Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-01 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: March 1, 2018 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2), Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals, and 3) Tentative Future Agenda items. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. CONSENT/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 500 Pasteur Drive (17PLN-00226): Stanford Hospital Entry Plaza Modifications. Request for a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Modifications to the Entry Plaza at the New Stanford Hospital. Modifications Include Re-conceptualization of the Previously Approved Kiosk and Installation of a 28-Foot Tall Sculpture and Plinth Instead of the Previously Approved Central Fountain. Environmental Assessment: Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (City Council Resolution No 9168). Zone District: HD (Hospital District). For More Information Contact Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org 3. PUBLIC HEARING: 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00257]: Review and Recommendation to Council of an Architectural Review Application for Construction of a New Four-Story Parking Structure, Photo-Voltaic Rooftop Panel Structure and Two Below Grade Parking Levels to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces on an Existing Public Parking Lot Within the California Avenue Business District. The Project Includes _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. a Request for Amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.28 to Modify Public Facilities Zone Development and Parking Standards for Parking and Essential Services Facilities in the Downtown and California Avenue Business District, Recommended for Council Approval by the Planning And Transportation Commission on January 31, 2018. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published January 8, 2018 for Public Comments Through February 22, 2018 and a Final EIR Will be Prepared. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. 4. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [18PLN-00042]: Modification to a Previously Approved Architectural Review Application to Change the Roof Material for the Recently Approved Junior Museum and Zoo Building. Environmental Assessment: Council Adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Junior Museum and Zoo in December 2017. The Proposed Project Does not Result in any new or More Significant Impacts Beyond What was Previously Assessed in the Initial Study. Zone District: Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3045 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00073]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing Office Building and Construction of a New Two-Story Approximately 29,200 Square Foot Research and Development Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From February 23, 2018 to March 26, 2018. Zoning District: GM (AD) (General Manufacturing with Automobile Dealership Combing District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org. 6. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 392 California Avenue [17PLN-00088]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow Changes to the Façade of an Existing Commercial Building in the California Avenue Business District. The Façade Changes Include a new Storefront Window System, an Individually Illuminated Channel Letter Sign, and a New Custom Abstract Mural by Artist Victor Reyes. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Scott McKay at Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2018. 8. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 21, 2017. 9. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2018. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Wynne Furth Vice Chair Peter Baltay Boardmember Robert Gooyer Boardmember Alex Lew Boardmember Osma Thompson Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by Noon two Wednesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing 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 # 8951) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 3/1/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2), Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals, and 3) Tentative Future Agenda items. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which rotate throughout the year. The second attachment transmits administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals since the Board’s last meeting. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. The third attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments:  Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)  Attachment B: Staff Approvals (DOCX)  Attachment C: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 6 2018 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/15/2018 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay 3/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/19/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/3/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/17/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/7/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/21/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/19/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/2/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/16/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/4/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2018 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 1/18 Baltay/Lew July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A R B M e e t i n g S c h e d u l e A s s i g n m e n t s ( 8 9 5 1 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Approvals Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for the installation of one new non- illuminated wall sign Applicant: Stephanie King Address: 135 University, 17PLN-00417 Approval Date: February 14, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: February 28, 2018 Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow new concrete path, replacement fencing and lockable gates for the pools. Applicant: Janet Drake Address: 1788 Oak Creek, 17PLN-00451 Approval Date: February 21, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: March 7, 2018 Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow removal of two dead pear trees and one Jeaning eucalyptus. Applicant: Erik Moller Address: 730 Welch RD, 18PLN-00012 Approval Date: February 21, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: March 7, 2018 Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow removal of four trees with damaged buttress roots. Applicant: Neil Woolner Address: 700 Clark Way, 18PLN-00011 Approval Date: February 22, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: March 7, 2018 1.b Packet Pg. 8 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : S t a f f A p p r o v a l s ( 8 9 5 1 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Approvals Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for a five year tree maintenance plan Applicant: Rick Cuevas Address: 3401 Hillview Ave., 17PLN-00400 Approval Date: February 22, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: March 7, 2018 1.b Packet Pg. 9 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 ( 8 9 5 1 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board 2018 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics March 15  Tier 3 WCF Vinculums/Verizon – Cluster 1 (2nd Formal)  2755 El Camino Real: Housing on VTA lot (2nd Formal)  356 Hawthorne Avenue: Three units (1st Formal)  3223 Hanover Street: New Office/R&D building (1st Formal)  Tier 3 WCF Vinculums/Verizon – Cluster 2 (1st Formal)  2755 El Camino Real: Housing on VTA lot (2nd Formal) April 5  3945 El Camino Real: Comfort Inn Renovation (1st Formal)  695 Arastradero Road: New reception pavilion  620 Emerson: Nobu annex (2nd Formal)  180 El Camino: Jeffery’s retail (1st Formal)  3001 El Camino Real: Subcommittee review 1.c Packet Pg. 10 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : T e n t a t i v e F u t u r e A g e n d a s ( 8 9 5 1 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8766) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/1/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 500 Pasteur Drive: Stanford Hospital Entry Plaza Site Modifications Review Title: CONSENT/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 500 Pasteur Drive (17PLN-00226): Stanford Hospital Entry Plaza Modifications. Request for a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Modifications to the Entry Plaza at the New Stanford Hospital. Modifications Include Re-conceptualization of the Previously Approved Kiosk and Installation of a 28-Foot Tall Sculpture and Plinth Instead of the Previously Approved Central Fountain. Environmental Assessment: Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (City Council Resolution No 9168). Zone District: HD (Hospital District). For More Information Contact Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Background The New Stanford Hospital (NSH) project was recommended by the ARB then approved by City Council on June 11, 2011, as part of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC). Council Resolution #9171, Exhibit B contained project- specific approval conditions for several items to go back to the ARB on Consent Calendar, to the ARB Subcommittee, and/or to return for further staff review. Condition of Approval B.1.1.1a 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 indicated that “…the design, construction and materials plans for kiosk at the main entry shall be further developed…” and return to the ARB on Consent Calendar. If there are members of the public wishing to speak to the item, or if one or more ARB members wishes to discuss the matter, the ARB would open the hearing. Otherwise, placement of the item on Consent allows the ARB recommendation, consistent with staff’s recommendation and draft findings, to be made without conducting the hearing. Staff seeks ARB confirmation of the revised project’s consistency with Architectural Review findings (the 16 Architectural Review approval findings in effect in 2011). The Council-approved design featured custom benches, pavers, tree plantings, a central fountain around which patients and visitors could be dropped off, and a kiosk area that would support activity between the Promenade and Pasteur Drive (Attachment A). On July 30, 2015, the ARB Subcommittee provided feedback on the level of review required for several proposed site adjustments. The ARB Subcommittee:  confirmed proposed floor area adjustments and building design details at the new garage were minor adjustments, aesthetically consistent with prior approvals, and  considered proposed removal of designed and structured outdoor seating at the main hospital entry plaza were a significant adjustment requiring further design review. Project Description The proposed project:  Includes a re-conceptualization of the kiosk shown in the 2011 approved plans (with a request for further phasing of the kiosk development),  Updates the design of the main hospital entry plaza,  Adjusts the locations of the custom benches, pavers, and tree planting,  Replaces the originally approved central fountain with the following: o bollards, o a precast concrete plinth, and o a 28-foot tall sculpture entitled “Buckyball” by artist Leo Villareal (three nested, floating geodesic spheres with programmable LED lights that change color and luminosity). The size of the circulation area in the drop-off zone would remain unchanged. Analysis1 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. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 This analysis is focused on the project’s compliance with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, 2011 Architectural Review Findings, and SUMC Design Guidelines, because the project is subject to a Development Agreement that “stays” changes to such documents. Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code The proposed project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code in effect at the time the Development Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project was finalized. The proposed project retains the circulation, function, prominent entrance feature, and land uses envisioned with the prior Council approval; particularly, the proposed project:  Does not challenge the tree protection requirements in the Hospital (HD) Zoning District,  Is conditioned to comply with the noise limits outlined in the Municipal Code, and  Includes documentation of the small, permissible increase in lot coverage of 116 sq.ft. With respect to gross floor area (GFA):  The portion of the kiosk containing the sculpture’s mechanical equipment can be excluded from GFA calculations for the NSH project site per HD Zone provisions,  Future expansion of the kiosk for food service would be considered GFA, and could be done in a manner that retains views to the Promenade and views to nearby protected trees on site and on Kaplan Lawn, and addresses a future entrance to the Stone Building North Pavilion. With respect to the sculpture:  The project is not subject to the City’s Public Art Ordinance (given the entitlement date was prior to the ordinance’s effective date); nevertheless, the installation of art at the NSH entrance could be viewed as meeting the intent of the ordinance. Architectural Review Findings and SUMC Design Guidelines The proposed project updates the NSH main entry area’s design, but still includes architectural components and site improvements compatible with the scale, materiality, circulation, and function of the Council approved project. Originally, the kiosk was conceived to utilize precast concrete materials in order to echo the base of the hospital. The material change to IPE wood appears compliant with AR findings; any future kiosk could utilize either IPE wood or precast concrete with similar compliance. Attached draft approval conditions would ensure compliance with prior approvals in regard to storm water management and noise, and ensure that the second phase of the kiosk development is subject to Architectural Review (AR). Draft approval findings and conditions (requiring staff level AR of color/materials/texture of the kiosk, bench seating, lighting, bicycle lockers, and tree planting in the main drop off plaza area) can be found as Attachment B and Attachment C. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project must comply with the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (City Council Resolution No 9168). 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 Rebecca Atkinson, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2596 (650) 329-2575 Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B Draft Architectural Review Findings (DOC)  Attachment C Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment E Project Plans (DOCX)  Attachment D Applicant Statement (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 14 24 90-740Children's Creative Learning Center 90-925Johnson Pediatric Ambulatory Care Center Lucille Salter Packard Children's Hospital CARES 07-982T HEALTH RESEARCH & POLICY MODULAR B 07-920HRP-REDWOODBLDG 07-983TMODULAR A 07-590CENTER FOR CLINICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH(CCSR) 07-570MED SCHL LAB SURGE/ MAG RESSPECTR 07-975T MODULAR C MODULAR D 07-974T 07-981T MODULAR E 07-971T MODULAR F 07-972T MODULAR G 07-973T MODULAR H Pasteur Visitor Garage A 384.8' 6.7' 194.0' 32.7' 43.0' 172.8' 86.7'16.0' 13.5' 8.0'8.3'24.0'73.6' 8.0'8.7'8.0' 104.9' 230.7' 188.1' 385.7' 246.3' 384.8' 6.7' 367.5' 178.0' 254.7' 254.7' 240.2' 253.0' 121.3' 62.2' 385.7' 62 277.0' 126.3' 70.6' 285.3' 277.0' 432.0' 277.0' 277.0' 235.9' 277.0' 326.1' 153.5' 261.7' 146.5' 266.1' 326.1' 153.5' 261.6' 236.3' 370.0' 4.2' 370.0' 333.6' 333.6' 236.3' 146.5' 367.5' 363.0' 83.5' 542.2' 403.8' 542.2' 153.8' 233.5' 31.4' 230 104.9' 8.0' 8.7' 8.0' 73.6'24.0' 8.3' 8.0'13.5' 16.0'46.3' 86.7' 43.0' 32.7' 194.0' 112.9' 75.0' 121.3' 26.0' 210.8' 184.3' 403.8' 271.4' 58.0' 475.9' 197.9' 618.0' 247.7' 197.9' 475.9' 58.0' 271.4' 50.0' 173.6' 254.5' 995.0' 5.0' 26.4' 121.8' 26.4' 8.0' 550.0' 5.0' 26.4' 121.8' 26.4' 8.0' 550.0' 285.3' 200.5' 233.5' 31.4' 179.0' 550.0' 542.2' 184.3' 367.5' 210.8' 112.9' 75.0' 253.0' 264.6' 236.0' 432.0' 275.0' 277.0' 1173.5' 151 730 750 770 780 800 900 1000 703 801 851 777 725 1100 1110 0 115 0 1120 1130 1189 701-749 248- 288 751-799 200- 216 249- 289 801-849 201- 217 248- 288 851-899 200- 216 249- 269 850-898 800-848 875 625 300 300 900 901 200 198 778 1190 1201 215 150 732 500 240 1207 W E L C H R O A D S A N D HIL L R O A D PASTEUR DRIVE BLAKE WILBUR DRIVE ELCH ROAD B L A K E WILB U R D RIV E PASTEUR DRIVE WELCH ROAD W E L C H R O A D S A N D HIL L R O A D PASTEUR DRIVE PASTEUR DRIVE WELCH ROAD D U R A N D W A Y C H A R LE S M A R X W A Y VINEYARD LANE L A R K C L A R K W A Y C L A R K W A Y OVERNORS LANE HD MOR MOR Stanford Medical Center This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages Park School abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits: Palo Alto City Boundary Tree 0'167' Location Map: 500 Pasteur Drive CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ratkins, 2018-02-08 14:55:40Location Map (Basic) (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 500 Pasteur Drive 2.a Packet Pg. 15 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s R e v i e w ) 17PLN-00395 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL New Stanford Hospital – 500 Pasteur Drive 17PLN-00395 (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of the SUMC Development Agreement in that the project is consistent with the following significant policies and programs: L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5, L-6, L-7, L-8, L-45, L-46, L-48, L-49, L-51, L-70, L-74, L-75, L-76, L-77, L- 78, T-1, T-3, T-19, T-48, N-16, N-17, N-18, N-20, N-21, N-22, N-23, N-24, N-28, N-29, N-35, N- 39, N-40 and N-47; as described in Table 3.2-2 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and reproduced for this ARB review. (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the New Stanford Hospital will continue and progress the quality of healthcare facilities on the Stanford University Medical Campus. The location of the hospital expansion will be along the Medical Center Promenade, linking it to the existing Stanford Hospital and Clinics, the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, the Stanford School of Medicine, the Advanced Medicine Center and other SUMC buildings so that it has a close proximity for patients, visitors, staff and resources. This can only be done by relocating existing parking to the periphery of the medical campus, thereby allowing the expansion of the hospital to have a relatively seamless connection. The building design engages the exterior landscape with gardens, water features, roof gardens, and public program on the south side facing Pasteur Mall and east side facing the Medical Center Promenade. The design of the hospital has evolved in a manner that addresses the visual impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Specifically, the proposed design, as part of the Tree Preservation Alternative, has resulted in a more compact building footprint and hospital tower configuration, which reduces the overall massing of the buildings. As described below, the towers have been designed with aluminum curtain walls and large windows that provide a sense of transparency and light; the design of the sculpture and kiosk updates the design of the NSH main entry area, but still proposes architectural components and site improvements that are compatible with the scale and materiality of the previously approved NSH entry area and other materials used onsite; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that it establishes a flexible modular framework for the rapidly evolving requirements of modern healthcare. Over the lifespan of the building and as the hospital's needs grow, this framework will be able to add future modules in a rational and consistent manner. The modular system also establishes structural and mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems that allow repurposing of spaces more easily without disruptive demolition and new construction, and the design of the sculpture and kiosk updates the design of the NSH main entry area, but still proposes architectural components and site improvements that are compatible with the circulation and function of the previously approved NSH entry area; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character by respecting the Stanford character but 2.b Packet Pg. 16 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 c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s 17PLN-00395 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 4 reinterpreting it in a modern way with new construction methods and materials. The tradition of Stanford courtyards, arcades and gardens are continued in the new design to promote a continuity of building aesthetic and quality of public space; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the massing and section of the building are meant to relate to the overall scale of adjacent buildings. The base of the building (Level 1 and 2) approximately aligns with the roofs of the surrounding buildings and uses similar solid materials and colors. The patient pavilions above (Levels 4-7) differentiate themselves by using more glass and lighter materials; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site by helping to define a clear and consistent edge to Pasteur Mall on all sides and improve the quality of space. Mirroring the School of Medicine developments on the south side of Pasteur Drive, the new hospital will help delineate Pasteur Mall as the entrance to the Medical Campus, analogous to Palm Drive for the University. A consistency in architectural language and materials is used on the School of Medicine buildings as well as the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Expansion and new improvements to Hoover Pavilion; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community by having a clear and rational organization to the building that is easily understood. The main drop-off continues to use the Pasteur Drive loop as the entrance for patients and visitors and is centrally located between the new and existing hospital. Large diagnostic and treatment areas such as the Emergency Department, Imaging and Surgery are on the lower portions of the building to form a base. The Emergency Department is at street level close to Welch Road and gives clear access for emergencies, separating ambulance traffic from public traffic. Patient rooms are elevated in pavilions on upper levels for privacy, views and light around the atrium provides clear orientation. The internal circulation of the building is organized around a central courtyard that acts as the focal point and orientation device; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that the Level 3 roof gardens are strategically located between the diagnostics and treatment base building and patient pavilions above to provide an easily accessible respite from the clinical environment for patients, visitors and staff. Cafeteria, meditation space and other public functions are also located on this floor to take advantage of the gardens. The new garage roof serves as an extension of this elevated garden plane. The Garden of Medicinal Plants provides an outdoor area for people using the ED waiting area. The main drop-off is designed as a pedestrian friendly plaza with program and seating areas, linking the new hospital with the existing hospital centered around the Medical Center Promenade; the sculpture creates visual interest at the main entry and is of a scale appropriate to an outdoor plaza, and the kiosk shall be developed in a phased approach in a manner that retains views to the Promenade, views to nearby protected trees on site and on Kaplan Lawn, and addresses a future entrance to the Stone Building North Pavilion; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project's design concept in that the New Hospital will have multiple points of contact with the current hospital so that many of the existing support 2.b Packet Pg. 17 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 c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s 17PLN-00395 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 4 functions will be able to support both buildings including the loading dock. The new parking garage will meet parking demand from existing Parking Structure 3 to be demolished with a building quality compatible in design and accessibility to the new hospital; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon is safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the main drop-off will be located in close proximity to both the new and existing hospitals for patients and visitors. Separation of ED traffic directly off of Welch Road will keep these emergency vehicles away from Pasteur Drive loop with a separate ambulance drive and ED drop-off. The New Hospital emphasizes the Promenade as a link through the entire medical campus connecting LPCH, SHC and School of Medicine buildings for pedestrian access for staff and visitors. Bike lockers are throughout the site but staff bike lockers are located on the west side of the garage for easy access from Welch Road, thereby lessening bicycle traffic in and around garage. This gives staff entrance to the hospital safely on the Garden Level; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the building and landscape design have progressed with the goal of preserving heritage trees on and around the site. Other trees occupying the site will be transplanted if possible or replaced with trees of like species. The existing Lawrence Halprin fountain will be maintained and refurbished to signify the terminus of Governor's Way; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions in that the material and color palettes have been selected in relation to SUMC Design Guidelines and in concert with recent University projects. The diagnostic and treatment base will be rendered in solid precast to reflect the technical and controlled atmosphere of these spaces. Patient rooms will be mostly clad in aluminum curtain wall with large glass windows to provide the requisite quality of light and views. Curved glass walls will be used at Level 1 public functions to promote interest and activity along the pedestrian arcades of the building; (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in that the landscape design includes a Garden of Medicinal Plants, linking the site to its agricultural history and uses medicinal fruit baring trees such as loquat, olive and pepper to combine with existing ginko street trees on site. An orchard-like arrangement relates to the sites origin as an apricot orchard while giving an ordered, orthogonal design consistent to that of the hospital. The main drop-off plaza uses carob trees with similar medicinal properties but in a more organic pattern relating to the existing heritage oaks of the adjacent Kaplan Lawn. The line of existing Chinese Elms that run parallel to the Church Fountain are continued along the Medical Center Promenade to emphasize the continuity of the pedestrian walkway through the entire campus; (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that the native planting is central to the landscape design and overall sustainability goals of the project. Tree types are native to the sites historical uses. The majority of green roofs are a combination of native planting, drought- 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 c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s 17PLN-00395 City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 4 resistant ground cover and artificial turf for inaccessible areas with a limited amount of green lawn for accessible areas; (15) The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A) Exterior energy design elements;  Sealed cavity curtainwall with integrated, automated blinds for acute care patient rooms with south/east/west exposure to reduce direct solar gain,  Large roof overhangs on south/east/west facing facades for shading of large glass walls at Level 3 pavilions, and  Use of cool air from seismic isolator crawl space to cool computer server rooms located directly above on Ground Level. (B) Internal lighting service and climatic control systems  Displacement ventilation in 264 acute care patient rooms and other nursing areas reduce energy consumption with low velocity air supply,  Energy efficient lighting fixtures with occupancy and daylighting controls, and  Partitioning of computer server rooms to isolate temperature sensitive equipment requiring air conditioning from non-temperature sensitive areas. (C) Building siting and landscape elements  Level 3 roof gardens aid in storm water management, and  Air handler unit condensation collected and used for landscape irrigation; (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code, section 18.76.020(a). 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 c h i t e c t u r a l R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s 17PLN-00395 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL New Stanford Hospital – 500 Pasteur Drive 17PLN-00395 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PRIOR ENTITLEMENTS AND PLANS. The project remains subject to Ordinance No 5124 (Development Agreement), City Council Resolution No 9171 (Architectural Review), Record of Land Use Action 2011-03 (Conditional Use Permit), and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program in City Council Resolution No 9168 (Environmental Impact Report for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project). The plans submitted for permits shall be in substantial conformance with the following project plans on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, except as modified to incorporate conditions of approval from prior entitlements and the conditions of approval below: a. Project Plans “New Stanford Hospital ENTRY DROP OFF,” stamped as received by the City on February 8, 2018 and b. New Stanford Hospital: February 17, 2011 & March 31, 2011. 2. PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this approval with conditions shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for permits. The permit plan set shall cloud and show the updated lot coverage for the New Stanford Hospital Site and/or the area as measured in the SUMC Development Agreement. Landscaping and irrigation plans in the permit set shall be updated, as necessary, for consistency with the approved tree planting plan, as well as to retain consistency with water conservation requirements outlined in Condition of Approval 14 in Record of Land Use Action 2011-03 (Conditional Use Permit). Lighting plans in the permit set shall be updated, as necessary, for consistency with the approved tree planting plan. 3. LOT COVERAGE, GROSS FLOOR AREA, AND OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. This approval increases lot coverage by 116 square feet due to the mechanical equipment portion of the kiosk. As the mechanical equipment portion of the kiosk is excluded from gross floor area calculations, this approval does not include any adjustments to existing/approved gross floor area or off-street parking requirements. 4. KIOSK. The kiosk shall be developed in a phased approach in a manner that retains views to the Promenade, views to nearby protected trees on site and on Kaplan Lawn, and addresses a future entrance to the Stone Building North Pavilion. The kiosk shall be designed in a manner that utilizes colors/materials/textures used elsewhere on the project site, such as IPE wood or precast concrete. The second phase of kiosk development shall include food service as originally approved and shall be subject to Minor Architectural Review. Plans shall include bench seating, lighting, bicycle lockers, and tree planting in the main drop off plaza area. 5. NOISE. The mechanical equipment in the kiosk shall comply with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 Noise, as well as Noise Mitigation Measure NO-4.1 that requires minimization of noise levels from mechanical equipment by proper siting, selection of equipment, sufficient acoustical shielding and, and noise emission controls. 6. DOG PARK AND TREE MITIGATION PLANTING. This approval does not include any of the site improvements and tree mitigation planting, which are currently proposed under application 17PLN-00226. 2.c Packet Pg. 20 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 ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s R e v i e w ) 17PLN-00395 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 4 7. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material and groundcover shall be well maintained and replaced if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Urban Forester and Director of Planning. 8. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall retain a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees, as shown in the approved plan set. 9. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a permit final inspection by the Public Works and/or Building Departments. Any revisions during the construction process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; landscaping, locations of vaults, and hard surface locations. Contact the Planning Department to schedule this inspection. 10. 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 to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project. The applicant shall take the lead role in defending any such claim, action, or proceeding, and may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the attorneys of its choice. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the attorneys of its choice in any such action or proceeding, with the reasonable costs of such representation to be paid by the applicant. The applicant and the City shall fully coordinate and cooperate in the defense of any such action and shall keep each other fully informed of all developments relevant to such defense, subject only to confidentiality requirements and any privileges or legal doctrines that may prevent the communication of any such information. TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 11. BICYCLE PARKING: Short and long term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided at the ratios required by the gross floor area and previous entitlements. The design for the short term racks shall be compliant with the SUMC Design Guidelines. Long term bicycle parking spaces shall be identified in the permit plan set in the form of bicycle lockers or a restricted-access bicycle enclosure. URBAN FORESTRY 12. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to permit final, the applicant/contractor shall submit a verification letter to the Planning Department from the project Landscape Architect indicating that he/she has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 13. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to permit final, the applicant/contractor shall submit a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist to the Planning Department. The Project Arborist inspection letter shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written certification/acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and an evaluation of the trees’ health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any), and (for relocated trees) long-term care. The final letter may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 2.c Packet Pg. 21 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 ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s R e v i e w ) 17PLN-00395 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 4 14. 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. 15. 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. ELECTRICAL 16. Applicant shall submit electric load calculations if any changes were made to the electric load. PUBLIC WORKS – ENGINEERING 17. The applicant shall provide an updated third party certification of the previously approved C.3 design for this site. 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. The applicant shall submit with building permit plans a revised utility plan to confirm drainage of statue/plinth area into existing site storm drain system. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 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 ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s R e v i e w ) Attachment E 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 “500 Pasteur” 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 “500 Pasteur Project Plans 020818” 2.d Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s R e v i e w ) February 8, 2017 Rebecca Atkinson Department of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Minor (Staff Level) Architectural Review Application for 500 Pasteur Drive Applicant: Stanford Health Care Address: 500 Pasteur Drive APN#: 142-23-017 Dear Rebecca, Stanford Health Care (“SHC”) has prepared the enclosed materials in support of its application for Minor (Staff Level) Architectural Review for two proposed design updates to the previously approved site plan for the New Stanford Hospital. Background The New Stanford Hospital is currently under construction on the Stanford University Medical Center campus. The Hospital and associated site improvements initially received City of Palo Alto Architectural Review approval in June 2011. Since that time, as design development has progressed, two design updates have been made in the main entry drop-off plaza; these updates are outlined in detail below. Proposed Design Updates 1. Sculpture and Plinth at Entry Circle The originally approved development plans included a fountain at the center of the main drop-off plaza. (See Attachment A for Hospital entry plaza plans approved in 2011.) Now, in lieu of the fountain, Stanford Health Care proposes a sculpture by artist Leo Villareal to serve as the centerpiece of the drop- off plaza. The 28’ tall sculpture, Buckyball, consists of three nested steel geodesic spheres and a series of LED lights that subtly change color and luminosity. The structure is proposed to rest on a 44’ diameter, 2’ tall precast concrete plinth—the sculpture would touch down on this plinth at six discrete points to lend an appearance of floating. The extent of the plinth would also serve as the vehicular boundary for the turnaround, with an 8” thick precast curb of durable construction to resist low-speed vehicular impacts. The top of the plinth is proposed to be covered with octagonal precast concrete pavers to complement the shape of the sculpture. The precast curb and octagonal pavers are proposed to be colored with dark aggregate to present a uniform appearance with the asphalt pavers of the plaza, and act as a contrasting backdrop to the lightness of the sculpture. (See Attachment B for current entry plaza plans including the concrete plinth, and showing proposed materiality; see Attachment C for renderings of the proposed sculpture.) 2.e Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D A p p l i c a n t S t a t e m e n t ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s R e v i e w ) 2. Kiosk Development The project plans approved in 2011 included a kiosk in the main drop-off plaza, and per Architectural Review Condition of Approval B.1.1, the design, construction, and materials plan for the kiosk were to be further developed and reviewed as part of the Architectural Review Board consent calendar. The kiosk is currently designed as a small structure that will house the electrical power panels and data closet for the Buckyball, allowing access for programming and maintenance of the sculpture; the kiosk will also include a dedicated fan coil unit1 for cooling of the electrical and data equipment. All equipment would be completely contained within the kiosk; no equipment would be visible from the exterior, including interior Hospital views from above. Note that the kiosk has been designed with the flexibility to support future food and beverage service upon Hospital opening, which are ultimately planned to include shaded queueing and seating areas. These enhancements to the kiosk will be submitted to the City under a separate architectural review application once the food service program has been further developed. (See Sheet ARB 234b within Attachment B for plan view and renderings of one possible “Phase II” scenario for the kiosk, which would be further developed and submitted separately to the City for review.) The kiosk is proposed to be clad in wood panels in a color reminiscent of elements included in the hospital design, such as the slatted ceilings of the ground-level arcades at the Hospital perimeter, the trellises of the Level 3 roof gardens, and the dog park structure along the Promenade. Similarly, the canopy roof of the kiosk echoes the shading canopies along the Hospital and Parking Structure rooftop program areas. The kiosk is lined with service doors to maximize access to panels and equipment while maintaining visible connection with the sculpture. (See Attachment C for renderings which include the proposed kiosk; see Attachment D for plan and elevation views of the kiosk.) Lot Coverage Changes The proposed kiosk was not included in previous lot coverage calculations for the New Stanford Hospital site. An updated lot coverage summary is provided below; building permit cover sheet A0201 will be updated accordingly to include this information. New Stanford Hospital Lot Coverage Summary Building / Structure Lot Coverage (sf) Hospital 137,000 Gas Yard 3,700 Generator Building 14,900 Bridge Lobby 1,900 Dog Park Shelter 3952 Kiosk 116 TOTAL 158,011 1 The GE Zoneline Single Packaged Vertical Air Conditioner is currently proposed to be installed (see Attachment E for data sheet), which is characterized by the manufacturer as a quiet unit, though specific acoustical data is not available. To demonstrate compliance with the SUMC Renewal Project mitigation measure NO-4.1, which requires that noise from mechanical equipment be minimized to the degree required by the City Noise Ordinance by proper siting and selection of such equipment and through installation of sufficient acoustical shielding or noise emission controls, SHC proposes to have its acoustical consultant evaluate a similar unit for which acoustical data is available, together with the noise insulating properties of the kiosk wall, to confirm compliance. Acoustical testing may also be performed post-installation, if necessary. 2 Note that the dog park shelter is currently under Minor (Staff-Level) Architectural Review (17PLN-00226). 2.e Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D A p p l i c a n t S t a t e m e n t ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s R e v i e w ) Note that the kiosk as currently proposed would not constitute new gross floor area under the City of Palo Alto’s gross floor area definition, as amended by the HD zoning ordinance. Per PAMC 18.36.050(b), “all areas used to enclose service and mechanical equipment, whether on rooftops, basements, interstitial space, or other interior areas, shall be excluded from floor area calculations.” The current phase of the kiosk would only serve to enclose mechanical equipment, and therefore would be excluded from floor area calculations. Please do not hesitate to contact me if any additional information is required. Sincerely, Molly Promes Swenson Sr. Project Manager Planning Design + Construction Stanford Medicine 2.e Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D A p p l i c a n t S t a t e m e n t ( 8 7 6 6 : 5 0 0 P a s t e u r D r i v e : S t a n f o r d H o s p i t a l E n t r y P l a z a S i t e M o d i f i c a t i o n s R e v i e w ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8886) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/1/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 350 Sherman Avenue - Public Parking Garage (3rd formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00257]: Review and Recommendation to Council of an Architectural Review Application for Construction of a New Four-Story Parking Structure, Photo-Voltaic Rooftop Panel Structure and Two Below Grade Parking Levels to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces on an Existing Public Parking Lot Within the California Avenue Business District. The Project Includes a Request for Amendments to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.28 to Modify Public Facilities Zone Development and Parking Standards for Parking and Essential Services Facilities in the Downtown and California Avenue Business District, Recommended for Council Approval by the Planning And Transportation Commission on January 31, 2018. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published January 8, 2018 for Public Comments Through February 22, 2018 and a Final EIR Will be Prepared. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval in the attached Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). 3 Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on two other occasions. The municipal code encourages the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Director to make a decision on projects after three public hearings; for major public projects, the PCE Director may refer the decision to City Council. A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is being prepared and will be published prior to Council adoption and consideration of the Final EIR, adoption of the ordinance modifying the PF zone standards (as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission) and approval of the PSB Project. The Final EIR will include responses to public comments received prior to the February 22, 2018 comment deadline Earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; these reports are available online as follows:  October 19, 2017: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61817  January 18, 2018: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62876 A copy of the second ARB report without prior attachments is also provided as Attachment C to this report. The purpose of this report is to restate the ARB’s comments (which are viewable within Attachment D, meeting minutes) and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in earlier reports and has been modified to reflect recent project changes in plans submitted February 14, 2018. The ARB is encouraged to make a final recommendation to Council to approve or conditionally approve the public parking garage. Plans are provided in hardcopy to ARB members and may be viewed at public libraries. The ARB will have an opportunity to review the Public Safety Building in April and/or May of 2018 and forward its recommendation to Council. Background On January 18, 2018, the ARB last reviewed the parking garage project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-73-2- 2-2/. The excerpted meeting minutes are attached (Attachment D). The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Staff/Applicant Response Modify noise condition to remove db standard. Staff has removed the phrase from the approval condition, as per ARB suggestion on January 18, 2018 Revise plans to show a Potential ingress/egress opportunity One ground-floor column was removed and replaced with a structural beam to allow for a future second vehicle exit onto Jacaranda Lane (beam depicted in image1 below this table and driveways to Jacaranda Lane are shown on new plan sheet ARB AM06, entitled “Parking Garage- Future Alt. Entry/Exit” (also entitled Plan Relationships 05). Provide a complete New plan sheet ARB AM04, entitled ‘Landscaping Plan’ (also 1 On the next page is an image of the potential vehicular ingress/egress at Jacaranda Lane 3 Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 landscape plan entitled “Planting Plan 04”) includes a planting schedule, legend and images of the smaller plants. Plan sheet ARB AM05, entitled ‘Tree Mitigation Plan’ (also “Technical Details 07”) reflects tree canopy coverage mitigation as recently discussed with the City’s Urban Forester. Plan sheet ARB 04.02 entitled ‘Street Sections’ still includes landscape concept street sections, but three images of concrete benches and planters were added. Design development of the wall surface behind the stair (at Birch) to enhance the design experience when the sun is not cascading across the wall with interest in durability, cleaning, and specularity. Renderings: 1. Birch Side: Plan sheet ARB 01.01 (Birch Street renderings) shows shadows on the wall and existing and proposed street trees.  New plan sheet ARB AM01 reflects several solstice views with animation links, with a description and image of the proposed materials (“M8”: gloss tile 42%, hone tile 35%, and texture tile 23%) intended to enhance the experience when the sun is not cascading across the screens, and for improved durability, cleaning, and ‘specularity’;  New plan sheet ARB AM02 shows two views from the top of the staircase and one view from the bottom of the staircase, and a description;  New plan sheet ARB AM03 shows renderings of nighttime views of the Birch and Sherman building sides. 2. Plan sheet ARB 01.02 (now renderings from the intersections, with existing and proposed street trees and low plantings) adds a view of the transformer2 (relocated behind a board-formed concrete wall fronting Sherman). 3. The renderings reflect new materials also shown on elevations (plan sheets ARB 03.01 and ARB 03.02):  A sunny color (“M3”) replaced the dark grey: the cementitious paneling is now ‘Sahara 700’, used on wall segments facing Sherman, Birch and Jacaranda,  Board-formed concrete (“M1”) replaced the former cast in place concrete, found on low walls and in center section wall facing Sherman and Jacaranda.  “M8” tile only used at Birch grand staircase. Also, plan sheet ARB 06.02, entitled “Wall Sections,” is now comprised of a wall section and 3D detail of a prototypical wall with materials with the same nomenclature (e.g. M1-M7) as used on the elevation sheet (and reflecting wall with and without the terra cotta ceramic baquettes). Additional Changes 2 On the next page is an image of the relocated transformer with screen wall 3 Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Additional changes were made to the plan sets to address comments received from City staff of various departments.  Above: Image of spaces that would be removed in the future for future egress to Jacaranda. Note that new plan sheet ARB AM06 shows future access driveways to and from Jacaranda.  Below: Image of new transformer location at corner of Ash and Sherman, with board- formed concrete screen wall along Sherman side. Analysis3 3 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. 30 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Wall Behind Stair As noted, the revised plans show a tiled wall is now proposed behind the stair. Below is the image of the pattern of the tiles taken from plan sheet ARB AM01. Electric Vehicle Chargers Because of the number of future EV chargers, an underground transformer for the electrical load was not feasible; so, the team coordinated with Electric Utilities staff to locate an above- ground transformer and switch at the corner of Ash and Sherman. Shown on plan sheet ARB 05.05, the transformer pad and utility switch would be screened from Sherman Avenue views by a board-formed concrete screen wall (shown on rendering, plan sheet ARB 01.02). The meter and main disconnect room are shown inside the garage near the transformer; changes also made in response to Utilities’ staff comments. Fire Conditions The site fire water riser and water main connection point for it were moved to Ash Street to correlate with the vertical stair tower between gridlines A.3 and A.6 Public Works Public waste receptacles per the Zero Waste guidelines are added near the main pedestrian paths into the structure. WGW The sanitary sewer connection and oil/water separator for the project are relocated to not interfere with the new above-ground transformer location. Lighting 3 Packet Pg. 31 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Two plan sheets are now dedicated to the lighting plan (plan sheets ARB 07.03 and 07.04) and include a luminaire schedule. Exterior lighting fixtures (E2, Bega 22 360 lights shown in luminaire schedule) are now shown at approximately 15 feet on center along the Jacaranda Lane wall and at approximately 20 feet on center along the Sherman Avenue wall (with different fixtures: E3, Beta 22 040); this lighting is needed because all of the existing cobra-head lighting in the surface lot will be removed. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Draft EIR was circulated for public comments; the comment period ended February 22, 2018. The Draft EIR is viewable at the following webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62804 A Final EIR will be prepared for presentation to the City Council with the PF zone change ordinance and the garage and the public safety building projects. 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 February 16, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 16, 2018, 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, one project-related, public comment email was received since the January 18th ARB hearing. The comment is provided as Attachment F. The January 18, 2018 meeting minutes reflect four speakers addressed the ARB regarding this project. Several other emailed comments were submitted January 12th through 18th, which staff responded to (Attachment G). Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend Council approve the project with modified findings or conditions; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto .org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  Attachment A: Location Map (DOCX)  Attachment B: RLUA for 350 Sherman (DOC)  Attachment C: January 18, 2018 ARB Report w/o attachments (DOC)  Attachment D: ARB Minutes January 18 2018 Excerpt (DOCX)  Attachment E: Emailed comments Hamilton Hitchings (PDF)  Attachment F: January 2018 public comments received (PDF)  Attachment G: Instructions to view DEIR and project plans including building eye (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment A Location Map 3.a Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 1 DRAFT ACTION NO. 2018-0X RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 350 SHERMAN AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17PLN-00257 On (Council hearing date), 2018, the Council (action) the (project) making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On (Council hearing date), 2018, in a public hearing following Architectural Reviews and recommendation of the Public Safety Building Project (comprised of the Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman and Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman, and Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation of an Ordinance to amend Public Facilities development standards and parking and loading requirements, and following public review of and comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) published January 8, 2018, and the preparation of a Final EIR responding to comments received by February 22, 2018, and B. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) initially reviewed the formal applications for the PSB project (garage and PSB) in October 2017, then reviewed the DEIR, garage project and architectural review findings on January 18, 2018, and continued the garage review to March 1, 2018, and C. The Planning and Transportation Commission, on January 31, 2018, reviewed the DEIR and draft ordinance and recommended approval of the Ordinance modifying development standards and parking and loading standards within the PF zone in the Downtown and California Avenue business districts for essential services facilities, and D. The ARB reviewed the project, architectural review findings and draft approval conditions on March 1, 2018 and recommended (action) of the proposed public parking garage at 350 Sherman Avenue, and E. The ARB reviewed the Public Safety Building on (date), 2018 and continued the public hearing to _____ for review/recommendation. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City, as the lead agency prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public notice period for the DEIR began on January 8, 2018 and concluded on February 22, 2018. Responses to comments received prior to the end of the public comment period have been prepared and included in a Final EIR dated _______ for Council adoption. Attachment A 3.b Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 2 1. The environmental effects of the Project have been analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA). 2. The DEIR identified one or more potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment as well as mitigation measures that would reduce the significant effects to a less than significant level. The Project applicant, before public release of the Draft EIR, has made or agreed to make revisions to the Project that clearly mitigate the effects to a less than significant level as demonstrated through the adoption of the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 3. The Director has independently reviewed and considered the DEIR, together with any public comments received during the public review process and other information in the record, prior to forwarding the ARB’s recommendation and Final EIR to the City Council. 4. The EIR reflects and represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto as lead agency. 5. Based on the whole record of proceedings, the Director hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, and does hereby recommend Council adopt the EIR and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project. 6. The Director of Planning and Community Environment at the Director’s Office at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 is the custodian of records and documents of proceedings on which this decision is based. SECTION 3. PF Zone Code Amendments. (See Council ordinance________) The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended modifications to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.28 development and parking and loading standards for city parking structures and essential services facilities within Public Facilities zoned sites within the Downtown and California Avenue business districts. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. The design and architecture of the proposed public parking garage complies with the Six Findings for Architectural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.020. AR Findings for Parking Garage: (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: 3.b Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3  With Council adoption of amendments to the Public Facilities development standards for city parking garage, the project will comply with the land use and development standards of the PF zone.  The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the project: o Policy T-5.6, strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible, o Policy T-5.7, require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and bicycle safety, o Policy T-5.8, promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce storm water runoff, increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the Urban Forest Master Plan, o Policy T-5.9, promote safety for pedestrians in City-owned parking lots by adopting standards for landscaping, signage, walkways and lighting that reduce crime and ensure a safe and orderly flow of traffic, o Policy T-5.10, encourage the use of adaptive design strategies in new parking facilities in order to facilitate reuse in the future if and when conditions warrant, o Policy N-2.3, enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same and discouraging the planting of invasive species, o Policy N-2.10, preserve and protect Regulated Trees on public and private property…and related program N2.10.1 continue to require replacement of trees including street trees lost to new development, o Policy N-4.12, encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where practical. o Policy L-1.10, hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts, o Policy L-4.2, encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping, o Policy L-4.3, ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage 3.b Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 4 economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art, o Policy L-4.8, maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in function and scale between the Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas, o Policy L-5.2, provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts, o Policy L-5.3, design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the character of the area where they are located, o Policy L-6.1, promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces, o Policy L-6.3, encourage bird-friendly design, o Policy L-6.6, design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety, o Policy L-6.10, encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. (no signage proposed with this application), o Policy L-8.2, provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art, o Policy L-70, enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street trees, o Policy L-8.4, create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and artistic events, o Policy L-8.5, recognize public art … as a community benefit; encourage the development of new public and private art and ensure such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the neighborhood, o Policy L-8.6, seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open space and community gardens, o Policy L-9.2, encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand, o Policy L-9.6, create…publicly accessible, shared outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods, o Policy L-9.7 strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways, including…entries to commercial districts, o Policy L-9.8 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan by reference in order to assure that new land uses recognize 3.b Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 5 the many benefits of trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust tree canopy throughout the city,  Related Program L-9.8.1, establish incentives to encourage native trees and low water use plantings in new development throughout the city, o Policy L-9.9, involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development review, o Policy L-9.11, design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots, to meet high-quality urban design standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in design of public infrastructure.  Related Program L9.11.