zoning regulations, with the exception of a setback deviation for the basement parking, which does not affect the above ground improvements. The mixed-use building along El Camino Real proposes ground-floor commercial that is consistent with the City’s requirements and would provide a place for commerce and interactions for residents and business owners. The project is located in an area that has numerous older low-intensity commercial buildings. The proposed project is an example of a project that is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the vision for mixed-use development. The project’s mixed-use building along El Camino Real is larger than the surrounding buildings along El Camino Real as expected because it includes both commercial on the first and second floor and residential uses on the upper floors, however, the balance of the site transitions to solely residential and is consistent in massing and height with the adjacent properties. (c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The project provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. The site includes plazas and open areas to promote connectivity spaces for wildlife to flourish. These open spaces include vegetation and trees along the side and rear setbacks of the property. While the plant palette demonstrates many non-native species of plants, these trees will provide the potential habitat for birds and other wildlife. The parking for the project is located completely underground, which avoids a surface parking lot. However, at the same time the project will follow the appropriate regulations regarding dewatering and providing the basement space. (d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. These include: Goal L-1, Policy L-4, Policy L-5, Policy L-9, Goal L-4, Policy L-19, Policy L-20, Policy L-21, Policy L-22, Goal L-9, Policy L-72, Goal T-3, Policy T-23, Goal, N-4, Policy N-21 and Goal B-5. The project is a mixed-use development that would include commercial and residential spaces, with some affordable housing units consistent with the City’s regulations. The project will comply with the stormwater codes, and include the appropriate amount of vehicular and bicycle parking. The site includes plazas and open space to encourage connectivity and interaction between the residents and commercial spaces. The buildings are placed orderly 4.b Packet Pg. 175 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) providing a mixed-use building along El Camino Real, where it is expected to have more intensive commercial development, with multi-family density located on the balance of the property, which is consistent with the surrounding development. Parking for the site is located completely below ground, which avoids many negative aspects of parking lots. The project provides two below market rate housing units, which promotes the availability of affordable housing. 4.b Packet Pg. 176 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B , D E E a n d S i t e & D e s i g n F i n d i n g s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) Attachment C PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3877 El Camino Real December 01, 2016,” stamped as received by the City on December 2, 2016 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. 7. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $311,130.37 plus the applicable affordable housing fee, per Condition #9, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 8. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with Ordinance No. 5226, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received final approval of the art plan, or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. All required artwork shall be 4.c Packet Pg. 177 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit. 9. DENSITY BONUS/BELOW MARKET RATE (BMR) HOUSING REQUIREMENT. This project’s total BMR requirement is 2.7 units. When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made for the fractional unit instead of providing an actual BMR unit, except that larger projects of 30 or more units must provide a whole BMR unit for any fractional unit of one-half (0.50) or larger. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant shall provide 2 BMR for-sale housing units affordable to lower income households within the project in accordance with the requirements set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapters 18.14 and 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the BMR Program rules and regulations. The applicant shall also provide in lieu fees equal to 7.5 percent of the greater of the actual sales price or fair market value of each unit in accordance with the schedule set forth in H3.1.2 (e) to satisfy the fractional component of the BMR requirement. The fractional in-lieu fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the project; provided, however, that prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the applicant may elect to provide one additional inclusionary unit instead of paying the fractional in lieu payment. All Density Bonus/BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. A BMR Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the 2 BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. The applicant is hereby notified, as required by Government Code § 66020, that the approved plans, these conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90-day period has begun in which the applicant may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all the requirements of Government Code § 66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions. 1. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, 4.c Packet Pg. 178 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT AND GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT SUBMITTAL 10. MAPPING. Applicant shall file for a Minor or Major Subdivision Application. Five parcels would trigger a major subdivision. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map or Tentative Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map or Final Map requirements. If a Map is required, it shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit or excavation and grading permit. 11. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. Owner shall create a public access easement for the additional area behind the property line needed to create a 12-foot wide sidewalk along El Camino Real. Plot and label the Public Access Easement along El Camino Real that provides the 12-foot wide sidewalk. 12. Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite per PAMC Section 21.16.220. 13. Please verify if the existing sub-surface transformer within the sidewalk will continue to serve the development. If the existing transformer cannot serve the project, then a new transformer upgrade may be required. The new transformer shall be located completely within private property. Plot and label the location of the new transformer, if needed. Or provide a note on the plans that indicate existing transformer to be used and if a new one is needed it will be located within private property. 14. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS. Submit a copy of the off-site improvement plans that includes the replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, landscape, etc. Provide Caltrans standard details along the project frontage. Plans shall include the proposed public access easement, grades along the conforms. 15. Submit a construction cost estimate associated with the off-site improvements. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 16. Map shall be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Grading and Excavation Permit 17. LOGISTICS PLAN. The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to building permit demolition that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm 4.c Packet Pg. 179 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Plan shall include the following, but not limited to, construction fence, construction entrance and exit, stockpile areas, equipment and material storage area, workers parking area, construction office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, crane location, working hours, contractor’s contact information, truck traffic route, setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas, erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction. 18. DEMOLITION PLAN. Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. Also, plot and label the tree protection zone. 19. GRADING PERMIT. The grading and drainage plan must include an earthworks table with the estimated cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall include the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand- alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. Provide the following note on the Rough Grading Plan and the Final Grading Plan. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade.” 20. LOGISTICS PLAN. The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. Plot the construction fence, entrances, shoring, limits of over excavation, tree protection zone, construction workers parking area, staging and storage areas within the private site for equipment and material. The plans shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. Note that there is a project immediately adjacent to another active construction site located at 405 Curtner Avenue. On the Logistics Plan provide a note for the project contractor to coordinate directly with the general contractor of 405 Curtner Avenue, to avoid 4.c Packet Pg. 180 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) conflicts in right-of-way. At no point, will both projects be permitted to close off Curtner Avenue. 21. BASEMENT SHORING. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works or Caltrans. On the Basement Plan, provide a dimension between the property lines and the basement walls, to verify that the shoring will be located completely within the subject property. In particular, near the proposed driveway ramps. 22. BASEMENT DRAINAGE. Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7- 3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 23. DEWATERING. Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within three (3) feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within two (2) feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Applicant shall install a water station for the reuse of dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed next to the right-of- way and shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station shall also be sued for onsite dust control. Applicant shall meet with Public Works to coordinate the design details. 24. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street 4.c Packet Pg. 181 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) work permit prior to dewatering. The street work permit to dewater must be obtained in August to allow ample to time to dewater and complete the dewatering by October 31st. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp The following links are included to assist the applicant with dewatering requirements. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30978 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51366 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47388. GREEN BUILDING 25. GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR MIXED-USE PROJECTS. The project shall meet both the residential and non-residential requirements for the corresponding areas. Green building requirements are subject to field inspection. 26. RESIDENTIAL AREA. For design and construction of residential projects, the City requires use of the Build It Green (BIG), Green Point Rated (GPR) program to comply with the mandatory measures of Chapter 4. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013) • The project is a new construction residential building and therefore must achieve BIG GPR minimum requirements and achieve 70 points + 1 point per additional 70 square feet over 2,500 square feet. The applicant must hire a Green Point Rater and should use Green Point Rated Multi-Family Checklist. • The project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at Tier 2 (75% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013) • The project is a new multifamily residential project and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. For resident parking, the project must supply one EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each residential unit in the structure. For guest parking, the project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of the guest parking, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE installed. See PAMC 16.14.370 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5263§ 1 (part), 2013). 27. NON-RESIDENTIAL AREA. For design and construction of non-residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition to use of the Voluntary Tiers. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013) • The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 6.14.180 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project has indicated sustainable design objectives. The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. Green building requirements are subject to field inspection. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. 4.c Packet Pg. 182 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) • The project is a nonresidential new construction projects with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.220 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on the following site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp. • The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater then 1,000 square feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. • The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. • The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). • The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 28. C&D: • The project is a nonresidential new construction project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. • The project includes non-residential demolition and therefore must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 29. Energy Star: • The project is a nonresidential project exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). Submittal info can be found at: 4.c Packet Pg. 183 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 30. EVSE: • The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. 31. Zero Net Energy Design Review: • The project is a new construction commercial project and therefore may elect to engage the City of Palo Alto consultant, BASE Energy Inc, free of charge. BASE will assist the project in targeting Zero Net Energy and exceeding the Title 24 Energy Code. Rebates may be available via working with Base. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/commercial program or call 650.329.2241. The applicant may also contact Ricardo Sfeir at BASE Energy at rsfeir@baseco.com to schedule a project kick-off. 32. Utilities Incentives & Rebates: • The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives, available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rebates/default.asp 33. Bird-Friendly Building Design: • The west elevation on sheet A4.2 contains a glazed façade that covers a large area. Glazing shown on A4.1 does not indicate finish and appears to be clear. The project should consider bird-safe glazing treatment that typically includes fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4-inch-wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8-inch-wide at a maximum spacing of two (2) inches. The applicant should consider consulting the San Francisco Standards for Bird Safe Buildings. TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 34. The turn-around area in the parking garage adjacent to parking stall #1 as shown on sheet A1.1 may be mistaken as a common parking space. The area shall be filled with crosshatching and potentially additional pavement markings and/or signage to prohibit parking or stopping within the turn-around area. 4.c Packet Pg. 184 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) UTILITIES-WATER, GAS & WASTEWATER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 35. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 36. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 37. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas-wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 38. City prefer to install utilities on Curtner Ave instead of El Camino Real 39. Water meter(s) up to 2” to be located in the public right of way 40. Due to limited space for individual meters, applicant can consider possibility for master metering. The buildings can only be master metered for gas if: The building will contain central heating, air conditioning, or central domestic hot Water and can be shown (using methods of calculation acceptable to CPAU) to be more energy efficient and at a more favorable cost- benefit ratio than would be the case if individual Metering were installed. 41. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 42. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 43. The applicant may be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or 4.c Packet Pg. 185 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 44. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 45. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures (see last condition). For projects that take more than one month to complete, the applicant shall provide progress record drawings of work completed on a monthly basis. 46. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 47. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 48. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter 4.c Packet Pg. 186 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) and the assembly. 49. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 50. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 51. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 52. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 53. All WGW utility installations shall be from Curtner Street instead of El Camino Real (see note #31). 54. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape for landscaping areas in excess of 1,500 SF (including tree canopies). Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 55. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For water meters 4” and larger the applicant's contractor must provide and install an 4’ by 8’ meter vault with meter reading lid covers and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail WD-05. Water meters 4” and larger shall be in a PUE on private property, water meters 2” and smaller shall be located in the public right of way per the CPA WGW Utilities Standards. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 56. If a new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 57. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 58. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must meet the WGW Utility Standards. The City of Palo Alto normal service pressure is 7” WC (.25 PSI). Increased pressure must be requested in writing and is only provided if the houseline size calculates out at greater than 2” diameter for domestic (note: domestic can only be increased to 14” WC max.) and greater than 4” diameter for commercial at standard houseline pressure (7” WC) or the appliance requires increased pressure at the 4.c Packet Pg. 187 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) inlet. Further, due to meter limitations there must a minimum of 800 CFH demand for pressures greater than 14” WC. The only available pressure increments above 7” WC are 14” WC (1/2 psi), 1#, 2# and 5# after approval. Pressures in excess of 14” WC, will require testing the house piping at not less than 60 psig for not less than 30 minutes per the California Plumbing Code section 1204.3.2, witnessed by Palo Alto Building Inspection. The City of Palo Alto will not provide increased pressure just to save contractor money on the houseline construction. Requests to increase the pressure will be evaluated with the following submittals: The manufacturer’s literature for the equipment requiring increased pressure; the specific pressure you are requesting; the gas load; and the length of house gas piping from the gas meter to where the gas houseline starts branching off. 59. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 60. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 61. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 62. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 63. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 64. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: • The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity and • The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. • The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 65. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 4.c Packet Pg. 188 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) 66. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 67. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 68. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all WGW utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 69. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Santa Clara county department of transportation for all utility work in the county road right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 70. The applicant shall obtain a construction permit from Santa Clara county valley water district for the utility service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 71. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL‐ PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T‐1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. i. (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter shall state that the plans have incorporated design changes and are consistent with City Standards, Regulations and following information: ii. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. iii. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) a. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. b. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection iv. Zone (TPZ) for each tree. c. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical 4.c Packet Pg. 189 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) v. Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 72. BUILDING PERMIT CORRECTIONS/REVISIONS‐‐COVER LETTER. During plan check review, provide a separate cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. State where the significant tree impacts notes occur (bubble) and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been made. Provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference. Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be clear and complete to assist the recheck and approval process for your project. 73. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T‐1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full‐sized, Sheet T‐1 (Tree Protection‐it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at i. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #2‐6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full ii. implementation by Contractor, Monarch Consulting Arborists, Tree Inventory and Assessment Plan, dated September 18, 2014, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T‐1 (T‐2, T‐3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. 74. PLANS‐‐SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T‐1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35‐Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 75. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline (for rolled curb & sidewalk or no‐sidewalk situations.) a. Add Site Plan Notes. i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T‐1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree‐‐before working in this area contact the Monarch Project Site Arborist at 818.331.8982"; 4.c Packet Pg. 190 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T‐1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over‐excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496‐5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650‐496‐5953) for any work on Public Trees”. 76. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT‐OF‐WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly‐owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. i. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650‐496‐5953).” ii. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T‐ 2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 77. NEW RIGHT‐OF‐WAY TREES‐‐PLAN REQUIREMENTS. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut (see Note #4 above). a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in‐ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650‐496‐5953).” i. Plans shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and include relevant Standard Planting Dwg. #603, #603a or #604 (reference which), and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. b. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30‐inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2‐inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1‐inch. i. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right‐of‐way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” ii. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers mounted inside an 4.c Packet Pg. 191 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) aeration tube are prohibited. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. 78. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, each new large* tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Dwg. #604/513. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. Sidewalk Mitigation in lieu of compacted root conditions may use Alternative Base Material methods such as: structural grid (Silva Cell), Engineered Soil Mix base or other method as approved. 79. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Large: 1,200 cu.ft. Medium: 800 cu.ft. Small: 400 cu.ft. a. Landscape Plan. When qualifying for parking area shade ordinance compliance (PAMC 18.40.130) trees shall be labeled (as S, M or L). i. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). When applied, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base or channeling to a landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603a. Designated areas will be identified by crosshatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. 78. LANDSCAPE PLANS. a. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on‐and off‐site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. All new trees planted within the public right‐of‐way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30‐inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2‐inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1‐inch. 4.c Packet Pg. 192 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right‐of‐way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. i.Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). b. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: ii. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. iii. ii. Note a turf‐free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) for best tree performance. 79. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 80. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air‐spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2‐1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 81. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, Monarch Consulting Arborists, 831.331.8982, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 82. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 83. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T‐1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 4.c Packet Pg. 193 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) 84. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1‐5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20‐2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 85. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 86. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off‐site trees in the publicly owned right‐of‐way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650‐496‐5953). 87. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 88. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 89. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650‐329‐2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 90. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices‐Pruning (ANSI A300‐2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. 4.c Packet Pg. 194 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3877 El Camino Real, 14PLN-00464 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.25 acres (10,957.5 sf) 0.25 acres (10,957.5 sf) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 9 feet 12 feet Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 75 feet 16 feet Interior Side Yard (if abutting residential zone district 10 feet Not applicable Not applicable Street Side Yard 5 feet Not Applicable Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback (7) 70 feet (97%) No Street side yard 36 feet (50%) Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Not applicable Not applicable Max. Site Coverage None 53.47% (5,860 sf) 50% (5,462.5 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 22 feet 37’-6” Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Retail: 0.4:1 (4,383 sf) Residential: 0.6:1 (6,574.5 sf) Total: 1.0:1 (10,957.5 sf) 53.47% (5,860 sf) Retail: 36.75% (4,027 sf) Residential: 59.7% (6,542 sf) + 1,285 sf BMR bonus (18.15.050d) Total: 0.96:1 (10,569 sf) Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15:1 (1,644 sf) Not applicable 1,682 sf (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 4.d Packet Pg. 195 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C S Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) 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.. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 18.16.080 Performance Standards. 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 Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/200 sf of gross floor area for a total of 21 parking spaces 63 spaces 21 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,400 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) equals 2 spaces 2 (1 long term, 1 short term) Loading Space Not Required for this Size Commercial Development 0 * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 4.d Packet Pg. 196 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C S Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3877 El Camino Real, 14PLN-00464 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 21,867.8 sf (0.50 acres) 21,867.8 sf (0.50 acres) Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet Parking lot 23 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Parking lot 14 feet above ground 6’1” below ground* Interior Side Yard 6 feet Parking lot 6 feet above ground 6 feet below ground Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet Parking lot 29’8” Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (8,747 sf) Parking lot 37% (8,067 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (13,121 sf) Parking lot 60% (13,105 sf) + 1,311 sf for BMR floor area ** Minimum Site Open Space 30% (6,560 sf) Not Applicable 56.3% (12,333 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (1,650 sf) Not Applicable 7,001 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (825 sf) Not Applicable 1,114 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (550 sf) Not Applicable 5,887 sf * Design Enhancement Exception requested. ** Increase per 18.15.050d Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. 34 spaces required Guest Parking: 1 space + 10% of total number of units. 3 required 34 spaces 7 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) 17 required None 28 spaces 4.e Packet Pg. 197 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : R M - 3 0 Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) ATTACHMENT F COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 3877 El Camino Real / File No. 14PLN-00464 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Service Commercial and Multi-Family. The project continues the Service Commercial and Multi-Family land uses. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The project redevelops a site into a horizontal and vertical mixed-use project. The project is consistent in mass and scale and considers appropriate transitions between commercial and residential properties. The project has streetscape consideration along El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue providing context- based treatment. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City’s residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. The project redevelops a site and is considered infill. The El Camino component includes a vertical mixed- use along El Camino. The mixed-use component along El Camino Real includes a large sidewalk consistent with the South El Camino Real Design 4.f Packet Pg. 198 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses. Guidelines. The project also includes an outdoor plaza area for the ground floor retail. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. Policy L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. Policy L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Center though an aggressive maintenance, repair and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and landscaping. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The buildings onsite are placed orderly and provide sufficient open space and connectivity between the streets, entrances and open spaces. The parking for the site is provided below ground, which frees up space on the ground level for the buildings, and landscaping. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. The project provides plazas that are open to the public. The project supports full height tenant facades to help create a streetscape. The project will pay the in-lieu fee to support the public art program. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. The project is mixed-use that would include commercial services and residential uses. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. The project includes on-site bicycle parking for the commercial and residential uses. Natural Environment Element 4.f Packet Pg. 199 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Business and Economics Element Goal B-5: Attractive, Vibrant Business Centers, Each with a Mix of Uses and a Distinctive Character. The project will redevelop into a mixed-use project. 4.f Packet Pg. 200 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) ATTACHMENT G Performance Criteria 18.23 3877 El Camino Real 14PLN-00464 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The trash enclosures are located in the basement parking area. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the project’s residents. 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. Future commercial uses will have to comply with the City’s Late Night Ordinance requirements. At this time, it is unknown what tenants would occupy the commercial spaces. Any loading would occur off of El Camino Real for the commercial component. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. Mechanical equipment areas are screened appropriately. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 4.g Packet Pg. 201 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) 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 project will comply with the City’s noise ordinance. The trash enclosures are located in the garage basement. The commercial areas are located along El Camino Real and there is a buffer area between the commercial building and the surrounding residential buildings. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project provides all of its parking below grade. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. On-site vehicular traffic will be directed underground, leaving the above-ground for pedestrians and bicyclist. Wide walkways and plazas surround the commercial areas and provide connectivity to the residential areas. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 4.g Packet Pg. 202 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3877 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2017-02-28 3877 El Camino Real-full submittal” 4.h Packet Pg. 203 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) Attachment I Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study The project Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study is available on-line at the following address, which includes the Initial Study and Appendices. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2488&TargetID=319 4.i Packet Pg. 204 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : C E Q A D o c u m e n t ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) February 28 2017 1 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 l Environmental Innovations in Design Eco-functional Architecture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 412 Olive Avenue | Palo Alto | CA | 94306 dir. 650.793.2856 | off. 650.226.8770 Application Number: 14PLN-00464 Company Name: EID Architects, Environmental Innovations in Design Contact: Stuart Welte stuart@EIDarchitects.com Mark Wommack mark@EIDarchitects.com Project Address: 3877 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Regarding: ARB Submittal for Major Project Planning Commission Hearing Document: Project Narrative including summary of comprehensive City Department review comments and EID responses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 08, 2016 To: Sheldon Ah Sing | Senior Planner SAhsing@m-group.us City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Fifth Floor Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 EID is resubmitting revised drawing sets for 3877 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA for Major Architectural Review. EID Responses to City comments are below the project summary section of this letter. Scope of work: Existing Use: The parcel is an “L” shaped lot with frontage on both El Camino Real and Curtner Ave. There is a vacant 2-story commercial building on El Camino Real with on grade parking accessed from Curtner Avenue. All existing structures and paving is to be removed. Proposed Use: A new mixed use project to include (17) residential units and approximately 4,035 square feet of commercial/retail area. The commercial/retail space will be combined into a 3-story mixed use building that will also include (6) residential flats. The remaining (11) residential units will be within 2- story townhomes located behind the mixed use building and on the portion of the site that extends to Curtner Ave. All vehicular parking will be located within a parking garage that will be completely below grade. 4.j Packet Pg. 205 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t N a r r a t i v e ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) February 28 2017 2 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 Design Concept: The parcel is divided by a zoning boundary. The El Camino Real frontage is zoned CM and requires a more urban design solution that conforms to the requirements of the ECR Design Guidelines. The rest of the site is zoned RM-30. This includes the leg of the parcel that extends to Curtner Ave. This portion of the site is surrounded with other RM-30 zoned lots, so a more residentially scaled design solution is needed in this area to respect the context of the existing residential community. Our design concept responds to this by transitioning in form and scale from the larger urban mixed use building that fronts on ECR down to the smaller scaled townhomes that we propose on the balance of the site. Below-grade parking, provides significantly more open space and landscaping than typical of the surrounding neighborhood, enhancing both the private and public open spaces within the site, creating a welcoming, pedestrian friendly community. The townhomes are clustered to create open areas between the units and to break the massing of the buildings down into a residentially scaled structure. Materials and Methods of Construction: To reflect the complexity of the contextual aspects of the site, we’ve selected sustainably minded materials that respond to the functions of each building with the intention of creating a synergy among our two public entrances, the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and the vitality of the ECR. Contextually there is little to draw from the immediate neighborhood in terms of style or detailing, as the neighborhood is primarily comprised of painted stucco and concrete block construction, with nondescript modular aluminum sliding windows and very little focus on neighborhood greeting, nor particularly identifiable public open space. All proposed entrances to this new design create recessed plaza courts allowing for ease of access to generous common use areas. The commercial building employs large storefront windows to connect the retail functions with ECR, and external terra cotta sunshades to filter the sunlight from this direction while allowing inviting views into the Ground Level retail-commercial event spaces. We’ve framed the storefront with refined smooth finishes comprised of composite wood-resin building panels, smooth hard troweled stucco, and complimentary bronze colored metal and glass storefront entry systems which are arranged to focus the eye in towards the retail plaza and storefront. As the site moves away from the busy ECR corridor, we reduce the scale of the windows and transition into more residentially scaled materials. Individual home entries and balconies are accented with the warmer hues and texture of the composite wood-resin siding materials rendered in narrower board widths to complement the human scale. Each resident’s private bicycle parking is conveniently located in sheltered, lockable closets adjacent to their front door and multidirectional, landscaped walking paths allow for variety in one’s daily commute, whether it be to the basement parking garage via stair or elevator, or to public sidewalks and convenient bicycle, bus and commuter vehicle transportation, all the while provided with a variety of landscaped seating, waiting, meeting areas. Zoning Summary: • Zoning: RM-30 & CS • Lot Size: 32,825 SF / 0.75 Acre CS Zone: 10,957.5 SF RM-30 Zone: 21,867.8 4.j Packet Pg. 206 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t N a r r a t i v e ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) February 28 2017 3 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 • APN: 132 41 091 CS Zone: • Lot area: 10,957.5 SF • Density Du/Ac : Permitted = 7.5 / Proposed = 6 (5 flats plus one BMR flat) • Max FAR Allowed: Commercial: 0.4 = 4,035 s.f. Residential: 0.6 = 6,574 s.f. BMR FAR Increase: 1,285 s.f. • Proposed Floor Area: Total Commercial: 4,034 s.f. Total Residential: 7,859 s.f. RM-30 Zone: • Lot area: 21,867 SF • Density Du/Ac : Permitted = 15 / Proposed = 11 townhomes (10 townhomes plus one BMR townhome) • Max FAR Allowed: Residential: 0.6 = 13,120 s.f. BMR FAR Increase: 1,311 s.f. • Proposed Floor Area: Total Residential: 14,416 s.f. Project Description: The proposed design will transform this blighted parcel into a vibrant and sustainable mixed-use community at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue. The project will include a mix of commercial and townhome style condominiums, which will be provided with ample parking located within the basement below grade. The existing structure, which has been unoccupied since 2008, is located on a parcel with two long and narrow legs. The existing structure is an eclectic mix of poorly executed additions and renovations. The balance of the site is paved to provide on-grade parking for this commercial building, this parking being accessed from Curtner Ave. The immediate neighborhood is a mix of older structures in various stages of reuse and condition. On El Camino, the immediate neighbors are a Starbucks that occupies a building that formerly served as a fast food restaurant and an auto oil changer in a WWII vintage Quonset hut with a “western storefront” facade. The residential neighborhood is predominantly comprised of 1960’s vintage two-story residential apartment blocks. On one adjacent parcel a new 3-story 6-unit townhome building is under construction. Our team is collaborating with the City of Palo Alto Community Development staff to thoughtfully synthesize a highly sustainable mixed use community for the proposed site. The project will complement and support the existing urban fabric, and will be harmonious with the new developments underway in close proximity to our site. The commercial spaces within the mixed use structure will contribute significantly to the revitalization of El Camino Real. New retail will be located on two levels and will open onto a large open courtyard space. 4.j Packet Pg. 207 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t N a r r a t i v e ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) February 28 2017 4 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 Designed for pedestrian interaction, the commercial spaces are open, inviting, and buffered from the busy El Camino Real traffic. We are proposing a mix of housing options that includes two bedroom flats and three bedroom townhomes. These units are planned to maximize energy efficiency and provide a range of entry level housing options that will promote a healthy living environment for residents. This, in conjunction with the inclusion of two affordable housing units within the project will provide housing for a diverse range of income levels. Parking is provided on site for the variety of uses including residential, retail and office, in numbers consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed parking infrastructure has been carefully designed to meet the demands of each use and is supported by the analysis contained in the project traffic report. Locating this parking completely below grade maximizes site landscaping and enhances both the private and common open spaces within the parcel to an extent that far exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Summary of design revisions: The purpose of the redesign was to respond to comments received during the previous ARB hearing that identified areas of concern that had not been raised in prior ARB hearings. The objective of this redesign was to address the following concerns raised at our last ARB meeting: 1. We moved the parking level down to position the parking and podium deck completely below grade. This resulted in a reduction of the mass and bulk of the proposed project to levels that are smaller than the adjacent neighborhood. This solution also creates much larger and more functional private yard areas for the townhome residents. 2. Direct access from El Camino Real to the parking garage is provided via a one-way driveway ramp. This ramp is limited to entering the site to balance concerns regarding negative impacts on traffic on El Camino Real that a new driveway would create with ARB’s desire to provide direct access to parking from El Camino Real. All traffic leaving the garage would exit onto Curtner Ave, where a signalized intersection facilitates a safe path to re-enter El Camino Real traffic. 3. Provide a redesigned commercial building façade that conforms to the build-to setback line and to provide a more contextual design solution for the community. 4. Provide enhanced common open areas that are positioned located closer to the intended users. 5. Provide a more direct, more open pedestrian path through the property with a clear link to El Camino Real. 6. Reduce overall commercial area to conform to the maximum permitted based on the more clearly identified boundary of the CS district. BMR concession and Design Enhancement Exception. We are requesting one on-menu concession consistent with providing 15% low income BMR units and one Design Enhancement Exception for the rear yard setback of the underground basement parking. We are requesting one on-menu concession to permit an increase in FAR by an amount that equals the area of the BMR units that will be provided. This area is equal to the area of the BMR units and does not exceed the maximum 25% permitted by section 18.15.050 (d) (iv). 4.j Packet Pg. 208 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t N a r r a t i v e ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) February 28 2017 5 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 We are also requesting one Design Enhancement Exception for a 6 foot rear yard setback in the RM-30 zone for the below grade parking garage, which occurs entirely underground. This exception conforms to the criteria outlined in 18.76.050 (b) Applicability and (c) Findings: (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: This parcel is very unusual in regards to the parcel size and shape. The L shaped parcel extends to both El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue and crosses a zoning boundary. The narrow width of the parcel affords few options for resolving vehicular parking and circulation while balancing the need to create an attractive pedestrian environment. All of the neighboring residential parcels along Curtner Avenue employ long driveways to access on grade parking and/or rows of garages and carports. The narrow 55’ width of the Curtner frontage would make a similar solution on this site very unattractive. The requested 6’ rear yard setback would apply only to the below grade parking structure and would be completely invisible to all of the neighbors. This reduced setback permits double loaded parking within the basement, which is necessary to achieve the required parking count for the various uses proposed for the site. (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); This DEE promotes the development of a project that will enhance the residential character of the RM-30 portion of the site with generous open space and landscaping while facilitating the more urban use of the CS portion of the site with the requisite build-to setback requirements and corresponding density. Given the limited options for vehicular access and the narrow lot dimensions, a more traditional parking solution is not possible and would require significantly more on grade vehicular paving. (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. Far from being detrimental, this solution will enhance the property or improvements in the vicinity by minimizing vehicular circulation and is in no way detrimental to the public. Sincerely, MARK WOMMACK, ARCHITECT Director of Architecture Environmental Innovations in Design Eco-functional Architecture EID A R C H I T E C T S ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 412 Olive Avenue | Palo Alto | CA | 94306 dir 650.226.8862 | off 650.226.8770 mark@EIDarchitects.com www.EIDarchitects.com Please be advised that our office has a new address. Thank you! 4.j Packet Pg. 209 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t N a r r a t i v e ( 7 8 4 7 : 3 8 7 7 E l C a m i n o R e a l : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7846) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 744 San Antonio: Marriot Hotel Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Avenue [15PLN-00314]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Commercial/Office Buildings at 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue and Construction of Two, Five-Story Hotels (Courtyard by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by Marriott with 143 rooms). The Site Will Include Surface and Two Levels of Basement Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has Been Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Comment Period for the DEIR is From March 27, 2017 to May 10, 2017. Zoning District: CS. For More Information, Contact Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m- group.us From: Hillary Gitelman 5 Packet Pg. 210 Green dell Site Building 5 Building 3 Building 8 Building 9 Building 2 Buildin g 10 Building 10 Building 4 Building 7 Building 7 Building 12 Buildin g 11 B uilding 8 Building 6 Building 9 Building 6 Building 5 B uilding 13 Building 5 Building 2 B uilding 14 Building 2 Building 4 Building 3 Building 4 Building 15 Building 1 Building 1 Building 3 CS CS(AD) RM-15 CS CS(AD) PF PC-2711 CS PC-2640 RM-15 PC-1417 PC-4843 RM-15 R-2 CN SAN ANTONIO AVENUE FERNE AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROA D SUTHE RLAND DRI VE SAN ANTONIO AVENUE KEATS COURT MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SA N ANTON IO AVENUE BYRO N STREET E WOO D PLAC E VE FABIAN STREET S E MIN O L E W A Y MONTROSE AVENUE SAN A NTONIO AVENUE LEGHORN STREET SAN ANTONIO COURT (Pvt.) MAP LEWOOD AVENUE 80 0 4171 4183 4195 486 488 481 465 4 82 490 451 485 479 473 467 461 455 452 4 476 474 464 462 460 478 443 449 525 491 495 4190418041704160 690 490 560 670 4152 4120 408140734061 4080 4088 407240644056 57 725 717 40614049 4073 711 737 625 627 62 3 6 21 622 7 50 75 6 762 7 6 8 7 6 9 76375 7 7 517 4 5 7 5 9 740 7 44 7 7 9 765 733 4123 4133 4118 4134 4126 4154 639 637633 633 629 631 620 62 4 62 6 628 630 634 632 638 636 642 640 416041584154 4157 6994147 4145 4149 4151 4153 4155 4 148 4150 4150 719 744 738 732 726 720 714 702 4109 4117 4125 4103 4113 41104102 708 749 707 713 725 731 737 743 712 718 726 708 704 700 4099 4096 765 4171 4185 750 744 748 720 716 4201 4225 4233 710 725 705 4151 760 7 9 4 7 96 792 790 786 780 774 768 762 756 750 7 75 7 74 779 785 788 780 796 770 773 767772 764 761 750 755 734 777 4017 015 4057 4055 825 4080 4074 406240304020 795 797 799 801 821 815 809 762 780 840 0 824 816 814 810808 802 800 796B 796A 788 630 6 642 644 646 648 650 4077 41564152 521 660 790 792 812 817 598 708 569 2565 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts 744-748 San Antonio Ave (Project Site) City Jurisdictional Limits abc Zone District Labels 0'350' 744-748 San Antonio Avenue withZoning Districts Area Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2015-05-18 11:14:24744 748 SanAntonio SS (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\rrivera.mdb) 5.a Packet Pg. 211 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 ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 744-748 San Antonio 15PLN-00314 A. Architectural Review Findings The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. 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. Context-Based Findings: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. 5.b Packet Pg. 212 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 ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. (6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. (7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites. Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. 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. 5.b Packet Pg. 213 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 ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 744-748 San Antonio Road, 15PLN-00314 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 1.91 acres (83,440.93 sf) 1.91 acres (83,440.93 sf) Minimum Front Yard 10-12 feet to create an effective sidewalk (1), (2), (8) 744 San Antonio: 24 ft. 748 San Antonio: 4 ft. Not Applicable Rear Yard None 744 San Antonio: 70 ft. 748 San Antonio: 84 ft. 10 feet Interior Side Yard (if abutting residential zone district None 20 feet 10 feet Street Side Yard None Not Applicable Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback (7) 141 feet (50%) No Street side yard 186 feet (77%) Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 744 San Antonio: 24 ft. 748 San Antonio: 4 ft. 24 feet Max. Site Coverage None 36% (30,200 sf) 39.63% (33,075 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 35 feet 49’-4” Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Hotel: 2.0:1(166,882 sf) 37.84% (31,575 sf) 166,020 (1.99:1) (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.. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 18.16.080 Performance Standards. 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. 5.c Packet Pg. 214 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C S Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotels* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per guestroom 75 spaces 294 spaces, includes 58 valet spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per 10 guestrooms (100% LT) 30 spaces Loading Space 2 loading spaces for 30,000 - 69,999 sf 2 spaces * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 5.c Packet Pg. 215 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C S Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Performance Criteria 18.23 744 San Antonio Road 15PLN-00314 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The trash enclosures are in the rear of the property, opposite from the residential areas across San Antonio Road. Noise associated with the servicing of the solid waste facilities would be shielded by the new buildings. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the neighboring residents. Outside lighting on the proposed building would be limited, focused at the ground floor level, and comparable in brightness to the ambient lighting in the surrounding area. Landscape or architectural accent lighting that is aimed upward, would contain glare control, louvers or be shielded from direct vertical uplight, consistent with this PAMC Section. 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. The hotel includes ancillary uses that are associated with guest services and not open to the public. Any loading would occur in the rear of the property opposite the residents across from San Antonio Road. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within 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 5.d Packet Pg. 216 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project provides the required setback and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. Mechanical equipment areas are screened appropriately. 5.d Packet Pg. 217 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) 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 project will comply with the City’s noise ordinance. The trash enclosures are in the rear of the property. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project provides most of its parking below grade. The parking that is located at-grade is shielded by the new buildings and not visible from San Antonio Road. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. On-site vehicular parking is valet and most of the parking is below ground. Pedestrian areas include colored and textured pavement that would enhance safety. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 5.d Packet Pg. 218 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Attachment I Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “744 San Antonio Road” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “CYM & AC Palo Alto – ARB Major Resubmittal 170105” 5.e Packet Pg. 219 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Attachment F CEQA A printed copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report is available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. These documents may also be reviewed on online: 1. Go to: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planningprojects 2. Go to the “Commercial and Mix Use projects” webpage 3. Search for “744 San Antonio” 4. Review the record details and click on the address for more details A direct link to the project page is also provided here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3133 A hard copy of the document was provided to the ARB 5.f Packet Pg. 220 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : C E Q A D o c u m e n t ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) November 11, 2016 Mr. Mont Williamson T/2 Hospitality620 Newport Center Drive, 14th Floor Newport Beach CA 92660 Re:Parking Study for Hotels Dear Mr. Williamson: This letter describes research that Hexagon has conducted regarding the number of parking spaces required for hotels in Santa Clara County.Hexagon conducted counts of the parking demand at one hotel in 2014 and two hotels in 2015 (see Table 1). The 2014 count was conducted at the Aloft Hotel located at 10165 North De Anza Boulevard in Cupertino. The Aloft Hotel in Cupertino includes meeting space, a snack bar, a lounge and bar, and free underground parking. The two hotels counted in 2015 include the Hilton Garden Inn (located at 840 East El Camino Real, Mountain View) and the Courtyard by Marriott (located at 660 West El Camino Real, Sunnyvale). Each hotel is located on a major arterial and has a mix of meeting/conference space, a restaurant and bar/lounge area, and free parking. The restaurant and bar/lounge space is owned and operated by the hotel and primarily serves customers who are hotel guests. Survey Results Table 2 shows that the overall peak parking demand was observed at midnight, after the hotel restaurant had closed. The peak parking ratios for the hotels on weekdays were observed to range from 0.61 to 0.74 with an average of 0.68 occupied parking spaces per occupied room.The peak parking ratios observed on Saturdays ranged from 0.56 to 0.80 with an average of 0.70occupied spaces per occupied room. Attachment G 5.g Packet Pg. 221 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P a r k i n g S t u d y - V a l e t O p e r a t i o n s ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Mr. Mont Williamson November 11, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Table 1 Hotel Size and Features Rooms Employees (maximum per shift) Restaurant Size 3,842 s.f.9,715 s.f. Meeting/Conference Space 2,112 s.f.550 s.f. 1,100 s.f. Parking Spaces Provided Parking Spaces/Room TDM Measures a The Aloft Hotel in Cupertino does not include a full-service restaurant. On-site dining options available at the hotel include a snack bar and bar/lounge space. 123 38 19 n/a 162 127 n/a n/a a b Unknown if this site has implemented additional TDM measures. Guest shuttle service b Hilton Garden Inn Mt. View Courtyard Marriott Sunnyvale None Bike parking, showers, lockers, changing rooms, transit subsidies for employees, guaranteed ride home program Aloft Hotel Cupertino 160 145 1.01 0.88 n/a 5.g Packet Pg. 222 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P a r k i n g S t u d y - V a l e t O p e r a t i o n s ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Mr. Mont Williamson November 11, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Table 2 Observed Hotel Parking Usage Survey Date Thurs. 