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (2a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community; The project is consistent with Finding 2(a), given:  The right-of-way improvements will improve circulation; automobile ingress from/egress onto Sherman Avenue are compatible with the design concept and functions, and the location of bicycle racks near Jacaranda, closest to the walkable California Avenue, is desirable;  The new facilities and amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles are an improvement from the existing facilities as to safety and convenience;  Due to its lower pedestrian volumes, Sherman Avenue is the proposed location of the vehicular entry, established through detailed study of traffic movement; and  A potential future ingress/egress onto Jacaranda has been designed including provision of structural support allowing for easy conversion of parking spaces to make way for vehicular passage, should such future access be desirable. (2b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant; The project is consistent with Finding 2(b), given:  Trees #26 through #39 are located on Lot C-7 and trees #23, 24, and 25 are located on the Birch Street median. There is only one Protected Tree on Lot C-7 (tree #35, a coast live oak); there are two Street Trees within the planter cutouts along Sherman Avenue adjacent to Lot C-7 (trees #36 and #37).  Although all existing on-site and street trees will be removed to allow for construction of the garage, 18 new street trees in 24” to 36” box sizes (with post pavement support system and necessary soil volume for long-term health and separation for utilities) are proposed around the perimeter of the building on Sherman, Ash and Birch (plan sheet ARB AM04).  On Birch Street, four Chinese Elm trees are proposed to meet the priority attributes of larger deciduous or semi-deciduous shade trees of less than 40 feet height and width to 3.b Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 6 create a gateway to California Avenue;  On Sherman Avenue, London Plane and California Sycamore trees are proposed in alternation (total of nine trees) having a height of less than 50 feet and more open canopy;  On Ash Street, the narrower form of trees represented by potential species Silver Linden, Cork Oak and Primrose Tree are proposed to address the south-facing orientation of the façade (final selection of species by City’s Urban Forester); and  Plan sheet ARB AM05 provides technical details associated with the tree mitigation plan. (2c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district; Finding 2c is not applicable since the PF zone does not impose context based design criteria. (2d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations; The project is consistent with Finding 2(d), given:  The materials and architectural forms are intended to be compatible with the mid-century architecture of the area which includes: o A four story building on the opposite corner (the County courthouse and jail building), a mixed use (office-residential) building across Sherman, one- and two- story commercial buildings fronting California Avenue, and multi-story residential building(s) across Sherman. (2e) enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas;  There are no living units proposed on the site; the project is consistent with Finding 2(e), wherever feasible, with limited lighting proposed facing the multiple family residential building on Sherman Avenue, and with pedestrian friendly landscaping, lighting and sidewalks to enhance residents’ experience walking to California Avenue. (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, given:  The materials were selected for durability;  The new structure’s materials and construction techniques are appropriate for the use;  Colors and textures will be compatible with nearby civic buildings and park landscaping;  A syncopated, compositional rhythm is achieved via these materials: terra cotta sunshade, cementitious paneling, modified Portland cement plaster, and board-formed concrete. The alternating flow of materials will diffuse the sense of an overall volume, favoring a subtle shifting and overlap of surfaces. (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, given: 3.b Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 7  Ease of wayfinding is one of the garage’s key features: o the primary pedestrian entry on the Birch Street side, a dramatic exterior staircase, will animate the plaza side of the garage with pedestrian movement to reinforce the plaza zone. As it opens towards California Avenue, the staircase acknowledges the garage’s civic role in support of the retail environment. o The secondary pedestrian entrance for the garage is appropriately at Ash Street.  The landscaped setback on the west side of Birch in front of the parking structure accommodates seating and shade for individual passive activities  Ash St. pedestrian through-way has City-standard sidewalk width and raised planters.  Sherman Avenue, which does not experience as much pedestrian activity, has appropriately been designed for quiet, passive shaded seating.  An arcade and deeper setback area is proposed at Jacaranda, to facilitate access to Jacaranda Lane, with its low pedestrian-use and connection to California Avenue.  Low-level, focused pedestrian lighting will reinforce the intimate and small-scale aspects of the plazas/streets, avoid light-pollution, and reinforce the civic character of the facilities. (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, given:  Each of the four frontages are unique with streetscape improvements tailored to each street frontage to enhance the experience of coming to and from the garage.  Selected tree species will thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate architectural emphasis and scale on each of the three frontages, and have relatively low maintenance and water requirements.  Birch Street receives raised planters with integral seating, an area of rain garden planting, and additional native and shade-tolerant planting below the exterior stair.  Sherman Avenue receives a wider sidewalk allowing for street trees, rain garden planters, and benches at the back of walk against the façade of the garage.  Vine plantings along the Jacaranda façade help green and soften this façade.  Pole lights and planter mounted landscape lights along Birch Street, Sherman Avenue and Ash Street frontages, in addition to building mounted lighting, to provide safe and attractive passage around the perimeter of the parking structure. The pedestrian pole lights are coordinated with the standard light used on California Avenue. (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 given:  Photovoltaic panels are proposed to provide shading, energy efficiency as a key sustainable feature of the project. 3.b Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 8  Suitable street tree planting environments and storm water design features are key features of the project. AR Findings for Public Safety Building TBD SECTION 5. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 6. Plan Approval. Public Parking Garage. The plans for the Public Parking Garage submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by RussDrulisCusenbery, consisting of 30 pages, received January 3, 2018 (and dated December 13, 2017), except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. Public Safety Building. TBD (ARB to review revised plans scheduled for submittal January 18, 2018 or thereafter). SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. Impact Mitigation Measures Required for Both Project Components (250 and 350 Sherman)  Air Quality Mitigation 5-1. To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated with PM2.5 emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated during project construction activities, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall: 1. Implement BAAQMD-recommended “Additional Construction Measures”. The City shall implement the following BAAQMD recommended additional construction mitigation measures during construction activities: (1) All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, to be verified by lab samples or moisture probe, (2) All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average winds speeds exceed 20 miles per hour, (3) Temporary wind breaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the windward (generally the north / northwest) of actively disturbed areas of construction. The wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity, (4) Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established, (5) Simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities in the same area at any one time shall be limited and/or phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time, (6) All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site, (7) Site access to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road, or as much as feasible, shall be treated with a compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, gravel, or other cover as 3.b Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 9 feasible to reduce track-out, (8) Minimize the idling time for diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes provided such idling restrictions are consistent with manufacturer’s equipment specifications. 2. Apply construction equipment restrictions. The City shall apply the following construction equipment restrictions to the proposed project: (1) Electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas equipment shall be employed instead of diesel powered equipment to the maximum extent feasible. (2) All construction equipment with a rated power-output of 25 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Final Emission Standards for particulate matter. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB verified diesel emission control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards. 3. Prepare Construction Risk Reduction Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City and/or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Risk Reduction Plan for the project which: (1) Identifies the final planned construction phasing schedule and anticipated equipment operations. (2) Estimates the proposed project’s construction emissions based on the final phasing and equipment plan. Any emission update shall be performed using the latest recommended emissions estimator model recommended by the BAAQMD or other standard, acceptable methodology (e.g., contractor-specific fleet emission factors and estimates of equipment operating hours). (3) Models the potential diesel particulate matter and total PM2.5 concentrations resulting from refined emissions estimates. Any modeling shall be performed using an accepted screening or refined dispersion model recommended for use by the BAAQMD. The modeling shall focus on discrete, residential receptors located at and near the proposed project site. (4) Estimates potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to DPM. Risk estimates shall follow the latest recommendations of the BAAQMD. The goal of the risk estimation shall be to identify the receptor(s) or areas of receptors where carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk thresholds may be exceeded. If risks are exceeded, the plan shall identify feasible on- and off-site measures to reduce risks to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. On-site measures may include the BAAQMD “Additional Construction Measures” and construction equipment restrictions included in Mitigation Measure 5-1, as well as phasing / activity restrictions. Off-site measures may include coordinating with all impacted receptors to replace and upgrade existing HVAC systems to provide high performance panel filters capable of reducing potential modeled outdoor PM2.5 concentrations / risks to levels that are below BAAQMD thresholds. 4. Implement Off-Site Mitigation. In-lieu of preparing the Construction Risk Reduction Plan identified above, the City may, prior to the start of construction activities, coordinate directly with impacted residential receptors to replace and upgrade existing residential HVAC systems with a high-performance panel filter with a rated minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) for particles in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 µm of 70% (presumed to be a minimum MERV14), or equivalent system upgrade. This level of control would reduce risks to levels below current BAAQMD thresholds. Based on the results of the modeling conducted for the EIR, the City shall coordinate with residential receptors located in the area bound by Park Boulevard to the north, Ash Street to the south Sheridan Avenue to the east, and Sherman Avenue to the west.  Nesting Birds Mitigation 6-1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of State and federal laws pertaining to birds, all construction-related activities (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) should occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or after August 31). If construction and construction noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all suitable habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance, including staging and storage areas plus a 150-foot buffer around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization. If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented. If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey 3.b Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 10 area, the additional procedures below shall apply. Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds, the additional procedures shall not be required. Additional Procedures. If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) shall take place within 150 feet of nests, or as determined by a qualified biologist, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to insure compliance with the MBTA and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented.  Removal of Trees Mitigation 6-2. Prior to removal of the protected trees and street trees, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit issued by the City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Division for the removal of any and all protected, designated, or street trees (referred to collectively as “Regulated Trees”). In all cases, replacement trees would be required as a condition of the tree removal permit, and the project applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that there is no alternative that could preserve the tree(s) on-site. The project applicant must provide an evaluation and summary for any Regulated Tree (the collective term for any protected, designated, or street tree) proposed to be removed. The applicant shall be required, in accordance with the Tree Protection and Management Regulations (PAMC 8.10) and Tree Technical Manual (PAMC 8.10.130), to replace the tree canopy for the six (6) protected trees, in accordance with the tree canopy formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual (TTM, 3.20). If the tree canopy cannot be replaced on-site, the canopy shall be replaced off-site as close to the project site as feasible. If trees are being replaced off-site, the applicant must submit a Tree Planting Plan to the Urban Forestry Division and obtain the Urban Forestry Division’s approval of the plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The Tree Planting Plan must include: (a) The canopy calculation for trees removed and the number of trees planned to replace them, consistent with the formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual. (b) The specific location where the new trees would be planted with specific baseline information about that proposed site (e.g., surrounding vegetation or development). (c) The species of trees to be planted. (d) Specific planting details (e.g., size of sapling, size of containers, irrigation plan). (e) Success criteria, (f) Monitoring and maintenance schedule (g) Replacement tree planting will be monitored by a qualified arborist. 3.b Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 11 To verify the success of replacement trees, monitoring shall occur for two years after initial planting. After the two year period, the arborist will determine if the trees are capable of surviving without further maintenance.  Archeo-Paleo Mitigation 7-1. In the event of the unanticipated discovery of subsurface archaeological or paleontological resources during earth-moving operations, the following measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts on these resources to a less-than- significant level: 1. Conduct Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, and a professionally qualified paleontologist, to conduct an Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session will include a written handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological and paleontological resources that may be encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological and paleontological monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 2. Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resources, along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. 3. Conduct Periodic Archaeological Resources Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities in All Sediments. The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for archaeological resources will be required. The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full- time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources and a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by the qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall 3.b Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 12 be provided to a museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the lead agency, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.  Tribal Mitigation 7-2. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth-disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archaeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative.  Geotech Mitigation 8-1. As recommended by the project's preliminary geotechnical investigation, prior to City issuance of grading permits for individual project construction components, the City shall be required to retain a registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to prepare detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations to guide the construction of all project grading and excavation activities. The detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations shall be performed for each of the structures proposed for the development site. Subsurface conditions shall be explored and laboratory tests conducted on selected soil samples to establish parameters for the design of excavations, foundations, shoring, and waterproofing. Recommendations from the investigations shall be incorporated into all plans for project grading, excavation, soil support (both temporary and long-term), and utility construction, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The detailed, construction-level investigations, relevant recommendations, and all associated project grading, excavation and foundation plans, shall be subject to review and approval by an independent engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer retained by the City Engineer. In addition, the project civil engineer shall certify to the City Engineer (e.g., through plan submittal for City review) that all relevant provisions of the investigations have been incorporated into the grading, excavation and construction plans, and all earthwork and site preparation shall be performed under the direct supervision of a registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.  Contamination Mitigation 10-1. Recommendations included in the Phase II ESA (Stantec, June 8, 2017) shall be implemented, based on construction level project plans when more specific and precise design and construction activities are formulated. The Phase II ESA recommends additional assessment of local and regional groundwater conditions in advance of dewatering activities, combined with, as necessary, evaluation of pertinent and cost effective water management strategies, including preparation of Site Management Plans. Likewise, the project must comply with the City’s standard dewatering requirements. This assessment and mitigation process shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.  Noise Mitigation 13-1. To reduce potential noise levels associated construction of the proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall: 3.b Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 13 Restrict work hours/equipment noise. All work shall be subject to the construction noise and time limits contained in City Municipal Code Chapter 9.10. Construction activities (including deliveries) shall only occur during the following time periods: – 8 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday; and – 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. Construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of these requirements in accordance with Section 9.10.060(c). The sign shall also provide a name (or title) and phone number for an appropriate on-site and City representative to contact to submit a noise complaint. Construction equipment care, siting, and design measures. The following construction equipment care, siting, and design measures shall apply during construction activities: – Heavy equipment engines shall be covered and exhaust pipes shall include a muffler in good working condition. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the compressed air exhaust. – All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. At a minimum, such shielding shall consist of a three-sided sound enclosure (with a full or partial roof) that provides for proper ventilation, equipment operation, and effective noise control. The enclosure should be designed to achieve a 10 to 15 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise levels. The design of the enclosure shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure the enclosure will achieve a minimum 10 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise levels. – The City shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary, diesel- or other alternatively-fueled power generators. – No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site. Construction traffic. Construction truck traffic, including soil hauling, equipment deliveries, potential concrete deliveries, and other vendor deliveries shall follow designated delivery routes prepared for the project, which are anticipated to include travel on Oregon Expressway and Birch Road. Construct/Install Temporary Noise Barrier: The City shall install and maintain throughout the duration of all site preparation, excavation, foundation construction, and building construction activities, one or more physical noise barriers capable of achieving a minimum reduction in predicted construction noise levels of 15.5 dB. Potential barrier options would include: – A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at- grade, such as KRail) along the project property line. Such a wall/barrier shall consist of material that have a minimum rated transmission loss value of 25.5 dB (or equivalent rating), and shall contain no gaps in the structure through which noise may pass. – Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets installed along the project property line, building envelope or, if feasible and necessary, at or near sensitive residential receptor areas. – Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving a 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels at sensitive receptor locations. – Prior to the start of the project, the City may prepare an acoustical analysis that reflects the final site plan, construction activities, equipment use and duration, and refines potential construction noise reductions required for the project. The final type, placement, and design of the project’s temporary noise barrier(s) shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure proper function and a minimum attenuation of 15.5 dBs in construction noise levels. Prepare Project Construction Noise Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction-noise related issues. Contains a detailed construction schedule and predicted noise levels associated with construction activities. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction noise complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint. Prepare Construction Noise Monitoring Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Monitoring Plan which identifies: – Construction activities, hours of operation, and predicted construction noise levels; and – Construction noise monitoring locations, duration, and frequency. The intent of the 3.b Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 14 Construction Noise Monitoring Plan is to document updated ambient noise levels, monitor construction noise levels, and verify compliance with the noise reduction requirements in mitigation measure 13-1. If monitoring indicates temporary noise barriers are not achieving a minimum 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels or otherwise indicates construction noise is resulting a 10 dB increase in noise levels above ambient conditions, the City shall increase the height, size (length or width), density, and/or amount of noise barriers installed such that attenuation requirements are achieved. The Construction Noise Monitoring Plan may be combined with and/or incorporated into the Construction Noise Complaint Plan described above.  Vibrations Mitigation 13-2. To reduce potential groundborne vibration levels associated with construction of the proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall: Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The City shall prohibit the use of large vibratory rollers (small plate compactors are acceptable) and vibratory pile driving equipment during construction. Any deep foundation piers or caissons shall be auger drilled. Provide Notice to Adjacent Property Owners / Occupants. Five (5) days advanced written notice shall be provided to adjacent property owners and building occupants before commencing all drilling and significant earthmoving activities within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. The notice shall provide the name (or title) and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration- related concerns. Prepare Vibration Mitigation Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Vibration Response Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-related issues. – Contains a detailed schedule of drilling and substantial earth moving activities expected to occur within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the vibration source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by reducing groundborne vibration levels to less than 75 VdB and 0.04 in/sec PPV. Such measures may include the use of nonimpact drivers, use of rubber-tired equipment instead of track equipment, or other measures that limit annoyance from groundborne vibration levels.  Operational Noise Mitigation 13-3. To reduce potential stationary source noise levels associated with the operation of the proposed project, the City and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall: Site equipment away from residential areas. Garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating and air conditioning equipment shall be located outside of setbacks and screened from view from residential areas. Enclose and/or Shield Stationary Noise Generating Equipment. The City shall enclose, shield, baffle, or otherwise attenuate noise generated from garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating and air conditioning equipment. The attenuation achieved through such enclosure, shielding, and/or baffling shall be sufficient to comply with Section 9.10.050(a) of the Municipal Code, which is estimated to be 78.2 dBA. Prepare Acoustical Study. In accordance with Chapters 9.10 and 18.23 of the Municipal Code, the City shall have an acoustical analysis prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer that demonstrates: – The proposed parking garage’s generator would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted). – The proposed parking garages ventilation fans would not result in a calculated Ldn of 63.0 at sensitive residential receptor locations. – The proposed public safety building fire pump, back-up generator, and heating and air conditioning equipment would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted) and would not result in a calculated increase of more than 3.0 dB Ldn at sensitive receptor locations. The acoustical analysis shall be based on the final project design, reflect the actual equipment type and location at the project site, and the actual noise enclosure, shielding, or other attenuation measures included in the final project design. If the acoustical 3.b Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 15 study demonstrates the noise levels from these sources would be at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits, the City shall demonstrate through monitoring that the equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels. Approval Conditions for Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue Planning 1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents received February 14, 2018, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this project. 3. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review. 4. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 5. Government Code Section 66020 provides that 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 TO 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. 6. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. Building 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.: 1. The building with two or more stories above grade plane are required to be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with CBC Section 903.3.1.1. 2. For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements 3.b Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 16 are required per PAMC 16.14.080. A completed Green Building Checklist “GB-1 Non-Residential Mandatory Plus Tier 2” sheet is required for the building permit submittal package. 3. City of Palo Alto has adopted CALGreen Mandatory +Tier 2 for new construction and requires that 12% to the total parking spaces shall be low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. (CALGreen A5.106.1.2) 4. The Palo Alto Municipal Code, PAMC section 16.14.130 requires new non-residential structures to 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. In addition, where EV spaces have been provided, the EV charging spaces shall comply with CBC 11B-228.3.2 and Table 11B-228.3.2.1 for the minimum number of accessible EV spaces. The accessible EV charging spaces shall comply with the technical requirements of CBC 11B-812. 5. 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 Engineering 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: 1. 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. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the Building permit process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to Building or Grading permit issuance. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 3.b Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 17 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. DEWATERING: Proposed basement/underground garage excavation 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 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 5. 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. 6. PAVEMENT: Sherman and Birch were recently resurfaced -- these streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Sherman, Birch and/or Park 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. 7. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to Building or Grading permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly. 8. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 3.b Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 18 9. 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 Fire Department 1. Install a NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler, NFPA 14 Standpipe, NFPA 20 Fire Pump, NFPA 24 Underground Fire Service and NFPA 72 Fire Alarm System. Fire pump is required to be located in a 1 hour fire rated room. 2. PV panel layout shall comply with the 2016 CBC section 503.2.1 # 2 & # 3.2-3.3. 3. The building is required to have an Emergency Responder Radio System installed per the 2016 CA Fire Code section 510 unless the property owner submits an evaluation report stating the system is not required. 4. The elevator must be sized to accommodate a gurney and two medical personnel. Public Works Recycling Allow space for the collection and storage of trash, recycling, and compost in the garage. Utilities WGW 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.: 1. Update plans per WGW site plan red-lines and resubmit to other departments for review; no resubmittal to WGW required unless utilities are impacted. 2. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application – load sheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads 3. 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. 4. 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 3.b Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 19 for new wastewater lateral 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. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 6. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 7. 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. 8. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 20 11. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 12. 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. 13. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Utilities Electrical The following comments are for both the Safety Building and the Garage: 1. Main electric panel shall be at grade and outdoor. The proposed design shall have the location of the main electric panel. 2. PSB building shall require a dedicated transformer which requires its own pad with clearance of 3’ all around and 8’ in front, out door and at grade. 3. The proposed buildings are two stories deep which might require long tie-back to reinforce the shoring walls. Applicant shall work with Electric Utility prior to driving these tie-backs onto Jacaranda and part of Sherman and Birch to avoid hitting the high voltage electric conduits. Applicant shall pot hole where close to these conduits and electric equipment. 4. If the PSB is requiring a dedicated back up electric service from a true independent source, applicant shall have to pay to install dedicated electric equipment from El Camino Real and Sherman. A detail plan shall have to be studied if the applicant is willing to pay for it. 5. No tree drip-line near electric equipment (including conduits). 6. The new PSB building will require connection to the fiber optic communication system which is access from Jacaranda lane. Applicant shall install a 4” conduit from the communication room to the communication box on Jacaranda. 7. Point of electric power connection to feed the new building is as follow: i. (For 250 Sherman, it’s load break 3403) ii. For 350 Sherman, it’s one of the following: MH 1610 (manhole 1610), Vault 1609, LB3470 or SW 3469 8. Point of connection for fiber is a communication box near transformer 5264. Public Works Water Quality (Stormwater Management) 3.b Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 21 1. A covered area for a dumpster would be preferable; the area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities [if trash area is shown, indicate that the shown area must meet these requirements as well as the Zero Waste sizing requirements] 2. Submit and follow the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” construction BMP sheet during life of project with the building permit set. Before building permit approval, address these: 1. Use rain capture device at the demonstration garden and include description in interpretative signage. 2. Highly consider using rain chains or similar along vines and other walls/building corners. 3. Storm drain/drop inlets o Inlets should be labeled with a ‘Flows to Adobe Creek’ message. 4. Stormwater treatment measures o Consider using low-maintenance permeable pavers in the plaza to be part of the demonstration area. Appropriate specs must be followed. o Installation vendor specs should be followed, though vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks Maintenance Staff before installation. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. o Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent Departments (Public Works, Parks) before occupancy approval. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 to facilitate this agreement. o Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. o Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details o Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. o Install an interpretive sign regarding stormwater treatment and pollution prevention. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this text. 5. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) o Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines- sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 6. Stormwater quality protection o Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. o Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). o Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. o Establish a street sweeping maintenance plan in open parking lots. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this plan. 3.b Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 22 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.: 1. 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. 2. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. And 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) 3. 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. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 4. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 3.b Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 23 6. 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. 7. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and equipment 8. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. Public Works Recycling 1. The site plan (sheet ARB 04.01) reflects two trash/recycling receptacles (in the same model as used in California Avenue business district) each located next to the two elevators at the first floor of the garage. Additional receptacles shall be provided in the basement and upper floors. Allow space for the collection and storage of trash, recycling, and compost in the garage. Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue TBD (ARB to review revised plans scheduled for submittal spring 2018) SECTION 8. 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 its actual attorney’s 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. SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090. PASSED: AYES: 3.b Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 24 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue Those plans prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery entitled ARB Submittal City of Palo Alto California Ave Parking Garage 350 Sherman Ave, consisting of 36 pages, and received February 14, 2018. Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue TBD Plans for PSB are anticipated to be submitted ____________ for City review and ARB review tentatively scheduled for April/May 2018 3.b Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : R L U A f o r 3 5 0 S h e r m a n ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8560) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/18/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 350 Sherman: Public Parking Garage (2nd Hearing) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00257]: Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report and Review and Recommendation to Council of an Architectural Review Application for Construction of a New Four-Story, 49' Tall Parking Structure, and Photo-Voltaic Rooftop Panel Structure, With Two Below Grade Parking Levels to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces on an Existing Public Parking Lot Within the California Avenue Business District. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published January 8, 2018 for Public Comments Through February 22, 2018. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and. 2. Recommend approval of the proposed public parking garage to the City Council based on draft findings and subject to draft conditions of approval set forth in the Draft Record of Land Use Action, Attachment A. Report Summary The formal plans for the new public parking garage proposed for 350 Sherman were previously reviewed by the ARB on October 19, 2017. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation of the proposed public parking garage and Public Safety Building (PSB) to city codes and policies; that report is available online: 3.c Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59863. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment G. In addition to serving as the first staff report connected with the recently published DEIR for the PSB project, the purpose of this report is to restate the ARB comments and describe the applicant’s response to those comments, with respect to the public parking garage component of the project. The PSB project component is undergoing a redesign following the October 2017 ARB meeting, and a resubmittal is anticipated in early 2018. The analysis section in this report builds upon the information contained in the earlier report, and reflects recent project changes, as described in the applicant’s project description letter (Attachment F). The Draft Environmental Impact Report is viewable (as of January 8, 2018) on the Public Works project webpage at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=145; it was distributed to interested parties and the State Clearinghouse as of January 8, 2018. The Notice of Availability and Completion (Attachment E) appeared in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 5, 2018. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is scheduled to conduct a public meeting on January 31, 2018, to receive testimony regarding the DEIR and to discuss and provide a recommendation regarding the proposed ordinance amending the Public Facilities zone development standards and parking and loading requirements for public parking garages and essential service facilities within the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. The ARB’s recommendation for approval of the proposed parking garage allows the next phase of design for the parking garage to commence according to the City’s schedule (see below), which calls for construction to begin in October 2018. Because the PSB construction cannot begin until the parking garage is completed, proceeding to the design development phase for the parking garage is the critical path for the overall project. Background The first formal staff report for this project addressed both blocks of the PSB project, and cited relevant policies from the Comprehensive Plan in effect on October 19, 2017. The Council has since adopted a new Comprehensive Plan; the analysis in this report uses the new and revised policies. 3.c Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 On October 19, 2017, the ARB reviewed the two components of the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board- 72/. Excerpt meeting minutes of the October 19th meeting are provided as Attachment D to this report and viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62441). The DEIR provides a full description of the PSB project. The applicant’s project description letter (Attachment F) for the public parking garage describes changes made to the project following the October 2017 ARB meeting. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Leave enough space for generous sidewalk, attractive landscaping on Ash Street (after deleting arcade) Ash street parking was relocated to Sherman to provide wider ROW along Ash Reconsider cut out along the side of the alley Jacaranda arcade leading to paseo made more accessible/open by relocating garage elevator core, and vine plantings on Jacaranda façade help soften façade Arcade on Ash side; disturbing proportions, maybe decrease the depth or remove arcade to move building out Arcade on Ash side eliminated Imposing concrete wall on Birch side needs adjustment – scale of wall would be daunting for staircase users (too harsh/severe); concern about sleeping under stair. Needs softer detailing, more care at doors, more care below stairs, more openings in the wall. Stair on Birch side still the focal point, now with basket-weave textured terra cotta screening material Soften the garage appearance Understory plantings now around garage Bring columns of solar panel support structure inward to reduce element of bulkiness and mass so building looks a little less tall Garage volume scaled down by interruption of horizontal expanses with ‘syncopated’ material changes Garage does not need to look like PSB; different entity, less ‘civic’; don’t use split-face block Garage ‘skin’ has visual variety and interest independent of the green screening (M4 on plan sheet ARB 03.02 shows vines over M1 cast in place concrete). Need larger floor plans, surrounding site on the floor plans and correct labeling The illustrative site plan (sheet ARB 02.01) and the site characteristics plan (sheet ARB 04.01) are now shown at a larger scale Seeking different palette (other than black and white) to go with the terra cotta (supported); new palette below will be further described in board for presentation to the ARB: There are no black or white materials reflected in the revised plans. Plan sheet ARB 03.02 shows:  Terra Cotta for vertically oriented ceramic sunshades,  Gray ‘Sahara 7000’ for M3 3.c Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 (cementitious paneling),  Gray cast-in-place concrete for M1, acrylic modified Portland Cement plaster for M2,  Wood veneer under the PV panels that are to be affixed to painted steel structure,  Painted steel PV structure, and  Vines over the M4 wall facing Jacaranda. Changes to PF Zone Standards The prior ARB report included a zoning compliance table for both the PSB and public parking garage. The zoning compliance table attached to this report (Attachment C) is specific to the public parking garage. The PTC is scheduled to hear public testimony on the DEIR and review amendments proposed to the Public Facilities (PF) zone development standards for height, FAR, lot coverage, and setbacks, and parking and loading regulations. The PF zone amendments are directed to public parking garages and essential services facilities located on PF zoned sites within the Downtown and California Avenue business districts. Development of other PF-zoned sites in the Downtown and California Avenue business districts for public parking garages or essential services facilities would be subject to separate environmental reviews. The City Council had provided direction in April 2017 to establish a new public parking garage on Sherman Avenue in the California Business District. To maximize the number of garage parking spaces and other program objectives, as directed by Council, code amendments are required. The proposed code changes have limited applicability to city projects, located within the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts on PF zoned lots and the proposed code language gives City Council the authority to grant modifications to development standards for qualifying projects. The Sherman Avenue Public Parking Garage goals are to:  provide more parking in the California Avenue Business area of Palo Alto (therefore maximizing parking spaces on the 350 Sherman site) and  construct the garage prior to the PSB in a manner that would minimize disruption of existing parking facilities for current users of the surface parking lots on the project site. Analysis1 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.c Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The changes to the project plans for the public parking garage have been responsive to comments of the ARB, Urban Forestry and Transportation staff, and allow for a staff recommendation for approval. The applicant provided a revised narrative and plans on January 3, 2018 to reflect the changes (a few changes are noted below): Trees  Tree selection prioritizes the use of ‘regionally indigenous’ species, which have been increased by 25%; street trees were selected to thrive in an urban environment, provide architectural emphasis and scale, and have low maintenance and water requirements. Art  Final locations for the public art have not yet been selected, but the two ‘reentrant’ corners of the building (faced with cementitious paneling) have been identified as “offering high visibility from California Avenue as well as a correspondence with the high-use pedestrian areas”. Parking Spaces and Pedestrian Access  Sherman Avenue has additional pedestrian access points into the ground floor garage;  Parking spaces added back within the garage along Ash and Jacaranda;  Sidewalk at Ash is wider and staircase near Ash is provided opposite the elevator;  The on-street parking along Ash Street has been relocated to the Sherman Avenue side in order to provide a wider pedestrian right-of-way along Ash; and  The Jacaranda Arcade leading to the paseo has been made more accessible/open by relocating the garage elevator core next to grand staircase. The images below are intended to assist the ARB and members of the public in reviewing the changes made following the ARB review in October 2017. 3.c Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Site plan October 2017 ARB (“before”): Site plan in January 3, 2018 submittal (“after”): Following images allow comparison of the previous elevations with the revised elevations: Below: “Before” Sherman Avenue Elevation October 2017 Below: “After” Sherman Avenue Elevation January 2018 New renderings of Sherman January 2018 below Above: Sherman entrance near corner of Birch Above: Sherman and Ash corner Above: Color and Material Study View 3.c Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Below: “Before” Jacaranda Elevation October 2017 Below: “After” Jacaranda Elevation January 2018 Below: “Before” Ash Elevation October 2017 Below: “After” Ash Rendering and Streetscape January 2018 Birch Street elevation comparison images and new renderings are shown in below images: October 2017 Birch Elevation (before) January 3, 2018 Birch Elevation (after) 3.c Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Above image includes median planter Above image is without median planter Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The new Comprehensive Plan policies and programs relevant to the proposed public parking garage project are noted in the attached Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A). The key goal of the new Comprehensive Plan relevant to the proposed parking garage is Goal T-5, “Encourage attractive, convenient, efficient and innovative parking solutions for all users.” Environmental Review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed ordinance modification and PSB project (comprised of the public parking garage and PSB) have been evaluated in a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Draft EIR was published January 8, 2018 for a 45-day public comment period ending February 22, 2018. The DEIR is provided in hard copy to ARB members and the libraries, and is viewable online at this link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID=145 Throughout the EIR, the Public Safety Building (PSB) and parking garage are collectively referred to as the “PSB project” because (1) they are being proposed and designed together as one integrated project, and (2) CEQA Guidelines section 15378 (Project) defines a “project” as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment[.]” The project description in the DEIR includes: (a) the location and boundaries of the project site; (b) the background leading up to the proposed project; (c) the overall objectives sought by the project; (d) the various project design and operational characteristics; (e) the potential project construction timing; and (f) the jurisdictional approvals required to implement the project. The DEIR notes there are no significant unavoidable impacts requiring Council to make a statement of overriding considerations. Potential impacts from the project, and mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a “less than significant” level are identified in these topic areas: Air Quality (related to construction emissions), Biological Resources (related to nesting birds and protected and street tree removals), Cultural Resources (potential disturbance of archeological, paleontological and tribal resources), Geology and Soils (geotech hazards related to excavation and grading), Hazards and Hazardous materials (potential exposure to existing groundwater and soil contamination), and Noise (project construction noise, ground borne 3.c Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 vibration from construction, project operational noise). The mitigation measures are included in the draft record of land use action. Next Steps The PTC will conduct a meeting to receive public testimony on the DEIR and will have the opportunity to review and recommend the ordinance amendments related to this project and to the Downtown parking garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue on January 31, 2018. The ARB will have the opportunity to review revised PSB plans in March 2018. Council review of the DEIR and Final EIR, ordinance, and project plans is targeted for April 2018. Staff is still working with other city departments to refine the conditions of approval. The draft conditions included in this report may be modified between the ARB review and presentation to the City Council. 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 January 5, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 5, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received (since the October 19, 2017 ARB meeting). Comments regarding the DEIR and the project received through February 22, 2018 will be compiled and the Final EIR will include responses to these comments. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Suggest modified findings or approval conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend Council denial of the project based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: RLUA for 350 Sherman only for January 18 2018 (DOC) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3.c Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10  Attachment B: Project Plans and DEIR to ARB Members and Libraries Only (available online) (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table 350 Sherman (DOCX)  Attachment D: Excerpt Minutes ARB October 19th 2017 (DOCX)  Attachment E: NOA-NOC (DOCX)  Attachment F: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment G: October 19, 2017 ARB Staff Report (DOC)  Attachment H: Location Map (DOCX) 3.c Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : J a n u a r y 1 8 , 2 0 1 8 A R B R e p o r t w / o a t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Robert Gooyer, Osma Thompson, Alexander Lew 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00257]: Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report and Review and Recommendation to Council of an Architectural Review Application for Construction of a New Four-Story, 49' Tall Parking Structure, and Photo-Voltaic Rooftop Panel Structure, With Two Below Grade Parking Levels to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces on an Existing Public Parking Lot Within the California Avenue Business District. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published January 8, 2018 for Public Comments Through February 22, 2018. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: That brings us to the main agenda item for today which is a public hearing on a proposal at 350 Sherman Avenue for a parking garage – 40-foot tall parking garage with photovoltaics rooftop structure to provide 636 spaces to be built on an existing parking lot. It’s bounded by Ash, Birch, Sherman and Jacaranda Lane. There are two items before us related to this, the first is an opportunity to comment on the draft EIR that has been prepared for a larger project. That project includes this parking garage, an adjacent Public Safety Building and an ordinance that would change the City’s zoning standards for public facilities throughout the City; Staff can tell us more about that later. The documents available, it’s also available online, and the public comment period on this continues until February 22nd. So, if you have thoughts after this meeting, you are welcome to send them in so that when the final EIR is prepared it can take into consideration your thoughts. The parking garage itself – the project when it came to us last time was both the parking garage and the Public Safety Building. The Public Safety Building did not meet with as much approval as the garage so the projects have been split in terms of their ARB hearings. So today we’ll just be looking at the parking garage but they are – staff plans to put them back together so that they will go to the City Council as a unit in what, late March? Early April? Is that the thought? Mr. Matt Raschke, Senior Engineer with Public Works: As soon as the EIR is certifiable. Chair Furth: And you get the other plan back to us for our comments. Alright, well the EIR won’t be certified for a while yet. So, I have a number of public comment cards, if you want to comment and you haven’t submitted a card, please do. Let’s hear from Staff. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: I’ll be very brief, you did a good job of teeing up the project. With the draft EIR, the process is to receive comments and then the consultant that the City has hired will be preparing responses to those comments in writing. Collectively those will go to the City Council along with the project and the certification will be at the same time as the project. Both of the buildings – both of the sites - are presented to Council for action on the project itself. So, just that – about the DEIR, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: January 18, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 3.d Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 2 we have been getting some comments, those were forwarded to you as we’ve received them and there are some folks here today perhaps to speak to that. You have a revised set of plans if anyone needs to see the prior plans I tried to, in the staff report, provide contrasting images in the body of the report but we do – I do have an older set if anyone wants to look at that. Really, staff has teed this up for approval, we are going to be modifying the Record of Land Use Action following the ARB’s review in March - is what’s anticipated for the Public Safety Building. Once we receive those plans we will get those to you and then that single Record of Land Use Action would proceed to the City Council. I’ve prepared findings – draft findings for architectural review approval of this project and so if you could take a look at those and weigh in and provide edits as needed. I’ll let the applicant provide the images and their PowerPoint presentation and staff is ready for questions. Here’s Matt Raschke to (inaudible)… Chair Furth: First, are there any questions before Matt begins? Go ahead, if you could introduce yourself. Mr. Raschke: Thank you, Amy. My name is Matt Raschke, I’m a Senior Engineer with Public Works and I’m the overall Project Manager for both this garage and the Public Safety Building. As you might be aware a Staff report has been published for City Council on this coming Monday night to consider removal of the lowest basement level of this garage. That – it’s related to the cost and speed of construction for the overall project and it will be looking at the parking needs of the area and Council will have to deliberate on that item but overall the – that’s the only change we’re looking at. We’d like to get at least Conditional Approval on the garage today if possible. The garage is a critical path for the Public Safety Building which is overall looked at as one project under CEQA. We want to get the garage built and functional before we break ground on the Public Safety Building to minimize parking impacts on California Avenue business district. I think we heard Board Member Gooyer at that the last meeting say that the – there was no reason to necessarily look at them architecturally as one project. So, we heard you on that and we’re bringing back just the garage at this point because we’re making some major changes to the Public Safety Building that we’ll be bringing you very soon. I think – I’m hoping that you like those changes and can also then subsequently approve that project. Today we have Mallory Cusenbery from RossDrulisCusenbery Architects to give the presentation and we also have Ray Pendro from MIG. He’s the environmental consultant for the EIR and we also have Michelle Wendler from Watry the parking garage specialist and I believe there’s someone from (inaudible), the landscape architect to help answer any questions that you have on the project. With that, I’d like to turn it over the Mallory to present his design. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you for this opportunity to present for you and I also want to extend a great thank you to City Staff and to key members of the Palo Alto Police Department and Fire Department for the tremendous support and effort that has gone into getting the project to where it is today. As you know the City is embarking on the design of probably the largest investment in infrastructure since the construction of this very building that we’re in. It’s on the two lots that you see there, C-6 and C-7. As you said Chair, in the intro, currently today we’re only talking about half of that project which is the garage portion on the left. We will come back to you subsequently once we redesign the Public Safety Building for an independent separate input on that. The last time we presented to you – the garage to you was in October of last year and we got detailed, extensive and very helpful feedback on the project. There – as you alluded to, there was definitely a lot of support of the direction that the garage was going. General positive feedback included that it’s coming along nicely, it’s a large building that will look quite nice; the Ash/Sherman elevations are quite interesting, the design is almost there, close to being something that can be recommended or approved. There was also support for the integration of the PVs, the circulation of the interior flow of vehicles, as well as the landscape approach. At the same time there was very constructive feedback that we received on areas that could use more work and those included more attention to the Birch Street stairs which was good in concept but needed to be developed. The 3.d Packet Pg. 70 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 3 idea of softening the look of the wall that’s facing Birch Street and that it was too harsh, to massive, that the arcade on Ash was not needed, that we need to look at maximizing parking and that, as Matt eluded to, that the design of the garage and the PSB (Public Safety Building) could be treated as independent elements. They didn’t necessarily need to be one overall design. We heard you, we agree with your assessments, and we believe as a result we have a better building. During the time since we last met you we have removed the arcade, we’ve added the parking back in that space, we’ve spent a lot of time coming up with a new concept for the staircase and the approach on the Birch Street side. In addition, the areas that you liked around the perimeter of the building, the exterior components, we have further refined those and developed those and making those better as well. The building is a 636-car parking structure, two-stories below grade, three-stories – four-stories above grade with a level of PV, photovoltaics, on the roof that shade the top level of parking. We all agree that it is a relatively large building but there are a lot of opportunities within the design of this building to still make it a good neighbor; still have it fit in to the neighborhood there. First of all, it’s not – and it’s unprecedented in its scale, there are other buildings in the immediate environment that are of a similar size, similar scale. However, there also are a lot of opportunities with the design of the building to actually work with the fabric and orientation of the historic Cal. Avenue retail district. Further, there are also a lot of opportunities to kind of build on and reinforce the more fine grain particulate pedestrian environment, both the landscape and the textual environment of the Cal. Avenue public realm. These are kind of guiding forces that you’ll see in the design that you’re going to see. We limited our pallet in the design of this, focusing in fact more on things like light and shadow and how it plays in the building. Movement in pedestrian – movement of people, movement of vehicles, movement of the landscaping and the movement of the sun and how we enforce that; as well as the landscape environment itself, the organic shade, color, smells that you get from that environment. The result being that – the goal being a design that really weaves itself into the neighborhood in such a way that it feels like it belongs. It builds on the textures, the character, the quality of the colors of the area. This is looking up Birch, you can see the garage through the Eucalyptus trees, there or beyond or looking up Ash Street. There’s an opportunity to reinforce and build on, for instance, the patterns and colors of the Visa building beyond but also some of the local – the smaller retail functions and office functions; such as the one on the left where you can see the continuity of the structural member as they march up the street so it’s talking to both characters. Yes, we want it to be a good neighbor but at the same time it’s also, we felt, it’s important in this design to give the garage a character of its own, an independent character. It’s not a destination per say but it is an important moment in kind of the sequence of the daily activities. One strategy we used for that is the current redesign for the Birch Street stair as a feature element. We have introduced a basket weave of terracotta scrim outboard of the stairs that – the role is to soften it, to provide color, to provide an organic material which is actual a clay material and to offer—but the concrete wall that was behind is now a smooth steel trowel plaster surface that hosts the light and shadows that’s going to play off of it and adds to a brighter ambient light feel in that space. This stair is going to be an important component, you’ll notice it cascades down towards Cal. Avenue so people leaving their cars come down the stair toward the retail district. There are pedestrian inflections, at the base of the stairs, the seating areas that are gracious and generous and actually are receptive and welcoming to pedestrian activities. You can sit on the stairs, if you look up at the top of the stairs there’s a gentleman at the top who’s very proud about having walked all the way up there. The detailed activity that you see on that side that was not unique to that side, it carries all the way around in what we consider the syncopated elevational development where a surface slide past each other. They cast shadows on each other and they start to play off each other so there’s a variety—a visual variety as you move around the building with an end result that the building actually feels more (inaudible), it feels more fine grain than you would expect for a building of this scale. A couple things that I will point out is that this is a view from the corner of Ash on your left and Sherman goes off to the right. The reentrant corner that we have, obviously there’s an opportunity to reduce the mass at the corners, it’s a strategy we use on all four sides. We’ve introduced a sand color instead of the grey and then there’s that – even those the arcade is gone, there’s an opportunity to widen the pedestrian room right at that corner for a little bit of seating, a little more generous pedestrian zone before the sidewalk narrows again. The other thing that I will point out in this view is this is the one view where we’re actually representing the possible texture that comes from the ivy growing up the terracotta basket weave. The goal of the design is that works independent of the ivy and we see the ivy as more like a value-add. That is brings a patina of time should it succeed and grow as we hope it will. 3.d Packet Pg. 71 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 4 This view from the corner of Birch on your right and Sherman on your left, I will point out just a couple of things from this view. One is you can see the continuity of the basket weave of the terracotta fins as they wrap around the building providing a visual variety but continuity for the garage. The other thing that I will point out is the polycarbonate canopy that’s over the stairs. It serves the role as you would have a diffuser on a light. So, that even when the sun is not coming from the Birch side, when it’s coming from the back side, the translucent panel picks up the light, diffuses it creating an ambient – soft ambient glow within that staircase so that there’s light all day, even when the sun is on the other side of the building. This basket weave texture is something that we want to see really as an integrate to the experience of the garage, down to the experience that you have at an individual parking space and then also at night. We’re proposing that there be a soft grazing light along the front text of those terracotta fins to accent the texture at night but also to provide more balance between – reduce the glare that customarily comes from inside garages when there’s a lot of light inside but no light on the outside. So, this is a strategy to balance the light and soften the look at night. From a material detailing standpoint, the basket weave doesn’t just change direction vertically and horizontally but it actually changes in plans. As you see on the left, parts of it are proud, parts of it are recessed and then the materials slide behind so there’s a general kind of shadow boxing effect in materials. The materials themselves, I have this here which I can pass around to you, this is our materials board and I’ll make that available to you. In description from left to right, we have metal reinforced terracotta which is basically brick fins, we have board formed concrete – cast in place concrete, we have the translucent polycarbonate panels, we have a smooth fiber reinforced concrete in a sand – it’s call Sahara but in a sand color. It’s sometimes referred to as Swiss Pearl and then on the right we have the ivy which is an integral component of the elevations as well. As they play around the building, this is looking at the Birch Street side, both the architecture and the landscape site design reinforce this idea that each elevation gets an independent identity with further helps break down the scale of the garage. On the Birch Street side there’s a more generous pedestrian realm for seating, for planting, the staircase. You can see the play of light and shadow that comes from the terracotta scrim. I’ll also point out, in this case, the reentrant corners on each side. The reentrant corner on the right has an interesting side benefit that that backplane, if you see on the upper right-hand drawing, that backplane lines up with the face where the mural is on the historic – on the Nut House. So, you’re – specially as you come from Cal. Avenue these planes line up. Then the front of the garage steps forward and between that plane and the forward plane is where the stairs go up. Also, the stairs are doing something else interesting that we like which is that on the right-hand side it goes to the one-story height and it goes up to three-stories on the left so the stairs mitigate the scale differential in the neighborhood. Sherman continues this, the basket weave and the syncopated design. Chair Furth: With the permission of the Board, since this is a single item and a huge project, shall we let the applicant (inaudible) continue? Thank you. Mr. Cusenbery: I will be brief, about two more minutes. Continues the planting areas at the base there are continuous along the building. They are actually rain gardens and then there will be a row of trees out – street trees providing shade and more shadow play along Sherman. The Jacaranda side, which you’re looking at here, does not have as much area for planting at the base but we do have areas where we can grow vines so that there will be an opportunity to grow vines on the back side on the Jacaranda side. Then the Birch side, you can see at the base where we’ve removed the arcade. The seating area at the reentrant corner is on the right and we’ve planted at the base there and you can see the terracotta fins in this location as well. It is actually nice to look at the top, because you can see the relationship of the column to the commercial building on the left and the scale to the Visa building on the right. I’m not going to go into detail on the landscape design, Zoey (inaudible) is actually here today and she can answer any more detailed questions you might have; they are our landscape architects. Also, (inaudible) to say that the plant design also reinforces these independent facades, independent zones for each of the streets, the character of each and then the site design materials are going to be a continuity of the building. So, the pre-cast seating is going to match the terracotta, the unit pavers are going to match the sand of the Swiss Pearl, the board form concrete at the planters will match the board form concrete of the building, the pedestrian landscape site elements will be an extension of the building design itself. It need be, Zoey can go into detail on these sections but this gives you an idea of a cross-section at Ash, the pedestrian cross section at Birch with a deeper seating area, and the pedestrian cross section at 3.d Packet Pg. 72 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 5 Sherman. This project is now -- my slideshow is frozen but in fact, that was the last slide, there’s just one more. The project is currently at 100% schematic design. We are – the last slide – we are – our hope today is – well, first of all, we hope that you agree that we have heard what your comments were from the previous go around. We hope you agree that it’s, in fact, an improved building and our hope is to get a recommendation for approval of this project so that we can move into design development on the project and proceed on providing the Cal. Avenue retail district with this important piece of civic infrastructure. Thank you and I can open to questions. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Are there questions you would like to ask the applicant before we hear from the public or do you want to hear from the public next? I have four cards – I beg your pardon? Oh, did you have a question Osma? Sorry. Board Member Thompson: Do you know what the floor to ceiling height is for the or sorry, floor to bottom of the structure height? It wasn’t noted. Mr. Cusenbery: The floor to the bottom of the structure. Michelle, do we know what that is off hand? I think the floor to floor is 11-foot 6 and the typically beam depth, do you recall? 3-feet. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else? You have 3-minutes to speak, you can speak both to the draft EIR and the project itself. The first speaker I have is Jack Morton to be followed by Christian Pease. Mr. Jack Morton: Thank you. Jack Morton representing the California Merchant’s Associations. First of all, we want to thank both Staff and the architect for hearing our concerns about the Ash and also responding to the comments of the ARB about the overall appearance of the building. We would have come with great happiness had it not been for one thing. At the last minute, we have learned that their proposal is to take away one whole level of parking, which in my mind should have a major negative impact on the Environmental Report. An under parked – the whole problem of the area is that there is relatively no parking. There are – most of the employees can’t get a permit and what we had hoped to be able to do was have that extra 100 parking spaces on the second level become employee parking. From the merchant’s point of view, this project now looks beautiful above ground but it's sorely underperforming what the expectation of what the community was. We have spent lots of time with Staff trying to get clear that as this area is densified, majorly densified, the issue of parking is one of the central things that impact the quality of life. Having people – I think one of the reports showed that the major need for parking is roughly between ten and six. This is an area that has very active appearances from the community to the restaurants to the businesses and shorting us on parking sort of undermines the whole point. So, while we are grateful for the external appearances, the utility of the building has been majorly impacted by this suggestion that at the last minute that we short one level. Whatever comments that the ARB can make, please keep in mind that the impact on the community is the fact that a building is underperforming its purpose and doesn’t do what it should do. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Christian Pease? So, I heard that as a comment on a need for EIR revisiting in light of this proposal. Mr. Christian Pease: Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I’m here today to represent the Evergreen Park Parking Committee and we think this is a lovely design. One of America’s great architects said form follows function. We do not believe that you should reduce this floor as Jack Morton has pointed out and we think this is a false economy. This neighborhood is going to be under extreme pressure for the next decade, Car-light Housing, new firms moving in, new office buildings are already in the pipeline, existing retail – formal retail spaces being filled with four or five times the number of employees they had before, Grand Boulevard, and the list goes on. It was a surprise to us to see in the proposal to remove this level, that it could be taken up – the lunchtime crowds could be taken up based on the efficacy of our RPP. This is wishful thinking at best, almost absurd if the consequences weren’t so impactful on us. There’s already a proposal for the Mayfield RPP to increase the number of employee 3.d Packet Pg. 73 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 6 parking permits by forty and that is going to come before the Council on the 29th. This problem is not going to go away. This is a lovely design, it’s function is to create parking and over this transition period there are people hoping for autonomous cars and new transportation modalities and walkability and all of that sort of thing. Our neighborhood in this business district is going to be under intense pressure. The businesses need that extra level for their employees and their patrons and we need it to keep the pressure off of our small neighborhood. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Jessica Roth to be followed by Mary Ryan. Ms. Jessica Roth: Hi, I’m a business owner on California Avenue and also a Palo Alto resident. Three things I wanted to point out today is that I’m very, very happy with the design. This is a very large structure going into my neighborhood, I grew up on California Avenue and the impact of the size of this structure above should represent what it can do with holding as many cars as we possibly can in this space. I would love to see a second stairwell on the Ash side because it is nice for people not to have to walk a whole block over to then return to walk a whole block back if they are trying to reach retailers on the El Camino side of California Avenue. Then I also wanted to point out that a lot of the people that parked in the Evergreen neighborhood have now moved across the tracks under the underpass to the residential California Avenue – California Street side. I have many customers that are upset about this and so we are going to have that neighborhood coming and wanting to now put limits on who can park in their neighborhood. We are going to then be scrunched again on where people can – our employees, our customers can park so if you could really stress that to Staff and City Council I would really appreciate it. I’m really happy with the design and we’ve been working on getting a parking garage for 15-years on California Avenue. Parking is not a new problem and it’s only getting bigger and bigger down there. I mean I like seeing a change in our area, I think we’re a smart City, let’s plan for the future and not just try to fix an immediate problem. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Ms. Roth. Mary Ryan? Oh, did I get that backward? Ms. Mary Ryan: Good morning. My condominium home fronts along Birch Street, just down the street from where the parking garage is going to be. Currently, there are two parking lots that represent 306 spaces between the two lots and there are twelve access points for those 306 spots on four different streets. Now we’re going to 336 with one access point and that access point is across the street from a residential unit. I think that the access point should be down the street across from commercial instead of a residential area. I’m concerned about traffic congestion because of this one access point versus the current twelve. I am worried about air quality when cars are idling waiting to get into that parking lot because of only one access point and I’m worried about public safety because of the car congestion in that area. That’s it, thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Would the City like to respond to those points? Ms. French: I would like to respond to the third speaker, Jessica Roth, who asked for a second staircase on Ash. In the Staff report, Packet Page 13, I mention that there is now a staircase near Ash opposite the elevator so it should be quite easy to find. You get a choice elevator or stair and you can take the stair on the Ash side. Mr. Cusenbery: It’s visible on the slide that is up there right now. Ms. Roth: Thank you. Sorry, I didn’t see that. Ms. French: That’s ok, it’s hard sometimes to read plans, there’s so much information in there. Let’s see… Chair Furth: The single access point and its location. Ms. French: Right so that was a comment that we heard from other folks and we forwarded that to our environmental consultant who – and actually, that comment was anticipated in the draft EIR. There’s a 3.d Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 7 paragraph in there about where the access – why the access was chosen and where it was based on queuing. That was provided to those folks and I can forward that email if I can get the email of Ms. Ryan so she can see what others have seen as far as where to find this in the draft EIR. So, noted, that was a question and we have a response for that. Chair Furth: Well, perhaps you could use a brief recap of why that was the choice that was made. Ms. French: Yes, it had to do with queuing from the – for the eastbound traffic and allowing eastbound traffic to turn left into that location. I think it’s 90-feet – I don’t have the email in front of me but I can go look for it in the draft EIR. Mr. Cusenbery: (Inaudible) Ms. French: Perfect. Mr. Cusenbery: I also would like to bring up Michelle from Watry Design, our parking garage specialist to answer that. Ms. Michelle Wendler: Michelle Wendler with Watetry Design and we coordinated with the traffic consultant who was doing the traffic impact analysis to review the locations of the entries and exits. The parking lots today, part of the entries and exits are circulation and the way they circulate with the – partially within the lot to the alley. We analyzed for the number of parking spaces in this building with Van Peers and determined that one entrance location and an exit location was enough for the number of parking spaces in the building. Then the location of it was determined based on the street circulation so what was being described about the left turns and the access coming in from Birch and the distance that you have on Ash and Birch are very short. The distance from the intersections is a lot to allow access into those locations, along with the alley at that location also having circulation. The entrance being on Sherman was driven by the street circulation around the site and then the location along Sherman was based on the queuing that was analyzed as part of the traffic report. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: Just the only other comment from staff on the public comments is that the issue of the subterranean garage possibly losing a level. This is obviously a policy discussion that City Council is going to have to consider as they evaluate the project. The project that’s before you with all of its level of the subterranean garage has been evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report. A lesser project or less impactful project could certainly be evaluated – is contemplated in the analysis of the impacts that are presented. They won’t be any worse if the impacts – if the one level of subterranean parking is removed but… Chair Furth: The alternative in the draft EIR is one off the top and one off the bottom, right? Mr. Lait: Well, even if you don’t take one off the top, the analysis, it a determination is made to remove one level of the subterranean garage, the impacts would not be any worse than have already been analyzed in the document. At the end of the day, it’s going to be a decision for Council to decided (inaudible) (crosstalk) Chair Furth: Thank you and they are thinking about this on Monday? Next Monday is that right? When is this going to Council? Mr. Lait: There’s a – I think there is an upcoming discussion. Chair Furth: So, Council on Monday, thank you. Questions from my colleagues? Peter. 3.d Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 8 Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I have three questions, please. Perhaps the first one is for the Public Work Department. The solar panels on the roof of the garage are definitely a part of this project or is this a possible potential future thing? Ms. Raschke: It’s definitely part of this and the base bid we plan to include the structure for the PV panels. We’re still analyzing options for how the actual panels will funded. If they will be privately owned or publicly owned and how that power generated will be used. Vice Chair Baltay: The panels are fully intended to be part of this structure? Ms. Raschke: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Ms. Cusenbery: I will – sorry, I will expand the answer to that and just to mention that they are also integrated with the infrastructure of the Public Safety Building providing a redundant source of power in the event of a disaster. So, they are actually seen not just – they have multiple roles. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. My second question is for the architect regarding the grand staircase coming up along Birch Street. As you’re going up the stair on the right-hand side, what is the finish on that wall? I think that’s the structural concrete wall. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct, that’s a structural concrete wall that we have revised so that the concrete is concealed. I’m looking for that image right now. The concrete is concealed and the surface texture is a steel trowel plaster. Sorry, I’m having a hard time finding that image, there we go. It’s a smooth steel trowel plaster finish that covers all of the concrete below it and the plaster sample is on the board that we passed around. Vice Chair Baltay: Ok and the intention is that you then get a play of light from the basket weave terracotta… Mr. Cusenbery: That you get a play of light. It hosts the light shadows but it also adds to the brightness in that space so it would diffuse light bouncing off the translucent panel above and it bounces around in there. Vice Chair Baltay: Then I want to – if you could clarify for me, what is the orientation of that wall? Mr. Cusenbery: That wall is, on paper, the east side but it’s actually kind of a – it’s a northeast – yeah, because it’s a – we’re off the cardinal grid. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m looking at your site plan and it seems to show true north being more or less within 15 degrees of the orientation of that wall. Am I reading that correctly? Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, you’re reading that correctly. Vice Chair Baltay: So, the wall more or less is facing north? Mr. Cusenbery: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Ok, thank you. The last question was for the transportation person from Watry Consultant if we could. Is there a reason there’s no access to or from the garage from Jacaranda Lane? Ms. Wendler: Based on the review with the traffic engineer, Jacaranda is a one-way and with the other activities going on in that area, they did not believe that access from Jacaranda was going to be an appropriate connection since it mostly runs – the left turn in from Birch would be a difficult thing to 3.d Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 9 accommodate in that area based on the volume. So, they determined we should not have an access in off of Jacaranda. Vice Chair Baltay: Ok, thank you. Mr. Cusenbery: To further elaborate on your question about the orientation. This rendering is accurate for, I believe it’s 9:45 a.m. in August I believe. I forgot the month so I apologize but the idea is that there would be morning sun that comes in and that’s a representative of the morning sun. Chair Furth: Any other questions? Kyu – Alex. Board Member Lew: It’s ok. I have lots of questions so I guess maybe for Staff, the traffic report in the draft EIR had two recommendations. One was to avoid parking at the ends of the isles within the garage and the second was to add crosswalks across Jacaranda Lane. I was wondering if those are – if the – if from the Staff, I was wondering if you’ve – those where – should be included or does the Staff have a different response or a different way of addressing those concerns? That was I think on page 52. Ms. French: I gave my draft EIR to… Board Member Lew: Yeah, we can – you can circle back to me with the answer. Ms. French: Ok, thank you. Board Member Lew: I have other questions to if you want to – I can move on. Ms. French: There was a moment where there were some other parking spaces that were removed. I don’t know, Matt might be able to explain that. Board Member Lew: Yeah, we took out the arcade, right. I think the arcade was taken out along Ash. Ms. French: Right and so then there was a rejiggering of parking – oh, thank you. Board Member Lew: It looks like in the plans those are that electric vehicle spaces. Ms. French: So, I’m on – I now have a copy of the draft EIR or is this the – this is the parking – sorry, the… Board Member Lew: Yeah, the traffic report is 52. Ms. French: Traffic Impact Report page 52, it’s the first bullet? No, the second bullet. I need a minute. Board Member Lew: Ok, I have other questions. For the architect, are the different floors in the garage going to be color coded? Normally in a garage we color code it and it seems – and so the inner workings of the garage are not my major concern but it seems like things like the elevator towers are partly visible from the outside. So – I’ve seen a new garage at San Antonio shopping center where the color coding is part of the exterior design. It was made like a rainbow, this is a design feature that’s meant to be seen from far away so there’s that. Then also is the – well, why don’t we – should we do it one by one maybe? Mr. Cusenbery: Well, currently there no – we do not have a plan for color coding the floors and we definitely have not proposed any of that color coming to the exterior of the building. The thought on the building was to keep more of a limited pallet. Certainly there – we would look in greater detail and design development for wayfinding. Certainly, the signage program would allow us such an opportunity to provide a more discreet color coding so people can get oriented and find their cars but not necessarily become a major architectural element. 3.d Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you. On lighting, I have two questions – three questions, one is you’re proposing new street pole lights along Sherman. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Board Member Lew: They are different than the existing street poles which are tall cobra head light fixtures. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Board Member Lew: I was wondering if you could explain the selection there. Mr. Cusenbery: The selection is based – I’m going to try to go to that night view right now, is to reinforce the pedestrian environment and bring the canopy of lights to a lower level. So, that the single-story component of the garage and the pedestrian realm and the canopy of the trees is reinforced not to over light that area. Then the – those are supplemented with a more subtle light on the surface of the building. There we go, it should be up here momentarily I hope, well maybe not. Anyway, that – yes, the intent is to bring it down for the reasons of pedestrian’s experience. Board Member Lew: Ok and then there’s an existing cobra head light in the parking which works to… Mr. Cusenbery: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Ah, ok, good – to illuminate the alley and in the current lighting plans there’s nothing shown in the alley. I was wondering if that’s a conscious decision or is there something else proposed for the alley? Mr. Cusenbery: That’s a very good question and I don’t have an answer to that. Board Member Lew: Great and then my last question about lighting is there’s one sconce shown in the – near Antonio’s Nut House in the bicycle parking area. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Board Member Lew: I was wondering why is there only one? What is it doing and… Mr. Cusenbery: I think if there’s only one that’s probably an oversight on our part. There should be more than one. The idea is that bicycle parking area should be illuminated as a continuous area and it’s also a pathway that leads you to the Paseo that’s mid-block. It doesn’t go all the way because of structural interference but it goes most if the way there so I would qualify that as an oversight and there definitely should be more than one downlight in that area. Board Member Lew: I think my last question – my last question is about the stairs that serve the lower levels of the garage. Mr. Cusenbery: Yes. Board Member Lew: So, I don’t know the code – how the code works with this but can they be open staircases or do they really have to be enclosed for smoke protection? Mr. Cusenbery: Do you want to address that? I’ll have Michelle answer that. Ms. Wendler: The stairs need to be fire rated on the inside of the basement levels and as we come up into the ground level, we’ve been able to keep that open since that level is open air but as you do go down, there is a wall… 3.d Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Lew: There’s a door. Ms. Wendler: … in the basement levels, yeah. Board Member Lew: It’s not unlike maybe outdoor ones here in City Hall? Ms. Wendler: Exactly, it’s exactly like that. Board Member Lew: Ok so I think – I will comment maybe on that later but thank you for the answer. Amy, did you have any follow-ups on the crosswalks (crosstalk)(inaudible). Ms. French: Yes, I was able to read that section and it does talk about the provision of signage and/or warning systems to be installed at the entry/exit point to make sure that pedestrians will not be endangered by cars coming and going. There are no details about that but certainly, that is something that we would look at, at a staff level to make sure – with transportation and planning to make sure they are the minimum size needed to get the job done and be effective. Board Member Lew: I think the warnings were for Sherman, like an audible warning or – then I think there’s also one for crosswalks at Jacaranda. Anyway, these aren’t like details, it seems like we could add them as Conditions of Approval if we get far today. That’s all the questions that I have at the moment. Chair Furth: Robert, any questions? Board Member Gooyer: No. Chair Furth: Yes, Osma. Board Member Thompson: I tried looking for it but I kind of wanted some more information on rainwater management and harvest. If there’s rainwater harvesting in the project? Mr. Cusenbery: I’ll bring Zoee Astrachan our landscape architect to answer that question. Ms. Zoee Astrachan: Good morning. Currently, the planters along Sherman are treating all of the roof water so there’ll be a network of roof water liters that let out into those individual planters and then spread it lengthwise of the planters and treat that water. So, that planting will have to be at least 30- inches deep, therefore the height of the planters and then the plant species will be selected accordingly. Is there any other questions? Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Astrachan: Is there any other question? Board Member Thompson: Nope, that’s my only question about that but I do have two more questions. I read something about public art and that it might be – I was wondering though the statues of the public art.; if it’s getting moved somewhere; if there’s some more information on its home in this project? Ms. Raschke: Yes. Matt Raschke, Public Works, the Community Services Department was unable to draft or come to an agreement with the Paul Knox studios who was the selected artist from the selection panel. They – because we were so far along, they basically have kind of passed on bringing in an artist for this project. They currently are in the process of selecting artists for the – in the Public Safety Building and once that artist is on board, they are going to look at supplemental opportunities for art on this structure. The runner-up in the garage artist selection panel was subsequently selected as the artist for the downtown garage on Lot D up on Hamilton and Waverly. They didn’t want to bring in the runner-up for this project and have them working on two garages in town. 3.d Packet Pg. 79 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Then my last question is if there’s any – in more recent parking garages – maybe this is a question for the parking consultant, is stall availability indicators and parking space availability systems. Ms. Wendler: Hi, yes, parking guidance systems are included in the project as part of an overall City objective so they will be included in this project; as well as being incorporated into other projects. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: Excuse me, while you’re still there or almost, so I always consider the pinnacle of this the Portland Airport garage which tells me exactly what’s going on before I get there. How will this work? There will be an external availability and then internal guides and green and red lights? What’s it going to be? Ms. Wendler: Yes, we haven’t heard the exact selection from transportation about the exact system because we’re trying to match what’s going to be installed in the rest of the town. The idea is that there are signs at the entry and then signs as you go up so you know. In this case, because of the circulation pattern, you pretty much drive by each space as you go up the building because there are only two parking bays on the ramp. There will be an indicator at the ground whether there are parking spaces on level two, three, four, to help you adjust to where you need to go for the parking; especially if it’s full so you don’t go in. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions before we start with comments? I’d like to begin with comments on the draft EIR, anybody have some? Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Sure, I’ll address my comments here just on the EIR report as it is directed towards both the buildings. I find that there are two items that potentially need a little more addressing as far as the potential mitigation and one is on the tree removal. The report does mention that there’s a eleven heritages and protected trees being removed but it—as I read it, it just seems to say that the City ordinance says they will be replaced and that’s sufficient mitigation. I think that the report should go into a bit more detail about why that’s the case. On any private development, you wouldn’t be allowed to move those trees so just saying that following the code I think is not adequate. It’s a significant amount of trees being removed and I think we should address it in more detail. The second thing and I suspect there will be others on the Board supporting this is that when you do this much groundwater pumping to build two-stories underground because it’s below the water table, it’s bound to have an effect on the environment and I don’t see any mention of that in the report. So, again, some impact or some effect – some discussion about how we’re going to mitigate the impact of the groundwater pumping should be included in the report. Lastly, I have a comment and I can support it with a dozen or so quotations here but when I’m looking at Chapter Four which is regarding the aesthetic impact on the building. It seems to me that it doesn’t really mention the fact that the Board was not terribly pleased with the design of the Public Safety Building and by saying that essentially the aesthetic impact will be mitigated because the Board will approve the design isn’t really sufficient. So, if I could just start throwing out a bunch of sections perhaps that should be addressed. On Page 4.6, I have one, two, three – the fourth paragraph down, there’s a quote – there’s a line that says the secondary two-way ramp will be located on Birch Street etc. It’s regarding where the police cars come out onto the street. If I remember right, the Board had quite a bit of concern about that particular ramp and to leave it in the report as a given, I think is not correct. The next – first paragraph on Page 4.7 says the monopole will visually relate to the pattern of verticals in the PSB’s exterior design and mounting on the building to improve its overall visual integration. I don’t think that was the Board’s statement on that and I think that shouldn’t be in the EIR in that way. Three paragraphs down it say the PSB etc. carefully focusing on appropriate site planning and following that it references three concepts that the ARB is going to choose between. I think we were quite clear that none of those were adequate concepts. Rather than waste everybody’s time going through it, as I go through this section there just seems to be repeated references to a design that we didn’t really think was going in the right direction. We should be more careful to be factual and maybe 3.d Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 13 get more references to the design that’s going to be built as we go through this. I’m curious to hear what everybody else thinks but as I look at the report, just Chapter Four there seems to be missing the mark a little bit. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other comments? Board Member Gooyer: No but I did want to indicate that I agree. It seemed like we weren’t really happy with the design and it – based on what’s written here, we basically were and you are just going to do some fine tuning to get it to work. I have to agree with pretty much every point that was mentioned. Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: On – I guess I have two comments, one is on – in the traffic – well, I have an overall comment. One is I think it was the draft EIR was done really well; like with all of the explanations in there were done really well compared to other EIRs that I’ve looked at recently. I mean they explain things like relatively new things like vehicle miles traveled and I think that was done really well. The – I did see that there’s something out of date in the transportation impacts section on bike shares. I think that’s all changed since last November, that the Council shifted directions so that’s out of date. On the aesthetic mitigations, my recollection is that in the past, say like on a big – on big projects like the Stanford Hospital. That we just said that the ARB process was the mitigation, that once you get through the process, then that is it. So, when the report itself doesn’t necessarily have to spell out exactly what the ARB is going to decide and so maybe we can sort of separate it out a little bit. That’s all that I have on this one. Chair Furth: Thank you. My comment on the EIR – draft EIR, first I agree with the serious problem with the aesthetics. It has a lot of judgments about the design which sort of preempted anybody else’s analysis and I don’t know what the CEQA solution is but it certainly contradicts the opinions expressed by the body charged with advising the City on design. That needs to be reworked in some way because the statements it makes about the careful thinking of mass and whatnot – careful site plans I don’t believe are true. I mean they may have done a great deal of thinking but the result is not acceptable as it presently is there. The other thing is this would be an opportunity to update the description of the parking structure which has changed in many, I would say good ways since this document was prepared. I also think that the discussion of groundwater management is inadequate. I had a question which doesn’t need to be answered now and it may be answered somewhere in the document but there is a test for whether there’s too much shading from a new project. The shading has to do with the light on spaces other than streets between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. during – from September 21 to March 21st, from equinox to equinox. I’m just curious as to the source of the test and I’m also curious as to why we’re excluding streets? If this is a Citywide standard, I think there’s a problem. California Avenue, University Avenue, and I’m sure other streets function as important public spaces. I mean their – this is a horrible inversion but they are the equivalent of malls. I mean these are outdoor integrated across the street neighborhoods, it’s what we cherish, and the availability of some public light is what makes them places that are attractive to pedestrians. This is one of our two most pedestrian-oriented, pedestrian-focused areas so I'm concerned both about the test and curious as to where it comes from. I’m also concerned about the tree mitigation, it’s – we’re removing trees we wouldn’t ordinarily allow to be removed. I think they are mostly – are a number of them oaks because they are protected trees, right? I want to know where they are going to be mitigated, I think it needs to be close, not something planted far, far away. Basically, are we going to have a net increase in the canopy, I think so but we need a better discussion of that. In terms of construction noise, I was wondering if those hours are adequate for the neighborhood but then I recalled that the farmers market is Sunday but again, this is an important commercial neighborhood. It’s busy on Saturday, do we think that’s ok? My biggest noise concern is on Impact 13-3, operational noise, I think I read both this and the Conditions of Approval to say that 78.2 decibels are acceptable for the operation of this facility and that doesn’t seem right and shouldn’t be right if it is. I just would note also in the project itself, on Page 21, there are no – in the Staff report, there are no urban forestry conditions when I was trying to track this through. So, I think it would be good to revise the project description to reflect the improvements in this particular part of the project and then 3.d Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 14 address the other issues raised by Board Members. Is that it for the draft EIR? Let’s get on to the more fun part, comments on the garage itself, please. Who would like to start? Osma. Board Member Thompson: Just kind of coming into this for the first time. It’s true, the first thing that I noticed was this beautiful render of the shadow of the trellis on that wall and then occurred to me that because of the orientation of the building, it was very questionable. It didn’t seem right so even if it was 9 a.m. in August, that might be the only time when that actually happens. It might be nice to integrate that more in the South and West facades where the public can actually enjoy that effect that you’re going for. Another thing I noticed was there are, inevitably in many parking structures, there is a large swath of sheer walls that are these grand open spaces and actually, that’s kind of where the public art ideas sort of came to my mind. I was like oh, these could be really nice public art opportunities that could actually enliven the structure. So, I don’t know if that was considered but it might actually make these large expansive of blank be really culturally appropriate to Palo Alto and give the residents more ownership of the space. Another thing – actually, maybe this should have been a question but in analyzing the floor plan, I noticed that with the accessible stalls there isn’t a real clear path of travel for the accessible cars to get to the street. Typically, there’s sort of a hatched isle that shows the path of travel and that’s absent in your floor plan right now so unless you want to point that out, I couldn’t see it. Mr. Cusenbery: There’s direct access to the street. There’s actually breaks in the planting seat wall that provides direct access to the street. Board Member Thompson: Ok, great, thank you so much. Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah so you don’t actually have to circulate through the garage. Board Member Thompson: Ok because I was like oh no, where is everyone going? Mr. Cusenbery: I wanted to briefly just step back to the public art just to add a couple of layers form the history of this. Originally the large wall that’s facing Birch, we had proposed that that be a full height public art site and that was the original intent and that was one of the sites that were given to the public artist. Obviously, they would finally choose but we put that as a preferred site in part because there’s – its visibility from across the street would be profound too. When the public art component fell through, that was no longer an option and there is a remaining sheer wall on Sherman. One of the things – we had actually proposed public art – extensive public art on the Sherman Street side but one of the factors to consider in that location is there is a public art installation on the Visa building right across the street. Some of the comments we received on some of our initial – because we actually had a long art location on Sherman, was that you’re going to have two public art locations shouting at each other across Sherman. So, as we – and to the extent that we are able to bring in public art in subsequent roles, we would probably stir it towards the Birch Street side based on some of those comments. We, in principle, agree with what you’re saying, absolutely. Board Member Thompson: Yeah and potentially if you guys decide to reconfigure to do the light and shadow thing on the other sides, that potentially could work with that. I think otherwise, the basket weave is aesthetically – it’s a good choice. That’s all my comments for now. Ms. French: Could I mention something in response to the path of travel? If you look at the site plan, ARB O-2.01 it’s ten pages into the set, you can see that there are pedestrian paths of travel that go from the ADA accessible pathways to Sherman. There’s four of those, there’s a fifth one that is not indicated to have that feature so we’ll take a look at that but at least the pedestrians who are parking in those spaces have a path to Sherman sidewalk. Board Member Thompson: I actually didn’t notice that break before so that’s helpful, thank you. Chair Furth: Peter. 3.d Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 15 Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Yes, overall, I find the building to be handsome and very supportable. In fact, I’d like to comment that I hope you can apply some of this same thinking you’ve done here regarding neighborhood scale and granularity and pedestrian friendliness to the PS Building. I think that was missing on that structure and it’s wonderful to hear the way – just your thought process in describing the building and the enthusiasm behind it is 180 degrees different than what we heard last time. I find it appealing and I think the building is going to look wonderful. I find especially removing the arcade was a good move and I think the grand staircase was a wonderful idea. It will just make it so much more accessible going in and out and it will be friendly and then the offsetting of the walls by the Nut House is a very clever way to do it. I’d like to suggest two things I think the Board might be able to ask you to improve on. So, one of them has – is regarding the staircase again, while the idea of a play of light on that wall is fine, I don’t think that’s going to happen. Your orientation doesn’t let that be the case and it seems to me there might be some way you could treat that large concrete wall more than just a smooth textured plaster. That’s a very tall wall with just a plain finish that would at best just have sort of a row of handprints on it where people touch it. There must be some way we could just liven that up and make it better and somehow perhaps relating to the idea of this play of light or what would the shadows be like, something like that. Secondly, the same – I wonder if you could come back to the perspective showing that staircase from across Birch Street. No, not that one. I’m concerned the basket weave patterns, as they follow along the stair – right there. They seem to sort of have an arbitrary stepping up at the end of the staircase and I’m wondering if you couldn’t just improve that just a little bit more. It’s a refinement, it’s a small detail but… Mr. Cusenbery: Noted. Vice Chair Baltay: …the way it is isn’t quite right. It goes without saying that the way you build that terracotta slats is critical, you don’t want them to be so frail that they break. Mr. Cusenbery: No. Vice Chair Baltay: These buildings receive really no maintenance and terracotta is a brittle material but they look great. My other comment has to do with this circulation in the garage and I just don’t see why you couldn’t put a secondary entrance or exit off of Jacaranda Lane, back – at the opposite corner from where you drive in and out. It seems to me at the expense of one parking stall, maybe two, you could substantially improve the circulation through it. We did comment on this at the last meeting, that having just one entrance to a 600-car garage. I understand that the transportation guy says it’s going to work but in my experience in life, it just takes one person getting confused about direction whether they’re coming or going, something like that and that really clogs things up. Almost all the other garages in town that I’m aware of have two at least entrances and exits and it just seems like it’s an easy thing to do. Mr. Cusenbery: Well and if I could just respond in brief? Vice Chair Baltay: I’d rather just go through the Chair. Mr. Cusenbery: Ok, I’m sorry, I apologize. Vice Chair Baltay: So, those are comments. I can support the project, I’d like to see us make those two small shifts. Thank you. Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. I am also generally supportive of the project. I agree with Peter generally about having a second entry/exit and even if we don’t do it today or initially, it seems to me that we should – it should be future approved. So, that at the very least you have a clear span and you don’t have columns coming all the way down to the ground so that we could open it up at a future time if 3.d Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 16 it’s needed. Things change over the life of the City and if we imagine this is going to be here for 100- years, some things can change and it seems to me that we should have that option. On – I also agree with Peter on the stair wall, I think it’s looking good. I do – I think the plaster is better than having concrete and then again, I just worry about graffiti and dirt and repainting it and what not. I think I also agree with Osma’s comment on the sheer wall; at least on the one on Sherman. What I’ve seen on some other – on older garages is that they’ll do little openings, like a fortress opening, like a castle opening and I was wondering if that is – if something like that is possible. I’d also say that I was looking at serval other public garages and they have more stuff and I’m saying like tile base, awnings, little-punched openings and whatever. In a lot of garages its just – it can look – it can add a lot of clutter and it seems counter to what you’re proposing to do today but in a way, it does add pedestrian amenities. It seems to me in this particular case, since you have the planters along Sherman, that may be enough but I haven’t – we don’t have the landscaping plans so I couldn’t tell you for sure today and we do have a finding about that, a landscape finding. On the stairs that go down to the garage – to the lower levels of the garage, I think my recommendation is if you can do it, is to have them more open at the ground level. I mean to me going into some little dark staircase is just – it’s not desirable so in any way you can have it more open and more open to the sidewalk, it will feel safer and it will seem – it will appear lighter and more open and more welcoming. I think we should address the recommendations in the traffic report about the parking at the isles and the crosswalks and the audible warning or some sort of warnings at the driveway entrance and exits. We don’t have any landscape plans and we do have findings for that so I think that has to come back to the Board in some way. Then on the lighting, I think we do need to have something along Jacaranda Lane. I’m generally in support of the massing, I think you’ve done a great job on the material selection with the terracotta and the board formed concrete. I guess I would – on some of the materials like say you’re proposing like a cement board – like a Swiss Pearl. Mr. Cusenbery: A Swiss Pearl, exactly. Board Member Lew: Some of these things I – in the back of mind, I was wondering – been wondering, are you proposing an integral color and then what happens over time? Are we – would we paint it and I guess I would say the same thing with the board formed concrete. You know if there is graffiti coding? Are we just going to let it be and paint over it as needed? Mr. Cusenbery: In the context that we have it set up, the board formed concrete is more vulnerable than the Swiss Pearl. The Swiss Pearl is pretty much inaccessible, the outer surfaces are. Board Member Lew: You know you see like highway overpasses… Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, I know. Board Member Lew: …and somehow some people… Mr. Cusenbery: If you’re motivated there’s a way. Board Member Lew: Yeah, if there’s a will there’s a way and we do have graffiti in town. Usually, it gets cleaned up immediately but it does happen. So anyway, I don’t know if we need to go into nitty gritty details about that but I do have concerns about that because I think it’s going to happen someday. I did want to agree with the previous comments about the tree mitigation and it seems we’re – for City projects, we want to lead by example and we’re removing all the trees. We don’t really know what the mitigation – where they’re being replaced so it doesn’t seem to me like we’re doing a great job on that. Chair Furth: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I have to go along with the other Members that I think it’s a big improvement over what we’ve seen. I guess I also have – the only area of concern or at least I think it’s worth commenting is that whole idea of the grand stairway and that the adjacent wall. I agree based on the orientation that I don’t know if you’re going to get the play of light that you’re looking for and to me, it’s 3.d Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 17 almost – it’s going the wrong way; in that, a building like this is very large and bulky, to begin with. Then what you’re doing basically is you’ve got what looks to be an 8-foot or so stairway coming out and then you’re creating a trellis in front of it which adds to the overall bulk of the building. I guess part of that is also to give more character to the wall behind it. I would almost be tempted to – I’d like to see the trellis go away and actually make more interest in the actual stair itself. The stair right at the moment is sort of – blends into the wall adjacent to it. If the stair became the terracotta element for instances, that climbs up the wall, then you’re basically bisecting that large wall and a lot of the concern about this massive wall goes away. It also then allows you to cut the roof back somewhat and the overall bulk of the building, on that side, gets reduced greatly and really, you’re not changing the function because – I understand the overhang or the canopy but if you’re doing it for rain, a canopy that’s 40-feet up in the air isn’t really going to keep rain off your head all that drastically. I don’t know if that’s the intent of it but I think what it will do is – like I said in this case, there’s nothing really spectacular about the look of the stair as it relates to the rest of the building. It’s not an accent point, it’s not, you know like I said, the reddish terracotta stair right there so you could actually point it out. I think you’re missing something and also adding to the bulk because of it. I agree with the tree removal or that sort of thing, especially setting a bad example and overall, this wouldn’t be a breaker for me but I’d love to see a little bit more effort considering people are calling it the grand stair and all this. To me there’s nothing grand about this stair, you’re basically putting a trellis in front of it than hiding it so to me that gets away from the concept of a grand stair. I pretty much agree with most of the other Members, I think I’ll leave it at that. Chair Furth: Thank you and thank you for this revised plan. There is so much about it that I really like and I think that it’s clear from the public comment that you’ve addressed concerns of the neighborhood and the merchants and the people who frequent it and of the Board. You know somebody at some point today said it wasn’t a destination but of course it is, this is the Union Station of that part of town. This is where those people who use cars, and that’s a lot of people, enter the neighborhood and so I think we’re going for a similar kind of experience. You know in the 60’s peninsula towns put a ballot measure on and adopted them, banning parking structures because they were seen as a symbol – an emblem of overcrowding and urban danger and just generally bad things. I think with a lot of effort we’ve managed to transform that experience in many parts of town and I hope this continues that project. I like the fact very much that – this is an odd thing to say about a huge parking garage but that it kind of flies its sustainability flag. I like the rain gardens, I like the highly visible photovoltaics, those are all good things. I like the fact that we’re going to have intelligent wayfinding, I also feel kind of deprived when we don’t have it. I’m concerned about how safe it’s going to feel to be in the subterranean levels but I don’t really know how you address that. If that is going to be employee parking, it’s going to present an interesting issue for employees getting their cars late at night. One of the things that I really like is the way that I think it now looks like a building that’s supposed to be in the California Avenue, both commercial and to the South. What do we call that? District, that it integrates both with the office and residential buildings and with Cal. Ave itself, I think that’s great. With respect to the sheer wall on – well, we do need a landscape plan, I think before we can approve this. With respect, for example, to the sheer wall on Sherman, whether it works and how it works is going to depend a lot about what’s planted there and what kind of tree shadows we get. I don’t think there’s much that’s lovelier than the pattern of light and shade from a tree on a wall but I don’t know what we’re going to have there and how it’s going to look. I’m not – I like your overall design so I’m not particularly interested in additional detailing at this point but I’m open to the thoughts of my colleagues on this and a view. It is a problem that that lovely light that we see on the grand staircase is a rare phenomenon and I think that means that needs further thought. I don’t know if you provide a painted version of that or you do something different. It certainly is true that there are lots of things one can do with a staircase, what I like about what you have is that this is a huge building. It’s – and the scale of the element is good, it’s big so I’m open to further thoughts about that but it’s close. I actually do like the idea of a light diffusing screen up above on both sunny and dark days. I do notice that the Staff conditions are not complete and we don’t have a full set of plans. When I look at what seems to be the critical path here, I know it’s a while before we can take this to Council and I would be inclined to ask this to come back one more time but what are my colleague’s thoughts? Does somebody want to make a motion or just chat? 3.d Packet Pg. 85 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 18 Vice Chair Baltay: I have a question about the process if I could? The reason we’re pushing to get this approved now is so they can get into a more of a construction drawing phase and get a jump on constructing this or is it just to sort of get one more thing out of the way? Mr. Raschke: Correct, we want to actually break ground on this in October. So yeah, we want to fast- track construction documents and get them out to bid because the escalation that we’re still seeing in the market is extreme. So, every month this -- that the Public Safety Building is delayed with what the cost estimates that we’re seeing right now, it’s probably $100,000 to $200,000 a month that we’re escalating the project as it drags on. Vice Chair Baltay: So, addressing my colleagues then, I understand the Public Safety Building will be coming back to us sometime in March and I’d say there’s a chance we’re going to continue that to another hearing. If we tie this building to that, they’re not going to start in October and so, in reality, we’re cost quite a bit more by delaying it. I think the comments I’ve heard are all things that could be addressed… Board Member Gooyer: Well, the other way to look at it is – I mean we all take chances. You could start construction documents basically with the way this Board feels about the existing project and get 85% of those done and some minor modifications that you leave purposely vague like the stair or whatever; the wall; something like that. You could do a whole lot of construction and that isn’t going to waster 3- months’ worth of time while it’s just sitting there so I think we should bring it back because there are some modifications. I’m not happy with like I said that one thing, I guess I feel a little bit stronger about it than the rest of the Board so that’s fine but I think there needs to be some redesign on that grand stairway. I don’t think that alone is going to like I said, will allow you to do 85% to 90% of the construction documents, even if that’s vague at the moment. I don’t – I wouldn’t think – I’d also – because this is a public building, I don’t want to get hung up in that hey, come on, we’re in a hurry. You guys have to approve it now because we’re on a time schedule. Board Member Lew: I have a follow up for Staff on Robert’s point. How does this work? The Council needs to authorize the next phase typically like on the bicycle bridge they authorized design development up to whatever, 65% of DD. Is that going -- is that the same process for the garage? I mean the Council needs to approve… Board Member Gooyer: What you’re saying is can they start construction documents… Chair Furth: What do you need in order to start construction documents? Board Member Lew: Yeah. Board Member Lew: You need some Council approval I would imagine. Yes. Chair Furth: Yes, thank you. Board Member Lew: Welcome. Mr. Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works: Good morning, I’m Brad Eggleston, the Assistant Director of Public Works, these projects are structured a little bit differently than the bike bridge was. I think what you’re recalling with that project is that we had to actually take a contract amendment to the Council to authorize the next phase of design. With these projects we have the full design authorized in the current design contract – right so there is – as we’ve said – as Matt and Mallory have said, we’re really wanting to forge ahead with a design with an eye to that October breaking ground date. There is a checkpoint with the Council where we would ask them to authorize the EIR and approve the Record of Land Use for the project. I’m not sure what that would mean in terms of at any point that we would pause with the construction documents process before getting to Council. 3.d Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: With respect, I don’t think we’ve been dragging the project here. The public comment period on the draft EIR doesn’t even end till February 22nd. I think the consensus here is that we think it’s a good building, we think it needs a little more work and I definitely think we need some more careful looking at the conditions which I do not think are not ready to go. I’m concerned that this is a very big project and I don’t want to miss something because we’re trying to amend conditions or add conditions on the fly; so, what would you suggest as a procedure? You, you’re good at this. Mr. Lait: Well, so I think that just taking a step back, I think the Board has had this sort of informal interest in wanting to move City projects forward at two meetings. This is your second meeting and I’ve heard a number of comments, a lot of it is positive though maybe perhaps not unanimously positive about the project. The things that I have heard I think could easily be addressed here after this point without subcommittee and then some points with the subcommittee. The grand stair and I understand that there’s maybe some objection to the term but that stairway is not going to move. There are treatments and elements that may be modified to enhance the lighting effect that the Board has talked about. I think that’s something that can be addressed in subcommittee. I think that wall – the large plaster wall is something that may benefit from a little bit more discussion today and if we can give some clear direction to it for subcommittee members to explore that, that could be helpful. The landscaping, we don’t try to – landscaping is an element of the design. We don’t want to hide the building with landscaping – landscaping shouldn’t be the reason why a building gets approved or doesn’t get approved. It’s supposed to enhance and improve the design but it’s not the reason why. I mean I think that’s something that we can come back in subcommittee or even later to the Board and have a discussion about landscaping. I think there’s – and as far as the conditions go, I think we’re probably 98% there and the reason we added that in the staff report is because I think we’re fine-tuning a few things related to the environmental analysis; which is frankly going to change even if you continue this over time as we get closer to the City Council. I think all things considered, from a staff perspective, we are very mindful of the cost not only to other applicants that have to go through the process. We want to streamline and be efficient in our review but the City also has an expense that it’s accruing and that has potentially broader implications from other – as we spend more money to building the parking structure. There are less funds available for other capital improvements that we want to advance so our interest is to move it forward. Chair Furth: I think we all share the view that it’s important to do what we can to expedite this. What I’m trying to figure out is I don’t think we – well, we’ll just check and see but I don’t think we have – we have no landscape plans for example. How are we to make our findings in the absent of those plans? Board Member Lew: You condition it to come back. I mean you can condition the landscape plans to come back. That’s not – this is a… Chair Furth: So, this is an approval subject to further review by the ARB? Mr. Lait: You’re approving – you would be recommending approval of the project with the condition that the landscape plans return to the Board. Chair Furth: Ok, thank you, that was my question. Ms. French: Could I just mention that there is a landscape concept that shows where trees are to be located, where shrubs are to be located and specify the tree species. I think the – what’s missing is the smaller level plantings, the smaller plants. Chair Furth: Colleagues, what – first of all, are you – are we generally supportive of the idea of trying to put together a motion that approves this project subject to further review by us? Board Member Gooyer: What does that mean? 3.d Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Lew: Let’s just be more specific, let’s – I’m willing to approve the project today with all of the items that have been previously mentioned coming back to subcommittee. I’m actually ok with the staircase, I think I disagree with Robert but I’m fine with if we want to tinker with it. I think I’m – I would be willing to have that – how do we say – consider revising the staircase but it seems to me that the grand staircase issue had – there were safety issues regarding the police station. So, I imagine that there’s – that they’re going to want some sort of screen wall there. Anyway, let’s – I – it seems to me all of these things to me are – could be addressed in subcommittee. Board Member Thompson: I think – oh I was going to say my major – I mean I agree mostly with the Board Members. I think regarding the stair, it’s true, I did feel that it was missing some design thought. Part of it could be mitigated and in many ways, I understand there’s something wrong with public art integration but that doesn’t mean that the architect or the designer can’t take some initiative and improve the view from the ground in some way that you kind of have a basket weave fractal skin. That couldn’t somehow integrate either texturally or paint or something to improve it. As it stands right now, it’s true that right now it is missing that and so it would be worth seeing again. Board Member Gooyer: The way I see it is that we’re – as you said we’re almost there. I would prefer to see it come back to a date certain and that way you can determine how that fits into the schedule and limit it to just those items that we’ve talked about; the stair, a couple of other items and if it could be done fairly quickly and I don’t think that that’s going to interfere with the overall scheme of things. Like I said, the stair is going to stay where it is so from a structural standpoint or a construction document standpoint, that’s not going to change. It’s going to be how it’s addressed and I think it’s a fairly big element of that corner and I think we need to do something other than subcommittee. Vice Chair Baltay: I agree with Robert on that. Chair Furth: I agree too so that’s three votes for that process. Let’s see if we can focus down tight on what it is that we’d like to have further work on. So, I have that we need a landscaping plan, I would like further details on what the actual operational noise level that the City is willing to commit to is. The one that we have seems oddly high. What would you say – let’s see, Peter I’ve forgotten what you’re points where? There in my notes here somewhere. What else did you want to add? Oh, somebody wanted crosswalks indicated on Jacaranda, is that right? Board Member Gooyer: That’s fairly minor (inaudible). Board Member Lew: No… Chair Furth: Do you want any additional work on lighting? Board Member Lew: … it was only – actually the – I wanted the staff to respond to the recommendations in the traffic report. Chair Furth: So, but at the same time we could get additional completed detailing on lighting, that was a gap. Board Member Lew: No, I think their lighting is… Chair Furth: It’s ok? Board Member Lew: …there but that the… Chair Furth: There are gaps in the plan? Board Member Lew: Well, there’s no – there’s nothing addressing lighting Jacaranda Lane. 3.d Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: Right. I’m just trying to avoid further referrals to subcommittee. Board Member Gooyer: I basically think the grand stair, the trellis and the concrete wall behind it need to be – needs some further clarifications or refinement. Chair Furth: Well, before we talk about that, anything else I’ve left of this list? Vice Chair Baltay: At least two of us asked about a secondary exit onto Jacaranda Lane (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Furth: Ok, planning for a possible future exit. Vice Chair Baltay: Or creating one right now. Chair Furth: Exit on Jacaranda Lane. What else? Board Member Thompson: More information on the tree removal. Chair Furth: Yeah, landscaping plan, more tree. I will tell you if this is part of the landscaping plan, I’m going to be looking for benches that people who don’t have great muscle tone can (inaudible). In other words, armrests, something that lets people lever themselves up from benches – from the seating. Anything else? Is that it? I have such illegible notes here. We’re happy with the rainwater harvesting. I think we – could we get more of a – more statements of consensus on the grand staircase. Robert’s presented the view that it needs significant change. What’s the view of the rest of you? Alex. Board Member Lew: I don’t think I agree. Chair Furth: Ok, do you want anything or are you good? Board Member Lew: No, I think previously have stated my concern. It was mostly just keeping the plaster wall… Chair Furth: So, sturdy materials? Board Member Lew: …clean. So, like hard trowel plaster typically shows cracks. I’m not sure if you were proposing to paint it or not. Often times the paint is used to hide the cracks and public buildings and garages usually get pretty grungy and they don’t – they’re not spic and span, nice and clean and so those are my general concerns about the plaster wall. Chair Furth: Peter. Ok, sorry, Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: I think I stated my concern, that wall absent the play of light is going to be a big blank wall that’s getting dirty and so I’d rather not tell the architect how to resolve that issue but I think it needs resolution or refinement maybe. Chair Furth: So, the issue is that accept at 8:30 in the morning it’s going to be too big and to blank and to vulnerable? Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, it’s in shade 90% of the day, 90% of the year… Chair Furth: Ok, I think that’s probably pretty clear. Vice Chair Baltay: …and then I also felt that the detailing of the basket weave terracotta below the stair needed further thought. I think the architect would agree that it needs further thought and just giving them some space to do that. Those are my two issues on the staircase. 3.d Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Furth: Anything else? Board Member Thompson: I think I would agree with Peter and Robert on that, that yeah, it’s kind of – it could need more thought. It’s true that it won’t look like that and so it would be good to just know more about the design intent. It’s a nice effect so it would be nice to see if it could be incorporated somewhere where it could happen and also just more thought on the big blank walls as well. That’s sort of my things. Chair Furth: Thanks, so I’m not in favor of relocating the lattice particularly. I think this approach but I do understand that it’s not going to work as shown and that we need to figure out or the architect needs to tell us how to address that. I’ve got landscaping, more good information about how the tree loss is going to be really well mitigated, assurances that the operational noise is going to be at some level that’s attractive to people in the neighborhood walking by, perhaps some corrections of omissions on the lighting plan and a plan for lighting on Jacaranda Lane, either an exit or a plan for a possible future exit on Jacaranda Lane, and some -- what’s the word? Refinements – some further thinking on how to make the grand staircase wall study and as interesting as it appears in this elevation. Would somebody like to make a motion to – oh, is there a date that this could come back to us? Mr. Lait: Yeah, we’ll look at a date but can I offer… Chair Furth: Sure. Mr. Lait: … just another Staff perspective based on the motion and I don’t want to be argumentative about this but I just want to be clear about what the motion is and what we’re doing. As I hear the comments that we’re being asked to come back, there is the landscape plan which this Board has routinely conditioned as a condition for return. I don’t see a problem with the landscape plan not being fully developed at this point. There’s the operational noise level issue that’s been addressed, you know we don’t believe that this is going to operate any differently than any other parking structure that we have in the City but moreover, that’s an environmental point. We’ve heard the comment, it’s going to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report and if there’s additional mitigation that are required, we would address that. The tree removal, the trees are going to be removed and I understand that there’s concern about the mitigation about how that might be addressed. That too is an EIR point, we’ve heard the comment, we’re going to study it, we’ll respond to it in the final Environmental Impact Report. I don’t know why the project would have to be continued on that point alone. I heard a comment about the rainwater harvesting, that’s a technical detail that we can be – that can be worked out. It sounds like the plan has – the applicant has a plan for addressing that. Lighting plan on Jacaranda Lane, again a detail that the Board consistently has moved to a subcommittee to discuss lighting. That seems like a very discreet element related to one aspect of the project. There was a comment about the exit on Jacaranda Lane. Staff believes that this is infeasible for the project design due to the interior ramping of the project so we don’t feel like we’re going to be able to come back with any changes to that feature. The – there was a detailing about the basket weave and the terracotta. This is – we’ve heard some comments about that and I think this is a detail that was expressed as something that could be easily addressed. It sounds like the architect has an idea about how to address that and the final component has to do with the refinement of the staircase where we’ve heard ranging views from I don’t like it to it’s good, how’s the plaster going to work? I think that’s the one area that we could probably benefit from some further Board discussion and if the Board can’t come to a perspective of how to address that, then I don’t know what continuing that is going to do. If there are some specific comments that can be given to the applicant so that we can come back to a subcommittee to address that wall, then I think we should do that. Of all the comments or the reason that I’ve heard for continuing this item and coming back, I don’t think anyone of them rises to that level of a need to return to the Board. So, I just want to offer that in the interest of all the things that have been said before. Chair Furth: Thank you. One of the things that are perplexing me is that the issues that you’ve described as environmental carry over to the Conditions of approval of the project. 3.d Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 23 Mr. Lait: We acknowledge that. If there are any mitigations that need to be incorporated, those will necessarily be a part of our Conditions of Approval. I mean I view this more as an administrative component for us to address in how we frame and address the conditions. In fact, we noted in the Staff report that even if the board were to approve it today or continue it, we still may be modifying some of these Conditions of Approval as the project moves forward to the City Council. Board Member Lew: Well, and Planning Commission too. Right? Mr. Lait: Planning Commission is going to be looking at the Environmental Impact Report but also the texted amendment that is associated with the project but they’re not going to be looking at the details of the project. Chair Furth: Thank you. So, you’re asking us – so, explain to me what 78.2 decibels sounds like? Ms. Gerhardt: I just want to be clear and I can grab the page, I don’t have it in front of me but… Chair Furth: It’s Page 14. Ms. Gerhardt: Yesterday when we were discussing this, the operational numbers are closer to 52 so we’ll grab the page and find that answer for you. Chair Furth: Great because as it stands, we’re supposed to be approving noise up to that level which I wouldn’t be able to do. I wouldn’t summarize our concerns quite the way that Staff has but I understand their view. We could satisfy the operational noise problem by changing that condition to something more suitable. We still don’t have any transportation conditions and we still don’t have any – that’s on Page 15 and we still don’t have any Public Works Urban Forestry Conditions on Page 21. Ms. French: Can I clarify something there? Chair Furth: Sure. Ms. French: The transportation Staff member has been intimately involved with the redesigns that have been coming through and they have no conditions at this point. We do – we can add a condition about that – come back and let’s see the signs for the – the signage that’s going to be coming forward related to the safety at the entrance. Chair Furth: I’ll see if anybody wants that, thank you. So, we’ll just put none rather than to be determined. Ms. French: Sure, we were – I was hoping I would get something this week but then the other was the Urban Forestry Mitigation Measure 6.2 I think it is, does have some specificity as to what the Urban Forestry folks want back. Dave Doctor retired, we don’t have any conditions from Urban Forestry at this time. We do have a mitigation measure that’s fairly specific. Chair Furth: Thank you. Out of our list of five items, we could change that operational noise condition down to a lower level? Ms. Gerhardt: If you’d like we… Mr. Ray Pendrove: Hello. Ms. Gerhardt: … do have the environmental consultant here. Mr. Pendro: Yes, my name is Ray Pendro from MIG. We’ve worked on the EIR with City Staff. 3.d Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Pendro: The operational noise standards are based on the City Municipal Code and the number you’re quoting is the sound of the ventilation fan at the north end of the parking garage. I will give a very brief summary just by reading two sentences from Page 13-29 of the EIR. The paragraph in the middle to just – I hope this helps a little bit, it’s of course, just the summary of a whole chapter. It says the results of the calculation indicate the parking garage would result in noise levels of 52.8 decibels at a distance of 58 – of a distance of 50-feet from the building which is approximately 10 decibels lower than the existing noise on that street which is approximately 63 decibels. The operation of the parking garage at 50-feet from the fan, the exhaust fans for the basement would actually be 10 decibels less than the decibel level of the street traffic driving by the garage. Chair Furth: This is good. Remind me where they are? Mr. Pendro: Page 13-2… Chair Furth: No, I’m no Page 13, where they are in the building? Mr. Pendro: Oh, they are on the north edge of the parking garage near Jacaranda Lane. Chair Furth: Near Jacaranda and what level vertically? Mr. Pendro: I don’t have the design of that but it’s for the garages so it would be near the alley. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Pendro: It’s for the basement level. Chair Furth: Right and so where does it exhaust? Mr. Pendro: Well, the fan – I’m not designing a parking garage. Michelle? Chair Furth: I’m sure somebody knows. Board Member Lew: It’s near the… Mr. Pendro: It is in the alley behind the (crosstalk) (inaudible). Ms. Wendler: The exhaust shafts are adjacent to the elevator towers and they go all the way to the top. Chair Furth: Ok so this is nice to know. I did read the code and I did read the new Noise Element and then I read our Condition of Approval which was not reassuring so can we change that? Why doesn’t staff suggest some language? Ms. French: Are you talking about Noise Mitigation 13.1 that’s on Page 30. Chair Furth: I am talking about – well there’s that and then I don’t know that we can’t – we can’t exactly rewrite the mitigation measure for a document that we’re not – I figured that’s what it says in the EIR but when we have our own Conditions of Approval it would be a lower noise level that we would be tolerating. Whereever you want to put it is fine with me. Ms. French: So, add the noise condition to the planning conditions. Chair Furth: Which essentially says that the noise level of the equipment will not exceed whatever you’re willing to commit to. 3.d Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 25 Mr. Lait: Well, I think we just need to say that the project shall operate in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. I mean that’s ultimately what we’re looking for and we believe that can be achieved. Chair Furth: Not when you tell me that it’s 78.2 decibels. I mean is there a problem that I’m not seeing here? I mean I know there are a lot of rhythmic scales and all that but is there any problem with committing to a slightly lower level? This is a part of the City that doesn’t show up on any noise contours. This is a relatively quiet part of the City. Mr. Lait: Ok but as I’m understanding it, you’re not asking for it to operate lower than the City’s noise level, right? You’re asking it to be in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance? Chair Furth: I’m asking it to operate in a way that’s consistent with people being comfortable walking around it. Mr. Lait: But I mean the standard is the City’s Noise Ordinance. I mean that should be the standard for review and so if – we’re saying that the project will meet the City’s Noise Ordinance. Chair Furth: My question is, is there a lower number that we can commit too? Mr. Lait: We can study that and get – send the Board a comment on that but it’s unprecedented for us to… Chair Furth: We don’t – when we review buildings, we don’t say you comply with the quantitative standards of the City and therefore you’re approved. We wouldn’t exist if that was one of the things that we did and I confess that part of my problem is just confusion that we would say in our ordinance that that decibel level was acceptable. It seems very high to me. I am willing to let this point go if I have no agreement from my colleagues. Mr. Pendro: I’ll just point out that I believe where the number comes from, it’s Mitigation 13-3, operational noise, it’s the second bullet and in combination with the information that I gave earlier, 78.2 decibels is the decibel at the location of the ventilation fans. It’s Page 13-32, the second bullet so that noise level disperses over distance. Chair Furth: If we were a private project as opposed to a public project, we’d be held to a stricter standard under our ordinance? Mr. Lait: No, the same standard applies for both projects. Chair Furth: Because I when I was looking at the exceptions, it appeared to say they got 15 decibels and we got more. Vice Chair Baltay: Wynne, it seems to me… Chair Furth: I’ll let it go. Vice Chair Baltay: … if we just eliminated that last clause which says which is estimated to be, just strike that from the Condition of Approval, we’d all be happy with this. Chair Furth: Alright, we’ll do that. That’s Page 14, it’s the second full paragraph after the first – after the second bullet. That takes care of that one, that leaves the landscaping plan – oh, let’s take the next – so, with respect to either building or planning for an exit on Jacaranda Land. Staff believes that’s something they would say no to, is that right? It can’t be done? Board Member Lew: From my point of view it – I was thinking it would be a second exit somewhere else. It wouldn’t have to be on Jacaranda Lane. There are other – there are City garages in – off of Castro 3.d Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 26 Street in Mountain View that have exits onto the alley – one-way alleys and they work. I don’t think that the – it seems to me the traffic study indicates that people are coming from all directions and they would not necessarily be coming from the opposite lane on Birch making a left turn into the garage. They could easily – you could circle around the block around California, turn right on Birch and so right into the alley so it seems to me that we should have some flexibility. Chair Furth: So, then would it – what we are asking to see is a secondary entrance or exit – and/or exit? Board Member Lew: In my mind – well, so – I’ll let Peter speak to his but my own is just that it would not necessarily have to be implemented initially. Vice Chair Baltay: I agree with what Alex is saying. If we just ask them to eliminate that one post, then time will prove out whether the exit is necessary. Chair Furth: So, revise the design to make possible future exit or entrance? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I suppose we should verify with the architect if that can be done but I’ve got to believe that it’s possible but I really think we want to move this along and not keep negotiating these small things. Chair Furth: If we do this discussion and get this hammered out today, it will perhaps advance the project. Ms. Wendler: Subject to not actually being a traffic engineer but a parking designer, where you’re talking about is coming down the ramp to the right of the elevator and there’s a – the elevator vent shaft and there’s a column and then there’s a second column. For a single exit only, lane and not having an entrance, the space between the two columns would be wide enough without actually removing the column to allow for a potential future right-hand turn lane onto Jacaranda. Assuming that it would be consistent in the traffic impact analysis which I can’t speak too. Vice Chair Baltay: With all respect, the Staff already mentioned they’re concerned about is being proximate to the top of the ramp and I’d prefer to see us have more latitude with a larger space so that we don’t create a dangerous situation. It seems to me again that if it’s possible to remove one column at the lower corner there, then we all sorts of future possibilities at really no cost. Ms. Wendler: It’s not impossible to remove a column. We can evaluate the column spacing and see how we can make that and do the turning diagrams to show how that would work. Mr. Lait: So… Vice Chair Baltay: If that’s what it… Mr. Lait: Sorry. Vice Chair Baltay: …takes to get you approved today is that a fair deal? Ms. Wendler: I – Mr. Lait: So, Board… Ms. Wendler: If Staff is supportive. Mr. Lait: Board, if I may? It sounds like – so there’s interest in wanting to have an – having an additional egress, only right? Egress or ingress or egress? 3.d Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 27 Board Member Lew: Look I’ve seen enough – I’ve seen several garages in San Jose where they’ve had – like at Santana Row and also downtown near the Martin Luther King Library and they have – there are issues. There’s – basically what happens is in this type of garage, if some space opens up close to the entrance and one car stops, it blocks all other traffic. That person could take 5-minutes to get out of the car and it’s been a problem in other garages and they’ve had to restripe the on in San Jose – on Santana Row. So, to me, it’s an issue and it seems to me it’s just – I’m only arguing for flexibility for something to be changed… Mr. Lait: I’m trying to get… Board Member Lew: … in the future. Mr. Lait: I’m trying to get the Board there so as – just to be clear, you’re saying ingress/ egress from Jacaranda or anywhere? Board Member Lew: No, I’m just saying if – anywhere. It would be either egress or… Mr. Lait: Ok so then the condition that the Board could consider is that you recommend that the City Council consider an additional ingress or egress opportunity either now or plan for a future ingress opportunity. Then in the interim, the architect and Staff could explore where those possibilities exist, present those to the City Council and the Council could say yes, we think that’s a good idea. Let’s either do it now or let’s plan for it. At least you’re teeing up that you’re interested across in the recommendation to the Council, Staff is doing the work in the meantime, Council makes the decision as to what to do with it. Vice Chair Baltay: With all respect Jonathan, that’s to much detail for the Council to get into. That’s why we’re here, is to give them a firmer direction; it should be there or it shouldn’t and I feel very uncomfortable just leaving that to Council. They generally don’t – that’s just too much detail for them to get into whether to have a column or not. Mr. Lait: I’m just responding to what the Board had -- I heard a plan for it, I heard… Chair Furth: I think we’re asking that plan be made now in a revision to this plan before us. Mr. Lait: Ok so Staff shall plan for an additional ingress or egress opportunity. Chair Furth: I think the – the motion that I have in the back of my head is that we recommend approval subject to the following conditions. One, that the plans be revised to show a potential ingress/egress in addition to the existing one. Any other conditions that we want? I think that the landscape plan be prepared and reviewed by the Board for approval. That revised materials – revised – somebody phrased these – the grand staircase request for me. Board Member Lew: I don’t think we’re in agreement on the staircase. Chair Furth: Well, let’s see, give me your point of view. Somebody gives me their point of view. Board Member Thompson: Perhaps just further design development on the skin and the staircase. Board Member Lew: I think we should be more – I think at this point if we’re – this is already our second hearing on this, that we should be fairly specific. I think Peter has been specific that it’s below the staircase. Chair Furth: Maybe we could go backward so Robert has suggested removing the screen and taking a different approach. Does anybody else support that approach? 3.d Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 28 Board Member Lew: I do not support that. Vice Chair Baltay: No, I don’t support that, I’m sorry Robert. Board Member Thompson: I do not support that. Chair Furth: So, that one is off the table so we’re talking about something else. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m just still trying to get my head around. Robert made, what I thought, was a convincing argument why we should just continue this project. We were about to do that and then the Staff made an argument why we should move forward with it. I guess I want to hear if Robert is convinced by Staff’s argument that we should be looking for a way to just get this out today rather than just continuing it. Board Member Gooyer: I guess my – I mean I’m willing to just say fine, I’ll vote against it. I mean that’s very simple. No, I mean if we want to be realistic about this, I feel like we’re being bulldozed to make a decision today and the reality of it is I don’t see that if this comes back to a date certain, that it’s going to modify the schedule of the project. You can keep going with the construction documents even if you change the way I want the stair or you don’t do that, that’s not going to change the construction documents. That’s going to be the biggest time frame and all these other things that need to be done are going to happen while they are doing the construction documents and if they come back to – other than well, we can’t get it done for 3-months to get the redesign done. A lot of it’s going to be on the design team on how quickly they can respond. So, like I said, the easiest solution would just be – I’m unhappy with the design – why is this thing – well, I’m unhappy with the design of the stair. I think it’s trying to do something and it’s not very successful. Obviously, I’m in the minority on that so that’s fine. These projects don’t have to go five zero. Chair Furth: Thank you. I agree, I’m having a hard time understanding why this is a critical path but whether we bring it back not having voted yes or we bring it back having voted yes with conditions, we still need to define what we want from the designer. I’m asking for a consensus – a majority consensus, not (inaudible) on what you’d like to see back from the designer – from the architect on the staircase? Mr. Cusenbery: For the sake of for a motion on this, may I offer my interpretation of what I’ve heard and you can see if this sounds good? Chair Furth: Certainly. Mr. Cusenbery: The removal of the basket weave aside because I see that as a standalone piece, the parts that I understood which – and fully support, is the design development of two key components. One the wall behind the stair and two the experience when the sun isn’t cascading in from that side of the building. It will appear like this sometimes but there are the majority of the times that it will not. So, the few components that I heard that need design development are Board Member Lew mentioned durability and cleaning and what it’s like down at the level. Board Member Thompson mentioned the specularity, the light, the fact that is has during a certain time of day a beautiful specularity but then when the sun goes away it becomes flatter. Are there ways that you can do that? Board Member Baltay mentioned about well, can you simulate what the light might be doing during the times the light isn’t actually there? That you actually kind of have a continuity of experience even though you don’t have continuity of light. From our perspective, that would mean – that would translate to a surface development in durability and specularity of that wall. Get some design interest so that it’s interesting even when the light is directly not on it. I actually have a question that I’d like to pose to the Board related to that. Is there an openness to using artificial lighting in the evenings in such a way that we’re using on scrim on the Sherman side whereby there could be shadows that are recreated on the walls in the evening? That’s a question for discussion but the bigger picture is, we not only, I think understand the need to design develop that portion further but are enthusiastic about it. I think there are all sorts of great things that we can do that are relatively simple, just need more development. 3.d Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 29 Vice Chair Baltay: Could you get them done in time to return on March 1st? Mr. Cusenbery: I don’t want to influence necessarily the direction. We will proceed at whatever pace that is required for how everybody approves. Vice Chair Baltay: February 15th, is that too soon? Mr. Cusenbery: I mean I can offer thoughts right now that immediately come to mind that… Chair Furth: (inaudible)… Mr. Cusenbery: Alright. Chair Furth: …go that far but thank you, this is helpful. Can I have a straw vote, who would like to continue this? Just raise your hand if you want to continue it for another meeting. I’m going to suggest that we – Staff can tell me whether this is a feasible motion or not. That we recommend – our recommendation on this one is to the City Council, not the Director, is that right? So, I mean actually, the big design issue is whether or how many floors you’re going to have underground right? That’s the big design question that’s up in the air? Vice Chair Baltay: It’s not a design questions. Chair Furth: No, I mean not for us but I mean in terms of construction drawings. That… Mr. Lait: I wouldn’t even have that conversation, it's not relevant to the Board’s… Chair Furth: It has nothing to do with the critical path because we would prefer, I think, to continue this whole thing and see it one more time. You have strongly urged that we not do that, it’s been suggested that this would interfere with the moving forward of the construction drawings, there’s a certain amount of skepticism about that comment or point of view so that leaves us in a funny place. Alex, you have a good history of the Board, do we make motions to recommend approval subject to bringing it back to the Board as a whole for further consideration of certain aspects of the project? Board Member Lew: Say that again? I – you’re saying to approve (crosstalk) (inaudible) Chair Furth: (Inaudible) (crosstalk) to referral to subcommittee but I don’t want this to go to subcommittee. Board Member Lew: You want it to come back to the full Board? Chair Furth: I think these issues are important. Board Member Lew: Well, then it needs – let’s…. Chair Furth: Let’s just continue it. Board Member Lew: Well, then it just has to come back to the Board. I mean… Chair Furth: Fine. Board Member Lew: I think you just have to bite – I think the majority needs to bite the bullet then. 3.d Packet Pg. 97 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Gooyer: I agree, you either approve it and bring it back to subcommittee or you bring it back to the full Board. Chair Furth: Got it. Board Member Gooyer: It’s one of those two options. Chair Furth: Alright. Board Member Lew: Or you can also condition it for Staff to follow up on items. Chair Furth: Right. Well, I would entertain a motion to continue this matter and if nobody wants to make that motion, I will make it. Vice Chair Baltay: Then you make it. MOTION Chair Furth: I move that this matter be continued and return to us with a plan revised to show a possible second entrance or exit that could be designed – that could be implemented in the future. That it includes design development with respect to the grand staircase leaving in place the screen on the top of the screen in front of the building but that the – learn a new word every meeting, with further development to consider specularity and in particular the durability of these materials in light of the fact that the shadow interest will only be available in very limited times and with a full landscape plan. Is there a second? Board Member Thompson: Can I add something to that? Chair Furth: Well, not unless there’s a second. Board Member Thompson: I second. Chair Furth: Ok. Would anybody like to make an amendment? PROPOSED AMENDMENT Board Member Thompson: Can I make an amendment that the next time this project is presented that multiple times of day are shown on a single view to see how the sun changes over time. Chair Furth: You’re thinking just for the… Board Member Thompson: For the elevation. Chair Furth: …staircase face or all of them? Board Member Thompson: I’ll leave that up to the architect but definitely on the staircase but other elevations are encouraged. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Baltay: Oh, I would have to accept it. I don’t accept it, thanks. 3.d Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 31 Vice Chair Baltay: (Inaudible) Chair Furth: Is there a second? AMENDMENT FAILED WITH THE LACK OF A SECOND Chair Furth: Any comment before we vote? Mr. Lait: I have one. Chair Furth: Yes. Mr. Lait: You had also wanted the condition change for the decibel levels. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Lait: So, is that part of your motion as well? Chair Furth: Well, my motion is that it would come back but I would – yeah, that was the deletion of the estimated 78.2 decibels on Page 14 and I would also expect completion of the omitted findings. Mr. Lait: Thanks, and just can I have one second to meet with Staff to talk about dates because right now it’s not continued to a date certain? Chair Furth: Sure. AMENDMENT Mr. Lait: If we could make the motion to – if this motion is passed, we would ask that it be continued to a date certain of March 1st. Chair Furth: I am willing to accept that, is the seconder? Board Member Thompson: Yes, I am. Chair Furth: Any further comment before we vote? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. MOTION PASSES WITH UNANIMOUS VOTE 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you. I know this is difficult, I know that it’s a complicated project but I think we think it’s going to be great and enormous progress has been made. Sorry, we couldn’t give you everything you wanted but we’ll get there. 3.d Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : A R B M i n u t e s J a n u a r y 1 8 2 0 1 8 E x c e r p t ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.e Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : E m a i l e d c o m m e n t s H a m i l t o n H i t c h i n g s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.e Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : E m a i l e d c o m m e n t s H a m i l t o n H i t c h i n g s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.e Packet Pg. 102 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : E m a i l e d c o m m e n t s H a m i l t o n H i t c h i n g s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.e Packet Pg. 103 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : E m a i l e d c o m m e n t s H a m i l t o n H i t c h i n g s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.e Packet Pg. 104 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : E m a i l e d c o m m e n t s H a m i l t o n H i t c h i n g s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.e Packet Pg. 105 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : E m a i l e d c o m m e n t s H a m i l t o n H i t c h i n g s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.e Packet Pg. 106 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : E m a i l e d c o m m e n t s H a m i l t o n H i t c h i n g s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.e Packet Pg. 107 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : E m a i l e d c o m m e n t s H a m i l t o n H i t c h i n g s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.e Packet Pg. 108 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : E m a i l e d c o m m e n t s H a m i l t o n H i t c h i n g s ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.f Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 p u b l i c c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.f Packet Pg. 110 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 p u b l i c c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.f Packet Pg. 111 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 p u b l i c c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.f Packet Pg. 112 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 p u b l i c c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.f Packet Pg. 113 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 p u b l i c c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.f Packet Pg. 114 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 p u b l i c c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.f Packet Pg. 115 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 p u b l i c c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.f Packet Pg. 116 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 p u b l i c c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) 3.f Packet Pg. 117 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : J a n u a r y 2 0 1 8 p u b l i c c o m m e n t s r e c e i v e d ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( 3 r d f o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT G Hardcopy plans and DEIR to ARB Members and Libraries only Project plans and the Draft Environmental Impact Report can be reviewed at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3339&TargetID= 145 and on Palo Alto Building Eye at this location: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 3.g Packet Pg. 118 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : I n s t r u c t i o n s t o v i e w D E I R a n d p r o j e c t p l a n s i n c l u d i n g b u i l d i n g e y e ( 8 8 8 6 : 3 5 0 S h e r m a n A v e n u e - P u b l i c P a r k i n g Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8939) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/1/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1451 Middlefield: Junior Museum and Zoo Roof Material Modification Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1451 Middlefield Road [18PLN-00042]: Modification to a Previously Approved Architectural Review Application to Change the Roof Material for the Recently Approved Junior Museum and Zoo Building. Environmental Assessment: Council Adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Junior Museum and Zoo in December 2017. The Proposed Project Does not Result in any new or More Significant Impacts Beyond What was Previously Assessed in the Initial Study. Zone District: Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following actions: 1. Review and recommend Director approval of the proposal for asphalt composition shingle roof material to replace the Council-approved standing seam roof material for the new Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) building. Draft Findings are provided in Attachment B to support the recommendation for approval. Background City Council approved the JMZ project on December 4, 2017. The Council’s Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) is provided as Attachment C to this report. The Council Resolution describing the action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration was provided with the HRB report prepared for the February 22, 2018 meeting. Exterior modifications to a Council approved project are subject to Architectural Review (AR), to ensure the project meets the applicable (AR) Findings. The HRB reviewed and recommended approval of the roof material change (on a 5-1 vote) on February 22, 2018. 4 Packet Pg. 119 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Proposal The applicant seeks a change in the roof material to sage green asphalt composition shingles. The applicant states that the change is “based on budgetary constraints on the project as well as the potential to add photovoltaic (PV) panels to portions of the roof in the future.” The proposed plans also include rooftop photo-voltaic panels. Plans for the revised roof material and PV panel placement are viewable online at the project address at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Sarah Vaccaro, Cody Anderson Wasney Representative: John Aiken, Community Services Sr. Program Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney Property Information Address: 1451 Middlefield Road (JMZ) Neighborhood: Community Center Lot Dimensions & Area: JMZ/ Stern Center site has 800’ frontage on Middlefield Rd (JMZ key frontage), 245’ on Melville Av, 215’ on Harriett St, and 245’ of shared property line with Walter Hayes School; parcel:795,841 sf (18.3 acres) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Lucie Stern Community Center Category 1 Resource (CSD Administrative offices, Community Center, Children’s Theatre, Stern Theatre, Boy Scout facility, Children’s Library); the Lou Henry Hoover House aka Girl Scout House (GSH) is an eligible historic resource. Existing Improvement(s): JMZ: 9,000 sf, 2-stories, built in 1941 Existing Land Use: Community Center Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North of parcel: Residential (R-1 zone) West of parcel: Residential (R-1) East of parcel: Public Elementary School (Walter Hays, PAUSD) adjacent, and Art Center and Rinconada Library across Newell Road South of parcel: Residential (R-1) Aerial View of Property: 4 Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institutions/Special Facilities Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Across from single family residences Special Setback 24 feet on Middlefield Road Utility Easement/Corridor Water, sewer and storm drain main lines Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: The City Council report of December 4 2017 is available online at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62293. PTC: None HRB: The HRB report of February 22, 2018 is attached to this report. The HRB staff report of June 22, 2017 is available online at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58347. Meeting minutes are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61349 The video of the meeting is viewable at this link: http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-39/ ARB The September 21, 2017 ARB meeting video is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-70/. The September 21, 2017 ARB report is available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61805. The ARB meeting minutes are viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61851. On January 18, the ARB subcommittee reviewed the gable resolution with associated public art placement to meet a condition of approval. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62878 PRC: Two Study Sessions in 2015; One session April 26, 2016; Report link: 4 Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52063 The PRC supports reconfigured relationship with Park; Minutes: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52999 Analysis1 Roof Material Context The City property on which the existing JMZ building is located contains locally designated historic resources (the Local Inventory Category 1 Lucie Stern Center) and an eligible historic resource (the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House). The roof material on the Lucie Stern Center is clay tile, and the roof material on the Girl Scout House is wood shingles. The mansard roof on the Walter Hays School is clay tile. Seven of the eight homes opposite the JMZ along Middlefield, between Kellogg and the Hayes school, have shingle roofing. Below: The Original JMZ had a shingle roof Below: The GSH nearby has a shingle roof Below: Hayes School roof - clay tile Below: At Kellogg and Middlefield home – gray shingles 4 Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Below: Middlefield homes opposite the JMZ site – gray or brown shingle roofs; one has clay tile Below: Roofs of the two homes directly opposite the existing JMZ building The proposal for the JMZ building is Owens Corning Duration Premium Cool Shingles “sage” Below: Proposed ‘sage’ composition shingles Below: Previously approved standing seam 4 Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Below: Rendering of proposed composition shingled roof Below: Elevation of proposed asphalt composition shingle roof Below: Elevation of previously approved standing seam roof Photo-Voltaic Panels The project plans sheet A2.3 show the future location for installation of PV panels on the roof. The first image below shows the PV panels on a composition shingle roof. The below image that shows placement of PV panels on roof segments sloped toward Middlefield and Walter Hayes. 4 Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan2 Following the Council’s December 4, 2017 approval of the JMZ project, the new Comprehensive Plan (Plan) became effective. The AR findings to be developed for the March 1st ARB report will note the relevant Plan policies. Environmental Review The City Council had approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the JMZ project. The proposed change of roof materials qualifies is ‘exempt’ from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The HRB determined the revised roof material is still consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and appropriate for the proposed building. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten day in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on February 16, 2018, which is at least 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 16, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the HRB meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received regarding the roof material change. Several comments from neighbors received prior to the September 2017 ARB meeting reflected concern about “industrial” material, noting “the use of metal appears harsh and cold” and likening the metal appearance to shipping containers. Next Steps 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 4 Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 The Director of Planning and Community Environment may approve a minor change to a Council-approved project. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: AR Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: ROLUA (DOCX)  Attachment D: Public Comment Received During Public Comment Period (PDF)  Attachment E: Public Comment September 12 (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 126 003-46-006 003-45-014 120-08-037 124-02-010 003-58-033 120-08-012 120-08-011 20-08-009 120-08-036 124-01-011 003-45-013 120-08-031 120-08-030 120-08-029 120-08-027 120-08-015 120-08-014 120-08-013 120-08-010 120-08-038 120-08-039 120-08-040 120-08-042 124-02-011 120-08-025 120-08-019 120-08-018 120-08-017 120-08-023 003-58-051 0 003-58-032 003-45-010 003-45-009 003-45-056 003-45-057 003-45-046 120-08-028 003-45- Girl Scout House Children's Library Junior Museum and Zoo 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 60.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 90.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 00' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 89.1' 132.5' 19.0' 112.5' 119.0' 132.5'48.9' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' .0' 203.3' 20.7' 22.5' 1.8' 209.9' 1494.6' 370.8' 560.5' 241.2' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 150.0' 80.0' 15 58.0'100.0' 173.2' 108.0' 204.1' 108.0' 00' 139.2' 58.9' 139.2'22.5' 20.7' 55.9' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 95.4' 132.5' 25.3' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 90.3' 132.5' 20.2' 112.5' 461.9' 510.8' 241.2' 560.5' 370.8' 75.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 70.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 74.0' 125.0' 60.7' 125.0' 60.8' 125.0' 78.7' 93.0'109.7' 31.9' 82.6' 123.4' 87.4' 26.5' 60.7'32.0' 78.7' 68.2' 78.4' 3.5' 148.4' 30.6' 26.5' 87.4' 130.7' 68.4' 151.9' 71.7' 80 110.9' 51.1' 16.2' 112.0' 112.0' 82.9' 70.0' 90.0' 125.0' 90.0' 125.0' 125.0' 60.4' 125.0' 60.0' 130.7' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 51.0' 135.0' 67.4' 23.1'102.6' 41.5' 170.0'18.4' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 170.0' 50.0' 67.4' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 149.0' 50.0' 149.1' 50.0' 149.1'3.5' 6.5' 46.5' 155.7' 50.0' 155.7' 50.0' 155.8' 50.0' 108.9' 53.5' 109.0' 53.5' 108.8' 46.5' 108.9' 46.5' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 45.0' 150.0' 51.5' 150.0' 51.5' 156.5' 53.5' 156.5' 53.5' 10 50.0' 1010 50.0' 11 56.5' 1 52.5' 135.0' 52.5' 135.0' 70.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5'40.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 93.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 80.0' 75.0' 48.5' 75.0' 48.5' 50.0' 60.0' 50.0' 60.0'40.0' 50.0 147.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100.0' 47.0' 100.0' 47.0' 147.0' 50.0' 147.0' 100 50.0' 100100 50.0' 100 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 75.0' 60.0' 75.0' 60.0' 200.1' 1 57.3'42.2'50.0' EMB A RC AD ER O ROA D HOPKINS AVENUEHOPKINS AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD E M BAR C A DE RO RO AD ON STREET CEDAR STREET WILSON STREET COMMUNITY LANE COMMUNITY LANE HARRIET STREET This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) Curb Edge Tree (TR) abc Known Structures abc Lot Dimensions Water Feature Railroad City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary 0' 165' CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto afrench, 2016-07-26 00:10:42Parcel Report (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 4.a Packet Pg. 127 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) Attachment A Draft Architectural Review Findings PLN18-00042 The relevant findings for the proposed roof material modification are suggested as follows: Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant design guides because:  Gray-toned shingled roof material is found on nearby residences and the Comprehensive Plan includes a focus on design compatibility in residential neighborhoods, specifically: o Comprehensive Plan Policy L-3.1 states, “Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.” (Previous Policy L-12) Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: 2b. 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, 2d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and 2f. enhances living conditions in adjacent residential areas because:  The shingled roof color and texture will complement the materials and colors of the surrounding context, particularly, the single family residences along Middlefield Road, and the nearest building on the site (the shingle-roofed Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House), and  All prior roof changes as recommended by the ARB and approved by Council are retained (modulations that break up the long façade on Middlefield Road), and  The revised roof material complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and does not cause adverse impact to the nearby historic and eligible resources. 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 because:  The gray composition shingle roof will provide appropriate texture in an earth- toned color that will be compatible with the smooth, hand-troweled plaster, clear-stained cedar, wood slat fences and enclosures, and will provide a subdued backdrop to the bright, whimsical colors used elsewhere in the project. Finding 6: The shingle material selected will support the subsequent installation of photo- voltaic panels intended to achieve sustainability in energy efficiency. 4.b Packet Pg. 128 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A R F i n d i n g s ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) APPROVAL NO. 2017-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 1451 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO (JMZ) [FILE NO.17PLN-00147], AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR JMZ PROJECT AND RINCONADA LONG RANGE PLAN On _______, 2017, the City Council approved the Architectural Review application for the replacement Junior Museum and Zoo, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On April 27, 2017, the architect representing the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo submitted an Architectural Review application for the new Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) at 1451 Middlefield Road, zoned Public Facilities, and associated site improvements (“Project”); the review of this application followed two preliminary review meetings with the Architectural Review Board and one study session with the Historic Resources Board to discuss earlier project designs; B. On June 22, 2017, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the Historic Resource Evaluations and the project and recommended approval of the project, C. On August 3, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and continued the hearing to allow for revisions and publication and public comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND); D. On August 4, 2017, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City (1) published an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluating the JMZ project and, programmatically, the Rinconada Long Range Master Plan, and (2) provided a Notice of Intent for circulation of the document for public comments for a period ending September 5, 2017; E. On August 10, 2017, the City held a community outreach meeting regarding the CEQA document and process, and no written comments on the CEQA document were received; and F. On September 21, 2017, following the end of the public comment period, the ARB reviewed and recommended Council approval of the IS/MND (with respect to the JMZ project) and the Project. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comment from August 4, 2017 through 4.c Packet Pg. 129 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) September 5, 2017, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared and these are to be adopted by Council resolution. SECTION 3. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW. The Historic Resources Board found that; (1) the project is in substantial compliance with Secretary of Interior’s Standards, (2) the project meets Architectural Review Finding 2b, in that the project preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively the site and historic character/resources, with the provision that the applicant work with an HRB subcommittee to find a solution to the roofing issue the HRB raised prior to ARB review, and (3) the HRB is supportive of listing the Lou Henry Hoover Girl Scout House as a historic resource. SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS. The approval findings for the project are set forth below. The project is consistent with all relevant Architectural Review findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.76.020(d) as follows: 1a. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, specifically: i. Policy C-1.4 Promote City parks, open spaces, recreational facilities, libraries, classes and cultural activities for community members recognizing that these facilities and services build and strengthen community. [NEW POLICY] [C11] ii. Policy C-1.16 Provide arts, science and recreational activities that foster healthy children, youth and teen development. [NEW POLICY] [C30] iii. Policy C-1.20 Leverage available funding to support the development of, and improved access to, programs that address all types of developmental disabilities, including physical, sensory, cognitive or social/emotional needs. [NEW POLICY] [C42] iv. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.(Previous Policy L-12) v. Policy C-3.2 Reinvest in aging facilities to improve their usefulness and appearance. Avoid deferred maintenance of City infrastructure. vi. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. [(Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1, LAND-1, LAND-2) (Previous Policy L-48)] [L80] vii. Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety. ([Previous Policy L-49) (Comp Plan Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-1)] [L87] viii. Policy L-8.5 Recognize public art and cultural facilities as a community benefit. Encourage the development of new and the enhancement of existing public and private art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects 4.c Packet Pg. 130 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. [Previous Policy L-72] [L122] ix. PUBLIC SPACES Policy L-9.4 Maintain and enhance existing public gathering places and open spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales. [(NEW POLICY) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1)] [L130] x. Policy L-9.6 Create, preserve and enhance parks and publicly accessible, shared outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods. [(Previous Policy L-15) (Comp Plan Draft EIR LAND-1)] [L132] xi. Policy N-2.10 Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. [Previous Policy N-17] [N45] 1b. The design is also consistent with the Public Facility uses and development standards, and with the other applicable Zoning Code regulations (Parking ordinance, as clarified in the August 3, 2017 ARB staff report and attachments thereto). 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. Is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and e. Enhances living conditions in adjacent residential areas. More specifically: i. The design was revised during the process, which involved two preliminary review sessions with the ARB and one study session with the HRB, and two formal meetings with the ARB; ii. The site improvements will provide a better internal sense of order at the site; iii. The new gable-roofed JMZ building, at a height of 29 feet and set back 24 feet from Middlefield Road, would be similar in height and setback to existing two- story houses located across Middlefield Road near the JMZ. The netted zoo enclosure, at 36 feet in height, would be taller than the existing building; iv. There are no context based design criteria for the PF zone, but the building facades feature exterior colors and textures to provide visual interest and gabled roofs, materials and colors respond to the site context (Lucie Stern Center, Girl Scout House and the residential neighborhood). The Middlefield Road façade was reworked during the process to have greater modulation and improved materials to fit the neighborhood. The lower masses along Middlefield and the property line shared with Walter Hays respect the residential neighborhood 4.c Packet Pg. 131 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) scale. Along with a roof line that pops up for clerestory windows and, with the wall cladding, help to break the long façade, the building eave, skin and structure extend beyond the exterior wall for a section as shade protection for the storefront windows facing south east; v. The project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and does not cause significant impact to the historic resources including the Girl Scout House. Existing protected trees and important trees will be retained; vi. Two street trees would be removed (Little Leaf Linden along Middlefield Avenue and a London Plane Tree along Hopkins) for driveways, but new street trees will be added to the project in the locations of the old driveway aprons to mitigate the removals (subject to additional study of adjusted driveways at Middlefield and Hopkins, per approval condition, and coordination with Urban Forestry staff regarding planned street tree plantings and removals); vii. No heritage or protected trees will be removed, and tree removal and replacement will comply with the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance. Transplanting of one coast redwood and one coast live oak is proposed; and viii. Approximately 41 public trees would be removed (and 57 trees would be planted, as noted in Finding #5) as part of the JMZ project, including the above- noted street trees (six are for the parking lot reconfiguration near the Girl scout House, 12 in the Zoo area for zoo reconfiguration, 13 for the new JMZ building, six, non-native trees in poor condition from the oak grove near Lucie Stern to improve the growing conditions for the remaining native oaks, and one from the edge of Rinconada Park for the new entry plaza). 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area, in that: a. The materials to be used include smooth, hand-troweled plaster; clear-stained cedar, horizontal siding and ceilings, and use of wood slats horizontally and vertically for fences and enclosures; netting; durable standing-seam metal roofing and accent panels; low-E aluminum curtainwall and punched windows; wood-topped concrete seat-walls; with use-appropriate whimsical signage, public art and rainbow tunnel; and b. Colors are warm, earth tones, plus off-white and red colors enhancing the composition by their reference the Lucie Stern Center buildings and the bright colors used for the whimsical components of the Project. c. The architectural details of the building and site invoke whimsy and child-like scale into the simple massing and contemporary materials. d. Facing Middlefield Road, the wall cladding further breaks up the long façade and provides warm natural material accents. 4.c Packet Pg. 132 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.) in that: a. The project responds to the new crosswalk planned on Middlefield Road at Kellogg Avenue, and improved crosswalk on Newell Road at Hopkins Avenue, allowing connection from Middlefield to Rinconada Park with ADA compliant paths and featuring a raised pedestrian crossing through the parking lot providing a direct connection between the Lucie Stern Community Center and Rinconada Park; a new pedestrian path connecting the sidewalk on Middlefield Road to the JMZ as a ‘promenade’ to the park entry plaza, including bicycle parking facilities at key locations; b. One of the existing curb cuts along Middlefield is being removed, which is a benefit to all the pedestrian traffic going to Walter Hayes School; and c. The proposed parking lot would provide efficient circulation with no dead-end drive aisles, and meet the City’s standard width for two-way drive aisles with safer, 90-degree parking spaces allowing sufficient room for vehicles to back out of parking spaces. The vehicular circulation will be improved with the project, including maneuverability of buses and large trucks. 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be appropriately maintained in that: a. New landscaping is proposed at the JMZ facility and parking lots, designed to meet the 50% shade requirement of PAMC Section 18.54.040 and “no net loss of canopy” goals; conditions of approval for use of Silva cells will ensure this goal and code requirement will be achieved; b. The project features 57 new trees including five native oaks, intended to offset tree removals and many (but not all) of the plants to be used are ‘regionally indigenous drought resistant’ species; and c. Use of non-natives in key locations is appropriate for this use (educational) and setting (important community center and children’s facility requiring drought resistant, sustainable and appropriate plants). 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning, in that: a. The project is designed to CALgreen guidelines for design and operational and efficiency provisions to minimize wasteful energy consumption; b. The building is oriented to optimize daylight to interiors, and features low- emissivity glazing, energy efficient LED lighting; and 4.c Packet Pg. 133 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) c. The project includes new bicycle parking spaces for greater sustainability in the transportation sector. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. Planning Conditions 1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 2. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 3. Mitigation Measures (#3a – #3d): The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project (Exhibit A) is incorporated by reference and the mitigation measures (below) shall be implemented as described in such document: 3a. BIO-1.1: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, the project shall implement the following measures: i. Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential nesting areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal or pruning, if the activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 – August 31). If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey shall be completed again and repeated at 30 day intervals until construction activities are initiated. ii. If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site, in consultation with the CDFW. Exclusion zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the nest tree or shrub. iii. Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction activities, parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest. 3b. MM CR-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered during construction grading or excavation, all construction within a radius of 50-feet of the 4.c Packet Pg. 134 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) find shall be halted, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. The recommended mitigation shall be implemented and could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 3c. MM CR-1.2: If human remains are unearthed during implementation of the proposed project, the City shall comply with State Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 7050.5. The City shall immediately notify the County Coroner and no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. i. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). After the MLD has inspected the remains and the site, they have 48 hours to recommend to the landowner the treatment and/or disposal, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated funerary objects. Upon the reburial of the human remains, the MLD shall file a record of the reburial with the NAHC and the project archaeologist shall file a record of the reburial with the CHRIS-NWIC. ii. If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation provided for in Subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94, if invoked, fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall inter the human remains and items associated with Native American human remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance. 3d. MM NOI-1: With the implementation of the following measures, construction noise would be reduced to a less than significant level: i. Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays, with no construction occurring on Sundays or holidays (consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code). ii. Construction of the JMZ shall be undertaken with consideration for school activities and hours: 4.c Packet Pg. 135 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) iii. Schedule high noise generating construction activities (such as the use of the concrete saws) that are located directly adjacent to school structures during periods when school is not in session, such as summer, school breaks, weekends, and after school dismissal. Coordination of construction activity times with school officials may be necessary. iv. Construct portions of the museum located directly adjacent to the school first, where practical, in an effort to provide shielding to the school from construction activities located further to the west and south. v. Construct or utilize temporary noise barriers to shield on-site construction and demolition noise from the school. To be most effective, the barrier should be placed as close as possible to the noise source or the sensitive receptor. Examples of barriers include portable acoustically lined enclosure/housing for specific equipment (e.g., jackhammer and pneumatic-air tools, which generate the loudest noise), temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences or portable panel systems, minimum 8 feet in height), and/or acoustical blankets. vi. Establish construction staging areas at locations that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. vii. Construction equipment shall be well maintained and used judiciously to be as quiet as practical. viii. Utilize ‘quiet’ models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. ix. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines and equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. x. Locate all stationary noise-generation equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from businesses or noise- sensitive land uses. xi. Notify all adjacent noise sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in writing. xii. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences or the school bordering the project site. 4.c Packet Pg. 136 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) xiii. Designate a disturbance coordinator, responsible for responding to complaints about construction noise. The name and telephone number of the disturbance coordinator shall be posted at the construction site and made available to noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to the construction site 4. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "New Construction Junior Museum & Zoo, 1451 Middlefield Road,” stamped as received by the City on September 6, 2017 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 5. LANDSCAPE PLAN REFINEMENTS: The following additional modifications to the landscape plan and civil plans for further refinements shall be addressed prior to City Council review: a. For auxiliary pathway consider a material modification in the area between Lucie Stern and Middlefield; b. Employ rounded curb corners (small radius) at angled curb areas adjacent to traffic to save the curbs from future chipping; c. Update plan sheets as needed to reflect relocation of gates so they do not block pedestrian and bike connectivity from parking lot to JMZ, and from Rinconada Park to Middlefield; d. Update plan sheets to reflect sheet A2.0 sidewalk width to ensure a minimum sidewalk width of at least five feet between the bus drop-off and planter; e. Consider a vegetative swale instead of an 18” berm and consider placing step stones or access paths to minimize trampling of Carex grass; f. Provide step stones or access path between Girl Scout House front yard and parking lot, to minimize pedestrian damage to new plantings or alter plant material; g. Adjust plantings at the Lucie Stern loading area (Texas Redbuds will not have enough clearance to avoid being damaged by delivery trucks) to more columnar trees to reduce canopy interference with loading activities; h. Adjust width of the raised crosswalk (10 feet) to allow a more gradual ramp (at least five feet wide); i. Add a street tree in the planter strip at Middlefield at the front of the JMZ building; j. Reconfigure driveway approaches slightly to be more aligned and aesthetically pleasing (at Middlefield and at Hopkins). k. The tunnel area will need to include signage to advise bicyclists to walk their bikes through the tunnel (or otherwise direct bicyclists) to avoid conflict with pedestrians. 4.c Packet Pg. 137 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) 6. BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 7. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 8. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 9. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB sub-committee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Resolution of the design for the gable end above the main entry to the JMZ, if the public art piece is not placed on that gable end, or b. If public art does get placed on the gable end, sub-committee review of details for mounting of the public art on the gable end. 10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. 11. SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No additional freestanding signs are approved at this time. The wall sign at the front of the JMZ is not approved at this time, and shall be subject to separate architectural review and may be in a different location if public art is proposed on that façade. The existing, previously approved freestanding ‘whimsical’ sign installed per PCE Director’s amendment September 13, 2004), and located approximately 12 feet from the back of sidewalk on Middlefield Road, may be reinstalled at a similar setback as indicated on Sheet A1.1. All other signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. Fire 12. Fire The building permit plans shall include installation of a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe system, NFPA 24 underground fire service and NFPA 72 fire alarm system. 4.c Packet Pg. 138 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) Public Art 13. Public Art. The project will incorporate public art. Artist Charles Sowers has been selected as the project artist and approved by the Public Art Commission. The artist was scheduled to being design development process in the summer of 2017, and anticipates completing design development prior to the issuance of a building permit. Public Works – Engineering Conditions 14. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. The qualified third-party reviewer the applicant has retained shall submit certification that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 15. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, 4.c Packet Pg. 139 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 16. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 17. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 18. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 4.c Packet Pg. 140 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) 19. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 20. SWPPP: The applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 21. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650- 496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 22. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. Please also call out City standard details as applicable and include those details within the plan set. 23. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 24. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a 4.c Packet Pg. 141 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to grading and building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 25. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of- way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. 26. PAVEMENT: Hopkins Ave and Embarcadero Rd were resurfaced in 2011 and 2015 respectively. These streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Hopkins Ave and Embarcadero Rd based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 27. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 28. The applicant shall continue to work with Public Works and Utilities toward a long term solution for relocation of utilities out of the corridor prior to construction of the JMZ project. 29. Due to the lack of storm drain infrastructure on Hopkins and the historical storm drainage issues on that street, please revise DMA VI to drain elsewhere. 30. Civil plans should clearly call out where details 1 and 2 as shown on sheet C2.3 apply. 31. Proposed new trash enclosure should drain to sanitary sewer. 4.c Packet Pg. 142 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) 32. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 33. Building and Grading Permit plans should only include work proposed for this project. Urban Forestry 34. Silva cells shall be included in the design to ensure the project will meet the city’s goal for no net loss of canopy and 50% shading of parking lot area. The planting strategy submitted with the building permit describes the following: a. Total number of replacement trees to be planted and shown on a table with removals b. Attributes (for each area or grove) that will be used for selecting species such as native, large stature at maturity, drought-tolerant, and complementary to established trees that are retained c. Soil volume and distance to nearest impervious area/obstacle to growth d. Projected canopy diameter of each planted tree in 15 years 35. TREE PROTECTION REPORT (TPR). Provide a construction level report for building permit plan check. 36. If City Council formally designates as Landmark Trees, Pecan #330 and Dawn Redwood #327, they shall be retained and protected during construction and shall be subject to the same tree ordinance provisions as the oaks, with a mitigation measure providing for their retention or replacement if lost. 37. Civil engineering and grading plans. Plans shall show finish grade (FG) and the lower limit of excavation. Engineer shall receive from the project arborist for each tree root zone to be preserved, a spot grade of the lowest excavation depth for new driving surface, landscape area or other activity. 4.c Packet Pg. 143 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) 38. Ensure that the existing Utility Easement that bisects the site shall not in any event allow for excavation via an open trench thru the root zone of (Designated Landmark) Pecan Tree # 330. 39. Add Project Arborist contact information to the Project Directory. If CPA-LA, list direct contact information for construction-phase contact ability. Utilities Electrical 40. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 41. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 42. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 43. The new pad-mount transformer is shown on plan sheet E1.00 located in the landscaped area just north of the electrical room. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). The proposed transformer pad appears to meet the 3- feet minimum clearance on the non-operable sides and 8’ feet clearance on the operable side. 44. Plan sheet E1.00 shows the electrical room adjacent to the padmount transformer and appears to provide the location for electrical panel/switchboard. 45. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on building permit plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 46. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards. 47. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 48. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 4.c Packet Pg. 144 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) Public Works Watershed Protection 49. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water run-on and runoff from the area. The trash area must meet these requirements as well as the Zero Waste sizing requirements. 50. Include Construction best management practices (BMP) sheet in plans. Prior to building permit approval: 51. Disconnect downspouts and allow to drain to landscaping (outward from building as needed). (C 2.1 mentions connecting roof leader to storm drain). 52. New storm drain/drop inlets in parking lots and high visitor areas should include a trash capture device. Inlets should also be labeled with a ‘flows to Bay’ message. 53. Permeable concrete a. County-wide design specs should be followed (ensure pg. C 2.3 is appropriate specs.) b. Installation specs per company should be followed c. Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent Departments (Public Works, Parks). d. Set up meeting with parties before project is approved by City Council. e. Funding for maintenance needs to be approved. 54. Ensure all interior and exterior drainage from zoo/animal area is piped to sanitary sewer system. 55. Stormwater treatment measures a. Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details c. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines- sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. 56. Stormwater quality protection a. At a minimum, follow the BMP sheet that must be submitted with plans. 4.c Packet Pg. 145 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) b. Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. Have clear maintenance plan for trash and recycling containers to not allow overflow. 57. 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. a. 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. b. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water i. Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. ii. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices iii. 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) c. 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. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. d. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks 4.c Packet Pg. 146 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) i. Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. ii. Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. e. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. f. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following: i. Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; ii. Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; iii. Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. iv. Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or v. Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. g. 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. h. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial 4.c Packet Pg. 147 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and equipment i. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(1) and 16.09.105 Segregated Plumbing and Sampling Locations a. The owner of every new commercial and industrial building or portion thereof shall cause the building to be constructed so that industrial waste is segregated, by means of separate plumbing, from domestic waste prior to converging with other waste streams in the sanitary sewer system. For the purposes of this section only, the term "new" shall also include change to a use that requires plumbing for industrial waste b. Establishments from which industrial wastes are discharged to the sanitary sewer system shall provide and maintain one or more sampling locations or metering devices or volume and flow measuring methodologies or other sampling and measuring points approved by the Superintendent which will allow the separate measuring and sampling of industrial and domestic wastes. Unless otherwise approved by the Superintendent, domestic and industrial waste shall be kept completely separated upstream of such sampling locations and/or measuring points. Establishments that are billed for sewer service on the basis of sewage effluent constituents shall provide a suitable means for sampling and/or measurement of flow to determine billing constituents in accordance with the utilities rules and requirements. Sampling locations shall be so located that they are safe and accessible to the Superintendent at any reasonable time during which discharge is occurring. j. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. k. 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. l. 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. SECTION 6. Term of Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 4.c Packet Pg. 148 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: ________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney 4.c Packet Pg. 149 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : R O L U A ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) 1 French, Amy From:Jean Pressey <jean.pressey@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 12, 2017 9:37 PM To:French, Amy Subject:JMZ Building Project Dear Ms. French, I attended the meeting on April 10 at the Junior Museum where the new plans were discussed. I want to enthusiastically endorse the decision to use a metal roof on the new building. It is both cheaper and longer-lasting than other alternatives. I live in a condo at 449 Homer and we installed a metal roof two years ago and are very happy with it. There are a number of houses in the Downtown North area that have metal roofs, and other people simply are not aware of them. So I think the words might inspire negative reactions divorced from reality. I also want to commend your staff for the new Rinconada Park plan. I attended one of the early planning meetings (and was somehow dropped from communication) and I know that there were a lot of wild ideas suggested. That the final design maintains the Rinconada Park that we have loved for so long is very positive. Jean Pressey 449 Homer Ave. Palo Alto 4.d Packet Pg. 150 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : P u b l i c C o m m e n t R e c e i v e d D u r i n g P u b l i c C o m m e n t P e r i o d ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f 1 French, Amy From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net Sent:Tuesday, September 12, 2017 8:30 PM To:French, Amy; Aikin, John; Architectural Review Board Subject:Junior Museum re-send with better formatting Attachments:P1170916.jpg; P1170918.jpg; IMG_0984.jpg; IMG_0992.jpg; IMG_0991.jpg   To     Ms. French, Mr. Aikin, and the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board,              Please accept my apology for this re‐send of an email conveyed to you earlier today.            The below version should have better formatting for your screen.            One sentence was added here, suggesting that perhaps the long massive roof facing Middlefield might be broken  up, architecturally.            The rest is the same.   Thank you.  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐        Thank you for your time to read concerns sent to you in August about the proposed design for the Junior Museum.    Below are additional comments on how the proposed design appears to not comply with the required findings for  Architectural Review:    In section 2  a. “The design is to create an internal sense of order and a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the  general community”         Comment:  The tall airy windows and internal spaces of the proposed design are great. However, the overall  design is utilitarian and barn‐like in        appearance, employing metal roofing and walls which appear uncomfortably cold,  harsh and inappropriately  rustic for the center of town.           This does not promote a comfortable environment, nor a sense of order.    b. “The design is to preserve, respect and integrate natural features that contribute positively to the site and the  historic character including historic    Resources of the area”             Comment:  Although some trees are included in the landscape plan, more incorporation of trees and natural  landscaping might enhance this            nature museum’s setting in this tree‐lined neighborhood.            Historically:  the proposed building does not blend in with the adjacent elegant, historic Mediterranean style  Community Center or the nearby            established neighborhood.                                       Part of Palo Alto’s Spanish history (El Palo Alto, El Camino Real) and charm revolve, at least in part, around its  traditional Spanish style            architecture.  While a different style of building for a nature museum may be appropriate,  the Junior  Museum is part of the Community            Center, and should at least reflect the elegance and permanence of nearby classically styled buildings.  4.e Packet Pg. 151 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P u b l i c C o m m e n t S e p t e m b e r 1 2 ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) 2   d. “ Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and … designations”             Comment:   the massive, industrial character of the proposed building is not harmonious with the character of  the adjacent Community Center,            which is an architectural jewel of the city, nor is the proposed building compatible with the elegant, small‐ scale style of the neighborhood.    e. “Enhances living conditions….in adjacent residential areas”                      Comment:  the proposed design is industrial looking, and does not blend in with the adjacent residential area  in terms of style or character.                     Perhaps breaking up the massive design of the long roof facing Middlefield would add more interest to the  building, and scale it down.    In Section 3            “The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction  techniques, and incorporating textures,              colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area”                Comment:  the proposed design does not appear to utilize high‐quality materials or rich architectural  detailing.  More use of natural, quality               materials would be better.              The use of metal appears harsh and cold.  Painting metal in colors may not soften it or make it any more elegant.    In Section 6:  … “sustainability”                       Comment: although this section refers to energy efficiency,   in regard to architectural style, the idea of  “sustainability” could apply to the concept                     of timelessness.  The city of Palo Alto should not spend valuable resources erecting a trendy industrial  structure, but instead should wisely invest                     in a more timeless, elegant architecture befitting the historic Community Center and charming neighborhood  surrounding it.    Having recently been in Oregon, attached for you are some photos taken at the High Desert Museum near Bend,  which  includes many live animal exhibits as well as cultural and historic exhibits.  When asked how this spectacular museum could look so new when it is actually decades old, the museum associate  immediately responded to me:  “because the design is timeless.”    Thank you,      Kim Atkinson       1753 Middlefield Road       Palo Alto   94301              4.e Packet Pg. 152 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P u b l i c C o m m e n t S e p t e m b e r 1 2 ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1451 Middlefield Road” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “1451 Middlefield Rd – Initial Plans – 2 1 18.pdf” and dated 02/01/2018 4.f Packet Pg. 153 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 9 3 9 : 1 4 5 1 M i d d l e f i e l d : J u n i o r M u s e u m a n d Z o o R o o f M a t e r i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8889) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/1/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3045 Park Blvd: New R&D Building (3rd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3045 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00073]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing Office Building and Construction of a New Two- Story Approximately 29,200 Square Foot Research and Development Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From February 23, 2018 to March 26, 2018. Zoning District: GM (AD) (General Manufacturing with Automobile Dealership Combing District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on two other occasions. The municipal code encourages the Director of Planning and Community Development to make a decision on projects after three public hearings. Additionally, the project is subject to the Interim Annual Office Limit Ordinance (PAMC 18.85.210) and, accordingly, a project decision can be made only within the timeframe for qualifying projects as outlined in the ordinance (April 1 – June 30). 5 Packet Pg. 154 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Two earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation to City codes and policies. These reports are available in Attachments H and I of this report, and online at the following links: July, 20, 2017: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61785 November 2, 2017: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61818 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in earlier reports and modified to reflect recent project changes. The ARB is encouraged to make a final recommendation to approve, conditionally approve or deny the project. Background The ARB reviewed the project on July 20, 2017 and November 2, 2017. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNgWy3z6D_0. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response The on-site circulation should be refined to provide a safe, intuitive site design that reduces the number of dead-end aisles, undergrounds more of the parking, and provides safe passage for female occupants walking from the building to the parking structure. Access to the site has been flipped, with the drive aisle now oriented southeast of the Olive Avenue intersection. The above grade parking structure has been eliminated entirely from the design in favor of a large subterranean garage beneath the building. The mullion pattern on the building feels random and should be refined. The mullion pattern has been simplified through the use of larger panes of glass and thinner mullions with less relief. Consider the view onto the site from Olive Avenue, and design the building to serve as a terminus for the “T” intersection. The building has been shifted towards the northwest on the site, with the central lobby area focused on the Olive Avenue intersection. Landscape berms/mounds along the frontage also enhance the front façade and draw attention to the lobby aligned with Olive Avenue. Enhance the façade of the building facing the Caltrain ROW. The building has been designed to include a separate entrance on the rear façade facing Caltrain. 5 Packet Pg. 155 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Analysis1 The site plan for the project has changed significantly since the second hearing on November 2, 2017. As indicated, the above-grade parking garage that had been proposed on the northwest (left) side of the property has been eliminated and replaced with a below grade parking structure accessed from the site rear. This change addresses a number of issues previously raised regarding the compatibility of the garage with the adjacent residential mixed use building, on-site circulation, and the architectural consistency between the garage structure and the R&D building proper. The location of the drive aisle has also been flipped, with access now provided to the southeast of the Olive Avenue intersection. In addition to these circulation changes, the building has been reoriented to align the lobby with the Olive Avenue intersection. The lobby is framed on both sides by a large entry plaza that extends to the public sidewalk, and is flanked by a pair of mounded landscape berms. In the place of the previously-proposed parking structure, the plans now show a landscaped patio between the building and the adjacent mixed use building to the northwest. A landscape berm along the front property line separates this patio from the public realm, and also provides public-oriented benches along the sidewalk. The bike cage that was previously proposed at the northeast corner of the building has been relocated to the front façade directly off from the main entrance. This adjustment provides a long-term bicycle parking in a highly convenient location. The trash room that had been previously proposed in the garage has been relocated to the site rear directly adjacent to the loading area. Building Architecture The building proper has undergone additional refinements which include a more subdued color scheme and the modification of several architectural elements. The primary exterior building material of metal panels has been retained, although the panel pattern relative to the glass sections has been altered to provide a solid horizontal band at the second floor level. The window panes have increased in size while the mullions have been thinned relative to the October 2017 plan, which yields a smoother and less busy glass curtain wall. The depth and shape of the roof overhangs have been altered to extend over the majority of the front façade, and now include wood-grain aluminum panel soffits. The rear façade has been altered considerably in order to provide a rear entrance to the building, which will provide a more direct path of travel into the building from the surface parking lot. With the exception of the side setbacks, the basic building standards (height, FAR, lot coverage) are essentially unchanged with this revision. Key Considerations Staff believes that the most recent changes address several of the comments raised in the first and second staff reports regarding circulation and residential compatibility. Vehicle circulation on the site has improved significantly with the January 2018 plans, which eliminate all dead-end 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. 5 Packet Pg. 156 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 aisles through the use of surface level turnaround space and the below-grade parking structure. The loading space would still require a truck to back out and make a three-point turn before returning to Park Boulevard, however, the location of the space is highly visible and should present minimal conflicts. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation has been enhanced by relocating the bicycle room at the front of the building and by providing walkways throughout the site. Additionally, the landscaped patio area provides a significant site amenity for building occupants, while also providing a landscape buffer for the adjacent mixed use building. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. An analysis of the project in comparison to the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan is included in Attachment C. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Light Industrial, which is intended to allow a range of uses including wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repairing and packaging of goods. The designation also requires the strict control of the emission of fumes, noise, smoke, and other pollutants. While a building tenant has not been selected at this time, the applicant has indicated that the building would likely be marketed to technology companies conducting software engineering or other types of R&D uses. An R&D building is consistent with the designation and would be compatible with the surrounding development in the area. Any future use of the site involving the storage or handling of hazardous materials would be required to follow the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code to ensure the health and safety of building occupants and sensitive receptors near the site. Consistency with Application Findings The ARB findings for approval are included in Attachment C. Staff believes that the findings for approval can be made in the affirmative, and recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project to the Planning Director. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment G. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 5 Packet Pg. 157 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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 February 16, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 16, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. 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. An initial study has been prepared and has been circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Copies of the Initial Study have been provided to ARB members, and a digital copy is available online at http://bit.ly/3045parkblvd. The project includes potentially significant impacts to biological and cultural resources, as well as potentially significant hazardous material and noise impacts. With adherence to the mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Attachment E), these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 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 certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (DOC)  Attachment C: CEQA and ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment E: Draft MMRP (DOCX)  Attachment F: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment G: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment H: July 20, 2017 Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment I: November 2, 2017 Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment J: Project Plans and Initial Study Link (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Packet Pg. 158 Fry's Electronics PARKING GARAGE 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 567.5' 754.2' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 9 50.0' 98.9' 50.1' 98.9' 50.0' 103.2' 49.2' 116.5'49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5'49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 1165' 49.2' 50 80.2' 103.2' 79.9' 110.2' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8'109.3' 50.0' 109.3' 51.1' 119.7' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 119.7 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 32.0' 17.5'34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 48.7 134.5' 48.7' 134.5' 48.8' 134.5' 48.7' 45.0' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 90.0' 67.8'90.0' 67.8' 90.0' 66.7'90.0' 66.7' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 31.0' 134.5' 31.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0 285.8' 257.2' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.8' 134.5' 105.8' 140.3' 0' 102.8'59.0' 102.8 51.0' 102.8' 51.0' 102.8' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 52.8' 114.8' 85.5'110.0' 25.0' 110.0' 25.0' 68.6' 142.5' 65.7' 14 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 60.0'134.5' 88.0' 52.8' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 85.0' 134.5' 85.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 55.0'13 60.0' 134 45.0'134.5' 45.0' 60.0' 134.5' 95.0' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 13 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 13 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 186.2' 186.2' 159.0' 159.0'159.0' 159.0' 98.0' 98.0'159.0'159.0'159.0' 24.6' 77.9' 134.5' 134.5' 48.8' 48.8' 67.9' 67.9' 90.0' 90.0'90.0' 90.0' 66.7' 66.7' 140.3' 134.5' 45.8' 85.8' 143.0' 31.0' 149.0 119 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 0'20.0' 78.5'78.5' 450.4' 263.1' 452.' 223.8'223.8'292.1' 198.4'291.2' 370.9' 188.2' 427.3' 13.9'56.2' 123.4' 19.8' EMERSON STREET RAM ONA STREET C O L O R A D O A V E N U E EL DORADO EL DORADO AVENUE EMERSON STREET LAMBERT AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET PAGE MILL ROAD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT PO WERS BOARD RM-30 PF RM-30 R-2 R M-30 R M -15 LM GM GM GM (AD) CS (AD) 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 Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) 3045 Park Boulevard Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 219' 3045 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 gowen, 2017-06-22 15:44:21 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 5.a Packet Pg. 159 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 3045 PARK BOULEVARD  399 Bradford Street Redwood City, California 94063 Tel 650-364-6453 Fax 650-364-2618 www.des-ae.com Project Description January 16, 2018 Site and Context The project site is located to the south of the Oregon Expressway, at the intersection of Olive Avenue and Park Blvd. It is a few blocks away from El Camino Real, California Avenue Commercial Area and the Caltrain Station. The north side of the site runs parallels to the Caltrain railway tracks. Adjacent uses include office and apartment buildings, as well as, single-family residential homes (Olive Avenue and Ash/Pepper area). The site area is 1.3 acres net. The existing site has a 2-story unoccupied building, asphalt-paved parking/service area and perimeter landscaping. The previous tenant of the existing building leased 10,000 sq. ft., which was used as office space and workspace for an auto-body shop. The remaining space was previously leased to non-retail tenants. Project Scope and Uses This project proposes to construct a new 2-story R&D building with a basement garage, surface parking area, patios and landscape improvements. The total building area is 29,120 sq. ft. at 0.5 FAR. Typical building height is at 31 feet, measured to top of the parapet wall/roof overhang with the exception of the roof screen at 41’ and elevator penthouse at 37’. Both exceptions are permitted by the 10’ additional height allowance stated in zoning ordinance. 116 on-site parking stalls will be provided to satisfy the parking requirement @ 4 / 1,000 ratio. The project is also committed to develop a robust Transportation Demand Management plan. The location, size and scale of this project make it ideal for start-up technology and innovative companies. Site Design The project team has been working closely with Planning and Transportation staff to address ARB concerns about site circulation. A few significant changes have been made to the site plan -  The 2-story R&D building has been re-located and centered against Olive Avenue. A one- level basement garage is tucked under the building. The parking deck is removed from the project.  The entry driveway has been shifted to the south side and leads to the surface parking area parallel to Caltrain railway track. There will be a 50’ dia. turnout space at the end of the parking aisle, before vehicles heading down the ramp to the basement garage.  With only one curb-cut on Park and the shifting of the R&D building, the project creates a generous 65’ min landscaped setback from the property line abutting the 195 Page Mill building (70’ to the building’s 2/F and 3/F). This space will be fully landscaped and designed as outdoor amenities / patios for employee’s use. 5.b Packet Pg. 160 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) )  3045 Park Boulevard DES Project No. 10006.001 Jan 16, 2018 Page 2 of 2 DES Architects + Engineers, Inc.  Setbacks on south and Caltrain sides have been increased from 5’ to 10’ to beef up landscape buffer.  Park Blvd façade is setback 15’ min from property line with landscaped berms and paved entry plaza that compliments the building design.  Truck parking space will be placed at the south-east corner of the building. Our civil engineers have confirmed the turning and maneuvering of larger delivery trucks.  Landscaped berms / mounds and trees will line up along Park Blvd and around the patios.  New paved sidewalks / pedestrian crossings, street trees, landscaped bulb-outs / parking and public seating will be part the off-site improvements. Building Design The R&D building has been completely re-designed to address ARB’s comments. The new design created a building with simple horizontal character with a high-level of transparency.  The building takes on a simple rectangular form with the rear façade running parallel to the Caltrain railway tracks. The entry’s façade is slightly tilted to create an angular pathway to the site and offset the front facades / planes. Portion of the north and south facades are projected out as balcony (over looking the patio) and bay window as articulation to the building mass.  All four sides of the building are glazed with high-performance tinted vision glasses (no spandrel, except at the bay window). The vertical mullions are typically spaced at farther apart to create wider glass surfaces. All vertical mullions are invisible with a few having snap- on beauty caps as accent elements. The first floor’s storefronts will be framed in metal panel clad portals extending beyond the glass walls.  The building entry / lobby contrasts this gesture with full-height structural glass walls and elevator tower, clad in similar pre-finish metal panels. This creates a high-point / visual focus along Park and of Olive and a relief to the long horizontal façade. Similar architectural treatment at the back of the building facing Caltrain railway.  Continuous perforated metal sunshades (Park façade and south side) and captured mullions wrap around all four sides of the building.  Deep roof overhangs (varying length) further emphasized the horizontal, low-profile architectural style. The soffit will be wood-grain aluminum clad finishes and capped with architectural grade steel fascia.  The ground level of the building on Park will have landscaped berms against the sill walls. Sustainable design The goal of the project is to meet CalGreen and City’s Green Building benchmark. It will also apply for USGBC LEED Sliver certification (version 4.0). Sustainable design measures currently under consideration include energy-efficient HVAC systems, high-performance and bird-safe glazing, solar shading, electrical vehicle chargers, drought-tolerant landscaping and reduced outdoor water use/irrigation. 5.b Packet Pg. 161 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3045 Park Boulevard / File No. 17PLN-00073 Section A: CEQA Findings The Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) makes the following findings: 1. The environmental effects of the Project have been analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA). 2. The IS/MND identified one or more potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment as well as mitigation measures that would reduce the significant effects to a less than significant level. The Project applicant, before public release of the draft MND, has made or agreed to make revisions to the Project that clearly mitigate the effects to a less than significant level as demonstrated through the adoption of the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 3. The Director has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study/MND, together with any public comments received during the public review process and other information in the record, prior to acting upon or approving the Project. 4. The IS/MND reflects and represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto as lead agency. 5. Based on the whole record of proceedings, the Director hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, and does hereby adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project. 6. The Director of Planning and Community Environment at the Director’s Office at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 is the custodian of records and documents of proceedings on which this decision is based. 5.c Packet Pg. 162 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C E Q A a n d A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Page 2 of 7 Section B: 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. The following table summarizes how the project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 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 Light Industrial. The project proposes a research and development (R&D) building in an area surrounded by R&D and residential mixed-use buildings. The Light Industrial designation includes wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repairing and packaging of goods. The designation requires the strict control of the emission of fumes, noise, smoke, and other pollutants. It also permits compatible residential and mixed use development. While a building tenant has not been selected at this time, an R&D building is consistent with the designation and would be compatible with the surrounding development. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces. The project is an attractive, infill R&D development within walking distance of the El Camino Real commercial corridor and the California Avenue Business District, and will add to the revitalization of the Park Boulevard corridor. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is adjacent to a residential mixed-use development and provides a substantial open space with berms, trees, and other landscaping between the two buildings. The project would be compatible with the surrounding uses and overall scale of the neighborhood. 5.c Packet Pg. 163 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C E Q A a n d A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Page 3 of 7 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan Policy L-1.10: Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet of office/R&D development, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis. Require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and determine whether the cap and the development requirements should be adjusted. Continue to exempt medical, governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development. The project includes 19,000 net new square feet of R&D use which counts towards the citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The project complies with all development standards for the zoning district and presents a high quality design that enhances the livability and streetscape appearance of the Park Boulevard corridor. All potential impacts to adjacent development and the environment are mitigated through compatible site design and with the MMRP detailed in the Environmental Analysis for the project. Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. The project is located along a Bicycle Boulevard on Park Boulevard, which provides an important connection from the southern neighborhoods to the California Avenue Business District. The project reduces the number of driveway cuts at the site from the two existing to only one, and encourages cycling by placing bicycle parking in prominent, convenient locations on the site. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. The project would demolish the existing building on the site and construct a new R&D building. The applicant has indicated that the existing building is difficult to market due to its age and condition and that a new building is more desirable. Policy L2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project includes a large outdoor patio area with substantial greenery and stormwater infiltration facilities in the immediate vicinity. This area serves as an amenity for building employees, and as a landscape buffer for the adjacent residential mixed use building. 5.c Packet Pg. 164 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C E Q A a n d A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Page 4 of 7 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan Safety Element Program S3.1.1-1: Continue City permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials and regulate the commercial use of hazardous materials that may present a risk of off-site health or safety effects. Program S3.1.3: Strengthen development review requirements and construction standards for projects on sites with groundwater contamination. The project is located on a site with suspected groundwater contamination due to the COE plume and historical use of the site as a rail yard. If contaminated soils are discovered, the applicant will be required per the conditions of approval to ensure the contractor employees engineering controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant will submit for City of Palo Alto review the design of engineering controls, and sufficient information about construction and operation parameters as are determined by City and/or County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control to be needed to assure that the future occupants would not be impacted by current or future soil vapor intrusion. Common engineering controls that could be installed beneath the proposed structures and within the underground parking garage to prevent soil vapor intrusion into the structures include soil vapor barriers placed beneath the proposed structure and installation of an exhaust ventilation system in the parking garage, engineered to ventilate VOCs in addition to vehicle exhaust. The engineering controls shall be routinely inspected per equipment specifications to ensure proper functioning and that the system components have not degraded. The system shall include a monitoring device or alarm to alert the facility manager if the system fails. Transportation Element Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. The project applicant has provided a preliminary Transportation Demand Management plan that details steps to reduce the number of single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips generated by the project, including providing Caltrain Go Passes for full time workers. Future tenants will appoint a TDM coordinator in order implement the plan and 5.c Packet Pg. 165 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C E Q A a n d A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Page 5 of 7 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan prepare ongoing monitoring reports to the Transportation division. Additionally, the project will be required to pay a Transportation Impact Fee based on the base-line motor vehicle trips, which will be used to pay for transportation capital improvements. Policy T-1.16: Promote personal transportation vehicles as an alternative to cars (e.g., bicycles, stakeboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities, and transit stops. The project is located along Park Boulevard, which is a Bicycle Boulevard with a Class II bicycle lane as identified in the Transportation Element. The project includes sufficient bicycle parking for the use, and has located the bicycle storage room immediately adjacent to the lobby with a separate dedicated entrance. The plans also provide short term racks for visitors. Policy T-1.24: Monitor and publicly report on the level of service at critical intersections (as shown on Map T-5) on a regular basis and consider additional intersections to add to this list to monitor the effectiveness of the City’s growth management policies. Also monitor multimodal level of service for arterials and residential arterials. Policy T-2.3: Use motor vehicle LOS at signalized intersections to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed projects, including contributions to cumulative congestion. Use signal warrants and other metrics to evaluate impacts at unsignalized intersections. Level of Service (LOS) was analyzed at critical intersections near the site as a component of the environmental impact assessment for the project. The Initial Study for the project is available for review by the public on the City’s Building Eye webpage and at the Department of Planning and Community Environment. The project would result in less than significant transportation impacts, and signals or other improvements are not warranted with this project. Policy T-5.6: Strongly encourage the use of below- grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. The project includes a below-grade parking structure beneath the building that contains nearly half of the project’s required vehicle parking. Mechanized parking is not proposed with the redevelopment. The site is undergoing a voluntary environmental cleanup with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health in order to address issues arising from potential soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contamination, and will provide a Site Management Plan and Remedial Action Plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. Additionally, the project will be required to comply with all Public Works standards for groundwater pumping. 5.c Packet Pg. 166 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C E Q A a n d A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Page 6 of 7 The project provides a contemporary architectural style with attractive forms and materials, and is consistent with the surrounding development patterns. In addition, the design of the project as conditioned is internally consistent. The project has been reviewed by the Board on two previous occasions and the applicant has responded to the changes necessitated by the Board. The project is consistent with the zoning requirements for the General Manufacturing zone, including height, floor area ratio, and required parking. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed project is consistent with the finding in that the area is comprised of various R&D and mixed use buildings, mostly with two and three story heights. The project provides the required setbacks and a landscape buffer between the subject property and adjacent residential mixed use building. Internally, the project provides an intuitive sense of order, with surface parking relegated to the rear and footpaths providing pedestrian access throughout the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the site includes a unified style in a simplified palette. All four sides of the buildings provide appropriate visual attention. The applicant has responded to the requests by the Board to improve this aspect of the project and provide a high-quality project. The project’s design is consistent with the Performance Criteria for the General Manufacturing zone, and responds appropriately the surrounding uses and structures. 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 surrounding area includes an eclectic variety of architectural styles with no one dominate theme. As mentioned above the project includes a simple palette of high quality materials, which are appropriately proportioned. The design is aesthetically pleasing, and successfully balances heavier elements, such as the metal panels, with lighter elements, such as the glass curtain wall. The exterior elevations will be compatible with the neighborhood and will present a significant enhancement to the Park Boulevard corridor. 5.c Packet Pg. 167 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C E Q A a n d A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Page 7 of 7 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 includes a single point of access for vehicles entering and leaving the site, which is desirable given the location of the site along a Bicycle Boulevard. Service areas, such as truck loading and trash, are relegated to the rear and away from the nearest residences. The project includes a bicycle parking room at the front of the building, and provides for intuitive circulation for cyclists and pedestrians accessing the building from Park Boulevard and from the parking lot at the site rear. The parking lot and garage contain no “dead-end” points, and will allow for easy access to all parking stalls. Open space on the site is provided on all site perimeters in the form of landscaping and screening trees, as well as a large landscaped patio area near the adjacent residential mixed use building. 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 is consistent with the finding in that the project includes substantial frontage, patio, and parking lot landscaping that are both aesthetically pleasing and functional. The design includes permeable pavers that will reduce storm water runoff and increase infiltration. The project’s landscaping includes drought tolerant species and a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials suitable to the area. 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 summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures including storm water drainage, topsoil protection, electric vehicle charging outlets, laundry to landscape diversion, other water efficiency and conservation measures and the use of low odor and off-gassing materials in construction and finishes. 5.c Packet Pg. 168 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C E Q A a n d A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3045 Park Boulevard 17PLN-00073 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, 3045 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on January 16, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit D is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 5. VAPOR INTRUSION PREVENTION. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for City of Palo Alto review the design of engineering controls, and sufficient information about construction and operation parameters as are determined by City and/or County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control to be needed to assure that the future occupants would not be impacted by current or future soil vapor intrusion. Common engineering controls that could be installed beneath the proposed structures and within the underground parking garage to prevent soil vapor intrusion into the structures include soil vapor barriers placed beneath the proposed structure and installation of an exhaust ventilation system in the parking garage, engineered to ventilate VOCs in addition to vehicle exhaust. The engineering controls shall be routinely inspected per equipment specifications to ensure proper functioning and that the system components have not degraded. The system shall include a monitoring device or alarm to alert the facility manager if the system fails. 6. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5.d Packet Pg. 169 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 7. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 8. 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. 9. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Development Impact Fees currently estimated in the amount of $373,108 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 10. 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. 11. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 12. 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 5.d Packet Pg. 170 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 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. 13. 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). 14. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 15. 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 16. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 17. 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. 5.d Packet Pg. 171 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 18. 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. 19. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to grading or building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 20. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. 21. PAVEMENT: Olive Avenue was resurfaced in 2015 this street is under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Olive Avenue 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. 22. Applicant will be required to resurface Park Blvd and replace striping in kind for the entire project width from curb to curb. 23. 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. 24. 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. 5.d Packet Pg. 172 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 25. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation 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 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 26. 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. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. 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. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree. d. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 27. 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 re-check and approval process for your project. 5.d Packet Pg. 173 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 28. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating the duration and monitoring program. The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees to remain shall recognize the location of each tree in the proposed development. Listed separately, the appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plan Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for the 150% of the appraised replacement value of the following 23 Designated Trees: (ID numbers to be determined), to be retained and protected.. The total amount for this project is: $__To Be Determined with Urban Forestry staff. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees remain and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program shall end two years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new two year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The final report shall summarize the Tree Resources program, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). The owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Planning Division Arborist. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be two years (or five years if determined by the Director) from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 29. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include 5.d Packet Pg. 174 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 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. #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 implementation by Contractor, ArborResources, Inc., shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 30. 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. 31. 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 Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351 "; 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.” 5.d Packet Pg. 175 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 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” 32. 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. a. 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).” b. 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 33. 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 34. 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. 35. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, ArborResources, (650-496-5953, 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. 36. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 37. 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 5.d Packet Pg. 176 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 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. 38. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 39. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 40. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). 41. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 42. 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. 43. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 44. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. 5.d Packet Pg. 177 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) UTILITIES – ELECTRICAL 45. Site plan does not show the conduit path and additional pull box as indicated in comments dated on Mar 29 2017 below. 46. The proposed trees appears to be within 10’ of the pull box mentioned in bullet 1 above. 47. Plan needs to show the transformer (10’x10’) and the conduit path as an easement. 48. The main building switch gear needs to be at an outdoor location. Just the main meter and the main breaker have to be an outdoor unit. The rest of the distribution breakers can be located indoor. UTILITILES - WATER,GAS,WASTEWATER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 49. 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. 50. 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 51. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet per parcel/lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 52. 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 (existing 60” & 15” SD main on Park Blvd.), 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. 5.d Packet Pg. 178 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 53. 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. (see WGW utility marked up red lines provided) 54. 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). 55. 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. 56. 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 water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans 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. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. 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. 5.d Packet Pg. 179 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 60. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) may be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. A new water service line installation for domestic usage may require. For service connections of 4- inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 64. 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. 65. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 66. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. 67. 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. 68. 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”. 69. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 70. 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 5.d Packet Pg. 180 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 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. 71. 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. 72. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. FIRE DEPARTMENT 73. Rear stairway shall be a 1 hour fire rated enclosure with a fixed ladder and 4’x4’ roof hatch at the top. GREEN BUILDING 74. CALGreen Checklist: 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 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant must indicate the requirements on the Planning Application. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 75. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. 76. Energy Efficiency: If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. Performance Approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building includes a 5kW or greater photovoltaic system. Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) 77. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet, then the must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal 5.d Packet Pg. 181 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 78. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a non-residential building alteration with a permit value of $200,000 or more, then the project must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. (2016 CGBC Section 301.3, Chapter 5). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The requirements are subject to inspection. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 79. Commissioning: If the project is a new building over 10,000 square feet, then the project must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code section 5.410.2 for Planning Approval. The project team shall re-submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) in accordance with section 5.410.2.1 with an updated Basis of Design (BOD) in accordance with 5.410.2.2 that reflects the design elements finalized between Planning Approval and Permit Submittal. The project shall also submit a Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 80. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project 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 16.14.380 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). 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. 81. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 82. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 83. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the rehabilitated non-residential project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area of greater than or equal to 2,500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). See MWELO Submittal Guidelines. 84. Construction & Demolition: If the project is a nonresidential new construction or renovation project and has a value exceeding $25,000, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 5.d Packet Pg. 182 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 85. Construction & Demolition: If the project includes non-residential demolition, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction- Tier 2 Mandatory for all nonresidential construction include new construction, additions, and alteration, as long as the construction has a valuation exceeding $25,000. PAMC 16.14.370 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 86. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: If the project is a new non-residential structure, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5324. 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 5324 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.430 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54976 for additional details. 87. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project 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. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 5.d Packet Pg. 183 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME 3045 Park Boulevard Research and Development Project APPLICATION NUMBER 17PLN-00073 APPLICANT Jay Paul Company Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3620 San Francisco, CA 94111 DATE February 23, 2018 The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 3045 Park Boulevard Research and Development project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, “... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. 5.e Packet Pg. 184 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t M M R P ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Nesting Bird Protection Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and any other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Prior to and during Construction CPA Planning Department CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1: Resource Recovery Procedures Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist or paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department CR-2: Human Remains Recovery Procedures Human Remains Recovery Procedures. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires Applicant or designee/Construction During Construction CPA Planning Department 5.e Packet Pg. 185 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t M M R P ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. contractor TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery Procedures Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 Site Risk Management Plan Site Risk Management Plan. Prior to issuance of permits allowing any earth-disturbing activity, the developer shall prepare a site risk management plan (SRMP) which will be submitted to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) for approval. The SRMP will address known and unknown environmental issues that may be encountered during development. The plan shall identify appropriate measures to be followed if contaminants are encountered during excavation including health and safety measures to reduce exposure to potentially impacted soil vapor for construction workers and dust control measures to reduce exposure to contaminated dust particles for nearby residents. Health and safety measures shall include the required personal protective equipment (PPE) to be used by site personnel, including action levels and decision criteria for upgrading the levels of PPE. Additionally the SRMP shall also identify personnel to be notified, emergency contacts, and a sampling protocol if impacted media is encountered. The excavation and demolition contractors shall be made aware of the possibility of encountering known and unknown hazardous Applicant or designee/Construction Contractor Prior to building permit and during Construction CPA Planning Department 5.e Packet Pg. 186 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t M M R P ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation materials including impacted soil, soil vapor, and groundwater (if encountered), and shall be provided with appropriate contact and notification information. The plan shall include a provision stating at what point it is safe to continue with the excavation or demolition, and identify the person authorized to make that determination. Removal, transportation, and disposal of impacted soil should be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. The plan shall be submitted for City of Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, RWQCB, or DTSC for review and approval. NOISE N-1: Construction- Related Noise Reduction Measures Construction-Related Noise Reduction Measures. The applicant shall apply the following measures during construction of the project.  Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, as applicable, shall be in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. During construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.  Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities.  Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from the adjacent senior living center and multi-family residential development as feasible.  Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.  Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction activity.  Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department 5.e Packet Pg. 187 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t M M R P ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction.  Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designate a disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.  Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. During the demolition, site preparation, grading, and building phases of construction, temporary sound barriers rated to Sound Transmission Class 20 or higher shall be installed and maintained facing the northwestern and northeastern boundaries of the project site. Temporary sound barriers shall block line of sight between noise- generating construction equipment and adjacent residential windows and shall be placed as close to the source equipment as feasible. Mobile sound barriers may be used as appropriate to attenuate construction noise near the source equipment. During the building construction phase, temporary sound barriers shall be applied to generators and cranes used on-site. 5.e Packet Pg. 188 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t M M R P ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Performance Criteria 18.23 3045 Park Boulevard 17PLN-00073 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the downtown, 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 project includes an adequately-sized trash room in the interior of the building with direct access to the loading zone at the rear of the building. The trash room is located far from the adjacent residential mixed use building and would be convenient for garbage collectors servicing the site. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. Lighting fixtures proposed nearest the adjacent residential mixed use residential building are pedestrian-scaled fixtures mounted on retaining walls. A preliminary photometric plan indicates that light levels would measure no more than 0.04 footcandles at the shared property line. 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. Not applicable. The proposed R&D use is anticipated to operate during normal daytime work hours. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 5.f Packet Pg. 189 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) 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 service areas have been located on the side of the building facing other commercial properties and opposite the side facing the residential mixed use building. Mechanical equipment is proposed to be located on the roof and behind a screen. Additionally, substantial landscaping is proposed on the site to screen the building from the adjacent residential mixed use building. This landscaping buffer will also help prevent glare from vehicle headlights exiting the underground parking garage. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Project Consistency 5.f Packet Pg. 190 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. Service areas have been located on the side of the building facing surrounding commercial uses and away from the adjacent residential mixed use building. Mechanical equipment, such as air conditioners and photovoltaic cells, would be located on the roof and screened from residences. The surface parking has been arranged so that the vast majority of stalls are at the site’s right and rear, and away from the residences. Noise from vehicles entering and exiting the garage would be minimized by the garage ramp’s retaining walls, as well as landscape berms that separate the site from the residences. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. A significant portion of required parking has been placed in a below grade parking facility to minimize visual impacts. Any surface parking has been arranged so that the vast majority of stalls are at the site’s right and rear, and away from adjacent residences. 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. Bicycle and pedestrian access have been prioritized through the site planning for the project. The building has been pushed up to within 14 feet of the public sidewalk, which is consistent with other newer projects in area and contributes to the streetscape for the Park Boulevard corridor. The building frontage is defined by a wide entrance plaza for pedestrians, with a separate entrance for cyclists using the interior bicycle storage room. Paths around the building provide easy access to the building from the parking lots via two separate entries. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 5.f Packet Pg. 191 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. The use would be operated in a manner consistent with the standards for the GM zone, which precludes any nuisance or hazards, including odors or toxic air contaminants, stemming from the permitted or conditionally permitted uses on the site. To ensure the applicability of this standard, the project has been conditioned to abide by the air quality requirements outlined in PAMC Section 18.23.090. 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. The site is located within 150 feet of a residential use. Should a business intend to use hazardous materials on site, prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall be required to provide the Fire Department with an emergency contingency plan addressing the safety of nearby sensitive receptors upon the change in the use, storage, or handling of any hazardous materials as outlined in PAMC Section 18.23.100. All residences and sensitive receptors within 150 feet of the facility will receive notification of the change in use at the time of building permit issuance. 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 5.f Packet Pg. 192 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT G ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3045 Park Boulevard, 17PLN-00073 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (GM DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 1 acre, no width or depth requirement 1.337 acres No change Minimum Front Yard (2) No requirement Unknown 14 feet building, 10 feet for underground parking structure Rear Yard No requirement Unknown 77 feet building, 56 feet for underground parking structure Interior Left Side Yard No requirement Unknown 64 feet building, 10 feet for underground parking structure/ramp Interior Right Side Yard No requirement Unknown 75 feet building, 59 feet for underground parking structure Min. yard for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts (1) No requirement Not applicable Not applicable Special Setback No requirement Not applicable Not applicable Max. Site Coverage No requirement Unknown 15,050 sf (26%) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 29,120 sf (0.5:1) Unknown 29,120 sf (0.5:1) Max. Building Height 50 feet, or 35 feet within 150 feet of a residential zone Unknown 31 feet to top of roof overhang and 41 feet to top of mechanical screen Daylight Plane for site lines having any part abutting one or more residential districts (1) 10 feet and slope of 1:2 Not required Not required Employee Showers 2 showers required for R&D projects with a gross floor area of 20,000-49,000 sf Unknown 2 showers (1) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. 5.g Packet Pg. 193 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Research & Development uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/250 sf of gross floor area for a total of 116 parking spaces Unknown 116 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 12 spaces Unknown 16 spaces (10 long term, 6 short term) Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000-99,000 sf Unknown 1 loading space * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 5.g Packet Pg. 194 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8137) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/20/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3045 Park Blvd: New R&D Building (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3045 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00073]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing Office Building and Construction of a new Two-Story 29,120 Square Foot R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: GM (AD) (General Manufacturing with Automobile Dealership Combing District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend continuation of the project to a date uncertain and provide recommendations to the applicant on how to better meet the findings for approval. Report Summary The application is a request for major architectural review of a new 29,120 square foot (sf) two story R&D building with a two level parking structure and associated site improvements. The new building would replace an existing 17,000 square foot building on the site constructed in 1987 with approximately 10,000 square feet of floor area dedicated to office use. The existing building is less than 45 years old and is not considered a historic resource. The site is located at the intersection of Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue in the Ventura neighborhood to the west of the Page Mill Road underpass. The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and is zoned General Manufacturing (GM) with an Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District. 5.h Packet Pg. 195 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : J u l y 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The project is subject to the Interim Annual Office Limit Ordinance (PAMC 18.85.210) and, accordingly, a project decision can be made only within the timeframe for qualifying projects as outlined in the ordinance (April 1 – June 30). The applicant has requested an early first hearing in order to introduce the project and to seek the Board’s comments on the proposed site layout, so that change can be made prior to a recommendation by the ARB. Staff recommends that the project be continued to allow for these refinements to the site plan, and in particular, the placement of the parking structure. Background Project Information Owner: Ray Paul, Jay Paul Company Architect: Thomas Gilman, DES Architects Representative: N/A Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 3045 Park Boulevard Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 1.337 acres Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): Not a historic resource Existing Improvement(s): Two story office building; circa 1987 Existing Land Use(s): Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PF Zone (Caltrain ROW) West: GM Zone (Mixed Use Development) East: GM Zone (Office Building) South: ROLM, RM-30, and GM Zone (Office Building, Fry’s Site) Aerial View of Property: 5.h Packet Pg. 196 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : J u l y 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: GM (AD) General Manufacturing District with Automobile Dealership Combining District Comp. Plan Designation: LI Light Industrial Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, adjacent to the west of the side Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: A similar project for a 29,120 sf R&D building on the site was Recent Mixed Use project 5.h Packet Pg. 197 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : J u l y 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 previously reviewed by the ARB at a study sessions on November 19, 2015 and December 17, 2015. At the time, the project was being considered simultaneously with an application for the redevelopment of the site at 2747 Park Boulevard near the site. The application for 3045 Park Boulevard (14PLN-00389) was withdrawn on January 4, 2016, while the application for 2747 Park Boulevard (14PLN-00388) was subsequently reviewed by the ARB on March 17, 2016 and approved by the Planning Director on April 21, 2016. Project Description The site is located at the intersection of Park Boulevard and Olive Drive in the Ventura neighborhood. The site contains a two-story office building which recently contained a car rental business. A mixed use project is located adjacent to the western side property line, and an office building is located adjacent to the eastern side property line. The Caltrain right-of-way borders the rear (north) of the site. Across Park Boulevard to the south is an office building and an associated parking structure. The proposed project would demolish the existing building on the site and construct a new 29,120 square foot R&D building. The building would consist of two stories, and would be 31.5 feet in height from grade to the top of the roof’s parapet wall, and 38 feet in height to the top of the roof’s mechanical screen. The building consists primarily of stone cladding with aluminum window mullions, as well as metal cornices and louvered screens. Significant portions of all of the facades would consist of glass, with several spandrel sections and frit patterns. A color and materials board will be available at the hearing. The vehicular site access consists of a single driveway approach to the west of the Park Boulevard/Olive Avenue intersection. A partially sunken two-story parking structure is proposed to the west of the building, with the second level ramp oriented perpendicular to the Park Boulevard. Additional surface parking is proposed behind the building. Pedestrians would access the site via a walkway located at the Park Boulevard/Olive Avenue intersection. Most of the existing trees on the site would be removed, and a formal landscaping plan shows a full complement of trees, groundcovers, and shrubs in the site frontage, parking lot, and along the western lot line adjacent to the parking structure. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: x Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project 5.h Packet Pg. 198 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : J u l y 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment C. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located in an area predominantly developed with office/R&D uses and is directly adjacent to a mixed use project containing residential units at 195 Page Mill Road. Owing to this proximity to residential uses, the project includes a screen of evergreen trees in the 10 foot setback between the parking structure and the mixed use building to the west. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies that will be evaluated with the final submittal of the application are included in Attachment F. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The Performance Criteria for the Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing, and Planning Community Districts (PAMC 18.23) contain applicable standards for the subject site. 18.23.070 contains standards for parking areas, and indicates that the purpose of the section is the following: PAMC 18.23.070: The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. Staff is concerned about the location of the proposed parking structure, which would have a 10 foot setback from the western side property line and a 15 foot setback from upper floor residential balconies. Landscaping in the form of evergreen trees is proposed in this setback, although staff does not believe that landscaping alone can minimize the visual impact of the parking structure and associated lighting, therefore staff asks the ARB to suggest refinements that would help the project better meet the intent of the Performance Criteria and Findings for Architectural Review. The applicant is proposing to partially underground the first level of parking, so that views from the residential balconies will be over the structure. Staff has two suggested options that include the provision of underground parking and the relocation of the structure towards the rear of the site, which abuts the Caltrain right-of-way. A formal transportation analysis will be performed in conjunction with the Initial Study for the project. In general, bicycle and pedestrian access to the building is well positioned and 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 5.h Packet Pg. 199 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : J u l y 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 appropriately planned, with a large outdoor seating area shown immediately to the right of the drive aisle. The building’s 10 foot front yard setback pushes the active areas of the site towards the street, providing a positive pedestrian scale for the site that is compatible with other developments on Park Boulevard. Consistency with Application Findings The ARB findings for approval are included for reference in Attachment C. As discussed above, staff believes that project refinements to the parking structure are needed in order to better meet the Architectural Review findings, in particular, Finding #2. ARB 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. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment E. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. As mentioned earlier, the project is subject to the Interim Annual Office Limit Ordinance (PAMC 18.85.210), which restricts net office/R&D development in certain areas of the City to 50,000 sf per fiscal year. A guideline document for the annual office limit program is included at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51297. The proposed project would construct a new R&D building with 29,130 sf of floor area, to replace approximately 10,000 sf of floor area in the existing 17,000 square foot structure on the site dedicated to office use, for a net increase of approximately 19,130 sf of qualifying square footage. The interim ordinance is set to expire on November 26, 2017, and Planning staff is developing draft language for both an extension of the interim ordinance through June 30, 2018, as well as an adjusted, permanent ordinance. If extended, the interim annual limit would mean that the proposed project can receive an ARB recommendation, but cannot be approved until after March 31, 2018 and must compete against other projects for approval if the sum total of approval-ready projects exceeds 50,000 square feet of office/R&D. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 5.h Packet Pg. 200 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : J u l y 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 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. An initial study will be prepared and circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to a formal staff recommendation on the project. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 7, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 10, 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. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (PDF) x Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX) x Attachment D: Performance Criteria (DOCX) x Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) x Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Policies (DOCX) x Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 5.h Packet Pg. 201 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : J u l y 2 0 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8492) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/2/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3045 Park Blvd: New R&D Building (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3045 Park Boulevard [17PLN-00073]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing Office Building and Construction of a New Two-Story 29,120 Square Foot R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: GM (AD) (General Manufacturing with Automobile Dealership Combing District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend continuation of the project to a date uncertain to provide additional time for the completion of environmental analysis and refinements to the site circulation. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=58719. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment H. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. 2 Packet Pg. 9 5.i Packet Pg. 202 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : N o v e m b e r 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The project is subject to the Interim Annual Office Limit Ordinance (PAMC 18.85.210) and, accordingly, a project decision can be made only within the timeframe for qualifying projects as outlined in the ordinance (April 1 – June 30). The applicant has requested a second hearing at this time so that any further changes requested by the Board can be made prior to a recommendation at a third and final hearing. Staff recommends that the project be continued to allow for additional time to complete the Initial Study for the project and to incorporate any project changes informed by that environmental analysis. Background On July 20, 2017 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNgWy3z6D_0. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response The building’s materials and colors are too safe and should be updated to provide sharper and brighter textures. The frontages of both the R&D building and parking structure should be further developed and landscaped to enhance the pedestrian experience along Park Boulevard. The building and parking structure elevations have been revised significantly, along with the landscape plans. Relocate the parking structure, or if it remains in its existing configuration, enhance the setback. The parking structure remains along the Park Boulevard frontage, but the setback has been increased from 3’ to 9’. Landscaping and green screens should be added to the parking structure. Green screens, trellises, and planter boxes have been added to the upper parking deck. The seating area adjacent to the Olive Avenue should be refined to function as a more public space. The seating area has been removed and replaced with a pedestrian plaza with decorative trees. New Zealand flax should be removed from the plant list, and diversify the trees on the site. The plant list has been expanded, and New Zealand flax has been removed. Analysis1 Site Plan The site plan for the project follows the same general layout as the plans presented at the July 20th hearing, but with a number of refinements to the vehicular and bike/pedestrian circulation 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. 2 Packet Pg. 10 5.i Packet Pg. 203 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : N o v e m b e r 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 and to the primary entrance. The uni-directional drive aisles leading into and out of the first parking garage level has been altered and now consists of a single, bi-directional ramp at the rear of the site. The drive aisle ramp leading to the upper deck of the parking garage has been shifted forward approximately seven feet in order accommodate additional surface parking and a larger trash room beneath the ramp. The bike cage that was previously proposed behind the trash room and under the ramp has been relocated into the northeast corner of the R&D building. This bike room would be served by a new pathway along the eastern edge of the site, which connects to both the surface parking lot in the rear and the sidewalk along Park Boulevard. A new walkway has also been proposed to the east of the primary drive aisle, further enhancing the pedestrian connection between the front and rear of the site. Lastly, the curved outdoor seating area located at the building entrance has been changed to an outdoor plaza with decorative trees and groups of benches. Architecture, Parking Structure The applicant has made a number of changes to the architecture of both the R&D building and the parking structure, as well as refinements to the site layout, circulation, and landscaping. The most significant change to the site plan involves the partial undergrounding of the parking structure, which reduces the height and scale of the structure from Park Boulevard. The parking structure also now proposes green screens, trellises, and planter boxes to enhance the appearance of the upper deck as viewed from the adjacent residential mixed use building at 195 Page Mill Road, and to mitigate the impact of vehicle headlights. The facade of the parking structure facing Park Boulevard, as well as portions of the east façade, include a decorative, perforated metal screen that simulates a woven fabric. The rear façade facing Caltrain includes a large green screen that covers the majority of the concrete wall. The parking structure has been further setback from the front property line (from 3 feet to 9 feet), which is consistent with the front setbacks for both 195 Page Mill Road and the subject R&D building. The increased setback allows for additional plantings, stairways, and a public seating area. Architecture, R&D Building The building proper has undergone significant refinements which include a brighter color scheme and the modification of several architectural elements. The primary exterior building materials have been changed from stone cladding and concrete to metal panels. The metal cornices have been dropped entirely, and the north and south facades now include deeply- recessed aluminum canopies with infill-glass panels. The sun screening strategy for the Park Boulevard facing façade (southern façade) has also changed, and the large metal louver screen previously proposed has been removed in favor of 24” deep metal shades that snap on to the window mullions. The basic building standards (height, FAR, lot coverage, setbacks) are essentially unchanged with this revision. Key Considerations Staff believes that the changes address several of the comments raised in the first staff report regarding the treatment of the site edges and compatibility with the adjacent residential mixed use project through the partial undergrounding of the parking structure and enhanced use of greenery to screen the structure. While staff continues to believe that fully undergrounded 2 Packet Pg. 11 5.i Packet Pg. 204 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : N o v e m b e r 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 parking beneath the building or a structure relegated to the site rear would be ideal, the changes take steps to address the residential compatibility issues and enhance the streetscape through the structure’s façade improvements. An initial study is currently being prepared for the project and will analyze the potential for environmental impacts (noise, glare, air quality, etc) related to the placement and circulation the garage. This analysis will inform staff regarding the project’s consistency with the purpose of the Performance Criteria for Multiple Family, Commercial, Manufacturing, and Planning Community Districts (PAMC 18.23.070): The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. Vehicle circulation on the site, and in particular through the two levels of the parking structure, could present difficulties due to the single entrance and the number of dead-end drive aisles. In particular, the layout of the parking structure contains four dead-ends with minimal space for a vehicle to turn around, and may pose difficulties for visitors or employees who are not provided with an assigned vehicle space. Furthermore, trucks utilizing the loading space would be required to make a three-point turn in order to return to Park Boulevard, which could present truck and vehicle conflicts. Staff recommends that the applicant consider changes to the site plan to minimize the number of conflicts and provide for a more intuitive circulation plan. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies that will be evaluated with the final submittal of the application are included in Attachment F. Consistency with Application Findings The ARB findings for approval are included for reference in Attachment C. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment E. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on October 20, 2017, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 23, 2017, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 12 5.i Packet Pg. 205 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : N o v e m b e r 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Public Comments As of the writing of this report, staff has received and responded to one public comment (Attachment G), which was also provided to the Board at the July 20, 2017 hearing. The commenter indicated that the project should be subject to the Retail Preservation Ordinance due to the site’s former use as a vehicle rental facility. However, such a use is not considered a “retail-like” use, and is therefore not subject to the Retail Preservation provisions of the Code. 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. An initial study is being prepared and will be circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in early 2018 and prior to a formal staff recommendation on the project. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Policies (DOCX)  Attachment G: Public Comment (PDF)  Attachment H: July 20, 2017 Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 13 5.i Packet Pg. 206 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : N o v e m b e r 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment J Project Plans and Initial Study Hardcopies of project plans and the initial study are provided to ARB Members. These plans and environmental documentation are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. The Project Plans and Initial Study for the project may be viewed online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2828 5.j Packet Pg. 207 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : P r o j e c t P l a n s a n d I n i t i a l S t u d y L i n k ( 8 8 8 9 : 3 0 4 5 P a r k B l v d : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 3 r d F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8950) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/1/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 392 California Ave: Summit Bicycles Facade Changes (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 392 California Avenue [17PLN-00088]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow Changes to the Façade of an Existing Commercial Building in the California Avenue Business District. The Façade Changes Include a new Storefront Window System, an Individually Illuminated Channel Letter Sign, and a New Custom Abstract Mural by Artist Victor Reyes. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Scott McKay at Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61854. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment G. 6 Packet Pg. 208 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On September 21, 2017, the ARB reviewed the proposed project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-70/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response The black and white colors of the mural are too overpowering. Lighten or tone down the colors of the mural. Several different lighter color schemes were studied and ultimately the same mural design is being proposed, but with lighter colors (grey and white) as opposed to black and white. More differentiation or contrast is needed between the mural and the signage. Lighter colors are proposed for the mural, while maintaining the black (returns) and white (faces) of the individual channel letters of the signage. This provides visual separation between the mural and signage. The mural is attractive, but should not be on the front of the building. The front placed mural is an essential part of the composition. Analysis1 There were three primary comments that the Board provided at the initial hearing. First, there was broad Board consensus that the black and white colors that were proposed for the mural were too intense and overpowering and needed to be toned down. The applicant explored several different lighter color schemes, and Staff ultimately agreed that the grey and white option best addressed the Board’s direction. Second, most Board members concurred that greater contrast was needed between the mural and the signage. To address this comment, the applicant eliminated the black color from the mural and replaced it with grey. The signage remains the same as originally proposed, with black returns and white faces. The black individual channel letter returns contrast with the grey and white mural on the wall to which the letters are attached. The various colors provide clear differentiation between the mural and signage. 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. 6 Packet Pg. 209 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Third, a Board member felt that the mural was attractive, but could not be supported if located on the front of the building. The applicant considered the possibility of having the mural on the alley side wall of the building or wrapping the corner of the building (partially on the front and partially on the alley side wall), but ultimately felt that the having the mural on the front façade of the building was an indispensable aspect of the overall façade design. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt in accordance with Guideline Sections 15301 for maintenance of existing facilities and 15311 which exempts minor changes to existing buildings including signage. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on February 16, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 16, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no new project-related, public comments were received. No member of the public commented on the project at the September 21, 2017 public hearing. 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 Scott McKay, AICP, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 617-3113 (650) 329-2575 Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings For Approval (PDF)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 210 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4  Attachment D: Project Description Letter (PDF)  Attachment E: Project Plans (PDF)  Attachment F: California Avenue Existing Murals (PDF)  Attachment G: September 21, 2017 Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 211 124-33-020 124 33 019 124-33-022 124 32 043 124-32-035 124-32-042 Bank of the West Country Sun 50.0 1.6' ' 75.0' 0.0' 127.0' 50.2' 20.0' 125.0' 50.0' 00' 14 . 1' 40.6' 75.0' 84.4' 75.0' 84.4' 75.0' 85.0' 92.4' 79.0' 21.0' 79.0' 21.0' 21.0' 110.0' 20.2' 14.1' 100.0' 95.0'125.0' 95.0' 125.0'125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 51.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 42.0 ' 125.0' 42.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 0.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 195.0' 110.0' 195.0' 125.0' 130.2' 115.0' 14 . 1' 120.3' 115.0' 50.0' 125.0' 40.0' 14.1' 12 5.0' 32.5' 125.0' 32.5' 51.0' 110.0' 96.0' 125.0' 75.0'100.0' 50.0' 00.0' 100.0' 49.5' 49.5' 49.5' 49.5' 49.5' 86.5' 86.5'86. 5' 79.0' 70.5' 70.5' 29.5' 29.5'29.5' 46.3' 71.7' 4582454 44 425 431 10 440 414 406-41 0 392 360 364 415 2438415 421 36 2415 442-444 33-447 405-409 403-409 381-395 366-370 384 400 34 0 34 4 35 0 33 0 320 310 82 390 365 369 33 4 2431 417 391 413 429 420 ASH STRE NE W M AYFIELD L ANE CALIFORNIA AVENUE ORNIA AVE N UE MI M O SA LANE AVENUE PF(R) PF( R) CC(2) (R)(P) (R) CC(2)( R) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Historic Site abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk 392 California Avenue abc Zone District Labels 0'62' 392 California 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 jgerhar, 2018-02-21 15:50:42 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 6.a Packet Pg. 212 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT B  ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL  392 California Avenue  17PLN‐00088      The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings  for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.    Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,  Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design  guides.    The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:    As discussed in the staff report, the project as conditioned is in conformance with the Comprehensive  Plan. In particular, the project conforms to Policy L‐50: “…high quality signage that is attractive,  appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”.    Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that:  a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the  general community,  b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the  site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant,  c. is consistent with the context‐based design criteria of the applicable zone district,  d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land  use designations,  e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent  residential areas.    The project is consistent with Finding #2 because:    The proposed façade changes use consistent materials and colors that are unified and coherent, and  will assist in creating a sense of continuity with the other signage and art surrounding the site. The  proposed signage is appropriately scaled for the building and reflects the character of the California  Avenue business district.    Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and  appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are  compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.    The project is consistent with Finding #3 because:  6.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 F o r A p p r o v a l ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) The façade changes make use of a simplified color pallet (white for the signage and black and white for  the mural) which also complements the brown color on the bottom and side portions of the building  and surrounding buildings.    Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and  providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle  access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated  signage, if applicable, etc.).    The project is consistent with Finding #4 because:    The Signage has been placed to assist pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists in locating the business. The  signage conforms to the City’s requirements regarding visibility triangles at intersections, and would  not impair the function and safety of the drive aisles serving the site. The wall sign is under the  maximum permitted size, and would be appropriately designed for the business district context.    Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its  surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional  indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be  appropriately maintained.    The project is consistent with Finding #5 because:    Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. The entire site is covered by the building and hardscape. No  landscaping changes are proposed.    Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to  energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.    The project is consistent with Finding #6 because:    The proposed signs include LED lighting which is energy efficient and long lasting.  6.b Packet Pg. 214 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A R B F i n d i n g s F o r A p p r o v a l ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 392 California Avenue 17PLN-00088 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Summit Bicycles Permit Resubmittal,” stamped as received by the City on February 7, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; colors, materials, etc. Contact your Project Planner, Scott McKay at Scott.McKay@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. 