4/30/15 Sat. 5/2/15 Thurs. 4/30/15 Sat. 5/2/15 Wed. 6/11/14 Sat. 6/14/14 Time Total Total Total Total Total Total 6:00 PM 69 64 26 55 31 36 6:30 PM 66 69 22 53 30 34 7:00 PM 62 65 20 50 35 33 7:30 PM 60 67 23 57 31 39 8:00 PM 75 72 21 58 33 40 8:30 PM 76 74 24 57 32 42 9:00 PM 87 77 26 61 42 43 9:30 PM 102 82 34 72 56 47 10:00 PM 109 91 44 78 68 49 10:30 PM 112 117 48 80 71 57 11:00 PM 113 117 52 92 73 61 11:30 PM 114 122 53 100 74 64 12:00 AM 115 125 55 107 76 67 Total Rooms 160 160 145 145 123 123 Occupied Rooms 155 156 82 144 123 121 Restaurant Size 3,842 s.f.9,715 s.f. Total Parking Spaces 162 162 127 127 Peak Parking Demand (spaces)115 125 55 107 76 67 Hotel Only 0.74 0.80 0.67 0.74 0.61 0.56 Hilton Garden Inn Mt. View Courtyard Marriott Sunnyvale Aloft Hotel Cupertino a b The site does not include a full-service restaurant. On-site dining options available at the hotel include a snack bar and bar/lounge space. a The survey at this site ended at 10 PM. Parking occupancy after this hour was projected based on the time-of- day variation in parking demand observed at the other hotels. Parking Ratio (occupied parking spaces/occupied rooms for hotel at 12:00 AM midnight; restaurant is closed) n/a b 5.g Packet Pg. 223 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P a r k i n g S t u d y - V a l e t O p e r a t i o n s ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Mr. Mont Williamson November 11, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Thank you for the opportunity to provide the results of these parking counts. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Gary K. BlackPresident 5.g Packet Pg. 224 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P a r k i n g S t u d y - V a l e t O p e r a t i o n s ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Randolph B. Popp A R C H I T E C T 2 1 0 H i g h S t r e e t P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 1 6 5 0 . 4 2 7 . 0 0 2 6 i n f o @ r p -a r c h . c o m P a g e | 1 of 1 17 January 2017 Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 744-750 San Antonio Road Application 15PLN-00314 Valet Parking Program Mr. Ah Sing: Regarding your request for clarification of the Valet Parking Program: The Hotel Operator will implement and maintain an on-site valet program which will render the property 100% valet parked. The program will consist of 24-hour coverage by hotel staff and will be consistent across both hotels. This parking approach is included as one of the amenities for the property, intended to increase the overall guest experience and serve as an indication of service level. In practice, the guest would be greeted by the valet team right after departure from San Antonio, and entry to our site. The circular drive with entrances to the hotels will serve as the transition and staging area. Guests may call for their car from their room prior to departure so the valet team can have it delivered to the lobby entry for efficient departure. The total number of spaces provided is defined on the Drawing A-2.0. This quantity and arrangement is substantiated in the “Parking Study for Palo Alto Hotels” document provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc, dated November 11, 2016. Based on our experience and the documentation we have submitted, we are confident the parking program we have defined, including the efficiency produced by a valet team, will yield a comfortable and manageable parking situation for the project. Thank you, Randy B. Popp, Architect 5.g Packet Pg. 225 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P a r k i n g S t u d y - V a l e t O p e r a t i o n s ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Attachment H Transportation Demand Management Program The project will implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce vehicle trips generated by the employees and guests. The TDM measures proposed by the project applicant are listed below. These measures are divided into four categories: hotel TDM infrastructure, guest TDM programs, employee TDM programs, and guest & employee (dual) programs. Hotel TDM Infrastructure:  Free on-site bicycle program (hotel bikes for employee and guest use)  On-site/nearby car-share program (Zipcar/WeCar)  On-site amenities and vending services.  Ground floor facades, entrances, and pathways that will encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement  Transportation kiosk and/or mount a real-time transportation information screen in lobby  Passenger loading zone  Bicycle parking/storage for employees and guests  Add transit resources to the hotel’s website (e.g., free Palo Alto and Marguerite shuttles, the Bike Station, Caltrain, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority [VTA], etc.) Guest TDM Programs:  Pre-loaded Clipper Cards available for purchase for guests transit travel  Train reservation staff to provide transit connection information for VTA and Caltrain and transfers to the San Francisco International Airport via the Millbrae BART Station  Include hotel confirmation email with information about reaching the hotel without a vehicle  Place a getting around Palo Alto map/brochure in each guest room  Free hotel-operated shuttle to the San Jose International Airport  Hotel-operated shuttle to the North Bayshore area Employee TDM Programs:  One-hundred (100) percent subsidized transit passes (Caltrain and VTA)  Cash incentive/allowance for carpooling, biking and walking to work  Ridematching assistance  Free, preferential carpool/vanpool parking  Commuter bike program (provide commuter bikes for employees).  Secure bike storage, showers and clothes lockers  Commuter rewards – fuel cards, movie tickets, gift card  Emergency ride-home program  Hotel-funded annual car-share membership  New employee orientation training by a designated commute coordinator  Annual employee TDM survey 5.h Packet Pg. 226 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t )  Free employee overnight accommodation (subject to room availability) for employees who are scheduled to work a late evening shift (ending at 11:00 p.m. or later) and a morning shift the following day Guest & Employee (Dual) TDM Programs:  Free hotel-operated San Antonio Caltrain Station shuttle (the shuttle will also be open to neighborhood free of charge)  Hotel membership in Palo Alto Transportation Management Association  Access to on-site exercise facilities  Annual contribution to the Palo Alto Shuttle Program to extend route of the Crosstown shuttle to the project site 5.h Packet Pg. 227 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) ATTACHMENT E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 744 San Antonio Road / File No. 15PLN-00314 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Service Commercial. The project continues the Service Commercial land uses. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Policy L-46: Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Natural Environment Element 5.i Packet Pg. 228 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. 5.i Packet Pg. 229 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n C o m p a r i s o n ( 7 8 4 6 : 7 4 4 S a n A n t o n i o : M a r r i o t H o t e l P r o j e c t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7902) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2555 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00064]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Architectural Review of a Minor Project to Allow Design Changes to Exterior Materials and Architectural Features of a Previously Approved Project to Construct a 23,269 sf Three-story Office Building with One Level of Below- grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report was Certified and Statement of Overriding Considerations was Adopted on June 1, 2015. Zoning District: CC(2) District. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman 6 Packet Pg. 230 County Courthouseand Jail r B C A 130.0' 351.6' 341.6' 160.0' 351.6' 351.6' 381.6' 140.0' 95.3' 29.3' 95.0' 37.2' 95.0' 54.0'95.0' 54.0' 165.8' 69.6' 165.3' 83.3' 261.2' 99.4' 261.2' 100.4' 63.3' 170.0' 351.6' 2555 2501 123 150 270 2433242 5 1 251 2421 2441 122 2484 CC(2)(R) PF a Av SC CountyCourthouseand Jail Park Boulevard VARD SHERMAN AVENUE HERMAN AVENUE GRANT AVENUE SUBJECTSITE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Building Roof Outline Sidewalk abc Lot Dimensions abc Address Label Assessment Parcel abc Zone District Labels Tree Sidewalk Edge (RF) abc Road Name Subject Site (2555 Park Blvd.) 0'64' 2555 Park Boulevard 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 ebrenna, 2017-03-27 15:18:01 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 6.a Packet Pg. 231 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 ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2555 Park Boulevard 17PLN-00064 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 applicable Comprehensive Plan polices and the project’s conformance is described in the table below. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The revised three-story design remains at the maximum 37’ building height for the CC(2) zoning district, but the massing and scale of the third floor has been lessened by replacing the third floor concrete roof slab extension with a visually lighter steel and wood trellis structure and substituting the painted steel railing with glass guardrails that provide a sense of transparency at the building’s top floor. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City’s residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. The ground-level vine wall a has been extended to wrap around to Grant Avenue and helps to soften the building surfaces by providing a natural wall which creates an attractive and inviting background along the pedestrian path. 6.b Packet Pg. 232 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The substituted exterior materials and finishes are of high quality and in keeping with the building’s originally approved contemporary design. Policy L-49: Design to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. The revisions are consistent with this policy in that the design enhancements are carried- through to the rear of the building, utilizing commercial-grade sealed concrete forms and incorporating vertical concrete board forms to provide textured transitions to the building edges The scope of the proposed revisions does not alter the previously approved structural layout. The project is in compliance with CC(2) zoning district development standards as detailed in Attachment D – Zoning Comparison Table. 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: This project includes minor exterior design changes to a previously approved Architectural Review application. The project is consistent with the context-based design criteria as further discussed in Attachment D. The design changes consist primarily of substituting exterior material and finishes and minor structural changes that improve the previously design, providing for increased visual refinement, balance and transition of forms with neighboring structures. 6.b Packet Pg. 233 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) 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 finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed changes include the use of higher-quality exterior materials, providing a more refined overall aesthetic that enhances the previously approved contemporary design. The use of Resysta façade siding to the main façade along Park Boulevard will help to elicit a warmer and inviting pedestrian atmosphere. Porcelain tile siding would replace the cement plaster finish as the featured material for the prominent curtain wall that starts at the mid-point of the front building face and extends to the southeast corner of the second and third floor and wraps around to the Park Boulevard. The vertical mullion system framing the large glass curtain walls of the second and third-floors has been changed from extruded aluminum frosted glass that lightens the overall presence of the building while still providing a shade system to the office spaces. The proposed improvements maintain the primary aspects of the previously approved project but provide for a more consistent and balanced design that is better integrated with the surrounding structures. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the revised design maintains functionality and design elements that support the building’s necessary operation including features such as four outdoor balcony areas that provide open space for building occupants, bike racks near the main front entry, seating areas along the public sidewalk at the building’s perimeter and stairwell egress at the ground floor to Grant Avenue 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: This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed revisions maintain the use of landscape materials that will serve to screen and soften the appearance of building. The proposed revisions expand the green/vine wall to wrap around the building’s southeast corner along Grant Avenue. The proposed landscape materials are well-suited for the project and help to create a functional, desirable and maintainable habitat 6.b Packet Pg. 234 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) 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 finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed revisions would comply with the City’s Green Building ordinance. The site is an infill site that provides increased density near a transportation hub. The project maintains the primary overall design elements of the previously approved project, including passive cooling via the deep overhangs created by the balconies, vertical fins on the curtain wall glass and use of high thermal mass wall materials. In addition, the revised design includes the removal of the dense concrete slab roof structure on the top floor that allows better heat dissipation and air flow. The project will also incorporate energy and water saving practices, as well as use of recycled materials such as recycled steel and fly ash and slag in the concrete mix. 6.b Packet Pg. 235 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2555 Park Boulevard 17PLN-00064 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "New Office Building – 2555 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306,” stamped as received by the City on February 28, 2017, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The 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. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The applicant will comply with all mitigation measures, as outlined in the attached mitigation monitoring and reporting program. 6. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $396,291.00 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 8. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with Ordinance No. 5226, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received 6.c Packet Pg. 236 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 ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) final approval of the art plan , or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. All required artwork shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit. 9. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90- DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. GREEN BUILDING 1. Green Building Requirements for Non-Residential Projects. For design and construction of non- residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition to use of the Voluntary Tiers. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The following are required for Building Approval: 2. The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 6.14.180 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. 3. The project is a new building over 10,000 square feet and therefore must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Energy Code section. The project team shall submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR), and Basis of Design (BOD), and Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 6.c Packet Pg. 237 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 ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) 4. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 5. The project is a nonresidential new construction projects with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.220 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on the following site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp. 6. The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 7. The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 8. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). 9. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 10. The project is a nonresidential new construction project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 6.c Packet Pg. 238 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 ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) 11. The project includes non-residential demolition and therefore must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 12. The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. The following are required at Post-Construction after 12 months of occupancy. 13. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. The following are optional to the project team: Optional Zero Net Energy Design Review: 14. OPTIONAL: The project is a new construction or remodel of a commercial project and therefore may elect to engage the City of Palo Alto consultant, BASE Energy Inc, free of charge. BASE will assist the project in targeting Zero Net Energy and exceeding the Title 24 Energy Code. Rebates may be available via working with Base. For more information, visit cityofpaloalto.org/commercial program or call 650.329.2241. The applicant may also contact Ricardo Sfeir at BASE Energy at rsfeir@baseco.com to schedule a project kick-off. Utilities Incentives & Rebates 15. OPTIONAL: The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rebates/default.asp Bird-Friendly Building Design 16. OPTIONAL: The project contains a glazed façade that covers a large area. Some fritted panels are specified. The project should consider bird-safe glazing treatment that typically includes fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing, or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. 6.c Packet Pg. 239 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 ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2555 Park Boulevard, 17PLN-00064 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Approved Proposed Minimum Front Yard (Grant Avenue) 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2) 4’-7’ setback to create a 11’-9” effective sidewalk 4’-7’ setback to create a 11’-9” effective sidewalk Rear Yard No Requirement 1 foot 1 foot Interior Side Yard (right) No Requirement Varies from 2’-0” – 3’- 0” at ground level; 2’- 0”, 3’-0” and 15’-0” at second and third floors Varies from 2’-0” – 3’- 0” at ground level; 2’- 0”, 3’-0” and 15’-0” at second and third floors Street Side Yard (left) (Park Boulevard) No Requirement Varies from 1’-9” to 3’- 7” Varies from 1’-9” to 3’- 7” Max. Site Coverage No Requirement 94% 11,840 sf 94% 11,840 sf Max. Building Height 37 feet (3) 37 feet 37 feet Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 (25,036 sf) 1:98:1 (24,466) sf 1:98:1 (24,466) sf (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.. (3) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office Uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/250 sf = 95 spaces (79 actual spaces required after break room area exemption and 10% parking reduction for implementing TDM Program GO passes) 80 84 Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf = 10 total spaces; 8 long term + 2 short (80% long term and 20% short term) 19 total; 9 long term + 10 short term 19 total; 9 long term + 10 short term * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 6.d Packet Pg. 240 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 T a b l e , P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s a n d C o n t e x t - B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r 18.16.080 Performance Standards These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. The proposed design revisions do not modify the project to the extent that the previously approved project becomes non-compliant with the performance standards of 18.16.080. Only the design aspects that would be impacted have been listed to determine project consistency. 18.23.020 Lighting Project Consistency To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed revisions to the building’s lighting can be conditioned to ensure use of downward lit illumination to minimize light pollution to nearby residential sites, as well as comply to all lighting standards as specified in PAMC 18.23.030 (B). 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project provides screening of the mechanical equipment located on the roof top floor from public view of adjacent residential properties. 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. The proposed design revisions do not modify the project to the extent that the previously approved project becomes non-compliant with the context-based design criteria of 18.16.090. The design aspects that would be impacted have been listed to determine project consistency. 2. Street Building Facades Project Consistency Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project revisions enhance the pedestrian environment by extending the green/vine wall to wrap the corner of the building along Grant Avenue and substituting ground floor exterior materials with warmer Resysta façade material at the main entry and metal panel soffits as ceiling surfaces underneath the balconies. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed revisions include the replacement of dense concrete slab roof overhangs with visually lighter steel and wood trellis structures at third floor which provides a sense of airiness and reduces the overall massing of the building. 6.d Packet Pg. 241 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 T a b l e , P e r f o r m a n c e S t a n d a r d s a n d C o n t e x t - B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r ATTACHMENT E 2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program INTRODUCTION Section 15097 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 2555 Park Boulevard project (proposed project). This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the EIR prepared for the proposed project, State Clearinghouse #2014042050. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of mitigation measure implementation through the plan check process, construction monitoring and inspections, post-construction building inspections, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the proposed project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing monitoring requirements; and 4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in EIR prepared for the project (Dudek 2014). 2555 Park Boulevard Project Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program December 2014 6.e Packet Pg. 242 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i t i g a t i o n M o n i t o r i n g a n d R e p o r t i n g P r o g r a m ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 4 3 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 4 4 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 4 5 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 4 6 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 4 7 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 4 8 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 4 9 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 5 0 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 5 1 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 5 2 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 2555 Park Boulevard Project Page 12 Mitigation Monitoring Program December 2014 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 5 3 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) 2555 Park Boulevard Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Intentionally Left Blank 2555 Park Boulevard Project Page 13 Mitigation Monitoring Program December 2014 6. e Pa c k e t P g . 2 5 4 Attachment: Attachment E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (7902 : 2555 Park Boulevard: Exterior Design Changes) NEW OFFICE BUILDING 2555 PALO BLVD, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 PROJECT SUMMARY: The extent of the Design changes proposed for the 2555 Park project consist of upgrading yellow cement plaster finish to ceramic tile. Removing heavy “feature window” element at Park stair tower and adding a butt joint curtain wall system. Changing steel post and wire railing at 3rd level balconies for a frameless glass railing system and removing steel post and wire railing system at 2nd level balcony along Grant Avenue to mirror the 2nd level wood picket railing along Park Blvd. At ceiling of 3rd level balconies, concrete slab has been replaced with a steel and wood trellis. A Resysta wood soffit element at 2nd level balcony ceiling, and a metal panel soffit element at main building entry hides new area drain plumbing pipes that replace the gutters and downspouts at edge of 2nd and 3rd level balconies. At north and west elevation, painted concrete has been replaced with sealed concrete and aluminum metal panel replaces painted cement plaster. The design changes proposed for the 2555 Park project provides better continuity and transition between the different materials and design elements while allowing the building to have a lighter and more integrated presence with its surroundings. The selected materials such as porcelain tile, Resysta wood soffits, aluminum metal panel, and frameless glass railing allows the building to have a refined and modern finish while maintaining the design language of the previously approved ARB submittal. Please refer to project description for a more detailed list of proposed changes. 6.f Packet Pg. 255 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t S u m m a r y ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) NEW OFFICE BUILDING 2555 PALO BLVD, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 THIS PROJECT WENT THROUGH A PREVIOUS ARB SUBMISSION & APPROVAL IN 2015, AS WELL AS, A BUILDING PERMIT SUBMISSION & APPROVAL BOTH WITH FGY ARCHITECTS. THE PROJECT HAS AN ISSUED PERMIT (#14000-03192). THIS PROJECT HAS SINCE GONE THROUGH A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP AND THE SUBMISSION INCLUDED HERE OUTLINES THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE BRICK-INC WAS ENGAGED BY THE NEW OWNER (THE MINKOFF GROUP) TO IMPROVE THE DESIGN FOR 2555 PARK BLVD, PALO ALTO, CA 94306 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING 2 STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND SURFACE PARKING. CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE TENANT 3- STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND FULL BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGE. THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CC(2) OFFICE ZONING. THE EXISTING BUILDING WAS ON THREE SEPARATE PARCELS – A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR A LOT MERGE HAS BEEN RECORDED AND APPROVED (#13COC-00012) SUMMARY AND DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN CHANGES & IMPROVEMENTS: 1. THE BOARD FORM CONCRETE WALL AT THE STAIR TOWERS HAVE BEEN CHANGED FROM HORIZONTAL ORIENTATION TO VERTICAL ORIENTATION. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 301) 2. RESYSTA FAÇADE HORIZONTAL SIDING HAS BEEN ADDED TO SECTIONS OF THE MAIN (SOUTH) FAÇADE ALONG PARK BLVD ON THE GROUND AND SECOND FLOOR. THE DESIGN INTENT OF THIS MATERIAL IS TO ADD SOME RICH TEXTURE AND WARMTH NEXT TO THE ADJACENT CONCRETE AND CURTAIN WALL FINISHES. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 302) 3. NEW PORCELAIN TILE SIDING HAS REPLACED THE PREVIOUS CEMENT PLASTER FINISH AT THE CURTAIN WALL SURROUND ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR. THE SELECTED TILE WILL PROVIDE A MORE REFINED AND MODERN FINISH AT THE INTERSECTION OF PARK BLVD AND GRANT AVE. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 303) 6.f Packet Pg. 256 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t S u m m a r y ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) 4. THE VERTICAL MULLION SYSTEM LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF PARK BLVD. AND GRANT AVE. ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM EXTRUDED ALUMINUM TO A FROSTED GLASS VERTICAL MULLION. THE MATERIAL CHANGE MAKES THE OVERALL PRESENCE OF THE BUILDING LIGHTER WHILE STILL PROVIDING A SHADE SYSTEM TO THE OFFICE SPACES. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 304 & DETAIL 3&6/SHT 22) 5. NEW EXPOSED CONCRETE SLAB HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO SURROUND THE CURTAIN WALL WITH VERTICAL GLASS MULLIONS AT THE CORNER OF PARK BLVD. AND GRANT AVE. THE EXPOSED SLAB WILL CREATE A FINISHED APPEARANCE WITH THE ADJACENT PORCELAIN TILE SIDING AND VERTICAL FROSTED GLASS MULLIONS. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 329) 6. THE WINDOW FEATURES AT THE STAIR TOWER LOCATIONS HAVE SHIFTED IN LOCATION AND HAVE BEEN REDESIGNED. THE BOARD FORM CONCRETE WALL WILL TAPER INWARDS TOWARD THE NEW CURTAIN WALL GLAZING. THE DESIGN AT THE PARK BLVD. STAIR TOWER ALLOWS THE GLAZING TO TURN THE CORNER PROVIDING A NICE WINDOW ALONG THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. SEE SHEET 20. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 305) 7. THE VINE/GREEN WALL WILL BE EXTENDED TO WRAP AROUND THE CORNER AT GRANT AVE. ADDITIONALLY A CEMENT PLASTER FINISH BEHIND THE GREEN VINE WALL WILL BE PROVIDED SO THAT WHILE THE PLANTS AND LANDSCAPING MATURE THERE IS A FINISH BEHIND THEM. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 307) 8. THE SOFFIT AT THE VINE/GREEN WALL HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM CEMENT PLASTER TO RESYSTA FAÇADE MATERIAL TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MATERIAL PALLET AND PROVIDE A COMPLEMENTARY TEXTURE WITH THE VINE WALL. (SEE DETAIL 2/SHT 22) 9. THE CONCRETE WALL ON THE NORTH AND WEST FAÇADES WILL BE SEALED - NOT PAINTED AS CALLED FOR IN THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION. THE DESIGN INTENT AT THESE LOCATIONS IS TO PROVIDE MORE CONTINUITY WITH THE 6.f Packet Pg. 257 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t S u m m a r y ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) ADJACENT BOARD FORM CONCRETE WALL AND NEW METAL PANEL SIDING. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 308) 10. THE CEMENT PLASTER FINISH PREVIOUSLY SHOWN AT THE RECESSED BUILDING PLANTERS ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST FAÇADES HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH METAL PANEL SIDING. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 309) 11. THE PAINTED METAL GUARDRAILS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN AT THE THIRD FLOOR HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH GLASS GUARDRAILS. THE NEW GUARDRAILS WILL COMPLIMENT THE NEW FROSTED GLASS VERTICAL MULLIONS AS WELL AS CREATE A MORE POLISHED AND MODERN APPEARANCE ALONG PARK BLVD. AND GRANT AVE. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 311 & DETAIL 4/SHT 23) 12. THE ROOF PARAPET HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM CEMENT PLASTER TO CONCRETE TO BE UNIFORM WITH THE BUILDING'S MATERIAL PALETTE AND FINISHES. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 313 & DETAIL 5/SHT 23) 13. THE ROOF PARAPET WILL BE PORCELAIN TILE WHERE TILE SIDING OCCURS TO PROVIDE MATERIAL UNIFORMITY. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 314) 14. THE ROOF PARAPET WILL BE BOARD FORM CONCRETE WHERE BOARD FORM CONCRETE OCCURS TO PROVIDE MATERIAL UNIFORMITY. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 313) 15. THE COVERED BALCONIES AT THE THIRD FLOOR HAVE BEEN REDESIGNED. THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION HAD THESE DESIGNED TO BE EXTENSIONS OF THE CONCRETE ROOF SLAB. THE NEW DESIGN WILL PROVIDE A NEW STEEL AND WOOD TRELLIS. THIS REDESIGN WILL BE LIGHTER IN APPEARANCE AND WILL ALLOW MORE SUNLIGHT TO FILTER IN OVER THE BALCONIES AND INTO THE OFFICE SPACES ON THE THIRD FLOOR. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 315) 16. THE ROOF TERRACE SHOWN ON THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION HAS BEEN REMOVED – THE REQUIRED VARIANCE WAS NOT APPROVED. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 319) 17. A NEW FINISHED SOFFIT AT THE BALCONY ON THE SECOND FLOOR HAS BEEN PROVIDED. FINISHED WITH RESYSTA FAÇADE TO MATCH THE SIDING AT THIS LOCATION, THE SOFFIT WILL PROVIDE MATERIAL CONTINUITY AND 6.f Packet Pg. 258 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t S u m m a r y ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) brick. 1266 66th street, suite 1 emeryville, ca 94608 www.brick-inc.com RICHNESS AT THIS COVERED LOCATION. IN ADDITION THE SOFFIT PROVIDES AN OPEN SPACE TO PROPERLY RUN FLOOR DRAINS, WATERPROOFING, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 326) 18. A NEW METAL PANEL FINISHED SOFFIT AT THE COVERED ENTRANCE ON THE GROUND FLOOR HAS BEEN PROVIDED. THE DESIGN OF THE SOFFIT WILL PROVIDE A NICE MATERIAL TRANSITION FROM EXPOSED CONCRETE SLAB TO METAL PANEL AS YOU ENTER THE BUILDING. IN ADDITION THE SOFFIT PROVIDES AN OPEN A SPACE TO PROPERLY RUN DRAINS, WATERPROOFING, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 328) 19. THE TENANT PEDESTAL MONUMENT ALONG PARK BLVD. HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM STONE TO HORIZONTAL BOARD FORM CONCRETE TO MATCH THE PLANTERS THAT ARE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PEDESTAL. THE STAINLESS STEEL TENANT LETTERS MOUNTED TO THE PEDESTAL ARE TO REMAIN. (SEE ELEVATIONS - NOTE 322) 20. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE HAS REMAINED THE SAME FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL BY FGY ARCHITECTS. 6.f Packet Pg. 259 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t S u m m a r y ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) City of Palo Alto (ID # 5167) Architectural Review Board ARB Staff Report Report Type: New Business Meeting Date: 10/16/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2555 Park Boulevard Title: 2555 Park Boulevard 13PLN-00381: Request by FGY Architects, on behalf of Campbell Avenue Portfolio LLC, for Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish an existing 10,800 sq. ft. two-story mid-century modern office building and construct a new 24,466 sq. ft. three-story office building with one level of below grade parking and a roof terrace in the CC(2) zoning district. From: Hillary Gitelman Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment RECOMMENDATION The Architectural Review Board (ARB) is requested to make a recommendation of approval to the City Council on both the Architectural Review, including the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for height, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), based on the Findings in Attachment A and the Conditions of Approval contained within Attachment B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ARB is requested to review and make recommendation to the City Council on the Architectural Review of the proposed project. The project includes the redevelopment of the existing parcel with a new three story office building with one level of below grade parking for 92 vehicles. The new 24,466 square foot building would replace the existing 10,800 square foot, two-story, mid-century modern office building. The existing building is over 50 years old and has been unaltered since its original construction. A historic analysis has determined that due to these factors, the existing building is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. Since the project entails the demolition of this structure, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to inform the public and responsible agencies of the potential adverse effects to the environment. BACKGROUND Prior Review To initiate the EIR process, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) (Attachment G) to solicit agency and public comments on the scope of the environmental 6.g Packet Pg. 260 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) City of Palo Alto Page 2 analysis to be included in the EIR. On April 17, 2014 a scoping meeting was held at the ARB hearing to inform the public that the City was beginning preparation of the DEIR for the redevelopment of the property known as 2555 Park Boulevard. The existing building on the site has been identified as being eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. Impacts, such as demolition, are potentially significant and therefore an EIR must be prepared. The ARB conducted a preliminary review of the conceptual project design on June 5, 2014. The ARB had comments related to building massing, interior setback, traffic/parking, the tensile structure, and the second floor balcony railing. A summary of the ARB’s comments and a summary of the changes the applicant made to address those comments are provided in the discussion section of this report. The applicant has provided a letter detailing the comments from the preliminary hearing and the design changes they made in response to those comments (Attachment F). Site Information The project site is a trapezoidal-shaped property on the northeast side of Park Boulevard, between Sherman and Grant Avenues. A location map showing the property, and surrounding properties, is attached (Attachment C). The total area of the site is 12,518 square feet (s.f.). The property is currently occupied by a two-story office building with at-grade parking. The existing “H”-shaped building was built in 1964 in the Mid-Century Modern style of architecture. Since the building is 50 years old and does not appear to have been altered since its construction, it has been determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3 (architecture). Under CEQA, this qualifies the structure as a historic resource. The property is zoned Community Commercial (CC(2)). Context The site’s Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Regional Community Commercial. The property’s primary street frontage is located on Park Boulevard opposite the four-story County Courthouse Building. Typical uses in the immediate vicinity include multifamily residential and office uses. Slightly further to the north west of the site is the California Avenue Business District with a multitude of restaurants and retail businesses. The site is also located about 800 feet from the California Avenue Cal Train station. Adjacent uses to the northwest include a two-story, single-family residence and a two-story, professional office building. Adjacent uses to the northeast include office and other commercial uses in a single story structure. To the southwest, across Park Boulevard, is the four-story County Courthouse building surrounded by at-grade parking. To the southeast, across Grant Avenue, are a single-story office building and three-story, multifamily residential buildings. To the south, diagonally across from the intersection of Grant and Park Boulevard, is a surface level parking lot. Project Description 6.g Packet Pg. 261 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) City of Palo Alto Page 3 The project includes the demolition of the existing two-story office building and the construction of a new 24,466 square foot three-story office building. A total of 92 parking spaces would be provided on site in both at grade and below grade areas beneath the new building. Most of the parking spaces would be provided within mechanical lift systems to improve the efficiency of the garage space. Vehicle access, to the parking areas, would be provided from Grant Avenue. The curb cut along Park Boulevard would be removed to improve bicycle safety. The proposed building is a modern design with two horizontal board-form concrete finished stair towers, designed to anchor the building at each end of the site. The two-story glass office block would float between the open balconies. Three of the four balconies would have cable railings, while the fourth balcony above the main entry would have a vertical painted metal picket. Each of the four balconies would be exposed concrete. The building walls would be stucco plaster with a curtain wall system using clear double glazed windows with aluminum frames. The south and east facing facades would have double height, vertical sun shade mullion fins, to reduce heat gain. The glass office block would float over a green wall with vines at the first level that would screen the at-grade parking. In front of the green wall would be a concrete planter with a wood plank bench adjacent to the public sidewalk. The building design also features a rooftop tensile structure to allow greater usage of the roof deck and to assist in keeping the building cooler in the hot summer months. DISCUSSION Zoning Compliance The project conforms to all Palo Alto zoning regulations with the exception of the building height. A DEE has been requested for the height of the two stair towers and the tensile roof structure. The height limit for the CC(2) zone district is 37 feet. This height limit makes a three story building with typical interior ceiling heights difficult to achieve, leaving little room for architectural features to rise above the roof line. The proposal includes a request to exceed the height limit by approximately ten feet for two stair towers and by 13 feet for a tensile structure. The stair towers would anchor each end of the building and add visual interest. The tensile roof structure would add a delicate visual element to the building while being set back from the edges of the building to avoid adding to the perceived height and massing. The canopy would also enable greater use of the outdoor roof deck area and would shade the roof of the building, reducing the energy usage to cool the building. For zoning conformance, please see Attachment D Comprehensive Plan Conformance The proposed use is consistent with the site’s Regional/Community Commercial land use designation in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which allows office uses. The proposed project is the replacement of an existing two-story office building with a new three-story office building. 6.g Packet Pg. 262 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) City of Palo Alto Page 4 The project’s overall relationship with the Comprehensive plan is discussed within Attachment E. Building massing The ARB commented that the stair towers appeared to be too massive. The ARB suggested reduction in the height and width of the Park Boulevard stair tower and providing more transparency to the Grant Avenue stair tower. The ARB also suggested moving the elevator tower away from the neighboring property line due to concerns expressed by the adjacent neighbor about the height and massing of the building. The application has been revised to reduce both the height and width of the Park Boulevard stair tower. The tower was reduced by two feet in height and two feet in width at the street facing elevation. The elevator tower height was also reduced by two feet and was relocated to move it six and a half feet further away from the property line adjacent to the office neighbor. This allowed the reduction in the height of the wall adjacent to the neighboring office building as well. The width of the stair tower facing the office neighbor was reduced by eight and one half feet. The revised plans also include the reduction of the Grant Avenue tower by two feet in height. The Grant Avenue tower has also been revised to include a window feature, to add transparency as recommended by the ARB. Interior setback At the hearing, Board and neighbor comments expressed concern over the proposed building’s relationship with the existing office and residential buildings to the west. The office and residential neighbors felt the building was too tall and too close to their properties. The residential neighbor felt the design needed to be more sensitive to his existing condition. Many of the project revisions have reduced the building height and proximity relative to these two neighboring properties. As stated above, the shifting of the elevator tower reduced the wall height relative to the office neighbor as well as allowing that portion of the building to move six and half feet further away from the office neighbor. Other changes were made to reduce the building relative the residential neighbor. The parapet at the rear corner was removed, reducing the height of the building by four feet. The closest portion of the rear wall facing the residential neighbor was reduced by four feet nine inches and the recessed portion of the wall was set back an additional two feet three inches. These changes reduce the wall heights and move the building further from the two neighboring properties. Traffic/Parking Comments were provided by the public that voiced concern over the lack of guest parking spaces proposed within the building. While the proposed project would provide the required number of parking spaces, nearly all the parking spaces provided would be in mechanized lifts. Unfortunately, the lifts don’t accommodate guest parking. The lifts must be pre-programed for each individual car that will be using the lift. With all the vehicle access being located off of Grant Avenue, the public also raised concerns over the potential increase in traffic volume that 6.g Packet Pg. 263 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) City of Palo Alto Page 5 could occur on that street. With the building’s close proximity to transit, the ARB suggested that the applicant request a parking reduction to eliminate some of the mechanized lifts and provide additional at grade spaces that could be used by visitors to the property. The code compliant parking proposal remains the same (92 spaces), but an alternative parking solution has been proposed and considered in the EIR as an option. This is referred to as’ the parking exemption’ option. This would include a 10% parking reduction along with a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM plan would include annual Go Passes for all eligible employees in the building and would be implemented for the life of the building. This proposal would reduce the number of spaces by 10, which would eliminate 10 of the machine stackers and free up 10 of the parking spaces for guest parking. Having fewer parking spaces within the building may also have the added benefit of reducing the traffic volume on Grant Avenue, by reducing the number of cars entering and exiting the project. Tensile structure design While the ARB was generally supportive of the tensile roof structure, some commented that the structure could be better integrated with the building and that an enhanced color palette should be considered. The applicant has revised the plan to include a secondary tensile element at the elevator tower in an orange color. This small canopy would help to tie the larger canopy to the building and add a pop of color to the feature. Second floor balcony The ARB voiced concern over the solid concrete balcony railing at the second floor above the entry. It was seen as being heavier than the other balcony railings on the building. The applicant has removed the solid concrete balcony wall and has replaced it with a painted metal vertical picket. The new railing is lighter and more transparent than the former solid concrete wall design. The painted metal is also intended to match the color of the wooden planks in the seat wall. Parapet Height In the preliminary project design the roof parapet at the interior lot lines was nearly four feet taller than the 37 foot height limit for the zone district. While equipment enclosures are permitted to exceed the height limit, staff was concerned that the roof screens were excessive and requested that the ARB comment on the proposal. The applicant has revised the mechanical equipment roof screens and has pulled the screens away from the building edge, reducing the apparent height of the building by four feet. Context Based Design Considerations and Findings 6.g Packet Pg. 264 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) City of Palo Alto Page 6 In addition to Zoning Compliance and Architectural Review approval findings, Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings found in PAMC Chapter 18.18 are applicable to the project. The following findings that appear relevant to this project are listed for discussion purposes: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. The proposal appears to be bike friendly, in that it would provide at-grade bike racks at the main building entry as well as secured parking within the below grade parking garage. Showers would also be provided within the building, to promote bicycle ridership. There are aspects of the proposal that appear to meet the Context Based Design Considerations relative to the pedestrian experience at the street level, in that the building has been set back to provide a minimum 10’-5” wide sidewalk. There is a raised planter with a seat wall and a recessed entry. Three new street trees would be planted along Park Boulevard in new bulb outs. An existing curb cut on Park Boulevard would be removed to improve bicycle safety. 2. Street Building Facades: Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. The building’s massing does provide a three story presence on a street that contains other tall buildings. The long street façade on Park Boulevard has been broken into three separate elements to reduce the scale and massing of the building, and to provide human scale. There is the stair tower element, the recessed entry and upper floor balconies, and the floating glass box above the green wall at the street level. The entry at the street level is well defined with a deep recess, and provides weather protection as well as bike parking, encouraging pedestrian activity. While there is parking at grade level, the parking area has been hidden behind a green wall with a long seat wall for pedestrians. 3. Massing and Setbacks: Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. The proposal has employed a number of design strategies to break up the massing of the building at each façade. The two street facing facades have solid stair towers that anchor the elevations and deep recessed balconies that allow the glass box of the office space to float at the corner. The Park elevation has a deep recessed entry and a green wall to hide the parking. Recesses have also been provided on the two property line elevations to provide greater sensitivity to a residential neighbor and to provide opportunities for additional daylight into the building. 6.g Packet Pg. 265 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) City of Palo Alto Page 7 4. Low Density Residential Transitions: Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. While the project is within a commercial zone, the proposed building does share a property boundary with a single-family residence. The zoning would permit the building to be placed on the property line, but the project has been designed to set the building back, relative to the residence, to reduce the new building’s impact upon it. The two-story residence has a small outdoor yard space adjacent to the property line it shares with the project. To create a greater sense of openness and to create a greater distance away from the residence, the new building has been set back two feet at the ground floor and more than 12 additional feet at the second and third floors. The height at the first level has been reduced to eight feet six inches, to reduce the amount of solid wall in close proximity to the residential yard. This is a four foot reduction from the previous iteration of the plans. At this level, a planter is provided to enable landscape material to buffer the views of the building. The windows at the second and third floors have been frosted at the lower levels, such that office building employees would have no view into the residential yard or the residential windows. 5. Project Open Space: Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. The roof-top outdoor space for the office tenants would be a functional space. The proposed tensile structure would provide shade and weather protection for building occupants to enable comfortable use of the space. The roof top location allows for nice views of the area while still maintaining privacy by keeping the useable area of the roof deck away from the edges of the building. The building also includes four recessed and covered balcony spaces that provide additional outdoor areas for the building occupants. 6. Parking Design: Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. Consistent with the Guidelines, the parking for the project has been located below grade such that the parked cars are hidden from view. The at-grade parking spaces are also hidden behind a green wall that includes a long bench for convenient seating along the public sidewalk. The entry to the garage has been located on Grant Avenue to avoid impacting the faster moving traffic on Park Boulevard and to improve bicycle safety by eliminating the interaction between cars and bikes. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design: Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. 6.g Packet Pg. 266 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) City of Palo Alto Page 8 The project is required to meet the Cal Green requirements. The proposed office building would be a LEED Silver building with several green building design elements. The site is an infill site which is being redeveloped for better density near a transportation hub. The building utilizes passive cooling though the use of deep overhangs created by balconies, vertical fins on curtain wall glass, thermal mass walls and roof as well as a tensile structure canopy to protect the roof surface from the sun's heat. The building design uses fewer materials than a typical office building through the raw expression of the structure and highly efficient use of volume allocated to parking through the use of parking machines which stack 5 high to save roughly 25 additional feet of basement depth. Where ever possible, the project also incorporates energy and water savings as well as recycled materials such as recycled steel, and fly ash and slag in the concrete mix. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City has prepared a DEIR to provide the public and responsible agencies information about potential adverse effects on the local and regional environment associated with the proposed 2555 Park boulevard project. The DEIR is provided as Attachment H. The 45 day public comment period on the DEIR began on September 5, 2014 and runs through October 20, 2014. The public is invited to comment on the DEIR at this time. The City began the environmental analysis with an Initial Study (Attachment G). The environmental analysis determined that the project could have a significant impact on the environment, which triggered the requirement to prepare an EIR. The three environmental topics covered in the DEIR are Cultural and Historic Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Transportation and Traffic. The analysis found no issues with the other topics. Each topical section describes the existing environmental and regulatory conditions, presents the criteria used to determine whether an impact would be significant, analyses significant impacts, identifies mitigation measures for each significant impact, and discusses the significance of impacts after mitigation has been applied. Cultural and Historic Resources Two possible impacts were identified under the Cultural and Historic Resources section. One impact was identified as being significant and unavoidable. This impact is the demolition of the existing mid-century modern building that has been identified as being eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. The loss of the historic resources would be considered a Significant and Unavoidable impact under CEQA. Mitigation measures are proposed, but these measures cannot reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level, therefore the City would need to adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the proposed project. The other impact identified was the possible disturbance of archeological remains during excavation. With mitigation, this impact was less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 6.g Packet Pg. 267 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) City of Palo Alto Page 9 There were five areas of this section that were identified as being potentially significant. These are related to construction debris, the handling of existing hazardous materials within the building, disturbance of contaminated soils, the release of VOC from the contaminated ground water, and vapor intrusion from the contaminated ground water. Mitigations measures have been included that reduce the level of significance to a less than significant level. Transportation and Traffic The environmental analysis found no significant impacts related to traffic. No mitigation measures are needed. Following the 45 day public comment period, written response will be prepared for all substantive comments on the DEIR. The final EIR will consist of the DEIR, the comments received during the public review period, responses to the comments, and any revisions to the DEIR as a result of public agency and public comments. COURTESY COPIES Peter Brewer Jared Jacobs Prepared By: Russ Reich, Senior Planner Reviewed By: Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Attachments:  Attachment A: ARB findings (DOC)  Attachment B: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOC)  Attachment C: Site Location Map (PDF)  Attachment D: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC)  Attachment E: Comprehensive Plan Table (DOC)  Attachment F: Applicants Project Letter (PDF)  Attachment G: Initial Study (IS) (ARB Members Only). IS is also available on the City's website at http://tiny.cc/ogghnx (TXT)  Attachment H: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) [ARB Members Only]. DEIR is also available on the City's website at http://tiny.cc/ogghnx (TXT)  Attachment I: Project Plans (ARB members only). Project plans are also available on the City’s website at http://goo.gl/95W5lM (TXT) 6.g Packet Pg. 268 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k B o u l e v a r d : E x t e r i o r D e s i g n C h a n g e s ) Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “2555 Park Boulevard” and open record by clicking on the green dot or look on the information window on the right-side of the screen and click on “more details” option under 17PLN-00064 and you will be brought to a new screen 3. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 4. To view the originally recommended plans click on the attachment titled “2555 Park Blvd_Original Plans_05.22.2015 (FGY Plans)”and dated 03/29/2017 5. To view the approved building plans (FGY architects) click on the attachment titled “Permit #14000-03192 Plans (FGY architects).compressed” and dated 03/29/2017. 6. To view the currently proposed revisions click on the attachment titled “2555 Park Blvd.- Initial Plans – 2.28.2017” and dated 02/28/2017. 6.h Packet Pg. 269 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P r e v i o u s A R B R e c o m m e n d e d P l a n s , A p p r o v e d B u i l d i n g P l a n S e t a n d P r o p o s e d R e v i s i o n s ( 7 9 0 2 : 2 5 5 5 P a r k Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7742) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 4/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes for March 17, 2016 and March 16, 2017 Title: March 17, 2016 Draft ARB/HRB meeting minutes and March 16, 2017 Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the March 17, 2016 Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board Joint meeting and the March 16, 2017 Architectural Review Board meeting were made available to the Board members prior to the April 6, 2017 meeting date. The draft ARB minutes can be reviewed online at the City’s website listed below http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/arb/defautl.asp Hard copies of the minutes from the above referenced meeting will be available at the ARB meeting of April 6, 2017 being held at 8:30 am in the Council Chambers. 7 Packet Pg. 270 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order Roll Call Present: ARB: Chair Robert Gooyer; Vice Chair Alexander Lew, Board Members Kyu Kim, Wynne Furth, Peter Baltay Absent: None Present: HRB: Chair Martin Bernstein; Vice Chair Margaret Wimmer; Board Members Beth Bunnenberg, Patricia DiCicco Absent: Board Members David Bower, Roger Kohler, Michael Makinen Oral Communications David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, announced City recruitment for two positions on the Human Relations Commission, two positions on the Library Advisory Commission, and four positions on the Utilities Advisory Commission. The deadline for application was the following day at 5:00 p.m. He provided requirements for applicants. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports None. New Business 1. 901 High Street [14PLN- 00116]: Request by Peter Ko, Ko Architects, Inc., on behalf of Bettencourt & Santana for Architectural Review by both the Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board for a 18,335 square foot mixed use building with retail, office and 11 residential units on a vacant 20,288 square foot lot in the South of First Area. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was prepared and Negative Declaration has been circulated for public comment from February 26, 2016 to March 18, 2016. Zoning District: RT-35 (Residential Transition District). For more information, contact Margaret Netto at margaret.netto@cityofpaloalto.org. Board Member Furth requested staff briefly explain the approval process for a project in the SOFA 2 Coordinated Area Plan area. Chair Gooyer requested staff respond after their presentation. Margaret Netto reviewed details and shared renderings of the project. A joint meeting of the ARB and HRB meeting was requested to provide recommendations as to whether the project complied with JOINT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: March 17, 2016 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 7.a Packet Pg. 271 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 A R B / H R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 2 findings for Architectural Review, the South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan Phase 2 Performance Criteria, and the Context Based Design Criteria. The project was also subject to the interim growth meter (i.e. Annual Office Limit) ordinance. HRB and ARB recommendations would be forwarded to the Council for final review. No public comments had been received to date. Staff recommended the ARB and HRB review the project and provide a recommendation to Council. Board Member Furth inquired whether the Council would actually approve the Coordinated Area Plan permit. Amy French explained the recommendation would be provided to the Council because the project included office. Otherwise, a Coordinated Development Permit within the SOFA area would be submitted to the Director for action on both the environmental document and the permit. She noted the item was quasi-judicial. Chair Bernstein noted an apparent discrepancy on page 28 of the draft Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration, under Cultural Resources a), between no historic structures and two historic structures. Ms. Netto explained the two historic structures were located across the street from the project site. The project site did not contain any historic structures. Ms. French reported the paragraph could be revised to state that the project would be located across the street from historic structures. Although, that would not mean any mitigation was needed. Chair Bernstein also noted Finding 4 on the second page of Attachment A mentioned El Camino Real; however, El Camino Real was not near the project. Ms. Netto advised Attachment D had been revised and could be found on the dais. Board Member Bunnenberg asked if the Boards would vote jointly or separately. Ms. Netto responded separately. Board Member Kim noted the SOFA area was referenced as South of First Area. Ms. Netto indicated it was a typographical error. Laura Roberts, Ko Architects, related details of the proposed project. Board Member DiCicco inquired whether parking was solely for occupants of the building and whether entrances to the parking garage were gated. Ms. Roberts stated the garage would be open and available for all uses. Board Member Bunnenberg asked if the color of the building was similar to the historic structure across the street. She inquired about the mural. Ms. Roberts reported the mural represented a potential location for a piece of art. Board Member Bunnenberg noted the tip of the roof appeared moderne-like. Ms. Roberts stated that would be metal. The ground level had an overhang with glass; the second level was stucco; and the third floor was recessed and comprised of metal panels. Board Member Furth requested the thinking behind the upward slant on the roofs. Ms. Roberts explained they wanted to maximize the amount of natural light into the unit. Board Member Furth questioned the floor-length windows for the residential units. Peter Ko advised that the lower 3 feet of the windows would be obscured. Board Member Furth inquired whether a kitchen sink or stove would back up to one of the windows. Mr. Ko reported the kitchens were on the interior of the units. Chair Bernstein inquired about the depth and space of the corrugations for the third floor siding. Mr. Ko stated no more than 12 inches spacing and probably 2 or 3 inches for the depth. Chair Bernstein requested rough dimensions for the first-floor window mullions. Mr. Ko advised the mullions would likely be 6 inches deep, and some would be 1 1/2 inches wide. Vice Chair Wimmer inquired about water runoff from the roof and height of the roof in relation to surrounding buildings on the corner. Mr. Ko explained the roof was curved to provide natural light to the interior. Water runoff would be collected and moved to the storm drain. Vice Chair Wimmer asked if staff approved the roof to exceed the height limit. Mr. Ko understood it had been approved. Vice Chair 7.a Packet Pg. 272 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 A R B / H R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 3 Wimmer suggested some type of unifying detail for garage entrances. Ms. Roberts added that the parking was open to customers of the retail space. Vice Chair Lew advised the drawings indicated the lowest point of the roof was 35 feet, the height limit. The elevations and sections showed different heights. Mr. Ko explained that the midpoint of the roof would be 35 feet in height. Vice Chair Lew inquired about the perforations on the doors to the car lifts. Mr. Ko understood the adjacent property utilized perforated panels on the lower portions and solid panels on the upper portions of the lifts. He proposed use of perforated panels only. Vice Chair Lew inquired whether the garage would have a ceiling. Mr. Ko thought the ceiling would be open with painted beams. Board Member Furth remarked that Attachment D referenced the height as 22 feet 4 inches. Ms. Netto reported the average height should be 35 feet. Board Member Furth requested the actual maximum height of the building. Mr. Ko indicated the maximum height would be 37 or 38 feet. She asked if the applicant was requesting a reduction in the minimum side yard from 15 feet to 9 feet. Ms. Netto responded yes. Board Member Furth inquired whether balconies faced the side yard off High Street. Ms. Netto replied yes. Board Member Furth disclosed that she visited the site and received a communication from Richard Grant requesting additional setbacks on the building. Board Member Bunnenberg disclosed that she visited the site. Board Member Kim asked if there would be 48 or 49 parking stalls. Mr. Ko responded 48 stalls. Board Member Kim inquired whether the average height would be 35 feet. Ms. Netto replied yes. Board Member Kim asked if the applicant proposed to bring down the roof at the residential level or elsewhere. Mr. Ko reported the drawing used 8-foot ceilings for the lower part of the residential units on the third floor. Board Member Kim noted the drawings did not show 35 feet as being the average height. Jodie Gerhardt suggested Board Members look at Section A.S.10, which showed a 10-foot ceiling height at the lowest point of the residential. Because of that 2 feet of space, the roof could be lowered to meet the average maximum height of 35 feet. Board Member DiCicco requested the ratio for public parking. Mr. Ko reported residential parking would be located under the building. The office parking would be located on the back facing north. Board Member DiCicco was uncertain whether height requirements had been met. The parking seemed complex. Perhaps the applicant could have fewer openings and more clarity as to where the public could park. It appeared to be a fantastic project that would provide housing in Downtown Palo Alto. Board Member Bunnenberg liked the project, especially use of the color scheme from the historic structure. The broken facades and setback on the third floor helped reduce the mass of the building. The retail space could use more animation. Saving the tree was good. Board Member Furth felt the site functioned as a park-like space in the ratio of greenery to other substances. The project would harden the site. The SOFA CAP discussed adjacent properties as well as those across the street; therefore, the statement in the Negative Declaration that there was nothing adjacent was incorrect and inappropriate. In considering historic impacts on buildings in the CAP, one should clearly review properties across the street. The use of the red color from the historic structure was not sufficient to make the structure compatible with the area. The butterfly roof contradicted the roof styles of other buildings in the area. She was puzzled by the fenestration on the residential units. The windows did not relate to the interior of the units and prevented the floor from appearing as residential as it should. Another problem was enclosed parking which gave mass without usable space. The CAP stated parking for multifamily projects should be underground if possible. The use of lift parking for retail parking did not justify a reduction in parking or justify being counted as parking for retail use. She did not believe the project provided adequate parking. She liked the plaza and the tree preservation. 7.a Packet Pg. 273 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 A R B / H R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 4 In general, the project was inadequately landscaped for its location. The balconies on the side yard would face a site that would be redeveloped. She did not understand how that would work. Board Member Kim believed there was an opportunity for refinement of the building. The length of storefront was repetitive and could be broken up to create a rhythm and to break down the horizontal scale. Incorporating the bike parking into the overall circulation into the residential units would be better. As far as roof drainage, he felt much of the rain water would fall onto residents attempting to entire their units. Perhaps a gutter along the inside courtyard would be better. The applicant could utilize more greenery and landscaping. Pushing the massing and creating the courtyard along Channing needed to occur along High Street as well. The parking spaces appeared to be small. Ms. Netto reported the standard width was used for parking spaces. The form and the choice of materials were somewhat relatable to the existing buildings around the site. He liked the use of the color from the building across the street, but the red overhang was too long. Perhaps balconies could be added along High Street. Some of the residential windows along High Street were against the kitchen. Board Member Baltay found the project exciting. The pedestrian treatment on the corner of High and Channing was attractive and good to have. The parking was quite large and resulted in a fairly unattractive and not pedestrian-friendly entrance from High Street. The parking should be underground. He would have a difficult time making Finding 16 regarding visual environment and high aesthetic quality because of the at-grade parking. Without the tandem and stacked parking, the project had 38 spaces which was not sufficient even with the 20 percent reduction. The façade on High Street was far too planer. Most architects did not utilize the same floor plan for all residential units. Reworking the floor plans would allow more modulation, perhaps some balconies. The building had a quasi-industrial look with the large, identical windows. The partition between balconies was unattractive and did not comply with high aesthetic quality. The applicant proposed too much of the 3-foot modulation of stores. Use of colors from the Peninsula Creamery building was good, but the lightness of the building was not reflected in the proposed project. The bicycle parking was not convenient. He could not make numerous findings to approve the project as presented. Vice Chair Lew agreed with comments from Board Members Furth and Baltay. Attention should be given to the external parking lifts, particularly the height. The lifts needed a higher clearance for people. Expecting a retail customer to figure out how to use the parking lift was impractical. Space behind the lift had to be secure and safe. He expressed concern about ceilings and views from balconies. Comments regarding the High Street elevation also applied to the parking lot-facing elevation. The project was not ready for approval. Vice Chair Wimmer appreciated use of the overhang and the color from the Peninsula Creamery building; however, the color should be downplayed so as not to compete with the historic building. The corrugated metal on the upper floor recognized the transitional location of the project. Design of the corner was good. A public art piece was an opportunity to add some interest. Chair Bernstein inquired whether an HRB motion could include a reference to the Secretary of Interior Standards regarding historic structures. Matt Weintraub advised it would be appropriate. Chair Bernstein appreciated Board Member Baltay's comments regarding articulation of the High Street facade. Chair Gooyer liked the concept of the project; however, the building had no human scale. The third floor metal façade would not be noticeable from High Street and would appear as a gray pattern from across the street. Use of the red color from the historic structure did not work for Chair Gooyer. He could not approve the project. Board Member DiCicco suggested underground parking would allow more diversity in store fronts on the first floor. Eliminating the butterfly roof would make the project more compatible. The windows were a problem. The building needed more diversity, a softer approach and more greenery. 7.a Packet Pg. 274 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 A R B / H R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 5 Ms. Gerhardt recalled the project was subject to the annual office limit; consequently, different criteria would apply to moving the project to a second hearing. In order for the project to be eligible for the allotment of office space, a second hearing would be needed prior to March 31. If a second hearing was held after March 31, then the project would be delayed a year for the office allocation. The Board could recommendation denial of the project. Chair Gooyer did not believe the annual office limit was a criteria for consideration. Board Member Furth inquired whether the applicant would prefer a continuation or a denial. Chair Gooyer indicated that was not within the applicant's purview. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that the Council would decide projects for the annual office limit. Staff would simply present the ARB's recommendation. Board Member Bunnenberg stated a motion should include the project meeting the Secretary of Interior Standards, maintaining existing street trees, complying with green building requirements, and reviewing parking. With some careful review of materials, the project was fairly sensitive to the historic nature of the two historic buildings. HRB MOTION: Chair Bernstein moved, seconded by Vice Chair Wimmer, that the HRB recommend to the ARB that the project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards subject to the third floor massing being reduced in its perception of massing by introducing some facade articulation. Board Member DiCicco suggested adding to the motion that the current parking arrangement be modified to allow more use of the ground floor and diversity. Underground parking would be an alternative. Chair Bernstein did not feel parking was an issue for historic consideration. The third floor facade was the main issue of the motion. Board Member Bunnenberg inquired whether parking was a visual aspect on which the Historic Resources Board could comment. Chair Bernstein understood parking was not on the facades adjacent to historic structures. Vice Chair Wimmer felt the ARB and planning staff should comment on parking. Vice Chair Wimmer offered an amendment with respect to the color of the overhang canopy. Chair Bernstein accepted the amendment. AMENDMENT TO THE HRB MOTION: The proposed caliente red color of the canopy wrapping the building be changed to a similar but subordinate color. HRB MOTION PASSED: 4-0 (3 Board Members absent) Chair Gooyer reiterated the options available to the ARB. Mr. Ko requested the project be continued to a date prior to March 31 if the Planning Department could accommodate such a date. Vice Chair Lew acknowledged that many projects were in the queue and had been in the queue. The rules for office projects had changed. A long time period was required for a project to reach its first hearing. If the project did not have massing issues, he would be willing to have a second hearing prior to March 31. Massing issues would require substantial changes which probably could not be made and reviewed prior to March 31. Another ARB meeting was not scheduled prior to March 31. Ms. Gerhardt reported another meeting could be held on March 24. Chair Gooyer advised that changes could not be made and reviewed prior to a meeting on March 24. Board Member Furth noted the ARB's consensus diverged from the staff recommendation. She was prepared to offer a motion denying the project for about 12 of the 16 required findings. She did not know how to meaningfully hear a revised project before March 31. The ARB's concerns regarding massing and parking were not minor. Chair Gooyer suggested the only viable option was to recommend denial of the project. If denied, the applicant could take the project to the City Council. Ms. Gerhardt 7.a Packet Pg. 275 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 A R B / H R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 6 reiterated that the Board could continue the project to a date after March 31. Chair Gooyer clarified that a denial was the only option if the applicant wanted to proceed prior to the March 31 deadline. Board Member Furth wished to defer to the applicant. After consultation with the property owner, Mr. Ko advised that the applicant wished to continue the project. Vice Chair Lew inquired about possible dates to which the project could be continued. Ms. Gerhardt reported May 5 would be the first available date if the applicant submitted revisions prior to the end of the month. If the applicant submitted plans in early April, the hearing date could be May 19. MOTION: Board Member Furth moved, seconded by Vice Chair Lew, to continue the item to May 19, 2016. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 (Board Member Baltay absent) Chair Bernstein inquired whether the HRB would need to attend the May 19th meeting. Ms. Gerhardt advised that the HRB should review significant revisions to the project. Staff requested the HRB be available for a meeting on May 19th. Minutes Approval: None. Subcommittee Item None. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements None. Adjournment 7.a Packet Pg. 276 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 A R B / H R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Members Peter Baltay, Wynne Furth, Gooyer Absent: Chair Lew: We’re ready to get started. Can we have a roll call, please? Oral Communications Chair Lew: Now is the time for oral communications. This is for items that are not on the agenda and I do have one speaker, which is David Carnahan from the City’s Clerk’s office. Welcome, David. Mr. David Carnahan, City’s Clerk’s Office: Good morning Chair Lew and Board Members. David Carnahan from the City’s Clerk’s Office and I’m here to give you an update on the City’s Board and Commission recruitment. The City is currently recruiting to fill two vacancies on the Human Relations Commission, three on the Library Advisory Commission, four on the public Art Commission and two on the Utilities Advisory Commission. All of these terms are for 3-years, ending May 31 of 2020 and the application deadline is April 4th at 4:30 PM. Applications are available on the City’s Clerk’s website, www.Cityofpaloalto.org/clerk. I’m going to give each of you a flyer and encourage you to share this information with the community and organizations you think might be interested and if you could each reach out, specifically, to two individuals in the community who you think might be interested in applying. You are one of our best resources in the community, knowing residences in a way that most of us Staff don’t so I’ll pass these out and thank you very much. Chair Lew: Great. Thank you, David. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Lew: Do we have any agenda changes today? Great. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Study Session 2. 1451 Middlefield Road [16PLN-00217]: Request for Review of Updated Concept Plans for a One-Story, 14,790 Square Foot Replacement and Expansion Building for the Junior Museum and Zoo and Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lots. The ARB Previously Considered a Preliminary Review Application on January 19, 2017; Applicant Requests Initial Feedback on Design Modifications in Advance of Formal Application Review. Environmental Assessment: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: March 16, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 7.b Packet Pg. 277 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 2 Pending - No Action is Taking Place at This Meeting. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: Why don’t we start with item number 2 which is a study session for 1451 Middlefield Road. Request for review of updated concept plans for a one-story, 14,790 square foot replacement and expansion building for the Junior Museum and Zoo and reconfiguration of the adjacent parking lots. The ARB previously considered a preliminary review application on January 19, 2017. The applicant requests initial feedback on design modifications in advance of formal application review. Environmental assessment is no action is taking place at this meeting. Zoning District is PF. Welcome, Amy French our Chief Planning Official. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Amy French here. Just to make mine brief, you already summarized what happen and what was requested was more of a big idea and some alterations as related to Middlefield Road. As far as building placement and configuration, the applicants are here. They have some big changes to share with you today and John Aiken is to my left. Mr. John Aiken: That’s true and, so all I would like to do is introduce Cody Anderson Wasney, Brent McClure, and Sarah Vaccaro. Mr. Brent McClure: Thanks, John. Board thanks you for having us back again. After our last meeting, we went back and looked at a variety of different revisions and a lot of the comments we heard were trying to have a great sensitivity towards Middlefield and a present along the street. Not just give so much of a difference to cars but thinking about bicycles, thinking about pedestrians, thinking about the civic presents as how this facility fits within the greater context of the site. Also, thinking about Lucie Stern, thinking about the Girl Scout building and this sort of greater civic complex. Also, take a closer look at the fact that this building is sitting in a residential neighborhood within the Lucie Stern complex and that maybe the architecture – although it needs to be distinctive of its time and not to differential but that it needs to integrate likely a little bit more with building mass and form as it fits within the great surroundings. What we would like to do is go over with you today in this study session are three parts that we will speak to here. One is the site plan and we made some significant revisions with a lot of meetings with the City as well as our client, the Friends. We’d like to then talk about the – we’re going to call it the “big idea” but really, the big idea is more about how are we reflecting the philosophy, the mission, vision on the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo and this program, into the site, into the architecture and into how we’re integrating the whole facility together. Then the third part is that we’ve got some massing and building forms that are kind of in progress and this being a study session, it’s our hope to come back ideally, for a formal review at the next meeting. Even though we are in progress, we would like to get your thoughts and feedback on some of the massing. You’re going to see some forms that are not 100% complete yet but they are far enough along that we want to get your input. Quickly, the – as I mentioned, the – previously, this is the old site plan you saw. We had a parking entrance and drop-off off of the intersection. You had to drive way in there with trees along the street with no real connection off of here and this parking edge was really tight to the Girl Scout building -- were designed by an engineer it appears and that the – trying to maximize parking. What we have done is, we met with the City and really rethought how the building sits within the site. We’ll go to a diagram here in a second but in essence, what we have done is we have a driveway entrance that’s not in alignment with Kellogg, so you pull in over here. The edge of the parking comes in much – it’s pulled significantly back to create a larger plaza in front of our building to get more of the civic presents. We have a gateway entrance and pedestrian promenade that we will talk more about in a second, that directly links off of Middlefield, intersects with the park and then creates an access – probably better if I go to this diagram here. This access off of Lucie Stern so what we are trying to do is -- this is an older sketch because we did change the driveway at the 11th hour but the idea is that there will be a dedicated bicycle through way that will link through the park and then come down onto Kellogg. Then cars will be pulled separately over into here so disregard that on this sketch. In essence, this diagram is trying to show all the pedestrian pathways and we’re trying to create more of a civic present in thinking about how people move through, 7.b Packet Pg. 278 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 3 in and around the site. Major front entrance and access point off of the Museum and Zoo. Still having the courtyard concept and design, which we will talk about in a second and then the zoo back in over here. Ms. Sarah Vaccaro: Thank you. Thank you, Board Members. As Brent mentioned, the big idea is this journey -- this promenade that takes places all the way from the street, Middlefield, to our (inaudible) the entrance and then connects to the park arrival plaza. This journey becomes a manifestation of the JMZ mission, to engage a child’s curiosity in science and nature. It’s this exciting whimsical, playful experience of science and nature exhibits that children can interact with at their scale. The visitor's experience and the public's experience of the JMZ spills out into this entrance plaza. At each of these portions along the promenade, there are different experiences of different types of science and nature. At the entrance plaza, we are thinking of things that engage in the physical sciences. The movements and patterns of wind, the movement of the sun to tell time, the concept of sound and gravity. Around the pecan tree plaza, we are thinking about life sciences. A way for children to playfully role play as animals, to have to peek throughs into the Zoo, to pretend that they can jump as far as an animal. Around the dawn redwood courtyard, we are thinking of ideas around Earth sciences. Telling the story of the dawn redwood and the Jurassic era and the story of geological time throughout history. As well as linking that with the story of nature water systems and how we will be collecting water from and during rain storms and treating that in a bio swell that the kids will be able to interact with, bridge over and play in. Closer to the street we are creating this break in the building and it becomes this tunnel entrance that we are thinking could be themed with the way the light comes in and creating rainbows. Capturing the energy and showing children how that can be used within the facility itself. As you get closer to the park, playing with ideas of pattern and mathematics. Then moving into the park, leveraging this nexus and then the large park beyond to talk about scale – to talk about a scaled solar system model potentially that links throughout the entire park. Also, talking about the biggest things like a Blue Whale, a Giant Sequoia, things that can be represented along our zoo wall potentially. Really our goal with the architecture massing and inside the organization is to create the stage, the setting for these experiences. The experiences are the big idea and then our architecture supports them and then reinforces them through expression of materials, structures, and systems that support the ideas of science and nature. The massing is really clean and simple. We are referencing a gabled roof but keeping it very clean contemporary. Breaking the mass to create the tunnel entrance off of Middlefield. Allowing the massing to encircle this dawn redwood courtyard. Creating a really strong entrance plaza and strong entrance façade. Creating a sheltered waiting area underneath the pecan tree adjacent to the entrance plaza. Then this mass over here is the feature phase 2 part of the project that we spoke to last time. Mr. McClure: Tying a lot of these pieces together, here’s an initial quick sketch rendering showing some of the things Sarah has mentioned. We’re thinking of having a building with tight eaves and in gable form to echo Lucie Stern to some degree and some of the residential context of the neighborhood. Given our budgetary constraints, we are looking at keeping the mass simple. We feel that having a clean, simple form with this courtyard concept and this frontage promenade – in a lot of ways, echoes the designs sort of ethos of Lucie Stern and then the Neo-Spanish classical architecture but then represented in a much more modern way and more of a period of our time. We also think that by having that contrast of simple clean forms against this engaging, exciting promenade – we are having this opportunity to take what the JMZ is and put a lot of it outside in the public realm. It almost becomes an extension of the park if you will, that as you leave the park and come through and experience some of these interactive activities, that is what we are trying to turn over to create. Out at the front, one of things that we are thinking about is that this form then extrudes out and becomes a trellised room that then would have almost like a Ned Kahn wind sculpture design so that you’re not only seeing things – whirly birds that are spinning but you start to see that it’s more about the engagement of wind and motion. Then you can understand and see the patterns and how it actually works. The gateway entrance into the – here some images – just some contextual images of what we’re thinking about with forms; possibly keeping things monochromatic even. The idea is that – how a child thinks about drawing buildings, in simple clean forms. Having some really large skylights that could act as almost whimsical chimneys that pop into the mass themselves. Playfulness with lights either with color and translucency. The end wall of the museum which is back here with the entrance, we’re proposing to have this almost be like a translucent material so that it has a glow but it also begins to read as a clean form. Then some of the images there is what I 7.b Packet Pg. 279 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 4 was talking about earlier. We are really excited about this kaleidoscopic rainbow tunnel that becomes the gateway off of Middlefield as you enter into this promenade. This trellised area becomes almost like an antechamber of experiences that could even have potential – temporary exhibits that they could either hang or use out and inside the space before you even enter into the museum itself. Here’s a shot looking out at the street. We’re thinking of this being a clean, simple form with this break into the mass. Then you can see how this really starts to create this promenade and this access off of Middlefield. We’re trying to find the right balance of not having a huge – gigantic gateway because we trying to be sensitive to the residential neighbors across the street but then still just say, hey, here’s a great pedestrian entrance into the park, as well as the Museum and Zoo; with sundials and wind tubes and then colored fins that could then become more dense to subtly suggest that this becomes this entrance way into the complex itself. With that, I think – questions and hopefully some dialog and we can get some good direction. Thank you very much. Chair Lew: Thank you. I will open it up – the hearing to public comments. I don’t have any speaker cards but if anybody is interested in speaking, I think now is the time. Otherwise, we can move on to Board Member questions and comments. Does anybody -- this is a study session so we can have a more open format. Peter? Board Member Baltay: I’m confused, the drawing I have, shows the parking further down Middlefield towards Lucie Stern but the first image you showed us showed the parking coming in – right into the main parking lot. Board Member Gooyer: He said this is an earlier version. Mr. McClure: We were working on the parking lot up to the 11th hour and 59th minute between us and the City so I think the image that is most current is this one. I think with the graphics it is not as legible because we are showing all kinds of things on this but if I go to this diagram, in essence, it’s more or less this image but the driveway for cars enters here. This is a bike/pedestrian-only entrance here. As you can kind of see here, bike/pedestrian entrance here with the bike path that comes and then comes straight across this connection point here into the entry plaza to the park. Then the driveway into here with a bus drop-off zones back in over here and some accessible parking (inaudible)(crosstalk). Board Member Baltay: Could you show me with your cursor, where’s the farthest most edge of the parking lot closest to Lucie Stern? Not the bike access but the actual place where cars drive. Ms. Vaccaro: I can show you on here. We also have print outs if that would be easier to look at Board Member Baltay: Just show me with the cursor. Ms. Vaccaro: Right now, the edge of the parking comes here and it stops at this edge, so the cars would not pass beyond this edge. There would no longer be a vehicular loop around this cluster of oak trees. The idea is to create a safe entrance for bikes only, for cars, and for pedestrians. That is working in conjunction with the City – with the Planning Department and looking at their long-term bike plans for this area. Board Member Baltay: Thanks. Chair Lew: Any other questions? Vice Chair Kim: I have a question. Is there a delta in the parking count? Mr. McClure: Yes. When we met with the City what we – initially we were pushing for a maximizing parking and I believe we were – we had a net increase of parking with the previous design. In meeting with them, we were able – we said we needed to relax one of these variables and try to see what we can 7.b Packet Pg. 280 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 5 do. What we arrived at was that the parking would hold close to I believe – Sarah? Are we at – we’re neutral with parking? Ms. Vaccaro; Right. Mr. McClure: Yes, so we have the same number of stalls that are currently there now. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Robert, will you start us off? Board Member Gooyer: I like this approach much better than the first go around. It – obviously, there’s isn’t much to look at when we first got it but the way you’ve described it, I definitely think this is a much better approach than what you had last time. It makes it more of a unifying factor with the entire complex. You’re absolutely right, there is going to be a – some thought given to the – if you want to call it the pedestrian entrance, whether you make it the tube concept or enhance it a little bit. I think I still – especially for kids, be more towards the tube concept than making it a big bold statement. I think that’s it at this point. It’s a little early to – I definitely think that you’re on the right approach. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for coming back to us. I think –especially civic architecture like this, it’s really important to understand and to tell the story that the architecture is telling. I think before, I was very confused as to what that story was but I think -- I’m very encouraged by the approach that you’re taking now. Especially with simplifying the forms but also keeping it interesting and really having a clear direction that I think has been laid out for you now and I’m very encouraged by that. I appreciate the images you have shown as far as the ideating for different concepts that you have like the tunnel, the wind tubes, so on and so forth. Having said that, I am interested to see how that story that you’ve started to tell with the outside of the building, the promenade, how that continues inside of the building as well. I like a lot of the changes that you have made. I like the fact that we’re not losing any parking. I like the safer drop off inside of the parking lot. I appreciate the greater buffer that you are giving to the Girl Scout Building and I think just overall, I’m a lot more encouraged by what I am seeing. I feel fairly confident now that you will be able to take that with the building itself as well. One or two little comments or question that I might have to add on to my previous question was certain components of the building that aren’t clearly shown yet, such as the area that you are calling the tunnel between the bicycle parking and the wing of the building itself. Is that an area that’s fully covered or is it open? Is that open 24-hours a day? Is that open just during museum hours? Also, with the entrance way that you were showing, it looked like there was as a structure where currently on the site plan at least, it just looks like an open courtyard. If you have any additional comments on those two areas, that would be appreciated but I’m sure we will get into those details as we proceed. Thank you very much. Mr. McClure: Just to answer your question, I think the idea – we don’t – we haven’t finalized the design of this – we’re calling it a tunnel. We are working towards getting it at a – parts of it to a childlike scale. We’ve talked about, can you make it actually into a rainbow kaleidoscope? There’s been a lot of really exciting – a lot of energy and enthusiasm behind this experience. The idea here is that – I think as of now this – we’ll call it a walkway or promenade, is open 24/7 to the public and that really the edge where the cursor is here and then back to here is an – it would be more – this is an enclosed rectangular courtyard that’s part of the visitor experience once you’ve entered but even this trellised entry plaza/antechamber here, is also open to the public. There’s a lot of opportunities to experience kind of playful park-like activities that engage you to – people just passing through and using that to turn it in – the facility inside out and draw people in. Chair Lew: Peter. 7.b Packet Pg. 281 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Baltay: Thank you, yes. I share my colleague’s enthusiasm. It really is a much-improved design. I’ll bring my comments down from the way you started with the site planning, then the child’s journey and the massing. There are two comments I have that you should consider I feel, on the site planning. In general, I really think you’re really doing a good thing here. One is that you’ve created this strong access for pedestrians through the building and it terminates – as far as I can tell, sort of glancingly off the corner of the Girl Scout Building and I think it’s very important that that access terminates in the park somehow; visually, physiologically. I can’t say whether it’s ok or not the way it is but my gut feeling is that it – if it just sees the corner of this older building, that’s probably not a successful visual termination. Either you need some landscaping or shift the access a little bit. One of my thoughts was if you put it off 5-degrees further or something, it probably doesn’t affect your big idea. I would be very focused on making sure that the concept carries through at that point. The second concern I have is not to do with your parking itself. I think it’s a great layout but that, there has been a lot of historical issues with people driving through from Hopkins to Middlefield through this parking lot. That’s part of why it’s so circuitous right now. It would be a real shame to see you put this beautiful parking arrangement together and then have some neighborhood out crying and having to put bollards or some way for it not to function properly. Maybe this is better for Staff to approach but it would be nice to be sure that you have neighborhood by in as well. That there’s not going to be a huge outcry when you’ve created a very easy path through or you do something to prevent that. That’s just a heads up but your concept doesn’t work if it becomes a street, not a parking lot. I have to commend you on the child’s journey presentation. It’s one of the best I have seen for understanding architecture – civic architecture being brought to the community. It’s a fantastic way to explain it. It really sings, thank you. Mr. McClure: Thank you. Board Member Baltay: On the massing of the building, I think it’s great that you’re creating this courtyard space which is very reminiscent with many historic Birge Clark buildings, the Lucie Stern Center, the Palo Alto Historical Museum. It’s fantastic to see you doing that massing. I’m concerned, however, that the façade along Middlefield – as best as I can tell, is over 100-feet long, of a simple form. I think there it’s not going to be so successful. It’s just a little bit too long and to unbroken to fit in with the residential scale of the street. I think you really should consider strongly whether you can really pull that off or not. I think it will – in the end, not be just a simple form but rather just not be loved and it will hurt what you are doing. I think you want to probably give it some variation or modulation or at least give it some more thought. The concept is good. Then I’d like to add two thoughts I guess. I was at the Lucie Stern Center the other night, early for the theater – sitting in that wonderful courtyard outdoors, thinking about your project and thinking, what was it that makes that space so great? What is Birge Clark doing because he would also argue that it’s a building of his time, it’s a simple – it’s not a traditional mission building in the least. So, studying it, I realized that he has created a fantastic outdoor space. Just the small details in that courtyard, the way it’s landscaped and lit, make it so inviting, so pleasant. That reflects what Kyu is saying about keeping that pedestrian alley open to the public. The way that Lucie Stern is open all the time but to really think hard about the detailing and don’t let your desire to make it modern mean that you don’t do anything. It’s not just a concrete straight walkway and we’re not trying to do Le Corbusier here. Birge Clark, when I was looking at it, didn’t. He really believed in putting some details like different tile patterns, a special kind of brick, carefully laid brick in different patterns. Not necessarily expensive but it really works. I was also really taken with just the simple embellishments on the Lucie Stern Building. The rod iron light fixtures out front are fantastic, simple designs that are timeless and it’s crying out to have more of that on what you’re doing. Again, you’re not harking back to another era to put carefully thought out details. You can do them with stainless steel instead of rod iron but look at that stuff and think about it. The – he also does a really neat gave ample detail at the end of the edge of the roof. Just a slight modulation, it’s not a big overhang, it’s a simple mass but it’s carefully done. Don’t give us Huge Jacobson’s absolute nothingness, put some detail into it. That’s the historical context that you are in, there is detail on that building so don’t ignore it. The third thing he does, which is maybe more difficult but he creates wonderful covered outdoor spaces. The covered porches out – along the entire perimeter of that courtyard is part of what makes it so inviting. The building is not so front and center. There are people there and it’s very practical in the rain. Again, you might consider that as – you’re already doing some of that I can tell, with your walking here but those are things that I think you can take away from 7.b Packet Pg. 282 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 7 the Lucie Stern Center building. Lastly, I think – I understand that there’s already a historic report being done on the Girl Scout building but I think it’s important to consider that building as well. In initial thoughts about that building and how it fits, it's one that almost wants to be this little wooden hut off in a park, which is fine and it’s good. It doesn’t want to be the building at the end of an access, which is kind of where I’m bringing to here. Right now, you’ve got that building doing that and I don’t think that’s appropriate but certainly, I’d rather hear you just address that yourself. To close my comments, I greatly support the site plan. I think you are moving in the right direction. I also have to say that I feel that’s really important that this building be considered as part of a Class 1 Historic Complex and as I’ve been out to that site several times more and just recently thinking about it a lot more. That Lucie Stern building is pretty special and this building has to somehow respond to that. What you originally presented didn’t so I’d like to see you keep that in mind here. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you and Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I share my colleague’s happiness to seeing your revised plans. It’s quite breathtaking. Where’s the stroller parking? Mr. McClure: Sarah? Board Member Furth: This is the question I get from the general public. Ms. Vaccaro: Yes, yes. We understand that that’s a very important topic. I’m a mom myself so I share your concern. I think there are many opportunities. In the exterior plaza landscape, I think there’s opportunities kind of within the more sheltered area underneath the pecan tree. I think there are potential areas underneath – in this entry plaza that could store a few strollers. Then once visitors actually enter into the paid experience of the exhibit hall and of the zoo, we’re going to carefully plan for stroller areas so that moms and dads feel comfortable leaving their belongings in a certain place and then venturing out with their children but allowing them to be close. Board Member Furth: I look forward to seeing adequate stroller parking in the unpaid area. Could you explain to me how the dawn redwood courtyard works in terms of areas that are closed off or gated and areas which are not? Ms. Vaccaro: Sure. Let’s see, what’s a good (inaudible)? This is probably the best image to speak too. The main entrance into the Museum and Zoo is right behind this windscreen if you will. It’s where this blue awning is represented so this main – the taller mass of this building is the main exhibit hall and then there will be doors that take you out to the Zoo experience beyond the pecan tree here. There will also be doors that bring you out to – almost a slightly elevated deck area around the pecan tree. The pecan tree has a very shallow root system so we want to be very respectful of those and build up above the ground plain. We are proposing a slightly elevated deck experience. Paid visitors will be able to circulate around the dawn redwood and children will be able to climb down into different areas that have rocks to play on or different things to investigate. The science classrooms are also ringing this courtyard and so the ideas that those classrooms can spill out into the same raised decking area and then so climb down into this – we’re proposing that this area be slightly depressed and act as a bio swell for water treatment and so forth. The idea is that the kids would be able to climb down into this slightly depressed area and climb over rocks and investigate plants and so forth. The idea is that that slight change in grade is what keeps the paid public out, as well as some railings and… Board Member Furth: Is there a fence that I’m seeing along the walkway? Ms. Vaccaro: We like to think of it more as an exciting railing – guard rail if you will, that will have… Board Member Furth: Is this a place where I’m going to tell my child no, you can’t climb that, it’s private? Ms. Vaccaro: Exactly. 7.b Packet Pg. 283 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Furth: Then it’s a fence. Ms. Vaccaro: We will make it fence like enough. Board Member Furth: It’s a barrier. Ms. Vaccaro: Yes, it will be a barrier. Board Member Furth: Ok, so I can press my nose to it. Great and then – let’s see what else – did I have any other questions? I very much like your idea of using that space to show scale and I – you’re going to need to get a park improvement ordinance anyways for the zoo so if that includes continuation of your scale demonstrations into the main park, I think that could be fascinating. I lived for a while in [phonetics] [Gideon], which runs the solar system down its main street or its main pedestrian street. It’s quite effective I think. I think it all looks quite possible. I do agree that – I – one of the things I really like about this design as oppose to the earlier one is you can imagine turning a kid loose without having them get hit by cars. I very much like the idea of your opening. This entry into the park, it seems to me that it doesn’t quite do it. It seems to me that it’s slamming into the Girl Scout – Lou Henry Hoover House still and so I look forward to seeing how that might work more effectively. We’re still moving asphalt 30-feet closer to that house so I’m looking forward to – I’m curious as to what our better discussion of that building function and history tells us about whether we can do that appropriately. I think this shows enormous promise and achievement. Chair Lew: Thank you, Wynne. I have a couple – I have a question for Staff on this and I think this is a – I was trying to understand Peter’s comments with respect to the Lucie Stern Center. We have – I guess we have two things. One is the HRB reviewed the existing building, right? Would they weigh in on this project as – with regard to it being a historic site? Ms. French: Yes. Chair Lew; Ok, great. Ms. French: I mean, the code does say the ARB can refer projects to the HRB and this is one where we naturally expect to have it referred to – because the site is a listed registered historic site. Chair Lew: Right and then the thing with the Girl Scout building… Ms. French: Yes? Chair Lew: …is not technically is my recollections? Ms. French: There’s no write-up of that house but that is happening with the consultant. Page and Turnbull is preparing… Chair Lew: (Inaudible) eligible. Ms. French: … a historic resource evaluation about that and so that will be available to the ARB and the HRB at the next – for the formal review of this project. Chair Lew: Great. Then our PF zone, Public Facility Zone, doesn’t have compatibility requirements as say downtown so how would – our standard findings would apply, is that correct? Mr. French: Correct… Chair Lew: I was wondering what… 7.b Packet Pg. 284 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 9 Mr. French: …no context based design criteria but… Chair Lew: So, in theory, this could be – our code doesn’t require it to – our zoning ordinance doesn’t require it to be compatible with the Lucie Stern Center or the Girl Scout Building but it does have to have transitions, as I understand the code. Ms. French: Correct. You’re going to have the architectural review findings combined with the Secretary of Interior Standards that look at not impacting a CEQA resource with what’s being introduced. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you very much. I don’t have anything to add that hasn’t already been said. I think the other Board Members have said it will. I support the project as you’re proposing it now and then I think the only comment that I had was that you’re showing the park arrival place in between the Girl Scout building and your phase 2 piece. I think I might argue though that the – my recollection is that from the master – the Rinconada Park Master Plan is that they are trying to connect the – extend their access through the park and I might argue that you could bring the park entrance somewhere out towards Middlefield. That’s maybe not your project but I mean in the Master Plan possibly. The existing driveway around the big tree, closer to – what is it, Kellogg Avenue? That could be a nice arrival point as you have your bike – you’re proposing the separated bike path. I mean that seems to me to be a really nice entry point. Ms. Vaccaro: Sorry, which location were you saying? Chair Lew: Closer to – is it Kellogg? Mr. McClure: Kellogg. Chair Lew: Over there, I mean that could be an entry point into the park. That’s what… Mr. McClure: We’re getting rid of the parking that’s going around those oaks so that then can be this park promenade as you then come in. You’ll still need to go along that walkway that cuts through the parking lot but we’re already planning to make that nice and special. That’s an interesting idea. Chair Lew: I don’t know if that’s really part of your project or not because that’s – it seems like that might be part of the Park Master Plan. Mr. McClure: Yeah, so there is a gateway entrance here, as you then pull in this way. Chair Lew: Yeah because they’re really connected to the neighborhood and sort of make this park seemingly bigger. That’s all I have, I think you are on the right track. I think everything is looking good and we look forward to seeing your final application. Mr. McClure: Thanks for your comments everybody. Action Items 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 240 Pasteur Drive [16PLN-00362]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for approval of an Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new Biomedical Innovations Building for the Stanford University School of Medicine. The Approximately 215,000 Square Foot Building was Previously Entitled in 2011. The Proposed Project Includes Architectural Modifications to Reflect Updated Internal Program Needs, Surrounding Pathways, Heritage Trees, and the Architecture of the Adjacent Hospital. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report was Previously Certified for This Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: HD 7.b Packet Pg. 285 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Lew: We will move onto the next item, which is item #3 which is a public hearing / quasi-judicial matter for 240 Pasteur Drive. Recommendation on the applicant's request for approval of an architectural review to allow the construction of a new Biomedical Innovations building for the Stanford University School of Medicine. The approximately 215,000 square foot building was previously entitled in 2011. The proposed project includes architectural modifications to reflect updated internal program needs, surrounding pathways, heritage trees, and the architecture of the adjacent hospital. Environmental assessment is an EIR was previously certified for this project pursuant to CEQA and the zone district is HD. We will just take a moment to let the Staff make a transition. We have Rebecca Atkinson, planner for the project. Welcome. Ms. Rebecca Atkinson: Good morning, thank you. The project is as you described, thank you very much. The background information on the School of Medicine Master Plan and the overall Stanford Medical Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project is contained in the first Staff report for this project. As an overview and to reiterate, the School of Medicine Master Plan was approved in 2011 as part of the overall Stanford Medical Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. The Master Plan included demolition of 4 existing buildings and replacement with 3 new – what was previously called Foundation of Medicine buildings. The first building, FIM 1, which is before you today under a new name, Biomedical Innovations building, was previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and the remaining two buildings have not received architectural review approval to date. The site plan is shown in your project plans, as well as here on the site – on this slide. The proposed building – the north side of the building faces Pasteur and to the east is Edwards and to the west is Lucas. The proposed elevations are the same as what you saw before in December and the ground floor plan remains the same as well. There have been some modifications to the Landscape Plan and so forth, as shown in your updated plan set from March 9th. I have the previously approved elevations from 2011, should you need them in your discussions today. Also, the previously approved ground floor plan, you also have that in the plan set you received in December. These key items are under the – undergoing review by Staff and detailed conditions of approval are being prepared to address these key items. Including referment of the need for the 2011 conditions of approval to remain in effect, as well as the previous Stanford Medical EIR mitigation measures. The conditions of approval would also contain a confirmation of how much floor area would be used in this first BMI building versus what is remaining because there is a requirement for a no net loss or sorry, no net gain of floor area. The total School of Medicine Master Plan build out would be the demolition of 415,000 – sorry, 415,000-square feet of total gross floor area and there would be no net loss. In terms of actually considering this by a medical innovation building today, before -- since December -- since you saw the project last in December, the floor area has been confirmed to be 202,450-square feet and the remaining would be 212,763-square feet. At this stage, Staff would welcome comments from the ARB including comments on the building design, Landscape Plan, and any item requested to return to the subcommittee for this BMI building; if there happened to be anything. Also, any feedback from the ARB on future distribution and massing of the remaining floor area or any comments on the design of the corner – design on the corner of the forthcoming second building in order to create a gateway. To reiterate, the – any forthcoming building would come back to the Architectural Review Board. At the last ARB meeting, which was in December, the applicant heard the unanimously approved motion from the ARB to provide a more detailed Landscaping Plan and also provide studies on building entrances. The applicant has provided an updated project description and a response to ARB comments in Attachment A and they also have a detailed presentation for you and a model that they would like to show you. Since the submittal of this project, Staff has not received any public comments on the project. Staff recommends a review of the project today and recommendation to Staff and the Director regarding approval. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Oh, I forgot to mention that the March 9th plan set, there’s a new page submitted At Places. It’s an updated site utility plan and stormwater plan that attempts to reconcile those sheets in the March 9th plan set – reconcile to the landscape plans. Thank you. Chair Lew: Jonathan. 7.b Packet Pg. 286 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Jonathan Lait: Great, thank you. Thank you, Rebecca, and Board Members. Just to reiterate, there was a discussion that the Board had in December and there were a variety of comments that were made. The Board’s motion focused on two discrete aspects of the project, which are detailed in your Staff report and that’s the focus of the Board’s review this evening. That is having to do with the entry and the Landscape Plan and that’s where the focus of the review should be and our recommendation again is for approval of that project. Chair Lew: Great. Now is the time for the applicant presentation and you have 10-minutes. Mr. Justin Brooks: Good morning, Board. Thank you for having us back today. I’m Justin Brooks from ZGF Architects. I’m joined to today by my colleagues Tom Leader and Eric Prince from TLS Studio, our Landscape Architect on the job. I wanted to spend some time today talking to you about the two key design issues that were just laid out. First, the discussion of building entry and its disposition, particularly in relationship to the overall campus planning construct of the school of the medical campus. As well as invite TLS to spend some time explaining in detail the landscape approach and the landscape plan. In regards to building entry, first I want to bring us back to –we’re orienting where this building exists within the context of the school of the medical campus. It exists at the corner adjacent to the medical center but it is a building that is a part of the School of Medicine. In the slide that is indicated on the screen, that is to the south, right? This building is really serving the vast majority of its population (inaudible) nearly all, is being served from the south of our site from the School of Medicine as oppose from the hospital. We effect very little cross traffic in terms of actual building users coming from the hospital into this facility. In fact, would encourage that there should not be – this is a research building that is intended for research, which needs to be in a fairly secure and discreet environment. The School of Medicine campus is comprised of a series of gateways and campus nods, which create entry points. The gateways are generally more out scaled elements or apertures or openings at the edge of the campus armature. The nodes exist after those gateway points and that is traditionally on this campus, where we find building entrances. There is a sequence – an expected sequence of building entries where you move through a gateway element, which is as we described to you in our last meeting, that has been created through the formation of this large overhanging trellis, which celebrates the heritage coast live oaks and brings you into what we are calling BMI plaza. That BMI plaza, which is the top left square indicated on the screen here, really becomes the organizing structure for building entries both in our facility, the CCSR facility, Beckman to the south and future BMI too. We are using that space as a wayfinding device for the physical building entry – (inaudible) gateway. The trellis really is the campus entry indicator, if you are to move from Pasteur or from the hospital onto campus. Within that exterior space, the BMI plaza – our building lobby is intended to extend the interior space into the exterior and vice versa. The ground plan has been treated in such a way to pull exterior materials through into the building lobby. We’re using high transparent glass to increase the visibility into the lobby space and have carried interior and exterior materials on the soffits and walls of that space, inside and out. So, it’s really to indicate and give the impression that this building is putting a foot into the BMI plaza. In terms of wayfinding, it really allows you to find your way into the space in a logical way arranged with the CCSR entry porch to the south. Looking at that entry condition from the BMI plaza and just passing through the gateway element as I mentioned, we are using high transparent glass so low iron glass is something that we’ve explored since last speaking with you, to try and increase the transparency, minimize reflectivity’s so that there really is a view into the space. It gives you a sense of what is going on within that space and gives a sense of the materials extending from the plaza inside of the building. Again, here you can see a relationship between this building entry and the building entry of the CCSR project to the south and in the distance here. So, having those relationships is important because that’s where we see the interaction and overlay of building users coming from. Looking to the north, back towards the hospital again, that extension of materials inside and out. Looking back through the large gateway aperture which is the trellis mounted at the edge of Pasteur. I invite TLS to spend a little bit of time talking about the programmatic elements around the site and how each of these spaces is to be used, relative to gateway and entry and some of the secondary (inaudible) spaces. Tom, if you don’t mind? Mr. Tom Leader: I’m Tom Leader, TLS Landscape Architecture and I’m joined by Eric Prince, my partner. I figured out this morning – I have been working on this piece of land since 1988 when this was all just a 7.b Packet Pg. 287 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 12 big parking lot for the hospital. It did have some big majestic oak trees and over the course of the years, we’ve – different things have occurred, obviously. First CCSR was built and I was involved in the design and construction of the garden there and the plaza that currently exists that is shared by [Beckman] entry and CCSR. It was envisioned as a sunny living room space where we could gather together people from those two structures. In 2001, we were involved in the beginning of the planning of the medical school campus and Dean [phonetics] [Philapesso] was key in this. His vision was that we needed to get researchers out of the hospital, we need to have our own campus and although we’ve got Clark Center and we’ve got CCSR, we need to develop a whole campus of its own, strictly – with a face – putting a face on research. The plan that came forward during that time had a few key principles. One was to create a series of porches for arrival to these buildings so there’s not just a door. That there’s a space out in front where people can gather as they move in and out. To see each other – people that are working inside of the building and then second, to organize these porches together and to aggregate them so that – off of a few key spaces like Justin outlined, you will bump into various people from other facilities at the same time. During that planning, it was really – felt important to take that existing plaza at CCSR and group more entries around it and its one of the most interactive spaces frankly, on the whole, medical school campus in that regard –(inaudible) would like four porches all working together. Then we – during the --I don’t know – several years ago, we presented to you the planning of the area and it was called thin planning at that time; foundation and medicine. This idea was brought forward of aggregating four entries around this plaza and then facing the hospital is a gateway that is really an entry to the entire medical school and it’s not identified only with one facility. That was kind of the key principle of what we were doing and now we are at that moment where something will be built and I will just take a moment to say that one of the key reasons why you do these things is for collaboration. These are researchers and they are a closet away at their desk and when they come out at lunch and when they enter and exit the building, it’s good to cross paths with other people not only in your facility but other facilities. That collaboration really happens, researchers exchange ideas and social life really develops really in that space; it’s the living room for the whole school. That is really why that this has been figured out this way and it’s been that way for a while. I think that this is really a key issue and that the entry was really on the front side, they are going to be separated from the life that is moving in and out of the other three porches; they really ought to be together for that reason. On the – sorry, let me just go back. (Inaudible) plaza was really shared by four and then there were two key spaces at the front. Those ancient oak trees, they are still there and those spaces are about making a home for them. Making sure that they survive, that we are following the most important and functional horticultural principles like exposure, drainage, and use of materials that will reduce impact and compaction of soil. Things that are a detriment to big oak trees so they’re spaces for use but that entry at the front is a lot about making space for an oak tree that is less traffic and is also 4-feet down from the entry to the building. We – for a horticultural reason, we really want to separate the entry and locate it at the plaza. This is the space – one of the spaces at the front where the oak tree finds a home and we have it -- cypress trees indicate the entry to the entire campus and is relating to the Tommy Church entry to the hospital in general. I’m going to ask Eric Prince to kind of go through the detail of the landscape as we move around the building. Mr. Eric Prince: Ok, well, I’ll touch on this really quick so you can have time for questions. This is a gateway plaza, it really is a gateway where we are allowing – putting a frame around that oak tree and material and grating and allowing a plaza to exist outside of that oak tree as a threshold from the promenade into this space; this is slightly more social in nature. Then zooming out along Pasteur, these oak groves are interrupted by an alley of elm trees that move throughout Pasteur that are greater than this sight but move along Pasteur. In between, we have a light well and you can see a section in the upper left. This light well is bringing light to the lab buildings but then along that slope it’s planted with some native woodland plantings along that slope; they are really diverse and beautiful. Then the northwest oak grove is more passive in nature where we are using a lot of existing materials like stone and aggregate mulch and leaving that platform very open and flexible. As you turn the corner along Governors Avenue, we have this as being a major bike corridor for the University with a lot of bike facilities and bike parking and an alley of sycamores that are moving throughout. Lastly along Cooper Lane, this is a very shaded alley of using native planting along that way. You can see a view here and under the canopy of CCSR, with some lawn panels for gathering. Then lastly, this is all just to say, all the planting is working within the existing planning context whether the cypress trees are pulling from the 7.b Packet Pg. 288 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 13 hospital to the alley of elms that are moving along Pasteur. We are using this palette that engrains and works with a greater campus seating in addition with the heritage oaks. Mr. Brooks: Thank you so… Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Mr. Brooks: …(inaudible) answer questions. Chair Lew: Yes. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak to this item, now is the time. Seeing none, we will move on to Board Member questions. Any questions? Peter. Board Member Baltay: Yes, I have two questions. One for the applicant regarding the gateway plaza, is there a direct connection from the building to the plaza? I see on the plan here a series of – it looks like thicker pilasters on the building and glazed openings. Then secondly, what is the elevation difference between the interior floor of the building to the plaza? I’m sure all that information is here but there are over 100 pages. Mr. Brooks: There is not a direct connection through those thickened pilasters beyond – it’s a visual connect through the thickened pilasters to the gateway plaza. You’ve hit on a good point which is sort of a limitation on why there is not. There is a 3 ½-foot grade difference between building grade, which is working around the entire site to make primary and secondary work. That grade is fixed because we are working very hard to protect those heritage oaks so not over grading them, not changing the grading condition or constructing ramps/stairs or otherwise mitigate the grade change in that space. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. My other question is for Staff. Again, there’s such a pile of papers, it’s hard to find the answer. I’m sure it’s here but where are the findings that we should be using to approve this? What is see is a set of findings from 2010 with all 16 of them. Is that what we are following? Mr. Lait: Yes, so because the project is subject to the Development Agreement, it locks in the findings that were in place at the time that the agreement was entered into so it’s the – you may recall, it’s the 16 findings that the Board had; it’s those same findings. Now the responses to those findings may get adjusted if – as needed to respond to this specific project. Board Member Baltay: There are no written findings specific to this project in this packet? Mr. Lait: We’ve borrowed from the previous project and the same conditions. As we indicated in the Staff report, there might be some adjustments that we make to some of that criteria when the Director signs off on the project. However, the Board is certainly welcome to make comments on the findings if – as needed. Board Member Baltay: Just to understand, the findings that I am seeing here, are the exact same findings as was approved in 2010? Thank you. Chair Lew: I have a question if nobody else a comment. I think mine is actually a comment. The – for Staff, the listing for this project and also some references in the drawing sets mention heritage trees and I’ve been corrected by the City Attorney on past projects. We have heritage trees, protected trees, and regulated trees and so heritage trees are only ones that the City Council has designated as being special for historical or whatever reasons. Other Cities use heritage trees to mean – what we call protected or regulated trees, meaning large oak trees or large redwood trees. I think it’s not quite right in the description of the project and there are some references to -- in the landscape plans – in some of the landscape plans it mentions heritage trees but then it also lists protected trees so it’s a little – it’s contradicting itself. (Inaudible) our – excuse me – our Cities code. That’s all I have for questions and we can move onto comments. Wynne. 7.b Packet Pg. 289 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Furth: Thank you and thank you for the – as always beautiful presentation. My principle concern last time was finding number 7, which requires that you provide a good setting not only for the people who are going to be in the building because they have business there but for the community around it. While this is part of the research aspect of the medical facility – I mean medical school, it’s moving out from where it use to be adjacent to the hospital. It still has a neighbor which is people seeking treatment and their families and that’s why I was concerned that – in my experience, people seeking treatment and their families what to get out of the hospital and if you’re going to go for a walk and you don’t want to shop, you’re going to head for this area. That was why I was concerned about, can you find access to a bathroom, is there a place to sit, is there a drinking fountain? I’m satisfied that you have addressed that adequately so that addresses my concern. I did have one question, so the security – where does this space become secure? Mr. Brooks: Within the building. Board Member Furth: Within the building. I was reading that right, thank you. Mr. Brooks: If you look at -- in the books, you have received, plan sheet 16. The secure facilities begin at – I’ll reference grid lines, maybe that’s the easiest way to navigate. In the east/west direction, grid 17 indicates a doorway sort of just to the left of the toilets, that would be a secure point. Additionally, in the opposite direction, just north of the Orange colored stairway, there is a doorway there as well so those apertures – there’s another to the south. Those are the points at which there would be secure access. That said, we would expect fairly low – quite low public traffic into this building and the University would be looking to, in fact, discourage that at some level. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: Wynne, is that all? Board Member Furth: It is. Chair Lew: Thank you. Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, I don’t have any comments other than to say that I think we can make the findings to recommend approval. I think if anything, on the older findings, I think with the original building design there was that front door – I’m reading the last sentence in finding #2. A new front door for the school of medicine along Pasteur Drive is created in relationship with the new Stanford Hospital. I think that has changed a little bit so if maybe we could just strike out that sentence. I think I can make the other findings as is and you’ve clearly shown that you’ve got this (inaudible) of parts and you guys know what you are doing. I don’t have any concerns and I’d be fine recommending approval. Thank you. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Based on the limited finding or I should say the limited scope of this portion, I can approve it the way it is. My biggest concern – I’m just going to throw it out again. I’m just not a big fan of the kit of parts concept. Never have been because after – that’s a very attractive looking building I think there but the reality of it is that I’ve been in project – long term situations where after you building 5 or 6 of these things, after a while they just begin to look way too much together and the average person walking by goes, oh ok, now is this building 12 or is this building 14? They all begin to look alike. As I said, seeing as though that ship has passed, it – I can approve it based on the limited scope that we have. Although I do want to say that in the analysis here, the concept says or it’s written in our thing that the City and Stanford have a shared interest in quality architecture, place-making, and overall urban design. While there may be some refinements that some may suggest could be made to enhance the landscaping or the other features, Staff concludes on balance that the project meets the required findings for approval. To me, that is settling and I don’t like that. That’s it. 7.b Packet Pg. 290 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Lait: If I could just comment if it’s appropriate. I think the comment isn’t there from a place of settling but with the recognition that the fact that there’s still some zoning related matters that we need to sort that out and we think that they’re going to be addressed but that’s what we are getting at there. Board Member Gooyer: I understand but what I am saying, this paragraph fits perfectly with the concept of a kit of parts so that was my main comment on that. I can approve it the way – based on the scope. Chair Lew: And Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I share Robert’s reaction to this and feel that the gateway plaza and to some extent the other plaza facing Pasteur are – I guess lost opportunities. They are outdoor spaces that could become really good pedestrian space and I don’t think you’re going to get them there because there is no way to get into them easily and they are not really connected to the building. That said, I understand and agree with your logic about the overall planning and how you want the building to be entered from the other side and that’s what functionally makes sense. Reluctantly, I am happy to settle that I can make the findings to recommend approval. Chair Lew: Wynne, did you have a question? Board Member Furth: I was just confused by Staff’s statement. We don’t know yet whether this building complies with zoning? Mr. Lait: It does. There are some minor detail that we are going to address in plan check that are having to with underground tunnel or the – some of the utility stuff that was still – at the time that we prepared the report, didn’t have those answers to but you’ll see in the Staff report that we’re also going to include a condition that if there are any substantive changes as a result of the plan refinement, that we would come back to the Architectural Review Board. The plan that you see before you is the plan that would be approved. Board Member Furth: The aspects of the plan that we are looking at are not involved in the zoning compliance issues? Mr. Lait: That’s correct. Board Member Furth: Which involve an underground tunnel and utility placement. Mr. Lait: Right, areas where we believe the Board would have areas of interest or purview, we believe that those have been addressed. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: I have a question regarding the landscapes. It seems like from the last set of plans that we received, there is a change in one of the – there’s an addition of an additionally relocated oak tree in the northwest oak grove. I was wondering if you could explain that and where is that tree coming from? Mr. Prince: The source of that tree is yet to identified. It could come from a number of sources, whether it’s at a nursery or from the campus. Internally, if there’s a tree that needs to be located but the idea is that it’s a large coast live oak that matches the grove there so that it reinforces the character of the oaks that are there. It’s – again, not probably the same scale as those existing ones. Those are very large but it is something in nature of – something that’s like 25-feet in the canopy. They are big and so something that we would then again, reinforce a teenager like age oak tree in those areas. Chair Lew: Ok, good. Is there in the light well along Pasteur Drive, you’re showing a lot of shade tolerant plants that light moisture. Are there any issues with planting that type of plants that require that kind of water near – in the proximity of the existing oak trees? 7.b Packet Pg. 291 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 16 Mr. Prince: I wouldn’t say that they are like a wetland type planting. They are plants like Mahonia, that can tolerate to shade but can also tolerate more drier conditions in these California woodland environments, where you won’t get rain in the summer time. The excess of water is the regular type irrigation zone for ground cover planting. The slope is fairly shallow so it’s not too steep as to sheet off all the water but it’s kind of achieving this delicate balance of getting shade -- diversity of plantings without requiring a lot of water. Chair Lew: Thank you for that. I think that’s all that I have with regard to the project. I can support the project. The findings I think need – the existing findings, I think need several edits. I think one was mentioned that was about the – was #2, right? I think the entry was mentioned and then I would say that the – I would just add a comment. My comment is that the existing Lucas building has a similar entrance location to this proposed project. On the – what do you call it? More on the Campus Drive side of the building, in the corner. It’s not like it’s something new, it’s something that has already been done there. In #4, it mentions the red roof entry elements that were in the previous design and I would say that it’s been revised to a trellis element. Male: That’s correct. Chair Lew: In #7, it mentions that there is a new series of quads and porches. I know you guys have been calling it a porch but I would actually argue that they are closer to plazas. I don’t know, maybe that’s semantics but if we’re – I don’t really like the – we’re putting porches in the findings. We’re putting porches in quotes and it just – it doesn’t seem quite right because it seems like it’s hinting that it’s not a porch so why don’t we just call it an entry plaza. Then in #11, I think maybe we should – which is about natural features. I think maybe we should state what’s happening. Let’s just say that the – that there are 3 or 4 oak trees being removed and a certain amount being relocated, right? I forgot exactly how many – because it’s just not – it’s just a little fuzzy there. It’s not really saying that the – anything is being removed. Those are all my comments. Do we have a motion? Board Member Baltay: On finding #7, you’re talking about the help – buildings help establishes a new series of quads and porches or however you find it along both Pasteur and Cooper Lane. I don’t find it (inaudible) along Pasteur. Can we describe that? Chair Lew: We have porches but I think that they – they are trying to create plazas at the – in the oak groves, at the two ends of the building. Board Member Baltay: That was precisely my comments to them… (crosstalk Chair Lew: That there no entry. Board Member Baltay: …that they are not really successful plazas so I don’t support that there are plazas along Pasteur. Chair Lew: I would say that it may not be an entry plaza to the building but it’s still a plaza for the users in the vicinity. If you go out there at break time or between shifts… Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: …people are walking all – people are walking around taking breaks and chatting on their phone (inaudible) (crosstalk)… Board Member Baltay: We want the change to the word quads and porches to plazas, is that the proposed change then? Chair Lew: Yeah because I think we all agreed that it’s not really a porch, right? 7.b Packet Pg. 292 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Baltay: So how is it proposed – what are you saying we should make this then? Chair Lew: I mean – I was thinking of plaza. Why don’t we go to the sheet, I mean they have created all these benches and I’ve never seen benches quite like… Board Member Baltay: I’ll grant you it’s a plaza, yes. Chair Lew: I would even say that it’s not even an entry plaza, right? It’s a landscaped plaza. Board Member Baltay: If we just change it to say proposed building help establish a series of new plazas, is that good? Chair Lew: Yeah. Board Member Baltay: Ok, then I am fine with that. MOTION Chair Lew: Ok, I’m not supposed to make the motion but I will make the – I will make the motion since I made all of the comments on the findings. I will make a motion that we approve the project as proposed including the Attachments A with the following revisions. That we delete the front door sentence in the existing findings on #2. #4 we delete the red roof reference to the red roof elements and we replace that with a trellis element. #7 we delete porches and replace it with plazas and under #11 if you would just itemize the number of trees being removed and relocated. Then also, maybe if we could correct the heritage reference and maybe put in protected or regulated trees as needed. Does anybody want to second? Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: Thank you. All in favor? Chair Lew, Vice Chair Kim, Board Member Gooyer, Board Member Baltay, Board Member Furth: Aye. Chair Lew: Opposed? None. Thank you, that passed 5-0 MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 Mr. Brooks: Thank you, Board. Thank you for your time, this morning. Chair Lew: Thank you. We’re going to take a 5-minute break so that the next project can set up. 4. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 475 Cambridge Avenue [16PLN-00250]: Request for ARB Hearing of a Tentative Approval of an Architectural Review to allow a Steel Beam Trellis Structure Over a 28,051 Square Foot Area to Support a Solar Development on the Top Floor of an Existing City Parking Structure. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From CEQA per Guideline Sections 21080.35, 15303, and 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Public Facility. For more information, contact the project planner Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org [Is being reviewed with Item #5] 5. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 275 Cambridge Avenue [16PLN-00278]: Request for ARB Hearing of a Tentative Approval of an Architectural Review to allow a Steel Beam Trellis Structure Over a 20,645 Square Foot Area to Support a Solar Development on the Top Floor of an Existing City Parking Structure. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From CEQA per Guideline 7.b Packet Pg. 293 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 18 Sections 21080.35, 15303, and 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Planned Community (PC-4127). For more information, contact the project planner Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Lew: We’ve item #4 and #5 and we’re going to group them together because they are related. They are – they have been separated because they are different zone districts. Item #4 is a public hearing/quasi-judicial matter for 475 Cambridge Avenue. Request for ARB hearing of a tentative approval of an architectural review to allow a steel beam trellis structure over a 25 or 28,051-square foot area to support a solar development on the top floor of an existing City parking structure. Environmental assessment is its exempt From CEQA per Guideline Sections 21080.35, 15303, and 15301 and that district is PF, Public Facility. Item #5 is 275 Cambridge Avenue. Request for ARB hearing of a tentative approval of an architectural review to allow a steel beam trellis structure over a 20,645-square foot area to support a solar development on the top floor of an existing City parking structure. Again, that one is exempted from CEQA but this one is in a PC, Planned Community zone. Amy French, welcome back. Ms. French: Thank you. Amy French here and I have a PowerPoint today that does lump both projects together. The one slide showing on the screen shows both of the bird’s eye views of 275 and 475 Cambridge. As noted, we have one that is zoned public facilities and that is 475 Cambridge and the other, 274 Cambridge is zoned planned community. These structures were built – 475 Cambridge in 1986 and 275 Cambridge in 1994. They both have some life ahead of them. I’ll start with 475 as it’s first on the agenda. I have some images on the screen showing the contextual site plan, showing the buildings in the immediate vicinity and the roof plan showing the solar panels placed on the trellis. Here is another image showing the site plan. I have a section showing the framing. This is through the middle of the site lengthwise, you can see the ramp here. Then I have a canopy framing plan so here we have the supports and the steel members that are being placed on the top of this garage at 475. Here are some images of 475 before on the left and after on the right. These images are showing that the steel structure is supporting these solar panels that are not solidly placed; there are spaces between them. Before and after for each. This image shows a lighting plan and photometric plan so, underneath the canopy, there will be good lighting for people who are parking on that top parking deck. Now I am over onto 275 Cambridge, the planned community. You can see here from the site plan that there are some blow ups in your plan sets showing spacing of the solar panels on top of the structural steel frames. For 275 Cambridge, there are two structures that leave the center – 30-plus-feet in the center, an opening between the two structures. This is facing Cambridge, this is facing Mayfield. Here are some images before and after; left is before after is to the right. We have a photometric plan for the lighting on the – underneath the canopies. We’re here because we have a request for a hearing following a tentative Staff action. This is all laid out in the zoning code. We have here architectural review findings in the approval letter that went out that’s attached to your report. Then we have an original request that was submitted for the hearing in a timely manner and we have the second email that was delivered on March 15th, yesterday, with some reasons why the request was submitted. In addressing Mr. Borock, who is here today, his statements in his letter of yesterday – I have some comments. He raises CEQA concerns and so I would say to that, that you may or may not agree with the parking deficiency concern for Cal. Ave area but this is an existing condition. It will not be exacerbated by the proposed project. The base is for determining whether significant impacts will occur, is the existing condition and there’s no obligation to consider the potential beneficial impacts of a substitute project. The second important CEQA issue is that California no longer considers parking deficiencies in themselves to be a CEQA significant impact. There’s no evidence that’s been provided that these solar panels -- structures supporting the solar panels would result in significant impacts. In fact, it’s designed specifically to not eliminate parking spaces. This may be a policy matter but it’s not a CEQA concern for this project or these projects. The Architectural Review Board’s focus is the support structures for the solar panels, not the solar panels themselves. Those are not design review in the State of California. They are not subject to design review. Back in September as noted in the Staff report, the Council reviewed 4 projects like this; two downtown and two on Cal. Ave area and they agreed that these could be considered as minor architectural reviews. Then there were quite a few parameters that were set. Don’t lose parking spaces was one of them and then we analysis them to make sure they comply with applicable codes. I’ve just put up the ARB findings for later but we do have Comprehensive Plan Policies that are met with this project on the screen. I have put up there 7.b Packet Pg. 294 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 19 finding 2 and we can come back to it if need be and findings 3, 4, and 6. Why don’t I put back the images for the discussion and you can start with 475 first if you’d like. Then let me just say two things, our applicant is here to answer your questions. He did not plan to present anything and then secondly, they hearing request from Mr. Borock had requested in an earlier letter notification and my error, I did not send an email to Mr. Borock about today’s meeting but he is here so he will have the opportunity to comment and make a presentation, I believe he submitted a card. Chair Lew: He submitted two cards, one for each project. I think that means 10-mintues as I understand it. Yes, Mr. Borock, please. Yeah, there’s no – they are here for questions. Mr. Borock: Thank you, Chair Lew and good morning Board Members. I did submit a request for a hearing before the Architectural Review Board on these two projects because of the issues stated in the letter that I had emailed to you and also delivered yesterday morning. To make sure that a copy of (inaudible) because I’ve noticed that from recent times, from a number of projects – ones that I’ve not been involved in at all, people do have problems receiving notice of what’s going on so it’s not just this particular project manager or this particular project. It may just be those that come in the post office just don’t arrive because I do have mail problems as well. In general, those who received copies of Staff reports by other means, see that notice has been given to people within a certain distance and they say no, we never received it. I thought it was important to make this request and I’ve also copied Jack Morton, former Council Member, who is the president or CEO of the Business Community Association of the California Avenue both because I’ve quoted him in my letter and also because it’s in the area where he could talk to other people in case they hadn’t received notice of the project; just as a courtesy so that -- he may want to come and talk. It’s partly a policy question and partly the environmental question. In regard to the environmental question, it is true that this is brought before the City Council on September 26th but there was a new project submittal application on November 15th for all 4 of the garages. It’s hard for the Council or anyone to make a determination on an application that hadn’t been submitted yet. I don’t think we can rely upon what the Council did 6-months ago. Also, the Council would be an impleaded body for any decision that is appealed and it’s not appropriate for them to make a decision on something that they are going to appeal on or make that decision before the items even heard before you and before – and when – even those that were there, isn’t an appeal. Finally, under the California Environmental Quality Act, the decision maker is responsible for making the decisions both on the project and the environmental determination. You can say something is – doesn’t apply to CEQA, then that doesn’t apply but even when something is exempted, there still has to be an initial study made to cover all issues rather than just the exemption one. The reasons that have been stated in my letter, these two projects, unlike the ones downtown (inaudible) projects, have the ability to have more parking. There is clearly a problem in the California Avenue area and whether anyone else is interested in that, that wants to pursue this further, they have to take this step first. They can go to the Council again on this issue unless this Board first hears the project and somebody appeals it. I thought just of the interest of competition and giving everyone an opportunity to follow through on this problem that I have identified - - the fact that as you can say these two parking garages can have levels added, just like the one at 520 Webster – the (inaudible) Webster one had a couple of levels added after it was built and that’s my main issue and I appreciate you for providing time for me to speak and having a rapid meeting this morning. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. Mr. Borock. Are there any questions from Board Members? Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Yeah, for Staff. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: Maybe for the applicant as well. 7.b Packet Pg. 295 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Furth: Two questions, you referenced a State exemption of review of solar panels so I wonder if you could tell me a little bit more about that. Then secondly, where these garages engineered and designed so that additional floors can be added on top of the existing structures? Ms. French: I have not investigated the structural stability of the existing garages for subsequent levels. What I know, though, is that the City has been focusing on an alternative site, not these sites, for a new parking structure in the Cal. Ave area and it’s on Sherman. You will be seeing these in months to come. In fact, the Council will be discussing this in April. The – that’s your second question. I don’t know the answer to the structural capabilities of those buildings for upper floors but again, coming up with funding for that is not subject to this application. The first question had to do with – remind me? Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Ms. French: I don’t have the code references but the State does not allow – State legislation does not permit Cities to do design review on roof top panels. They are not being placed on the roof because that’s where people park. They are being placed on these new structures and the new structures are subject to design review, upon which the solar panels would be placed. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Can I ask what the parking count is for each garage respectfully? Do you have that by any chance? Ms. French: I’m sorry, I do not and … Vice Chair Kim: That’s fine. Ms. French: … I don’t see Public Works here. Vice Chair Kim: Thank you. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Yes, again for Staff. It’s a procedural question I suppose but it’s my understanding that City Council explicitly said that the architectural review of these rooftop structures should be a minor architectural review? Ms. French: Yes, they did. They said that it – it seems to be eligible for that. I should say that 3 of the 4 projects were planned communities and they recognized that this would be a minor alteration to an existing structure and so, yes. Board Member Baltay: That’s said -- as a follow-up and I suppose there’s not really an answer to this but if we were to feel that we did not agree with the – what do I call it? Appellant, A person that is requesting the hearing, should we then be pushing this back to the minor level review or are we supposed to be now reviewing it that same way every other project is reviewed? Ms. French: Now your task is to see if Staff’s ARB – architectural review findings that we use to approve the project at a Staff level are adequate for your action and we do request action today if that’s a possibility. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. 7.b Packet Pg. 296 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 21 Ms. French: It’s a public hearing, it’s not an appeal, just to be clear. This is an opportunity for a public hearing on the project. Board Member Furth: Are we using the same set of architectural review findings for a minor or major project? Ms. French: The architectural findings are not specific to major or minor, they are just the findings. Board Member Furth: That would be a yes. Ms. French: Yes. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: I have a question for – I have a comment for Staff. I think Wynne was asking about the State requirement. I think the California Solar Act and there’s also another one, I think the Solar Shading Act. I don’t have the – I haven’t read them in a couple years. The Shading Act says that if the City – for example, if the City provides a setback to the panels from the property line, then it has some protection from – say like neighbors planting trees, which would shade on the panels. In this case, if we’re putting the panels right up on the property line, I don’t know – we have alleys and stuff so I don’t know – there are a couple adjacent neighbors. There could be a new building on some of those sites which would shade the existing or the proposed panels and that would – we wouldn’t have any recourse as my understanding, from the State shading – Solar Shading Act; in that case. I think it’s really – the one that would be affected would be the 2 – I think is the 275 which has some adjacent neighbors right at the property line. That’s the only question I had – I guess comment that I had. Any other – yeah, Peter, do you want to start? Board Member Baltay: Sure. No questions but I’m glad to take a crack at this. I find myself convoluted. I do not agree with what Mr. Borock is saying about why this shouldn’t – doesn’t meet the standards. I find what Amy French put forth is logical and convincing. That said, if you are asking me to review this based on the findings we have, I cannot make architectural finding #2 nor architectural finding #3. I feel that these structures – I’m referring to the structures and I’m referring to them on both of these projects, are not compatible with the building they are being mounted on. They are just a totally different non- architectural style. They are not a style, they are just a metal framework. Each of these buildings – each of these structures, these parking garages have a distinct architectural style. They clearly do and I would expect anyone designing this to think about that a little bit. To put some sort of a column detail or some technical way of putting it together nicely and that makes it look better. They are actually fairly large steel elements holding these up. They are big expands and they are fairly deep and to just leave the end of an eye beam showing at the corner is the easiest way to do it. I find that finding #3 a high aesthetic quality, the only reason given is because they are painted gray. I’m sorry, I know we’re kind of in a bind here perhaps but I asked, if you wanted my opinion on it, it’s just not cutting it. I guess I will just be eager to hear what my colleague’s think. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I thought I was the only one being nitpicky about it but I guess I feel exactly the same way. I figured this could go either one of two ways. I’ve seen panels go up where they are totally utilitarian but yet the – so they have aluminum frames for instance, where they are set on and you understand that that’s what it is. This particular design looks like they were going to put a second or third floor on the building and then ran out of money and just stopped. I agree with you completely as far as the eye beams being exposed. Something like this is either going to need a metal fascia around the exterior so it just looks like a canopy or whatever but the way it is now, I can’t find the – make the findings work either. Chair Lew: Kyu. 7.b Packet Pg. 297 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 22 Vice Chair Kim: This is a – it’s tough. I guess while we are commenting, I’d just like to go on the record and say, a structure like 475 Cambridge that’s nearly 50-years old, to put a structure to hold solar panels to last another 25-years just doesn’t seem right to me. It seems like it’s a lost opportunity to either rebuild that parking garage as a taller structure, designed with PV panels to be integrated into it or just something else to be done to it. It’s already an ugly parking structure that has horrible circulation around it. It’s really horrible around it, it’s a one-way circulation around the back alleys and to think that we’re just going to slap on some PV panels with a structure in the most utilitarian way possible to meet City energy goals, to me is quite preposterous. The City deserves better, the residents deserve better, we deserve more parking there if anything. I do actually have some questions for the applicant. Perhaps I just haven’t spent enough time with the drawings but I’m looking at sheet S-3.0 for 275 Cambridge. Mr. Robert Laubach: Ok. Hello, my name is Robert by the way. Vice Chair Kim: Hi Robert. Welcome. The canopy there shown on my drawing is actually different than what was shown on a previous slide. Could you clarify what’s going on there? To me, it looks like canopy section at grid A, drawing number 2 – maybe it is the same it’s just an optical illusion in my sense but that drawing compared to the perspective drawing on sheet A-1.0 -- on sheet A 1.0, it looks like the right – is there another perspective you’ve got of that? Ok, so on our sheet A-1.0, it looks like half of the structure is actually tilted in the opposite direction than what you are showing the elevation. I think overall; this drawing package was very difficult for us to understand as people that have reviewed drawings for buildings. I understand that it’s just meant to be very practical for a very simple structure to hold the panels but if we are being asked to review it, I just couldn’t make too much sense of it. A second question is the structure itself that’s holding these panels different for both garages? It seems like one is a tube structure and the other is more of a wide flan structure? Am I reading that correctly? Mr. Laubach: No, they are both complimenting the same structural elements. The HSS tube still is the vertical column that is attached to the existing structure and then the spans are out of wide flan (inaudible). Vice Chair Kim: Wide flan… [Mr. Robert ??] … in both cases. Vice Chair Kim: Ok. We’re missing two elevations possibly. I understand that for 275, there are some buildings on each side but… Mr. Laubach: There are some elements on 275 that are worth noting and that is… Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, if you could go over that. Mr. Laubach: …that is that it’s a very awkward structure. Let me back up a little bit and say that as a design builder, I’m contracted with a solar PPA provider who entered into a contract with the City’s utility to sell the City renewable energy on a feeding tariff. The City chose these locations in that request for proposal and identified these four garages in particular as good usable space for solar, for the purposes of not having any impact on trees. Basically, encouraging the public to park on the top floor, which typically people don’t want to drive all the way up and then park their car in the sun. There was a lot -- like you say, practical application to one, why the sites were chosen and two, how we approached it with respect to keeping a trellised style look, managing the open-air elements that are necessary to prevent fire suppression issues that would be associated with the building approval process and that sort of thing. On this particular building, I’m not sure exactly what they were thinking when they built it but they have this store front style façade. It’s almost like you were in a movie theater for an old wild, wild west. That center section, which is a brick styled pop up basically, blocks the view of this really weird hump in the middle, which give you access into the garage. The design styling – remember the objective from the developer and us was to fit as much solar on these as we can so we can have the best possible carbon 7.b Packet Pg. 298 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 23 offset characteristics and generate the most electricity. When you build a solar system, the modules are always going to be oriented as closely as possible to the south. In which case, both of these garages, the modules will be oriented in the short direction south towards El Camino, right? When you asked the question which way are the modules tilting? If you’re looking at that picture, obviously, the top cross section, the left side is south, the right side is north. That’s why the elements of that structure are south sloping on that and then they are leveled out because those pop-ups are at different elevations. Then the slope on the modules is achieved by tilting each individual module rather than tilting the structures in and of itself. That gives us spacing between the panels for (inaudible) and it also allows a little bit more open air kind of concept. That center section was deliberately left open so that it would – it is the architectural feature of the building, right? That’s why there’s a gap there because there’s a big old hump there. We’re really trying to take these and make them functional for what the intent of the RFP from the City was and still have them work both structurally and architecturally. I can say, that neither garage structurally has a capacity to increase or build another story on it. We know that for a fact because we did the structural design for the canopy itself. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: I have a question for you since you are standing there. On the 275 garage, one portion of the photovoltaic is sloped and the other is flat and it seems like it’s slope in the wrong direction relative to the solar orientation. Is there an advantage… Mr. Laubach: If it’s sloped in the wrong direction, that was not the intention. It should be sloped south towards 475. Both the panels and then the southern half if you will, of the garage is… Chair Lew: I think the efficiency of the array is not my – it’s not one of my findings but I was thinking I would – just architecturally, it might look better if they both matched and maybe the drawing – well, maybe if we can pull up a drawing. Do you have the sheet S… Mr. Laubach: I don’t have the plan set that you’re looking at… Chair Lew: I have… Mr. Laubach: … I kind of have it on my computer, which is… Chair Lew: I was looking at… Ms. French: Sorry, what image are you… Chair Lew: Sheet S-3.0. Mr. French: What’s the image? What’s the image, I can maybe pull it up on the screen? Chair Lew: Canopy – yes, canopy section at Grid C. Ms. French: This is for 275, correct? Chair Lew: I’m looking at the Cambridge Avenue facing façade. Yeah, so that’s the top image there. It seems to me that south would be on the right side, towards – which would be El Camino. Just as – in your diagram, the panels are facing the other way and the slope is also facing… Mr. Laubach: Yeah, that’s a little miss leading because (inaudible), there’s a left and right side so they’re – they – one should be flipped but – in which case the Mayfield land view is the proper view. It seems to me that your… Chair Lew: Yeah, something is… 7.b Packet Pg. 299 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 24 Mr. Laubach: Yeah, you’re facing Cambridge view, it just needs to be flipped. Chair Lew: Right. Ms. French: Technically, this is – I’m sorry, I’ll weight in. Technically the top image is not an elevation, it’s a section (crosstalk) and it was taken along…(crosstalk) Chair Lew: The wrong way. Ms. French: …that edge and so I didn’t flip it to show you what – how it would really look. I’m sorry about that. Mr. Laubach: That explains why you guys were saying, this pointed the wrong way. Now, I see what you’re saying. Chair Lew: Thank you for that. I am – I think I understand all the Board Member comments. I don’t think I really disagree with them. I guess my take – my hunch though on this was to let it move forward because the Council has already seen this. They weighed in and they said it was ok and so we’re just having a hearing – a public hearing at the request of Mr. Borock. I was thinking that this should go forward but I’m not seeing a lot of support from the rest of the Board. I guess I have a question for Staff if the Board can’t make the findings, what would happen? You would have to come back for the – with a redesign? Ms. French: Yeah, we’re asking for a recommendation, if you can one way or the other today and then the Director… Chair Lew: The Director’s decision. Ms. French: …would then make a decision and if it needs to go to Council, it goes to Council. Chair Lew: Got it. Board Member Baltay: A question, has the Council really seen these images? I’m looking at sheet A-1.0… Ms. French: Yes. Board Member Baltay: …showing the image of 275 and they’ve seen it this way? Ms. French: Yes. Board Member Baltay: With that on top like that? Ms. French: Yes, we’ve had revisions submitted to – back in November but they – all of these images – we had images for the Council to see, before and after. You can – the applicant can tell you what they had provided in their earlier packet but I believe many of these before and after images were provided to the Council in September. Board Member Baltay: I’m of the opinion -- I’ll speak to my colleagues and that we should just plain say no as a recommendation to the Staff. Let the Staff bring it up – Director bring it back to the Council and let the Council decide on this. I don’t see any redeeming quality at this elevation. It’s just not doing it. We routinely push other applicants significantly more and I don’t think it’s a matter of asking for a few pieces of extra steel. I agree with Robert that it could be done but maybe this is better to let powers that be make the right decision. Chair Lew: Wynne. 7.b Packet Pg. 300 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Furth: Thank you. First I wanted to say, I’m not quite sure where we are in the procedure or process but I wanted to say about the CEQA issues that Mr. Borock raised. We now have information uncontradicted that this would not support additional stories presumably without either building a steel cage around it or tearing down the building. I don’t think that the lost opportunity rises to the level of the CEQA problem and I also want to note that section 15 of the lease, gives the City the right to relocate this facility as long as they are willing to pay the essentially, cost of relocation and the lost revenue stream to the other party to this lease agreement. This is not something – this is a problem solvable with money. I can’t make the required findings and Program B-5 is cited by the Staff and that’s the program that says let’s have simplified review processes in order to encourage this kind of thing. I want to encourage this kind of thing but this is not what’s known as a self-executing provision. If the Council wants to exempt solar car ports, it can exempt solar carports but we can’t. We don’t have that authority and I devoted my professional life to the proposition that law and language have meaning. My basic feeling is that if the Council wishes to change the review procedures, that’s within their power but it’s not appropriate to ask us to make a finding that is not supported by the evidence in front of it. My only option here is to vote no. Board Member Gooyer: Well, I think… Chair Lew: We need a motion before we start saying where…(crosstalk) Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) say no to the project., I beg your pardon. Chair Lew: Any other comments before we try to make a motion? Board Member Baltay: I guess… Chair Lew: Chair but isn’t it pretty much also if nobody makes a motion, then it’s pretty much dead anyway? Ok. Board Member Baltay: I guess I want to ask Staff, we want to work collaborative, we want to see this get done and this could be redesigned and approved with some work. With some – designers having some different set of goals. Respectfully, you outlined what your intentions where… Mr. Laubach: Yeah, as directed by the City’s RPF so because the City’s contracted for the purchase of electricity at a fixed rate, the – you can do a lot of things. You can make it pretty but it will affect the contract. Board Member Baltay: If I could, though, I think that he designed this with a certain objective in mind and I think we would agree that he achieved his objective. Our standards are different and it’s really a question of what standards we’re holding this too like we said. Maybe Staff should help us out, do you want a quick no, you can run with this as you like or do you want a long process of revising the design? Board Member Gooyer: Just because – I understand where you coming from completely and you did what you were basically requested to do. I have no problem with that but I’m also not going to say well, in that case, I’m going to vote it’s ok. I’m still going to vote no. I think we just vote no and then, basically leave it up to the City to either overrule us, which the Director can do or move it up to the City Council. Board Member Baltay: But what if they want to just make a revision to it and see if they can bring it into… Board Member Gooyer: Because – I don’t mean to talk for you but that’s going to cost a whole lot more money and if he bid on it, that means he bid on it based on a certain design and not something that’s been elaborated with putting a fascia or whatever the case on, which – let’s face it, is going to knock it out of his calculations. 7.b Packet Pg. 301 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Baltay: I was hoping to get what the Staff thinks would be the most helpful. Board Member Gooyer: OK. Ms. French: Part of this whole set up had a time certain for the applicant to get through the process with the lease so there are options as far as extending the lease. There are also other providers waiting in the wings in case this doesn’t get approved. Just to give you the scenario that we have out there. This applicant has an interest in this project and a lot of money has been spent already. Tt would be up to them to pretty much negotiate an extension of this lease and see if that works. Over which time some changes could be made or – and that’s one way to do it. Is to continue it to a date uncertain and they can see if they can extend their lease because they won’t meet the current leases terms or you can offer a quick recommendation for denial. It goes to the Director and the Director could refer it to the City Council for them to make a decision. Board Member Baltay: With respect Amy, you just told me was what I told you. We wanted to know what you guys think we should do? What do you want? Mr. Lait: I think… Board Member Baltay: Just looking for some guidance because we don’t want to be against each other. (Crosstalk)(inaudible) Ms. French: (Inaudible) Board Member Baltay: I appreciate that. (Crosstalk)(Inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) from a different angle then, you mention that the City Council has seen these drawings of the before and after. Board Member Baltay: That’s true. Board Member Gooyer: Now, I get the impression they didn’t have a whole lot of heartburn about them. Mr. Laubach: It was a unanimous vote in favor of moving forward with the project, yes. Board Member Gooyer: Then what I’m saying is that we’re looking at this differently than they are looking at it. Board Member Baltay: Fair enough. Board Member Gooyer: I think we need to do what we need to do and stay true to what our function is and if they want – if they don’t agree with that or they want to override that, they have the ability to do that. To keep on track, I think the easiest solution is to just vote no and then go back to the City Council. I mean that’s probably the fairest way for them to keep it on track. Considering that they voted – is it 9 whatever – unanimously to approve it… Mr. Lait: I just… Board Member Gooyer: … they couldn’t have too much heartburn based on that. Mr. Lait: I want to just clarify something. We took the application – we went to the City Council, what in September? Ms. French: September 26th. 7.b Packet Pg. 302 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 27 Mr. Lait: Last year because one, we wanted to affirm our perspective that the proposed solar structures were consistent with the Planned Community Ordinances that were approved for two of the parking structures and with the zoning regulations to support the structures. In communicating – in trying to seek that guidance from Council, we also informed them that the process that we intended to evaluate these solar structures was going to be through a minor AR review, which is a Staff level approval. There was some discussion about that and the Council did have copies of the photo simulation and plans but their vote is one of yes, it’s consistent with the codes and yes, we support the process by which the structure would be reviewed. Understanding that that could have requests for hearings and appeals and so forth. Board Member Gooyer: I understand that but it’s also – if I was in their place and looking at it just – is the thought that if I really didn’t like the way that this looked, I think I would have said something rather than just yes, ok, you’re telling me that it meets all the code requirements but this is going to be built in my town or my City I think it’s ugly or whatever the case is. As a Council Member, I would assume that I would have said something. Mr. Lait: Right and I don’t think either one of us could speak on behalf of the Council… Board Member Gooyer: No, I understand that. Mr. Lait: …Members but I think the process was understood. I think that’s what they were – the conversation was about and also, the Council -- clearly as we noted in the Staff report, there is competing interests here to or maybe not competing but there are shared or additional interests of how we support our sustainable energy resources. I think the Council, as they do with many decisions, have to balance different, potentially competing (inaudible)(crosstalk). Board Member Gooyer: But then from a pragmatic standpoint, doesn’t it make more sense to just vote no and let the process go on? Mr. Lait: To that point, if I may, I think Board Member, your comments from a few minutes ago, where probably the most salient to the conversation when you outlined the process. The Board – I would encourage the Board to make a decision. I don’t think the timeline provides one for review and iteration. I don’t think that’s where we are, unfortunately, for this particular application and your – the Board’s recommendation goes to the Director, the Director could support that decision or make an alternative decision. That decision could ultimately be appealed by the applicant or any member of the public. I think that’s the most expedient way to move the project forward. If there is a recommendation for denial, we would recommend that there be some findings to support that based on your 6 – not all 6 but just – I think you mentioned findings 2 and 3, if you could provide some color to that? MOTION Board Member Baltay: Ok, are we ready to have a motion then? I move that we recommend denial of the project based on finding #2 not being met in that the design – neither the design for 275 nor 475 has a design that is unified and coherent with the design of the existing buildings. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Board Member Baltay: Then finding #3, I also find that we’re unable to make and that the design is of a high aesthetic quality and I do not find that the design is of high aesthetic quality. The design is of a very utilitarian quality and very little effort has been made to make it above a standard – a normal standard of esthetic quality. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: All in favor? 7.b Packet Pg. 303 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 ) City of Palo Alto Page 28 Chair Lew, Vice Chair Kim, Board Member Furth, Board Member Gooyer, Board Member Baltay: Aye. Chair Lew: Opposed? That passes for the recommendation for denial is 5-0. MOTION PASSES 5-0 Vice Chair Kim: I’d like to go on the record once again, that even if we were to make this a pretty structure. It’s still a huge lost opportunity, especially with the garage that’s nearly 50-years old. I just want to say that on the record. Mr. Lait: Just to clarify, that was for the two items that you have on your agenda, item #4 and item #5, that motion cares for both of them? Chair Lew: Yes. Board Member Gooyer: Do you need two separate ones or something because… Chair Lew: It’s two projects. Approval of Minutes: 6. February 16, 2017, Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Chair Lew: We have one last item which is the approval of the minutes for February 16th, 2017. I think Wynne, you had mentioned that you have some comments on that? Board Member Furth: I realize that my comments were actually about a previous set of minutes where I said let me stress heiress, h-e-i-r-e-s-s, not eras, e-r-a-s but I don’t think that rises to something that needs to be addressed by this group. I’ll send the correction to Staff. Move approval. Chair Lew: Ok. Vice Chair Kim: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: All in favor? Chair Lew, Vice Chair Kim, Board Member Furth, Board Member Gooyer: Aye. Chair Lew: Opposed? None. Board Member Baltay: I abstain. Chair Lew: Ok so that’s a 4-0-1 abstain by Baltay. Ok, thank you, everybody. We are adjourned. Subcommittee Item Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment 7.b Packet Pg. 304 At t a c h m e n t : M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M i n u t e s ( 7 7 4 2 : M i n u t e s f o r M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 1 6 a n d M a r c h 1 6 , 2 0 1 7 )