6.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 o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) BUILDING DIVISION 7. A building permit is required for the new storefront window system and signage. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 8. If the installation of the sign will require the installer to occupy the public sidewalk, add a note to the plans that says, “Installation of the signs must be done in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the public sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off.” 9. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 10. Add a note to the building permit plan set that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4 feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use. If less than 4 feet of sidewalk is available for pedestrians, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close the sidewalk.” 11. The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 6.c Packet Pg. 216 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Summit Bicycles Project Description 392 California Ave City of Palo Alto TMA #17022 Palo Alto # 17-PLN-00088 Terry J. Martin Associates, A.I.A. 61 East Main Street, Suite D, Los Gatos, California 95030 terry@tma-arch.com (408) 395-8016 brad@tma-arch.com February 7, 2018 Scott McKay, AICP, Associate Planner Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Sign Permit: Summit Bicycles, 392 California Avenue Dear Scott & Team: We offer the following revised project description for Summit Bicycles at 392 California Ave: o Replace existing aluminum storefront window system. o Both new and existing metal frames to be oil rubbed bronze (see color board). o Repaint existing stucco above storefront window system with a custom grey and white mural (see description below). o Install new channel letter sign. The storefront mural design was chosen with great care. As a company, Summit Bicycles generally categorizes its aesthetic approach as “industrial modern.” However, the artwork they commission is purposefully more poignant. Victor Reyes, the world-renowned artist behind this mural, has painted 3 of the 4 existing Summit Bicycles stores. His work attempts to draw the line between gallery art and what someone may consider nothing like art. It tries to look at everything from a standpoint of artistic purpose. Each of Reyes’ paintings, exhibited in places such as Germany, Japan, Miami, New York and Los Angeles, and San Francisco, is approached as a subtext to the city it inhabits. This artistic approach complements Summit Bicycles’ aesthetics in their stores. Everything from flooring to service departments to tool walls is chosen to be viewed as art. Like the proposed mural, the simple and everyday is designed to blend with the artistic for a unique experience. We hope this explains the design intent behind our proposal. Should you have any questions, comments, or feel that anything is missing from this description, please don't hesitate to call or email. Best Regards, Terry J. Martin, AIA 6.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 r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “392 California Avenue ” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “17PLN-00088 Digital Resub 2018-2-7.pdf”. 6.e Packet Pg. 218 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment F Sample of Existing Murals in the California Avenue Business District Country Sun Mural The Cobblery Mural 6.f Packet Pg. 219 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e E x i s t i n g M u r a l s ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Starbucks Alley Murals Antonio’s Nuthouse Mural 6.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 a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e E x i s t i n g M u r a l s ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Mayfield Station Mural Alma Street Pedestrian Underpass Mural 6.f Packet Pg. 221 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e E x i s t i n g M u r a l s ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8417) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 392 California Ave: Summit Bicycles Facade Changes (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 392 California Avenue [17PLN-00088]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow Changes to the Façade of an Existing Commercial Building in the California Avenue Business District. The Façade Changes Include a new Storefront Window System, an Individually Illuminated Channel Letter Sign, and a New Custom Abstract Mural by Artist Victor Reyes. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Scott McKay at Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action: 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The project proposes changes to the front façade of an existing commercial building in the California Avenue business district for a new bicycle shop tenant (Summit Bicycles). The façade changes include a new storefront window system, an individually illuminated channel letter sign, and a new custom abstract mural by artist Victor Reyes. Individual signs and minor changes to previously approved projects are typically considered minor projects requiring staff 6.g Packet Pg. 222 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 5 0 : 3 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e : S u m m i t B i c y c l e s F a c a d e C h a n g e s City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Alexander Lew, Robert Gooyer, Osma Thompson Absent: Oral Communications Chair Furth: Thank you, good morning and welcome to the February 1st meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. The first item is oral communications, a time to speak to matters not on the agenda and I have two cards. The first one is from David Carnahan and for the benefit of the tape that’s C-A-R-N-A-H-A-N. Oh, sorry, I forgot the roll call. Could we have the roll call, please? I guess I am 0-2 on that. Alright, now we’d like to hear from Mr. Carnahan. Mr. David Carnahan, City Clerk’s Office: Thank you, good morning Chair Furth and Board Members. David Carnahan in the City Clerk’s Office and I’m here to talk with you today about Board and Commission recruitment. The City is currently looking to fill one term on the Historic Resources Board, three on the Human Relations Commission, three on the Public Art Commission and two on the Utilities and Advisory Commission. As you know these are great ways to both give back to your community and help shape the future of Palo Alto and continue to make it a fantastic place to both live and work. I’ll be giving each of you a flyer and your assignment is to think of at least two members of the community that you think would be a good fit for one of these Boards, reach out to them and encourage them to apply. Applications are due March 20th at 4:30 p.m. and they are available on the City Clerk’s webpage, cityofpaloalto.org/clerk. So again, we are currently recruiting for the Historic Resources Board, the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you, David. Now we also have a request from Jeff Levinsky. Mr. Jeff Levinsky: Good morning Board Members and Staff, I wanted to speak today at open mic about the PAN Zoning Committee, PAN is part of Palo Alto neighborhood which is a City-wide organization that’s existed for a number of years and which neighborhood leaders work together on issues. We have a Committee that specifically focuses on zoning and planning issues. Part of what we look at are the problems in the City like traffic, parking, housing and office imbalance, and ways that our existing laws can help us solve these problems if properly applied. At your most recent hearing on the project for 203 Force, the old Cardinal Cleaners, I pointed out that the project was under parked and I believe Board Member Baltay echoed that concern about the project. You were then informed by City Staff that the project was not under parked. I filed subsequently a code enforcement action with the City and was told again that the project was not under parked. I persisted in that and brought more people involved to hear about it and the City then responded that indeed the project was under parked and that they were going to work with the owner. The City didn’t quite have the right number of parking spots but we got ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD February 1, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 that resolved and so I don’t know the final dispositions of it. The moral is that persistence is needed, that sometimes the answers you are given aren’t correct and we appreciate your perseverance in trying to get the right information and making the right things happen. Thank you very much. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you, Mr. Levinsky, and then again, this is really not for the benefit for the tape but the benefit of the transcriber who often has trouble spelling names from members of the public, Jeff spells his first name with J and its L-E-V-I-N-S-K-Y. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Alright, are there any agenda changes, additions or deletions? City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2), Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals, and 3) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City official reports, any comments from Staff? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No comments. Chair Furth: I have one, looking at our next meeting, that’s page 10, could you update us on what we’re actually likely to have on February 15th? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you. The items on the 15th, there are a few items that have dropped off and so it will just be 375 Hamilton, the downtown garage that will be heard on February 15th. Two of those – the other items there have been likely moved to March 1st and some of the March 1st items will have to drop off. Chair Furth: Did – are we expecting to hear the Verizon and AT&T applications on March 1st or not or do we not yet know? Ms. Gerhardt: We – we’re not sure at this moment. We’ll have to – we can give you an update next time on that. Chair Furth: So, we might be planning for lunch on the 1st; long meeting. Also, we – the Board had a lot of comments on 375 Hamilton, the downtown public parking garage. You might like to take a look at that and see if you think your intentions were clear because I’m sure this is going to be a high stakes hearing. That’s all I have on that, thank you for your help. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2775 Embarcadero [17PLN-00319]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program To Allow Installation of Interpretive Educational Signage at the Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center and Along the Bay Trail Connecting to the Cooley Landing Educational Center in East Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: PF (D). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: Our first public hearing item is somewhat unusual since it involves a 25 million square foot parcel which is bigger than we usually see. This is a public hearing on 2775 Embarcadero and that we make a recommendation on the City’s request for an approval of a Major Architectural Review for a City of Palo Alto Page 3 Master Sign Program for interpretive, educational signage at the Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center and along the Bay Trail connecting to the Cooley Landing Educational Center in East Palo Alto. This is – there’s also a request for a Sign Exception, this is exempted from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and may we have the Staff report please unless anybody has a conflict to declare. Ms. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Hearing no conflicts. Good morning Board Members, Claire Hodgkins, project planner, the proposed project before you today, as you noted, is a request for a Master Sign Program to allow the installation of signage at the Baylands Nature Preserve. The sign programs allow for installation of interpretive educational signage at the Lucy Evans Nature Interpretive Center; as well as the adjacent boardwalk; as well as the trail connecting the educational center to the Cooley Landing Educational Center in East Palo Alto. This sign program comes with a request for more free- standing signs on a single site than is typically allowed. This table gives a really quick summary of kind of the general locations of signs and types of signage and a number of different types of those signs that are proposed. One thing that I will note is that the Staff report was very specific on the exact number of signs that might be proposed. If the Board is open to it, Staff would prefer to kind of round up with respect to the proposed number of signs to create a more general number instead of such a specific number. This slide just kind of shows the project site, in yellow you can see the trail along which the signs would be located and the Baylands Boardwalk along which they would be located. In red, you can see the outline of the parcel and this slide is just to show you how the signage plan would continue into East Palo Alto as it passes over San Francisquito Creek. Key considerations for the Board today include any comments you may have on the number of signs, the sign height or size and the materials and color of the different signs proposed. Staff would recommend that you approve the proposed – recommend approval of the proposed project, including the Sign Exception to the Director of Planning and Community Environment subject to findings or based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. That’s all for me, thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions from the Board of Staff before we hear from the public though I have no cards? Ms. Hodgkins: I just want to note that the applicant also has a very short presentation if you’d like to hear from them. Chair Furth: That aspect of the City? Great, you have 10-minutes. Mr. John Aikin: There we go, good morning Board Members, it’s John Aikin from the Community Services Department for the City of Palo Alto. This project came up because – let me click my right things – because we teach at the Baylands Nature Center. Kids that come out for -- K-5th grade – classes out there and they are mostly 3rd and 4th-grade classes. Last year we had a renovation of the late Lucy Evans Nature Center and it caused us to look for another location to teach and so we approached East Palo Alto and ended up utilizing the Cooley Landing Education Center. It sorts of opened our eyes to both the community there, the needs for education, the needs for signage and engagement of the public but also the proximately between the Cooley Landing Education Center and the Lucy Evans Nature Center. There are also a couple of other influences, one is that we had funding for signage on the Lucy Evans Nature Center deck. The Baylands is being rebuilt but there is no funding for the interpretive – interpretation on the boardwalk and so we thought we would seek funding by combining all of these things together. Uniting the two communities and fund a program that links Cooley Landing Nature Center to the Lucy Evans Nature Center and funds the signage on the boardwalk. We’ve come up with a lot of conceptual messages along that trail. As Claire said, we’re really going to choose about fifteen locations along this trail, working with the open space personal, other public meetings as we go through design. This is really conceptual in design at this point, we’re not finished designing it. It’s really important to the rangers that we stay out of their mowing range and that it’s within an area that they maintain the levees and things like that so there are a lot of restrictions. We’re aware of that and we’re aware of the stakeholders that we need to work with to choose those locations carefully. We’ve come up with concepts for two types of trail signage design and one is there’s a wood standard that used out there now. They are painted Sandy City of Palo Alto Page 4 Hook Grey but we’ve also come up with a steel sign that is a little bit more cleaner and elegant and that is used in other parts of the Bay Trail. So, we looked at Bay Trail Design Standards, we looked at design standards for the Baylands Nature Preserve and these fit within the guidelines for both of those. We also designed railings for the boardwalk as its being rebuilt so that the railings will take these standard signs and these railings are already installed at Lucy Evans Nature Center. So, this is the funded piece, these signs that you’re going to actually – the examples that you’re going to see today really came out of the design process for these signs on the Lucy Evans Nature Center. These are the locations on the boardwalks for groupings of signs that talk about the various phenomenon that we pointed out on these locations that we’ve gone out and mapped. The idea is that we’re trying to put in front of people a sign that answers their questions about what they're looking at right in front of them and so they are very short – they are meant to be short simple signs. We’ve also done them in two languages because we’re linking East Palo Alto and Palo Alto and it’s important to have —there are a lot of English language learners in East Palo Alto and so we’re doing it in Spanish and English. It’s a standard that we have with the Lucy Evans Nature Center now. This is an example of the signage with an illustration and we’re trying to involve a number of different media to engage people in different ways because there are all kinds – people learn in all kinds of different styles and different ways. Here’s an example of a sign that uses photographs, an example of signs that uses tactile – this one a bronze impression of the leaf patterns of the salt marsh plants that are out there. We’re also trying to find other ways of engaging people, glass viewing panels that were designed for the boardwalk and they are already installed at the Nature Center. This allows us to focus special views and call out things that you can see through them. We’re looking at designing interactive elements for the boardwalk in particular such as sediment wheels. The whole reason the marsh is there and it changes over time, including with global climate change and the rising of the sea level, sediments resettle and the marsh will adjust to that. We can talk about that by having people engage with the sediments. Interactive elements such as sliders to show the types of organisms that live at high tide and low tide. Then touchable examples for kids to be able to see models really of what lives in the mud underneath them and so with that, I open it up for questions. Chair Furth: Are there questions? Yes, Osma. Board Member Thompson: By how many signs does the proposal surpass the allowed? Mr. Aikin: There’s a range in there, do you want to give the range? Ms. Hodgkins: Typically, the sign code allows for one signs per frontage so it’s a little bit unclear. Typically, there are four frontages so generally around four signs so we’ve made an interpretation to do a Sign Exception because we weren’t totally clear in our code what would be allowed but typically on a site it would be four. This is a bit atypical of a site because one, it’s a very irregular frontage and two, as Board Member Furth mentioned this is a 25 million square foot site which is extremely rare. So, in that case, and as outlined in the findings, we feel it’s appropriate to allow for more as designed. Chair Furth: I have a speaker card on this item from Martin Bernstein, B-E-R-N-S-T-E-I-N. Welcome, you have 3-minutes. Mr. Martin Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Wynne and Wynne – Chair Furth and other Board Members and Staff. Martin Bernstein, I totally support the idea of some kind of connections through signage with the Cooley Landing site. I’ve been out to that site and I was there when it actually still had the original boat mechanisms as when it was used as a true landing. That was part of the route to get over to Dickson Landing before the Dumbarton Bridge. Anyway, the – I’ve been out there and I’ve been out on some of the jogging trails out there and it really feels right now like oh, what’s this bridge? Oh, what’s this trail over here and it really feels like a little disconnect between Palo Alto Baylands area and the East Palo Alto Bayland area. To get those connected, I think is a great community outreach thing to do and it would – I know when I was out there it felt like oh, am I trespassing? I wasn’t clear if I should be out there or not but having the trails there makes it a lot more friendlier thing to do and a great community thing to do and a great way communicate – connect the two communities even more than they are right now. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Furth: Thank you for coming to speak to us. Is there’s anybody else who’d like to speak to this item? Seeing nobody, I’ll close the hearing. Any other – so, no more questions so comments? Want to start at the left? Board Member Lew: I have one quick question. Chair Furth: Oh, you have a question. Board Member Lew: I was just curious about the number of signs and so do you have something timed out like it’s a 2-minute walk between signs with kids or something? Is there – what was the logic of the number of signs? Mr. Aikin: First of all, we looked at (inaudible), we mapped out what questions people had in their minds about what’s happening here and then we figured we really didn’t want signs any closer than say a football field length apart. So, that’s where we set some parameters but as I say, we haven’t actually really designed these locations in the final signage. We would go through that process but the idea is to have them sparse enough to – that the place doesn’t feel cluttered with signs but to also engage people along the pass so that they recognize that there is a habit here, there’s a pattern. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions? How long is the trail between the two centers? Between Cooley and… Mr. Aikin: Approximately 2 ½-miles – 2.1-miles. Chair Furth: 2.1-miles, thank you and so, we’re ready to deliberate. Board Member Gooyer: Do you want me… Chair Furth: Yes, Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Well basically, I mean I like the way it is. It – usually we get here to worrying about signage where you’re trying to sell something or advertise something. This is basically an educational experience so I can approve it the way it is. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Yes, I am also recommended approval of this project. I’ve been out there many times by bicycle and I would say I think my take on it is there are more people from East Palo Alto using the trail than there are from Palo Alto. That’s my unscientific sense and then I think I agree with Mr. Bernstein is that when I’ve gone – the part that goes around the airport, feels kind of isolated because the – just because of the airport. It seems like that’s the perfect place for signage. I have some concerns with that there are too many signs but when I looked at the dimensions of what you’re proposing, they are so small that’s I’m not – that I think that takes care of it. I think having more educational opportunities there makes sense. I did those tours when I was in 3rd grade in Palo Alto so I remember going out to the – on the boardwalks and stuff and it was great. Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I can echo my fellow Board Members that sentiments that seems like a nice project. I also initially had some concerns that it might be too many but it seems that given the size it’s appropriate for the area. Chair Furth: Peter. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Vice Chair Baltay: I can support the project as it’s presented, I can make the findings presented in the Staff report and I can particularly also be making the findings for the Sign Exception. I think it’s a great project, you’re doing a good job, thank you. Chair Furth: This is one of the easiest exceptions you’ve ever given us. So, is there a number – I mean I think that it looks to me like a well-designed plan, the description of it seems to give – you needed flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and science. What number do you think is appropriate? Are you happy with what you have or do you want something more, within limits? Board Member Gooyer: What do you want to do like a not to exceed number or something? Chair Furth: You have up to 57… Board Member Lew: I think the other thing… Ms. Claire: I think we – oh sorry, go ahead if you were going to say something. I was just going to note, I think in the Staff report we noted 97 total signs but just to accommodate for – I believe there are a handful of signs out there. Just to accommodate for flexibility in the future, if you guys would be open to it, I would recommend maybe saying up to 125 or so signs might be appropriate just to kind to cover the program overall. Chair Furth: Alex, did you have a comment? Board Member Lew: A question for Staff, in the – in our conditions of approval, are we – is there any limit on a geographic boundary within the site or I understand that the scope is between the two-educational center. If we approve it are we saying that you could do them all over the Baylands? Ms. Hodgkins: I think we would – it’s not really specified but I think we would interpret it to mean along existing trails in general on the parcel. Board Member Lew: Is there anything – so do we – so Wynne did you want to add a condition of approval? Chair Furth: I just wanted to be clear what we’re approving. We have the Staff report’s general description, we have the plans and we have the Baylands interpretive project description so where is the specificity here? This says along 2 ½-miles of multi-use trails in the Bayland and existing boardwalk. If you want it for more than that part of the – does that cover all the trails, that 2 ½-miles? I don’t think so. Mr. Aikin: It covers the scope of what we’ve outlined as the connection between the interpretive centers. There are other interpretive signs out at – in the Baylands and the rangers generally take on the task of designing those. This one is a little bit different because of the nature centers and the fact that the education Staff that manages (inaudible) got involved in designing them. I worked at the Junior Museum, we do a lot of signage and so we applied our expertise to this as well and this is really a test case that if this goes well, the rangers – the (inaudible) district may say gosh, this is a success. Let’s do more of it but for the purpose of this project, I think this 97-125 signs on these trails is sufficient. Chair Furth: Fine and that’s what we described in the public notice so that’s probably a good idea so would somebody like to make a motion to approve this with the raising the number of permitted signs in this are to 125 or as it was originally presented? MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 7 I move that we approve this project as presented with the additional raising of the maximum number of signs to 125. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. Chair Furth: All those in favor? Any opposed? It passes unanimously, thank you. Never let it be said that we don’t quickly and speedily and happily approve a City project. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH A 5-0 VOTE 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 620 Emerson Street (17PLN-00331): Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing Single Story Building and Construct a New Two Story 4,256 Square Foot Commercial Building for the Expansion of Nobu Restaurant. The Project Includes Replacement of Three On-Site Parking Spaces with Five In-Lieu Spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303. Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Our next item is a public hearing concerning the property at 620 Emerson. It allows demolition of an existing single-story building and construction of a brand new two-story, 4,256-square foot commercial building for the expansion of Nobu restaurant. Nobu restaurant is located in the adjacent hotel which is on a separate parcel. The project also includes removal of three on-site parking spaces to be compensated for with the payment of in-lieu – five in-lieu spaces, is that what it says? Five in-lieu spaces in the downtown parking assessment district. Staff? Oh… Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you, just one moment. Chair Furth: Sorry, just a minute, does anybody have any outside conversations or inspections to disclose? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I’d like to disclose that I spoke by telephone with Elizabeth Wong regarding this project. She informed me essentially the information that’s in the letter we all received and she also informed me that she’s involved in a civil lawsuit with the owners of the property. Chair Furth: Anybody else? I think we’ve all inspected the site. Mr. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning to the Board, my name is Samuel Gutierrez, I am a project planner for this project here at 620 Emerson and we can start the presentation. Here you can see a rendering of the proposed building. This is the existing building that’s on site, it’s the former home the Palo Alto or excuse me, the Stanford Florist Flower Shop so again, that’s the proposed building that’s going to replace it. So, going into the project overview, the demolition of the existing building. which is approximately 4,000-square feet, with the construction of a new building which is submitted to be 4,240. The purpose of that is to expand the existing Nobu restaurant which is located at 180 Hamilton, the adjacent building, the ground floor of the hotel there. It would include a new trash room; the current building does not have a trash room that would be remotely sufficient for a restaurant use so this would house the additional waster receptacles that a restaurant would require. Also, it would have a green roof on the front portion of the building and it provides a cleverly hidden panel that would obscure the view of these back-flow preventers that would be needed as the new building would require prevention – sprinkler, excuse me, sprinkler backflow prevents and a kitchen backflow preventer. The proposal also includes two trees that would be within planter boxes in the public right of way made of teak. However, as submitted, the project is over its FAR for the site and I’ll get into that in the next slide. The parking City of Palo Alto Page 8 right now existing is three onsite and it’s actually accessed via the rear alley, not through the Emerson frontage, it’s accessed in the rear through a roll-up garage door. It has currently eleven in-lieu spaces once it was accessed and the proposed building has zero on-site parking and we actually require four in- lieu spaces. The Staff report does say five but again, it’s over the FAR as submitted and I’ll get into that in the next – it does require two bicycle racks to be included. So, going over the FAR, initially, it was submitted with the intent to get this 200-square foot bonus that’s allowed in the downtown area for projects that don’t qualify for seismic rehabilitation or historic. As this is a new building it doesn’t qualify so the maximum FAR for the site is the one to one ratio allowed by the zoning. They could not get that so that would result in the removal of the storage room that’s proposed on the second-floor so they don’t exceed the allowed FAR. In additionally, the staircase would count twice but again, with the removal of the storage room that would be reconfigured and they would have to comply with the maximum allowed FAR onsite. Going into the parking in-lieu, we – there’s a provision in the code under 181890D that a new building is eligible to participate in the in-lieu parking program as it meets the following criteria that is determined by the Director of Planning. The site is less than 10,000-square feet but such a usual configuration that it would not be physically feasible to provide the required parking on site. The existing parking is from when the original building was constructed so it doesn’t meet today's standards so they are legal non-conforming and the new building would have to have conforming parking to today’s standards. Just briefly touching on the rationale for the findings for these in-lieu spaces, the parking in the rear is encouraged in the City’s design criteria and the parking in the front out negatively impact pedestrians. So, if we had to do a curb cut or something in the front that doesn’t exist right now along Emerson, that would impact pedestrians for example. The rear portion of the parking has limited access because of the alley is actually undersized for a different parking configuration and would require some minimum distances. The alley is a one-way alley and it’s actually under the required amount. The requirement about is usually about 25-feet depending on the angle and the alley is just barely 20-feet wide. Also, the requirement for the trash enclosure for the new building, that door needs to be accessible at all times. It cannot be blocked by a parking space so it needs to be readily accessible by the alley and again that door needs to accommodate access for the large waste bins that would be pulled in and out as they are being picked up. The alley again is also narrow so the backup is a bit of an issue because they would be backing into other parking spaces. There are some parking spaces that are angled along the alley as you enter and get to the corner which I’ll show in the next slide. Then again, the narrowness of the lot requiring a ramp for underground parking would make it a little difficult. You have to have certain slopes and having a ramp to go in and then having circulation so underground parking would be a bit difficult. It could lead to the requirement of a curb cut again on Emerson so a down, in and then out on Emerson configuration. If the parking was accommodated on site, let’s say we could get a limited number of spaces, it’s still difficult giving the need for that trash room to be readily accessible. Again, we have a need for there to be egress exit for the size of the building and the use so they could safely exit the building in case of an emergency at the rear. These are a bit of the – an example of the parking analysis that we did so you can see here that we have angled parking, this I about 60-degree parking, and there’s on space on the bottom portion of this example that could physically fit just the space alone. However, we would be backing into the parking space on the adjacent parcel highlighted there in the yellow and that’s also angled. If you could see right there, you could also see that there is a light pole, there’s a tree and there’s a utilities box in that area as well. That area indicated in the yellow as it kind of swoops down, there’s a little appendix to it, that’s also a separate parcel. So, in this configuration we see that there’s just a lot of issues with this type of parking so we found that one couldn’t be feasible. Moving to the next one, this is a 90-degree parking, you can just drive down the alley and park. To meet the four required that I mentioned, based on the maximum FAR, we would have one driving into that light pole, the tree and the parking space on private property. Then we have another one partially driving over private property and then the furthest one down would actually need the 25-foot width of the alley and we don’t have that there to safely back out. Then the one in – right above the bottom parking stall could potentially work as well but then we have again the issue of the trash enclosure room door needing to be readily accessible and the egress exit as well. So, these are a bit of the examples of the traffic analysis and circulation that we did that we met those findings and recommended that they use in-lieu spaces rather than on-site. Moving onto the context, we can see the – on the upper picture there on the left, it’s a view down Emerson. The buildings are roughly one story, I believe a few of them have a mezzanine floor as you go into them but they are about 24-feet tall. You can see on the middle picture there, it’s the City of Palo Alto Page 9 historic building that’s directly adjacent to the site. It does have the very nice terracotta façade and then on the bottom you can see the 620 Emerson rendering and how it connects to the corner of 180 Hamilton building just so that you could get a bit of context of the neighborhood. Just circling back to the other context is the alleyway conditions and the need for this trash enclosure. You can see the light pole on the left, the tree, a bollard for that utility equipment and currently where they store their trash on site. So that would be an area that couldn’t work for parking for example and also is problematic for the trash door and then you can see the roll-up door currently how they access the parking onsite. Then further down the alley you can see all the other waste receptacles there so this would actually remove waste receptacles from the alley and put them inside an enclosure which is going to meet other City requirements such as stormwater protection as well. With everything taken into consideration and the FAR issue pointed out and that they’d have to remove it, Staff would recommend approve. Staff recommends that the Board approves the project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on the findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, any questions before we hear from the applicant? Could we hear from the applicant? Mr. Greg Stutheit: Thank you. Chair Furth: Good morning, you have 10-minutes. Mr. Stutheit: Good morning, my name is Greg Stutheit, I’m with Montalba Architects and thank you for having me here again. It’s good to see you guys to discuss the construction of our new restaurant at 620 Emerson Street. Oops -- let’s just click through here so this is the site as it exists right now, you can see it’s in the space of the building currently locally known as the Stanford Florist building. It’s roughly, as Samuel said, 24-feet in height and aligns pretty much with the building to the southeast here and then on the other side, it abuts the hotel building which is quite a bit taller with the exception of this little slot in between of balconies on the second floor. It’s – the proposal that we have is to basically create the same massing so low-scale pretty much aligning with the buildings that are there to the southeast. Our proposed façade maintains the massing and pedestrian scale of the street. The materials that we’re using are intended to render the façade in a way that complements the façade of the hotel next door but also provides a little bit of a difference between the two. We’re incorporating this canopy element that continues from the building next door across the front of the façade. The entry is recessed here in the middle and then along the street, we have two large windows which link the interior activity of the dining room with the street. Here you can see the building floor plan, it’s oriented similar to what you might expect. There’s the public dining room in the front with that link to the street façade, kitchen a little further back with this kind of sushi bar in-between and then services are in the rear accessed off the public alley in the rear. So, zoning in on the façade here a little bit, we’re trying to keep the façade very clean. We’re using stone materials that are similar to the new building materials which we’ve spoken of before on the hotel only maybe a little more subdued. We have this soft light across the top and then the entryway is back with this textured accent stone that draws your attention into that entry. It’s all set off with this bronze canopy and then these kinds of warm touches of wood finish and bronze accents. If I flip to the next slide, here’s some just kind of quick views of looking both directions from the street of the entry and the glass windows. Again, similarly to the façade next door, the lighting concepts are intended to accentuate the materials and textures of the building. This soft light at the upper portion and then a wash of light here at the entry that accentuates the rough stone finish and it kind of pulls people into the entry. Then it redirects them to the entry door to the right, here, and then just general downlight along the underside of the canopy. Our proposal also includes upgrades to the existing sidewalk, though minor we are proposing to replace the sidewalk in front of the building. We are leaving the two street trees in place, there’s on here and then there’s one slightly offset from our property. Those will be protected in place and then we’re suggesting these two little planter boxes with some ornamental planting in them just to kind of liven things up and draw in a little bit of excitement and attention to the façade. You can see in this slide just kind of a summary of the materials that we’re proposing to use. There’s the rich kind of oil rubbed bronze material along the top here, a smooth stone finishes that kind of goes around the sides and up and over the top, this textured stone at the entryway and then these kinds of accents of City of Palo Alto Page 10 wood finish. The next slide is a little bit of a preview of the interior of the building so this is the main dining room. We have these kinds of central planters that are a focal point to the room and this skylight that runs along the center of the room that draws light into the space and also gives – suggests a little hint of the connection to the rooftop. If I go to the next slide here, we’re suggesting that this half of the roof is this sort of – we call it a rooftop garden. It’s mainly – you experience it actually from the building next door looking down on it. As well as the second floor opens up this balcony area that provides views of the Japanese inspired landscaping in that area. This is just a rendering of – conceptual rendering of that experience and you can see here stone finishing which kind of draws back memories of the stone façade in the ground floor and then accents of rich stone or wood materials and bronze. Except for the pursuing the menu, I think that’s kind of the experience of our project. Thank you very much for having me. Chair Furth: Thank you. We have some comment cards from the public. The first speaker will be Jeff Levinsky to be followed by Daniel Myers to be followed by Elizabeth Wong. Mr. Levinsky: Good morning again Board and – whoops. Chair Furth: Of course, you have 3-minutes. Mr. Levinsky: Ok, thank you. Good morning again, I’d like to first point out that in the past plans for the project have been available for the public to view during the meeting. I didn’t see any at the table or any posted on the bulletin board and I don’t know if that’s part of state law for open meetings as a requirement but I’d like it noted. The second is that in the plans as far as I’ve examined them, the – we still don’t get good square footage numbers. In the past, there’s been tables that show how many square feet on each floor and so forth so I'm guessing that maybe this will come back and you’ll be able to ask that be included in the plans. As to the issue about the in-lieu parking, it is quite a serious issue. The language of the Municipal Code requires that the exemption be given if the – if it is not physically feasible to provide the required on-site parking. It doesn’t say it it’s convenient, it doesn’t say that it has to be easy for the cars to get in and out necessarily or it save as much square footage of the site for other uses. It says physically feasible so – and I didn’t see in any of the layouts presented the possibility of a garage opening and then there would be further parking on the inside. I realize that would compromise the square footage of the restaurant area but that’s not what the code is saying you should be considering. It says is it feasible physically for the site to accommodate the parking. Ditto for the garage – for the trash area such that there could be an arrangement by which the trash and the garage entrance are there in the alley and I think that would work from the slides that you were shown. There’s another concern about in-lieu which I think has been overlooked and this was confirmed by a City Council whom I spoke with about this at some point. What it says in the code is in connection with any expansion of the supply of public parking spaces within the commercial downtown district, the City shall allocate a number of spaces for use as in-lieu parking spaces. That’s different than the Downtown Assessment District, there’s was a little confusion I think in Staff’s comments a moment ago about that. The question is where are this inventory of in-lieu spaces that this project wants to buy a share of? Where is that inventory (inaudible) managed? The concern that there is no inventory, that there are no in-lieu parking spaces and that a check is written but no parking ever materializes. So, I think that should be addressed legally as to whether or not the whole way the in-lieu project – in-lieu program is being used in this case actually conforms with the Municipal Code. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Daniel Myers, that’s -- for the transcriber that’s M-Y-E-R-S. Mr. Daniel Myers: That is correct. Good morning and I’m totally unprepared for this. I’m representing Adolf Konigsreiter who is married to Ruth Krucker-Konigsreiter who ran the flower shop at Stanford Florist for 50-years total. They acquired the building in 1978 and ran the flower shop business there from that time. I had difficulty finding information about this item, both from the Planning Department and from Mr. what’s his face here (gesturing towards Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez). I sent you two emails, rather extensive with some objections and I don’t want to really repeat too much of that. The matters in litigation -- I want to limit my comments because the matter is in litigation and I don’t know City of Palo Alto Page 11 want to say anything that might reflect on the litigation that hasn’t been said in the litigation. As Ms. Wong here is about to say that there is a litigation involving her, involving the people who are claiming ownership right now who possess the building who instituted this planning proposal. Then there are us, Mr. Konigsreiter and myself, and I’m one of the trustees of the Konigsreiter estate. There’s a lis pendens on the property and that’s a notice to everybody that anybody that has to deal with the property is notified that there is litigation. This should be reason enough to postpone any decision on this architectural proposal. I realize that I’m dealing with one, two, three, four architects, one lawyer (pointing to each member of the ARB panel) is that correct? Your bias might be in favor of the architects getting their fees and stuff but no, don’t buy it. I doubt Mr. Ellison is personally involved in this, it’s more likely his right-hand investment person his name is Paul Marinelli. He’s the guy that doles out $20,000 bucks at a time and I think that’s what driving this proposal here. You know just flashing money, flashing $9,000 in City fees for the application and I don’t know how much these guys got (gesturing towards the Montalba architects) or whether it’s on contingency or whatever but I presume it’s not. Watch your butts because… Chair Furth: Finish your thought. Mr. Myers: Oh, because you can be in hot water too. If there is some sort of investigation about the money trails in this, you don’t want to be involved. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Elizabeth Wong. Ms. Elizabeth Wong: I have a hand out to give out. Chair Furth: They’ll bring it up and Samuel, is it possible to get the plans up on the wall? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, I have copies of that. Chair Furth: Could you get it up so people can see it or put it on the table? One or the other. This is from you Elizabeth dated February 1st? Ms. Wong: Yes, it is. Chair Furth: Thank you. I think we all have copies. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, Staff did put that on the dais earlier this morning. Ms. Wong: Good morning Members of the ARB, my name is Elizabeth Wong. I am here on behalf of Yo LLC and I am also a Palo Altan, I live here, I vote here and I care very much about Palo Alto. Since I have limited time I’m going to just bring up a few things on this. The objections of Yo LLC to the ARB approval of this application are mainly three. Yo has a contract to purchase the property which pre-dates against application ownership of this property. Approval of this application and the proposed demolition and development work proposed to follow may have to be reversed depending on the outcome of the pending litigation. Yo LLC objects to the elimination of existing parking areas on the property by construction of a building which eliminates such parking. Yo LLC objects because the proposed conditions of approval do not fully incorporate the obligations of the applicant to restore the subject building with compliant bathrooms if there is a change of ownership of the 620 Emerson property as said forth in the letter at Page 61 of the ARB packet. I want to make some comments on the reason why this letter was not given to you before is because the attachments were received by me at 5:31 p.m. yesterday and subsequently I spent all my time working on this letter so I did not have this letter before February 1st; today. Related to the alley being substandard, 20-feet alley is the standard in Palo Alto for one-way and there’s one behind one – there are two behind two of my buildings. So, if we were to give the same reasoning for allowing the elimination of on-site parking, we would be eliminating thousands of parking spaces from the City’s inventory of parking. The law – I feel betrayed by the fact that they had this study done on the parking and not given it to me until 5:31 last night. Apparently, the law stipulates that’s you City of Palo Alto Page 12 need to have a little bit more than 20-feet in order to make a 20-degree turn. Well, I think it’s about 23- feet so for the applicant to only lose 3-feet in order to accommodate the parking, to me it’s a non-issue. Chair Furth: Finish your thought. Ms. Wong: Another big, big deal is the loading zones. This building has three parking spaces that have been used for the last – at least three or four decades as a loading zones for that building. A restaurant requires a tremendous amount of loading space and there’s no loading zone at all. There’s only a loading zone on Hamilton for the – to load the passengers. Chair Furth: Think we’ve all inspected the site and the vicinity. Thank you for your comments. Ms. Wong: Ok, thank you. Chair Furth: Is there anybody else who would like to speak to this? Commission – I always forget whether it’s Commissioner or Board Member, Martin Bernstein. Ms. Bernstein: Thank you Chair Furth and Board and Staff. Martin Bernstein and I live in the Zschokke Residence in the alley directly behind Nobu Restaurant. I’ve spoken with Nobu Staff and some of their design team and I find them to be very professional and courteous. I’d like to speak just briefly about the proposed design of the project. I support the project the way it looks. I see that they are very sensitive to the residences in the alley such as the roof garden is protected by a wall and mechanical equipment between that roof garden and then my residence. My bedroom is up on the second floor so I have a direct view of that so I appreciate the fact that the roof garden is protected in that sense from noise and vision. One of the Conditions of Approval I would like to suggest that you include is for the trash bins on the enclosures on the ground floor, to have that be a locked door. I’ve been in this neighborhood for about 30-years now and when the Cadillacs come along – a Cadillac is a shopping cart. I speak often with the people who come around about 2:30-3 in the morning to pick up recycling materials for resale. They are fine people, they are – actually, I like them but at 2:30-3 in the morning when the shopping carts or the Cadillacs come through the bumping of the alley with the cans and bottles, it disturbs sleep. So, what I find is that if that trash area can be locked, then that would just curtail a lease on that property. I know the other properties in there – next to the alley but we’re talking about 620 Emerson so if that could be a condition that would be great. Then also just the standard conditions of any lighting in the back that the lights stay on the – don’t intrude onto my property or the windows at least, my bedroom windows. That would be my request but I’m in support of the design. I think they are wonderful designers and I think it would be a really great attraction in the neighborhood to have the street façade and the alley façade cleaned up the way they are proposing. Thank you so much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? Would the applicant like to speak? You have another 10-minutes. Ok, the applicant declined. Anything from Staff? Mr. Gutierrez: No, not at this moment. Chair Furth: Any questions from the Board? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I’ve got a couple. Seeing as those this is an addition to the existing restaurant that’s already there, I guess this is a stupid question but is this going to be the main front entrance to the restaurant when it’s done? I don’t care who answers it but… Mr. Stutheit: Actually, the restaurant is sort of an extension to the restaurant next door but it’s also sort of a complementary extension to the restaurant next door. So, it’s maybe not – maybe don’t think of it as the same restaurant but perhaps a sister location if you will. Yes, for this location, this would be the main entrance into the restaurant. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Gooyer: Then also seeing as though you’ve got what eight or nine floors of balconies going right up the side of that. You have a – is that the – going to be the location for the exhaust fan for the kitchen? So, some poor guy rents a room on the third-floor or something is going to listening to that or looking at that the whole time? Mr. Stutheit: Yes, I mean we will be working to… Board Member Gooyer: There hasn’t been some consideration, seeing as though if they are going to be owned by the same person, to run it through the hotel and up? Mr. Stutheit: Through the hotel? Technically, I think that’s probably not possible just because of the – some of the conditions on the site. Board Member Gooyer: Let’s see… Ms. Gerhardt: If I may? I do want to be clear that we’re dealing with two different properties here. The hotel is on one property and this restaurant annex is on a second property so we are looking at this – there are some interconnections – some internal connections. Board Member Gooyer: No, I understand that, I understand that. Ms. Gerhardt: However, we need to plan that if they were to be separated at a later date, we need to anticipate that. Board Member Gooyer: Right, ok, that’s all I have for questions. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: I have a couple questions for you. I guess one for Staff maybe is the trees that are proposed on the sidewalk in the front, do you guys – did the City look at the clearance between the street tree and the proposed planters? Sometimes I’ve heard a number called out by I think Staff on other projects they said they want 8-feet of walking space. I was looking at this one and I was thinking maybe down to like 5-feet between the street tree and then this proposed planter. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, that was reviewed by Public Works Engineering and they didn’t see any issues with this because those planters would be staggered from the next, I guess you could say, obstruction to the sidewalk which would be the existing planted street trees. Those planters aren’t fixed, I mean they are moveable so they could be placed closer to the entry where they would be less likely to be an obstacle for pedestrians. Board Member Lew: Great and then on the roof garden design, I was wondering if you could – if you had any insights on the landscape design just like on the plant selection? There’s a lot – I mean it’s a sod – yeah, it’s pretty electric. You had mentioned like a Japanese garden but I see like bougainvillea and sod lawn and philodendrons, it’s like – yeah, it’s very unusual. Mr. Stutheit: No, the intent is that it would be more along the lines of a Japanese garden with perhaps some rock features and gravel. As well as – off the top of my head Japanese Elm or sorry, not Elm, palm tree… Board Member Lew: Japanese Maples. Mr. Stutheit: … or whatever, yeah. Board Member Lew: If water – stormwater treatment part of the landscape design? Is that a critical component of it? City of Palo Alto Page 14 Mr. Stutheit: Our understanding is that we can’t solely use the garden for – to treat the landscape or excuse me, the runoff water so we do have a separate treatment facility on site. Yes, we are – the water that lands on the garden is running through the garden and then into that filtration system. Board Member Lew: Then is – I was looking at the lighting plans and I didn’t see any light fixtures in the alley. What are your thoughts about that area? Mr. Stutheit: We’re not planning on having a lot of lighting in the alley, just what’s necessary for the trash room and the trash. Board Member Lew: So, there’s an existing pole light that I think was mentioned… Mr. Stutheit: There is… Board Member Lew: …and so that is adequate. Mr. Stutheit: No, actually that existing light fixture would remain. It’s not on our property, it’s on the neighbor’s property. Board Member Lew: It’s on the site, it’s on the site plan. I’m not sure which neighbor it is. Mr. Gutierrez: If I may, it’s on – I believe the property address is 164 Hamilton. That’s where the street light pole is. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: I have no other questions. Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: You said there would be stormwater treatment on site, is that – where is that in the plans? Mr. Stutheit: It’s like an in-ground filtration box so it’s located more towards the back of the site but it’s underground essentially so what you see is a manhole cover from above. Board Member Thompson: Ok and then will there be signage on the front? Mr. Stutheit: Yes, we haven’t submitted for the signage. We’re not – as I said before, it’s not necessarily going to be called “Nobu” so without being sure exactly what it is, we haven’t submitted that yet. Board Member Thompson: That’s all my questions. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m afraid if the Chair will indulge me, I have quite a few questions. I frankly find the application just really lacking in giving us enough information. So, simple ones to the architect, the front canopy you’re proposing over the front of the restaurant. I can’t tell or I don’t remember, is it the same material and the same configuration as the canopy coming across the Epiphany Hotel? Mr. Stutheit: It is – well, I guess it is the same material but again in that it’s a metallic material but it is intended to be rendered in a different way. So, that there is some separation between the two buildings so they are kind of the same but different if you will. Vice Chair Baltay: To be more clear because I thought the hotel had a wooden finish. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Stutheit: Yes, it’s got a faux wood finish on it. Vice Chair Baltay: So, wood and bronze are the same material, rendering or not, to be clear. Mr. Stutheit: Correct, except what is in the existing hotel is a faux wood, it’s actually metal but… Vice Chair Baltay: But the proposal for the hotel is wood and the proposal for this restaurant is metal. Are they the same geometry? The same – are they flush with each other and are they the same vertical height? Mr. Stutheit: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Ok so the only difference is the material really from a visual point of view. Mr. Stutheit: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Second question for you please is regarding the purpose of the garden roof hotel and its relation to the existing hotel. Are they at the same level and is there any attention to build – physically go between the spaces? Mr. Stutheit: The intent is not to physically go between the spaces, no. There is a little bit of an elevation change between… Vice Chair Baltay: Do you know how… Mr. Stutheit: … the two. Vice Chair Baltay: How much of an elevation change? Mr. Stutheit: I think its 18 to 20-inches, somewhere in that range. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. That’s all my questions for the architect. If the Chair is willing to indulge me, I wonder if it’s possible to call Martin Bernstein up and ask him to give us his opinion about the viability of parking or how parking works in that building right now. My understanding is that there’s parking in that building that’s functioning at the moment. If Martin Bernstein is a respected member of the community who lives very nearby has (inaudible)… Chair Furth: You can ask a member of the public to answer a specific question, yes. Vice Chair Baltay: If he’s willing to help us, I’d appreciate hearing him through the Chair. Martin Bernstein is who I’d like to speak too. Chair Furth: Mr. Bernstein, you may speak in response to the question. Mr. Bernstein: Alright, thank you, Chair Furth. Mr. Baltay, go ahead. Vice Chair Baltay: Can you shed any light on how the parking in that building works right now. Is it viable parking in the back of that building and is it possible to have parking there in your opinion? Mr. Bernstein: When Stanford Florist was the occupant of the building it would be a – there would be a three-car garage door that would open up; a roll-up door. Then there was often Stanford Florist personal vehicles in there. They would drive in and then to – drive in front forward or reverse and then would come in like – the alley is one-way, it heads southeast direction. So, they would just back up and they would go like that so it’s been functional for Stanford Florist. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Great, thank you. Mr. Bernstein: Yeah. Chair Furth: Just as a courtesy, Mr. Myers, did you want to add anything specifically on the point of parking? Mr. Myers: Yes, I was working there and I know everything about it that he doesn’t. It’s actually two cars that fit in the building there. It’s a two-car kind of garage partition, there was a partition wall between the storefront and the parking garage. In the parking garage part there’s the door to the storm or door to the storeroom rather and then there’s a little ladder that goes up to an attic. Chair Furth: Thank you. I think that answers our questions, thank you. Whoops. This is – we need to stop this. You have a closing remark? Mr. Bernstein: I agree because there is a little restroom in there so actually even though it’s wide enough for three cars because there’s an existing restroom in there, there is room for – is it two vehicles, right? Mr. Myers: Yeah. Mr. Bernstein: Yeah, two… Chair Furth: I’m good, I think we’re good, two vehicles worked historically on the premises. Thank you for your help. Mr. Bernstein: Thank you, thank you. Chair Furth: You have questions of Staff? Vice Chair Baltay: The last question that I have are for the Staff directly. Essentially two things, one is the applicant is proposing to build a restaurant there without any restrooms and as I understand that, that’s because they are going to connect the building to the adjacent site. How should we interrupt that from a code from an architectural review point of view? It’s very abnormal to have a building with no restrooms. Is that something we can say as a non-functional hotel? What are we supposed to say about that? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, it is a bit of a usual situation. It’s not typical but because we have these co- functioning businesses and property owner and leasee or what have you. In the plans, you can see there’s an alternative scenario floor plan that actually includes restrooms. The project does include a coven that is being worked on right now between the City and the property owner that should the business cease to function in conjunction with the adjacent hotel for any reason then the proposed opening between the buildings would be sealed. Then the actual 620 properties would need to be a stand-alone building so those bathrooms would need to be constructed. They will need to plumb it for bathrooms, be ready for that in the likelihood of that scenario and that’s how we addressed that issue. Vice Chair Baltay: Ok and lastly there’s been a number of comments from the community regarding the ownership of the property. Is that something that you can shed any more light on or has Staff checked there’s a bona fide title to this property by the applicant? What should we do about that? How do we react to it? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, we looked into that, of course, when the application was submitted. The property owner who signed for it is the legal property owner as we understand it. We checked again when this issue was brought up just in case for some reason the records had changed. Unbeknownst to us, they had not, it is still the same property owner, the PA Hotel Holdings, LLC. Now as far as the – this City of Palo Alto Page 17 application of architectural review, it wouldn’t be an issue. We haven’t received any injunctions by a court or anything to stop any proceedings. It’s a civil matter between private parties as we understand it and should something be issued then, of course, we’d stop. Even if the Board were to approve, it wouldn’t cause any undue harm to anyone because it’s merely the design approval. There is no demolition permit being issued, there’s no building permit being issued at this time so that’s how we vetted that situation. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. This is a pedestrian overlay and how is this design addressing those requirements? Mr. Gutierrez: The design has the awning which creates a pedestrian refuge, that’s the first part. The second part is that the design does have a large storefront that you can see clearly into the building that connects the store into it. Then the recessed entry is also another feature that we’d like to have to make it more pedestrian friendly. Again, it’s that refuge, it’s drawing people into the businesses and that’s a part of the pedestrian overlay. Then, of course, the suggestion of the planter boxes in the front add some green kind of landscaping to the sidewalk apart from the street trees that exist there. Chair Furth: Now remind me, when we concluded with the review of the hotel remodel, did we except that without any seating anywhere? Mr. Gutierrez: We had options to add seating should the applicant choose to and that would be handled by Staff. So that was the Board’s decision, it was the amendment to the conditions. Chair Furth: Have we heard what they plan to do? Mr. Gutierrez: As of yet, no. Chair Furth: Thank you. Just before we start the larger discussion, I will say that my – in my experience, Samuel’s analysis is correct with regard to the civil litigation. Even the fact that there are a lis pendens and notice to the world that there is litigation concerning the title doesn’t permit the City to not review an application. We’re still subject to the laws that require us to consider an application and only if and when we get a court order – an injunction can we stop and hold it up. So, we aren’t able to not consider this because of the complicated, and obviously distressing for many people, history of the ownership of this property. Having said that, why don’t we start with you Osma. Board Member Thompson: In terms of what’s been said – well, maybe I’ll back up a little bit. The façade is quite blank right now and that’s partially why I asked about signage. Even the addition of the planters as separate entities seems potential VE items. I would almost prefer that they are more integrated into the façade of the design in some way. As they stand right now they could easily be pushed around and given that it is the green life of this façade right now and one of the few things adding life to the façade right now, it seems to me that it might be important to consider integrating those into the façade. The – I think for now those are my comments that it’s blank and it could use a little bit more. Also, the brow potentially I can see that you’ve attempted to connect to the building that’s the hotel but there is also the building adjacent to you that’s the historic buildings. While you’ve respected the height and matched that, there are very little else that connects those and so I wonder if there could be more attention paid to that. Those are my comments for now. Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, I will start with the aesthetic part of it. Contrary to my fellow Board Member, I find the façade attractive and well designed and I think it will be an elegant addition to the neighborhood. I find that just by massing the height of the building to the building to the left it does a lot to tie it in. I think having the awning relate to the building to the right helps tie it in and overall, I find the design will make an attractive presentation on the street and a benefit to the neighborhood. My issue City of Palo Alto Page 18 on the façade has to do with the awning piece itself, however. Somehow to me, if it’s the same size and shape and projection but a different material to the hotel next door, it’s really sending a mixed signal. Is it or isn’t it the same hotel, the same restaurant and I guess that’s maybe symbolic of the whole problem here. A big question for you guys is this part of Nobu or is it not? Do you need the bathrooms, or don’t you? A lot of these questions are coming out of this (inaudible) which hasn’t been answered and I think we’re going to get far until that question is answered. In my mind at least, I think the awning should match exactly the hotel if the restaurant is the same also and it just ties it all together. Certainly, if it’s different just by material, I’m not buying it; it’s to subtle a difference. On a nit-picking point, the way your detail on sheet – let’s see Detail 11 on 5.10, you’ve got the top of that awning sloped ever so slightly away from the building so water will drip off. Correct me if I’m wrong but oil rubbed bronze with water slowly rolling off of it all winter long is going to look terrible really quick and that’s not what you’re thinking about. You’ve got to handle that kind of detailing better, we’re not in Los Angeles here and it really won't work. You’ve got a little recess for the light fixture behind it which is unless you put some drain features in there, it’s going to short circuit it real quick. It’s not a though through detail yet and yet it’s critical. The only element animating that façade so again, I’m afraid it just needs a little more revision on that so I’m sure you’d catch those as you go through it. I’m concerned at a high level and I think it’s not ready for approval yet but the floor area count is not correct. It’s just hasn’t been – the math hasn’t been done period, there’s nothing in the plans showing it and when I do the math myself it doesn’t work. The floor areas don’t add up any which way but I’m also concerned about that garden roof and I’d like to see a cross-section between the garden roof and the adjacent hotel to get some understanding of if that is intended to be an outdoor patio for the hotel. Then that should be made part of the applicant and if it’s not, I’d like to see what the relationship is between the two spaces. It just seems awfully funny to me to go through that much effort to build a garden roof like that and then not have it be really beneficial to somebody like the hotel. Additionally, as Staff eluded, we can just modify the floor area a little bit but it seems to me these are big modifications; taking off that second floor or leaving it on. There are some spaces in there that don’t seem to be counted quite correctly so a lot of changes I think need to take place to get the floor area to work. I’d like to just no comment further on the parking issues now. I think the comments from the community and the Staff and other people we’ve asked have made it pretty clear that the Staff needs to very, very well document the rationale behind this exemption. I’m not going to comment beyond that. I will comment on the floor plan layout regarding the bathrooms because what’s there now, putting in restrooms in that building doesn’t work. It’s not a logical place for restrooms in a restaurant just inside the front door next to the dining room like that. What it is, is just a quick solution to try simplify it to show Staff what’s going on and it really doesn’t cut it because I think you need a really good answer. If you’re going to have to have bathrooms there, show us how it’s really going to be done. It will affect all the other stuff in the back of the building which is what we’ve been talking about. So, in a nutshell, I’m not close to being able to recommend it for approval but I think your design on the façade is good and it can be close to that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Great so thank you for the submittal and I find the renderings were very attractive. In my mind, it seems like it’s – you haven’t – there’s a missed opportunity which is (inaudible) be to have taller storefront windows that would match the neighbor in the existing building. That’s like – to me, that’s like a character – the character-defining element on Emerson and then I do – look at your – the rooftop garden and what you’re trying to do with the hotel. So, I think I understand the rationale behind it so I think I could live with that. The – I think the main issues that I have is probably the square footage diagrams that Mr. Levinsky had mentioned. I think I agree with Mr. Bernstein on adding a condition for the locked trash area. I think I would like a submittal for the glass storefront facing Emerson, I realize that sometimes comes in later after building submittals and what not. I’m having some trouble with the roof garden planting plan as shown. I don’t even really understand it in concept or detail so I think I would like to revisit – in a way, I’d like to revisit that. I’m not sure it would meet our Finding Number Five but I think I’ll give you leeway because it is a roof garden. It’s something very different and I think I understand it’s like in a hotel, you know the garden would need to look good all year around and a lot of our native plants don’t do that. So, I think some flexibility is warranted for the roof garden and then if we are getting down to – well, we’ll see where the Board is but if we are getting down to findings, City of Palo Alto Page 19 I think I have some issues with Findings Number Five and Six with regard to – well, let me back up; four --five which is the roof garden and having a lawn up on the roof. It’s going to require a huge amount of water and I don’t think those are native plants. Finding Number Six which is mostly about sustainable design, I think that it’s mentioning stone and wood as being sustainable materials and that’s not quite – that’s not necessarily true. So, shipping in marble from Italy is not considered environmentally preferable, you want to keep it within – what is the standard? It’s like 300 – for (inaudible) I think it’s – there’s a, whatever like a 200-foot radius where you try to use locally quarried stone to reduce the impact of shipping. Same with wood, we try to minimize the use of wood wherever possible. Then with regards to green roofs, I’ve been taught that a planted roof is not really the most sustainable design element for this particular climate. We get all of our rain in a very short amount of time and then we have a long drought and having a green roof, you’re actually using a lot of water and it’s not capturing enough water in our little short window of rain. So, I would think to – I think my recommendation would be to exclude that from the findings and I think it’s perfectly fine to have a garden. I think that meets our design – Downtown Design Guidelines but I would just exclude it. That’s all that I have, I can generally – I mean I’m generally in support of the project but I think there are some – there are lingering issues. Chair Furth: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I was a bit confused about this project just the way the whole things presented. I was initially under the thought that maybe the intent was to remove the property line between the two properties and have the thing become part of the hotel. Then I could understand where having the restrooms in the hotel itself would function fine and there wouldn’t be an issue. I find it very strange to design a restaurant that doesn’t have any restrooms in it, I’m sorry. Even if you’re going to plumb for the future in an area that really doesn’t work as I agree with my fellow Board Member. Then also the idea about the parking, I will address it a little bit. I’ve never been a fan of in-lieu fees, they are sort of this magical x-amount of dollars for parking spaces in this nebula of available parking in the City somewhere. If it one of these that for your money you would get six parking spaces in the third level of parking lot A or whatever, that would be one thing. So, to take three parking – three viable parking spaces out, I think is a strange approach and I’ve actually never seen a City fight that hard to get rid of three parking spaces as I heard from you today and it surprised me. So, going back to that, also the idea of, as I mentioned, with the exhaust fan that is going to be basically right under some poor guys window who spends probably a sizeable amount of money to rent a room right there. Then I’m being told that well, the area may be separated into two separate parcels and so that creates all kinds of problems. Ok, going into the design of it, I mean I like that it’s a very subtle, well-done design. The only thing is that – that’s why I asked the question of is this going to be the front door? If you look at the façade, your first question is how do I get in? I mean it is so subtle that the doors are wrapped around the side and if you happen to walk by, you’re going to assume that this is a restaurant that you have to enter through the hotel somehow to get into it. At least that’s what I would assume, you’d go through the entry door of the hotel to get to it. That’s why I asked if they were all connected or not. I agree that – I’m sorry a 3-foot canopy is not really pedestrian friendly. That’s just enough to stand there half way and get half wet and like I said, you can’t even – it’s not inviting to come in. Now maybe it’s trying to be so subtle that it’s a snob appeal aspect of the hotel or the restaurant, I don’t know. It just seems like it doesn’t work with the whole concept of downtown of a desirable entry that it’s easy to find the front door of a business establishment. I think I’m way further behind some of my fellow Members as far as finding this acceptable. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for the submittal. I went and looked at this site again, including the alley at about 6:30 this morning and as the sun is coming up and everything is bathed in a rosy glow and it all looks gorgeous. I must say there is a great green wall at the southern end of this alley, it’s just ficus growing up and maintained beautifully. So, when we get these green wall proposals, good gardeners can do it with the right exposure and enough soil. I have a number of concerns, I do think it looks quite beautiful. One is not merging the parcels and I can understand that given the state of play on these properties and the disputes about their ownership, that mergers may be impossible. That means you have to think about what is and isn’t possible. If the Building Department is willing to except a break in the firewall between these two buildings subject to recorded covenants that require that these be filled in City of Palo Alto Page 20 at some point if they don’t have joint operations, I think I can understand that. I have real problems with thinking about how you’re going to draft a document that authorizes us that lets us make the finding that this building is designed for all its uses with no bathrooms on site so I’d like to hear more about how you plan to do that. One of the problems is if you have – if the City has an affirmative covenant that requires somebody to go out and do something, those are hard to enforce. You have – I mean we’re not going to go on the property, we’re not going to build the bathrooms and so it takes a lot of – you know usually you would require somebody to post a bond so we had a cash bond for recovering the cost so they have an incentive to do it. I need – if we’re going to make that finding that this property is properly developed for its intended purpose because of its – the security of its integration with the building next door, we need a lot of assurance and I don’t find the Plan B creditable. I can’t imagine a restaurant that’s going to – you’re going to walk into the bathrooms and this is designed like City Hall. Every time you walk out of the bathrooms, you walk right into a bunch of people and we don’t like the way City Hall works. So that needs to be – if we’re going to approve it, it needs a better alternative plan; I don’t think that works. I also don’t think we have good square footage calculations and we need to see what the building would look like if it were in compliance. The parking is really troubling. If as Elizabeth Wong says, all our alleys are substandard then that’s standard downtown and we don’t want to inadvertently justify eliminating all those places for what might be phantom parking places because of that. This, if anything, would be a case for a Design Enhancement Exception and I got to admit, I’m not clear why you can’t get in a few additional feet by pulling the parking spaces further into the parcel. I’m not yet persuaded that this is the best approach. I also – I mean I’m very – of course in order to build – this is essentially an empty lot proposal we’re looking at and in order to build a restaurant there, you have to have an enclosed, secured space for trash removal. So, that is going to be part of the design no matter what and I may be perused that you can’t get as many spaces as we would like on site but I’m not perused that you can’t get one or two or maybe even three. I also would like some understanding of how loading would work because we know how it works at the hotel. That seems to be fine but certainly loading on Emerson is already a problem and it would be nice to know how this would approach to do it if it’s possible to load from the rear as the florist use did. I don’t think this is pedestrian friendly, I think these projects can’t be, one when it comes to bathrooms and two when it comes to pedestrian amenities. So, I think we need better pedestrian amenities on this portion of that integrated façade and I think it needs to include seating somewhere. Robert’s comments brought up something interesting which is that it’s designed, it’s beautiful and it looks like a private club and this is not. This is a pedestrian-oriented commercial district, it's supposed to be inviting. Secondly, when I first saw this elevation which is beautiful, I was very concerned about how it would work with [Mr. Keenen’s] restored historical building next door. Then this morning I was looking at the light washing over -- which I realized was quite pink washing over Stanford Florist façade and thought this really does work. The buildings are the same height, you have this rather richly decorated building and then you have this very plane building and then you have this interesting hotel. I agree – I think that something very pale can work but I’m not sure whether this is the right color. I think that some kind of creaminess – there is a color that is going to work very well on both directions. I don’t know what it is, I don’t know that we’ve seen it and I share Alex’s view that one of the characteristics – important characteristics of the block is that it’s kind of exhilarating high windows. They really, literally – I mean they give you a lift as you go by and that it would be important I think to try to integrate that into this façade. So, yes, Alex? Board Member Lew: Could Staff clarify for me what the purview of the Board with regard to parking and the bathrooms? To me, the bathrooms are an internal issue and that’s not in any of our ARB findings except in the most general sense that the design is functional. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I think you characterized that appropriately. That the building needs to function in general but it’s not necessarily the ARB’s purview to be designing the interior space. In regarding the parking, that is a Director’s decision as noted in the code. Just for – related to some of the questions that other Members have had, the spaces that are currently there are legal non-conforming. So, if this was – if they were keeping the existing building and just doing a minor renovation, that would be one thing but they’re tearing the building down and so, therefore, any new parking needs to meet current standards. That’s what we’re having trouble finding is the appropriate dimensions for all of that and the alley space, we can certainly look into all of this more but the alley in this particular situation we would be backing City of Palo Alto Page 21 into this one-way alley. Were as in other parts of downtown we have larger parcels that are able to circulate on site and then come out of the property forward facing so those are some other restrictions that we’re having here. Board Member Lew: I think it’s also – to me its undesirable to have cars exiting on that one-way alley towards – farther down on the block. To me, that’s a really nice pedestrian connection there on Bryant and I don’t – it seems to me preferable to remove parking in this particular situation. Chair Furth: Well, you heard a variety of comments and I would agree that the relevant finding is the one about the functional use of the building. Anybody want to make a motion or does Staff have any recommendations on this topic? I’ve heard comments on needing good square footage calculations. I’ve heard comments on the landscaping and I would agree that a Japanese garden with bougainvillea is an interesting concept. I’m also concerned about – I mean I presume the landscape architect is determined that they are going to grow in that setting but its interesting given how shaded it’s going to be. I am also concerned about, I didn’t mention this, is how – I guess somebody mentioned this earlier, how the two – how the roof garden and the hotel relate and whether if this is assessable directly from the hotel. Does this have any – does this additional outdoor social space have any impact on the approvals of the hotel and if it doesn’t, which is of course also a former PC, is it Alex… Board Member Lew: (inaudible) Chair Furth: …or it’s just a non-conforming use from long ago, I can’t remember. Anyway, whether it would affect that and if this needs to not be accessible from the hotel, how the design makes sure that it doesn’t happen. I’m not clear how the gardeners get there at the moment. So, square footage calculations, we’ve had some comments on the frontage, we’ve had some comments on how its – we’d like some reassurance on how the City would secure the – just tell us that it’s secure with respect to the bathrooms. You’ve heard comments about trying harder to accommodate parking and particularly we were concerned about the presidential nature of this. It may well be unique and different, in which case that needs to be well articulated. What am I forgetting folks? Board Member Lew: The locked trash door. Chair Furth: I’m always puzzled by continuing operating conditions under design review but if we do that, certainly there’s a good case that’s been made that should be secured in the evenings or at least when it’s not at such times that it doesn’t need to be open for collection. Two of us have said we want better pedestrian accommodation. Anything else? Board Member Lew: We haven’t – also we have not talked about the – I think don’t think people have commented on the loading… Chair Furth: Oh, right, we’ve expressed… Board Member Lew: …the loading zone. Chair Furth: … concerns. What’s the answer? Ms. Gerhardt: Also, too if there is any more definition about façade comments. I think we’re hearing about the higher windows which I agree is somewhat a pattern along this stretch of street but was there anything beyond that? Chair Furth: You heard conflicting comments. Well, you heard two of us concerned about the opacity of the entrance. Board Member Gooyer: I think the larger windows can actually work both ways. If you use it as this building becomes the transition between a ten-story building and a two-story building, then it can be City of Palo Alto Page 22 different. Otherwise, it just has the whole continuation bumping right into the high rise so that can be done either way successfully so I’m not really too worried about that aspect of it. I just don’t think its friendly enough as what it’s – like I said, I agree with your concept. It looks like a private club, that you’re allowed to look in the window but not come in. Board Member Lew: Maybe there’s consensus that it’s unwelcoming. Chair Furth: That it’s unwelcoming, yes. Board Member Lew: I think the Staff report also had – was asking if the upper part of the façade was to blank. I think I would agree if it were stucco but they are proposing stone for the whole – two different kinds of stone for the whole thing and they are illuminating it so I think that’s enough in my mind. Board Member Gooyer: Part of it is also is you’ve got a very busy building on each side so a little bit of tone down area in the middle is probably not a bad thing. Chair Furth: I think I would tend to agree. What really struck me looking at it this morning was that you have this rather ornate building and then you have some – you catch your breath. In fact, the Stanford Florist building has a much bigger, wider façade going way up from very low and I think that works. I think there is some material and some balanced of proportions that doesn’t need to be decorated. It can be quite plane and beautiful that would give you that pause before you hit the hotel. Vice Chair Baltay: Let me bring up that what I saw in this and I think it’s different than what my colleagues are saying is that this façade was an extension of the hotel. It was trying to really pick up the same materials and the same canopy and feel integrated with the façade of the hotel. I don’t think they quite succeeded at that by my interpretation is that that’s what they were trying to do. Maybe it’s worth other Board Members addressing if they were to do that, would that be acceptable because what I’ve heard everybody says would preclude that. Board Member Gooyer: I thought about that when I first saw it but the problem is that quite often if you design a hotel and you have a lower portion, usually the scale here is just so small I don’t think it works. It ones of these – this to me is more of a wart on a larger building rather than a connection. It literally is like oh we ran out of space so we’re bumping out a little bit. It's just because of the sizes involved, I don’t think it works. Board Member Thompson: I also think that despite that it might be connected to that hotel, that doesn’t preclude it from the fact that it is adjacent to another building that it needs to address. So, I think the higher storefront would actually make that top part feel less blank. I think it is feeling blank, maybe the signage might help but not seeing that – if the windows were taller, then that would sort of give the scale a bit more palatability. Chair Furth: I have no idea how it should be designed but I know what my – what I’m looking for which is a welcoming building which gives the eye a pause between these decorated, much earlier buildings on a block that is fun to walk down because it has Richard Sumner and all these wonderful storefronts that give you frequent change. I would not try to – it should not in my mind look like an extension of the hotel and it should not look like the hotel is creeping down the block. Board Member Gooyer: Or an extension of the other building. Chair Furth: No, it’s neither. It’s its own thing. In particular – yeah and then one more comment, in particular, if we’re going to eliminate on-site parking and that’s going to depend on what Staff and the Director think. Then I think if it takes pulling back portions of that façade to properly have greenery or benches or whatever, that should be done. MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 23 Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll move that we continue this project to a date uncertain subject to the comments that have been made. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. Chair Furth: So, motion by Board Member Baltay, second by Board Member Gooyer, all those in favor? No opposed, it passes. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 5-0 Study Session Approval of Minutes: 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 21, 2017. Chair Furth: We have the approval of 42 pages of minutes or something like that. I’m sure you’ve all had a chance to review them. Let’s see, was that your first meeting Osma? Yeah, I think she should have her – the actual name of her place of architectural training in the minutes. It’s a typographical error but we usually give you typographical comments off stage. Any corrections, additions – corrections I guess is what we’re looking for? None. Board Member Lew: It seems to me the biggest issue is just getting the names of the public speakers… Chair Furth: Exactly. Board Member Lew: … recorded correctly and so there were a lot of misspellings. Chair Furth: Right and I will try to ask that people spell their name for the record in the future but if we can do it from card, it just doesn’t seem to get integrated. Board Member Lew: It’s written on the speaker cards so I think it’s just that we have to – those don’t go to the transcriber. Chair Furth: It doesn’t work. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Furth: She’s off-site so it’s not unusual to ask people to spell their name for the record. Including the architects, I’m afraid so I’ll give you my typo corrections but any substitutive changes? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the minutes? MOTION Board Member Lew: I will make a motion to approve the minutes. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. Chair Furth: Motion by Lew, seconded by Gooyer, all those in favor say I? MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Subcommittee Item None. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Chair Furth: Alright, anything else before we adjourn? We are adjourned. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Robert Gooyer, Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson Absent: Chair Furth: Good morning, welcome to the first meeting of the 2017-2018 ARB year and the last meeting of 2017. I call the meeting to order and ask that the roll call be taken. Chair Furth: That brings us to the next sort of item which is that the City Council has appointed Osma Thompson for a 4-year term which begins today. She has a Masters in Architecture from the California of art and is employed at the architecture firm DLR Group, Kwan Henmi and we look forward to her participation. Oral Communications Chair Furth: I don’t have any cards for oral communications which are the time to speak about items, not on the agenda. Does anybody wish to do that? Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: If not, any changes to the agenda? City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Chair Furth: Any comments on the City Official reports? Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 380 Cambridge [15PLN-00249]: Consideration of Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings Totaling 32,083 Square Feet and to Construct a New Three-Story Commercial Building Totaling 35,000 Square Feet. The Request Includes a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Project to Exceed the Height Limit by 8 Feet. In Addition, There is a Request to Waive an Off-Street Loading Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 21, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Furth: Our first – sorry, I apologize for the throaty voice. Our first action item is a request for the ARB’s recommendation to the Direction of Community Develop on a project at 380 Cambridge. This is the Cambridge Ave; the applicant Cambridge Investments proposes to demolish three existing office buildings and replace them with a new three-story commercial building of 35,000-square feet. The existing buildings that would be taken down total about 32,000-square feet. The zoning is community commercial and the site is also subject to the retail shopping combining district. In addition to the Major Architectural Review, the project requests a Design Enhancement Exception to allow it to exceed the 35-foot height limit by 8-feet and a waiver of the requirement for an off-street loading space. As an infield project and already developed area, it is exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Because this is a quasi-judicial hearing, we hear evidence and make findings based on that evidence. We are required to disclose information we received outside of this hearing. I will start by reporting that I have visited the site with the applicant’s representative, Steve Pierce. I viewed the building from the adjacent street and parking lot only and all the information that I received in that meeting is either in the packet or the emails following up from Mr. Pierce that has also been distributed to everybody. Anybody else? Board Member Lew: I will disclose that I reviewed the ARB minutes for a nearby building which is at 350 Cambridge which is a three-story building with a (inaudible) Weekly. Chair Furth: Anybody else? Also, this project or at least this site was previously reviewed in March of 2015 in a preliminary review and reviewed the tape and two of us where actually at that meeting. The planner for this project is Sheldon Ah Sing, may we have the Staff report? Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Planner: Yes, thank you for that introduction. You’ve covered a lot on this project overview but just to go over kind of the context of the area. This is with the California Avenue Parking District, it is one block removed from the California Avenue and the street does include some low to medium intensity development. A lot of professional services kinds of offices, as well as a lot of parking for both surface and structure parking to support the retail and other commercial activity along California Avenue. There’s multi-family to the rear and that effects this property in a direct way in that otherwise underlying zoning district would have a height limit of 37-feet but since it is adjacent to and within the City of multi-family, it’s height limit is at 35-feet. Then adjacent to the project site is a PTOD project and that project is at 40-feet so there’s a little bit of difference in the height in that area. As mentioned previously, this project was subject to a previous ARB meeting, a preliminary forum. At that time the project was a renovation of the buildings, some demolition involved but not as it currently is today proposed to demolish all the buildings. Some of those comments there had to do with the massing and the variety of architecture on the façade and so the applicant has addressed those in different ways and the applicant will be able to respond to that in their presentation. In summary, the project does include two alternatives and in your packet a majority of the sheets are associated with Alternative One which is a 35,000-square foot building, three stories in height, 30,500-square feet of office space, 4,500- square feet of retail space at the ground level, 35-feet tall and there’s a waiver of one loading space that’s requested and then there are fourteen parking spaces that are provided that has to do with the new net square footage. The other existing square footage that’s being demolished has already been assessed through the parking district. Then you have Alternative Two which is the same as Alternative One and this is just several sheets in the back of the plan set except they are requesting the building to be 43-feet tall or an 8-foot height increase so we’ll talk more about that. Just a little bit of zoning overview, retail services use is required on the first floor just because of the overlay district. That’s a new addition to this site recently and then you have, as I mentioned, a 35-foot height limit because it’s adjacent to multi-family, 2.0 FAR. Then, as I mentioned, it is within the California Avenue Parking District, daylight plane does apply to the rear. So, this is just a kind of brief look at elevations, the applicant will go into a little more detail about this but I’d like to recognize from this is that the fenestration and there’s the garage access there to the left. There’s a central lobby area in the middle of the building, there’s (inaudible) fenestration for the retail spaces and there’s a little – it shows a little bit about what the City of Palo Alto Page 3 signage would look like perhaps in the future for the tenants. So, more into the elevation on the height, this building this is Alternative One, you have the 35-foot building. They have here at the top of the floor to the top of the second floor at a 12-foot height and then you see where the office has also had 11-feet height. The section below shows more of the inside of the buildings where from the floor to the ceiling of 9-foot 5-foot – 9-feet 5-inches height and then when you drop the ceiling it’s down to 7-feet 8-inches. This has to do with the site plan showing the 10-foot setback in the rear along – as also along the side which abuts the City’s parking lot. That’s where some of the greenery would be for the project and some of the screening that’s required between the multi-family and this building. Alternative Two is a very similar design, it just kind of stretches the building up 8-feet and then what happens here is that you have increased floor to ceiling for each of the floors. So, they would add 3-feet for the retail first-floor and then they would add 2-feet 4-inches for the other floors above that. We have received some public comments, there’s been a lot since the submittal of this project to the City with a neighbor in the back. The neighbor in the back has a unique health issue, there’s been a lot of conversations also between the applicant and this neighbor in particular and the applicant has made some concessions and the design and trying to accommodate this person through construction. You’ll probably hear some of that today from the speaker, as well as maybe the applicant will touch upon that. The (inaudible) also has some concern about replacing older buildings and having some unaffordable leases because now the office space would be more valuable. Then also in general, the height request there’s been some comment about that as well. Some conclusions to speak to is that we want to seek feedback and direction on the overall design but we also would like you to spend some time upfront and focus on the height alternative; just give us some feedback and direction on that. Also, just before we get to the recommendation, that we have just some (inaudible) policies that may apply to this project and (inaudible) the compatibility and the quality of design of the project. These would be accessed at a later hearing when the project does come back, I just wanted to throw those out there. The motion is to conduct the public hearing to continue the item to a date uncertain so that completes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions and as I mentioned the applicant is here with a presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Are there any questions of Staff from the Board before we hear from the applicant? Is the applicant here? You have 10-minutes. Mr. Steve Pierce: Good morning Madam Chair, Members of the Board. I’m Steve Pierce, project applicant, this morning you will be hearing from Mike Castro our architect; as well as Bruce Jett, landscape architect and I will come back and wrap up with our rationale for the DEE. Thank you. Mr. Michael Castro: Good morning, I’m Michael Castro, I’m a principal at Brereton Architects and the project architect for this project. About 3-years ago Green Heart had asked Brereton to take a look at a sight on Cambridge and we went down there to take a look at a site that had three adjacent two-story buildings. At that time the idea was to reface the buildings and put a new frontage on Cambridge to try to give a repositioning of the building. We found out since when we went – that the buildings were, I would say not a major contributor to the street or the neighborhood. The building materials where a little disparate, you have lava rock as one of the materials, vertical board and baton for the wood on one of the buildings, and then their third buildings – the first two buildings were actually sister’s buildings. They are almost a mirror image of each other but the third building was a very low two-story building which was so low that the actual mechanical runs where on the roof. They couldn’t actually make any mechanical distribution in the floor itself so we talked about the site already. It’s located only one block away from California Street and the existing buildings, as I mentioned before, these two are more or less mirror images of each other and 380, which is the one to the East, is the lower building that had a different floor to floor. The idea too that we had for the building was to try to have a contiguous floor plate so that became a problem as well with developing this site. In our first presentation, we’re thinking about just demolishing the 380 building and trying to get all the floor plates to align. That was something that after time developed into taking down all three buildings and making a better office building on that site. So, as you can see on this, the streetscape, we have to the West which would be to the left, a condo building and then to the right, we have a public parking lot and another office building to the far right. The two immediately adjacent buildings are the condo and the next building over is that office building City of Palo Alto Page 4 and as you can, the materials there are mostly stucco, exposed beams on the building to the right. As well as some large windows and some decks. So, our site plan, for the most part, is – as was mentioned earlier is there’s a required setback on the North and a self-imposed setback on the East. The self- imposed setback allows us to have egress from one of the exit stairs, as well as gives us a green connection to the right of way from our backyard. The ground floor plan, this site parks itself and the ground floor plan shows that we’re tucking the parking behind retail so that we have retail on the street front. So, all the parking is entered at the far left of the site, we’re treating that elevation a little bit differently intentionally and we’ll see that when we look at the elevations of the building. The second floor has a two-story or has an opening which allows a two-story lobby. That was intended to give a little bit more scale to the entry to the office building itself on the street. So now we have a two-story reading of the lobby for the office building. The third floor has a small little deck, again to accentuated the entries to the building and again, as you can see, it’s a contiguous floor plate all the way across. All the mechanical is centered on the roof and screened. The elevations, you know we were very careful of holding the lines there but we’re also trying to break up the mass of the building by creating different events on the façade. So, as I mentioned before, you enter the garage on the far left on the West side of the site. That is treated as its own pavilion, it’s clad in stone versus the rest of the building that is actually in stucco. It’s a transition between the two which is a glass with spandrel glass transition zone I’ll call it. As you turn the corner to the East, the three-story glass façade turns back all the way to where we have our shear wall. That same glass system is introduced again on the back façade which is 10-feet back from the property line. The only blank façade we have now is actually on the West which is right against the condo building. As mentioned earlier about the heights, we’re 12-foot floor to floor from ground to second-floor and 11-foot floor to floor from that point on. This doesn’t give us too much space with dropped ceilings and/or even if you have an exposed ceiling (inaudible) structure. I think we’re about 8- foot 4 to the (inaudible) structure but that forces us to take mechanical through the structure so that’s one of the reasons why we’re asking for the DEE later on. This is just showing the setback on the back and how we’re screening that with the landscaping and how that mass relates to the residential multi- family or the multi-unit residential in the back. Chair Furth: Pause for a minute because although we have working microphones, we do not have a working recording system other than everybody’s phones and Staff is going to attend to that so take a break. Mr. Castro: Ok. [The Board took a short break due to technical issues.] Chair Furth: We are at the moment in recess and we hope to be back in business shortly. Welcome back to the ARB meeting in the heart of Silicon Valley. We apologize for the inconvenience to everybody, we are resetting your timer, let us begin again. You don’t need to repeat everything but anything you want to be sure is on the record you should. Mr. Castro: I’m Michael Castro and I’m the principle at Brereton Architects and the project architect for this project. What I was mentioning is that when we went out to the site on Cambridge, the three parcels that were next to each other had two adjacent buildings, they were sister buildings and the third building was different floor to floor. They were all two-story buildings and we began with thinking this is a reskinning project to try to give a new face to Cambridge and repositioning project. It developed into a new building so that we can achieve the best architecture and create a contiguous floor plate. So, the existing buildings as I mentioned – So, the two-story buildings are flanked by two three-story buildings. To the left, there’s a condo building that’s about 40-feet high and to the right is an office building which is on the other side of a public parking lot. The two buildings architecture introduces stucco, aluminum glass, exposed steel beams, glass canopies, and decks. We have a setback in the back that’s a required setback and we have a self-imposed setback on the right side of our building which is the East side of the building. That self-imposed set back allows us to soften that elevation, as well as gives us egress path to the right of way and allows the landscape to continue to the right of way. The building parks itself and the entry to the parking area on the West side of the building and the parking is screened by retail uses. City of Palo Alto Page 5 The second-floor we have a two-story volume which allows the building to be – entry to be preserved as a two-story entry from Cambridge and that’s capped with a deck which sits above that two-story entry. The mechanical is centralized on the roof and is wrapped by a roof screen. The elevations had a very conscious effort to break up the massing so the area where the parking garage is entered on the west is actually treat it as a separate pavilion where a transitional zone of aluminum glass and spandrel glass between a stucco building that has a center entry for the office building. Which, as I mentioned before, was two-stories a deck on top. The glass from the front elevation, the Cambridge elevation wraps on the East side of the building back to our sheer wall. We have a green screen or an opportunity for landscape to up that wall to soften that even further. The facing the residential to the North, we have the same glass system which is setback 10-feet for the setback and allows other than a blank façade facing the neighbors. The only blank façade that we do have is to the West which is against the condo complex and that is – that wall is right on the property line. The floor to floor heights is 12-foot floor to floor from the ground to the second floor and an 11-foot floor to floor from second to third and third to roof. This only allows mechanical to have its runs through the actual structure. So, we’d have to come up with either opening in the steel beams or have a Joyce system that we go through so we’re still working that out. I think currently we’re looking at just W-sections or steel beams. This section on the right is showing the set back at the entry to give that a little bit more emphasis from the rest of the façade. There’s a large entry canopy that this figure is showing, the triangulable figure. The rear set back introduces landscape roof screening – landscape screening to the neighbors in the back and this is the multi-unit residential complex to the north. Context wise, the architecture and the neighborhood, as I mentioned earlier, has several different materials introduced. We’re trying to pick up from those materials, the predominant materials that you’re seeing on these adjacent neighbors are masonry to the right, stucco, aluminum glass and some exposed steel. As you can see the three-story volume on the left with glass and stucco and then you have other stucco buildings and some wood panel buildings. Our adjacent neighbor currently towers over the two-story structures that are existing on the site. The materials that we’re introducing for this building include metal panel, spandrel glazing, cement plaster or stucco and stone tile and the stone tile is in the pavilion area of the building. So, this is the proposed building, as you can see we have that pavilion that’s visually separated from the rest of the building which is an intention to break up the mass. The massing is also broken up by the arches that we’re creating in the setback in the center. The glass turns the corner on the East and the windows on every floor have sun shading devises above them. At the ground level, it’s actually extended even further as canopies in an opportunity for signage. This gives you more of straight on elevation and you can see clearly here the deck on top of the 400 in the center of the building, which again is to accentuate that center which is the central entry of the building. This is the parking garage here and the reason why the parking garage is off center is because of code to allow a certain distance from the property line. The base of the building is meant to activate the street, there’s ultra-clear glazing or low iron glazing to make the storefronts for the retail as clear as possible, as engaging as possible. The signage – you have opportunity to put signage on the canopy, the façade above the entry doors and hang it – also being hung down as banners. The idea here is that we have an active street front, we’re hopefully going to give emphasis to have a connection from California Street across as a cross connection through if you have successful retail on Cambridge. As you see we’re introducing bike racks next to our main building entry as well. Now I’m going to introduce Bruce Jett who is our landscape architect. Mr. Bruce Jett: Thank you, Michael. Bruce Jet with Jet Landscape Architecture and Design, I’m glad to be here today and answer questions and walk you briefly through our project here. Starting with the streetscape, I don’t know which button to push so I don’t – Oh, that’s (inaudible), I don’t want to push that one. We have been working on this project since I think about 2015 working closely with the City through – especially on the streetscapes, as well as the neighbors to get the landscape to a place where everybody’s going to be happy. There was an existing Pistache tree right where the driveway is going to go now and of course working with the City arborist, we are going to take that tree down and relocate a new tree right to the left of it. Sorry, I can’t really see this, here we go right here, that gets located – the square will be outside of the cone of vision or ingress and egress to those, to the parking garage. There are a several numbers of trees of existing Pistache that are going to stay here and then we’ll be adding a new Pistache tree off-site and down the street in front of the parking area there. A few small trees to work with scale and softening along the North edge of the Northside of the building. As Michael City of Palo Alto Page 6 mentioned a vine screen attached to the building, as well as vines on the fence moving along that north property line there. Then as well as low to medium height shrubs planted along the pathway access. Across the back we are proposing – we’re working with stormwater treatment plantings across the back, as well as tall screen plantings to help soften the building and screen views into the neighbor's backyards. We strongly recommend that bamboo be the plant selected there although we were asked for some options that could possibly be as successful but from a standpoint of immediate impact and height, I think that the bamboo is are recommendations though we’re more than happy to hear the concerns of both the neighbors and the Committee here today. One concern I know that is often raised about bamboo is that it can be invasive. The reason it is invasive is because of the rooting structure called combs can do what they call run which means they will extend out beyond the plant and then a new shoot comes up. That can be quite easily controlled with barrier – with root barriers and if I may just address, we’re going to continue to work with the neighbor on the fragrant issues. I have to say that through this process we’ve learned quite a bit about fragrant plants. One of the concerns they have was with the Pistache trees and we’re working with – I mean the Pistache are already there on the street side so we’re… Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Jett: That’s required by us. Thank you. Chair Furth: We have – now is the time for the public to speak, we have seven-speaker cards. If there’s anybody else who wants to speak on this matter, the speaker cards are over there on the front ledge so fill one out and hand it to Staff down there. The first person to speak is Becky Sanders followed by Jeff Levinsky. Oh, and you have 3-minutes each and you’ll get a yellow warning light when you have a minute left. Ms. Becky Sanders: Thank you. Good morning and thank you for your service to our City. My name is Becky Sanders, I live in the Ventura neighborhood, I am the moderator of the Ventura Neighborhood Association. At our December meeting, twenty-five people gathered to discuss the impacts of concentrated development on Cal. Ave, Park Boulevard and on El Camino Real. Impacts on our residential quality of life and on our ability to do business and shopping in our own City. One of the issues that we touched upon was the erosion of true community-serving businesses in favor of software office development which adds to congestion, parking whoas, cut through traffic in our neighbor and diminishes our ability to shop and conduct business locally. Now rather than create bottom feeders out of mom and pops, how about brainstorming ways to encourage and support community serving businesses in our commercial centers in order to cut down on car trips and encourage biking and walking to services. A second issue that we are very concerned about is parking. We have our eye on the Evergreen South Gate situation and believe that Ventura will be up next for consideration for an RPP. It’s important that the building not be allowed to be under-parked to us, the residents of Ventura. It just makes sense to continue to enforce parking code and not pretend that this building isn’t going to add to congestion on the street if under parked. This leads me to my final point, off-road loading zones in highly congested areas is our key to maintaining traffic flow and safe biking in pedestrian routes. There is no reason that the builder should be given a gift of providing not proper loading zone, this is just our resident's opinion of course, but a disaster to have a president set of no off-road loading zones for new development. As other developments come online and they’re allowed that same perk, our City streets will be checked with trucks parked in bike lanes and jetting out into the street further adding to our parking whoas. We need to keep the streets – street parking for customers and not for businesses that refuse to provide loading areas. Please preserve community-serving businesses, ensure adequate parking in a structure that was designed that makes sense, this one is a little weird, and require an off-road loading zone. Thank you very much for hearing me this morning. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Levinsky and the next person after that will be Paul [phonetics] [Machatoe]. Mr. Jeff Levinsky: (Inaudible) make this work? Good morning Chair Furth and Board Members. First, let’s see, no, how do I make – (inaudible) Ok, alright, got it. Sorry, I agree with the Staff recommendation City of Palo Alto Page 7 that the DEE for the increased height is not merited and I hope you come to the same conclusion. Can I go down the next slide? Ok. As for the loading space, however, the lack of these is a genuine problem and it’s a problem throughout Palo Alto. Here are some recent pictures from Edgewood Plaza where again we don’t have sufficient or properly placed loading zones and as you can see, deliver trucks park in a bike area. There’s actually a red curb in the middle picture that the truck is parked in and another delivery truck is there and they are double parking. Eliminating the sole loading space required for this project is allowed only if shared on-street loading spaces do no conflict with the Comp. Plan. There are no nearby loading spaces on Cambridge and the ones further away aren’t the required size so a new one would have to be created. That would take away parking which is in desperately short supply, rather we should be looking for creative alternatives to on-street loading spaces and not pushing it into streets. It wouldn’t necessarily require a second curb cut or taking space out at the front of a parcel. Instead, trucks could turn around inside – could enter the garage and use a turntable to turn around, a smaller turntable was recently put in over at 240 Hamilton just across the street. The bottom line is that we shouldn’t automatically be granting these loading space exemptions and we should definitely not be doing it just to help maximize the FAR for the project. Parking is another concern, I was at a City hosted meeting just last night where residents and business owners agreed that inadequately parked buildings in the Cal. Ave area is pushing cars into Evergreen Park and plaguing it with problems. That’s harming the healthcare businesses now on El Camino as well. This particular project is an example of the problem as the parking calculations in the plan and the Staff report erroneously undercount the spaces needed. In the assessment district, the practice had been to total the buildings needs and then credit it with a final number of spaces it paid into the assessment district for. So, this building needs 117 spaces, it paid for 102 and doesn’t need to supply 15, however, the plans show it only having 14. If there were more time, I’d example the areas in the plans and in the Staff report calculation. Another problem is that not one square foot of the common area is attributed to the retail on the ground floor. While that helps their parking – reduce their parking requirements but it means that there – is that actually it? Board Member Furth: That is your 3-minutes, you can finish your sentence, a reasonable sentence. Mr. Levinsky: I just wanted to say that the proper way to do it is just to prorate the ground floor retail into the rest of the – with the rest of the building so that it gets counted in the parking calculation. Chair Furth: Thank you. If you want to submit your written materials to become part of our record, as you know this is scheduled to come back at a later date. That’s the recommendation (inaudible). Next speaker is [Mr. Machatoe] followed by Anthony Ford. [Mr. Paul Machatoe]: Good morning Chair Furth and Board Members. I’m Paul [Machatoe] and I’m part of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Leadership. We’ve been struggling with problems of parking and traffic coming from the Cal. Ave businesses and this project has us very concerned; Evergreen abuts this project. Let me first mention a small point, going – mainly the garage entrance has an odd curve in it appears to allow retail to be a bit larger. The curve will make it harder for customers to enter and leave the garage and there’s probably a better way to solve this. The project doesn’t seem to comply with our Comprehensive Plan’s goal of making the community accessible. Our practice of not requiring onsite parking makes life hard for those who need accessible parking. The proposed building requires 117- spaces but we’re allowing it to put in far fewer and then base the number of accessible spaces on the smaller number. So, normally the building would need five accessible spaces but we’re letting it get by with one so where would the people who need accessible parking go? Parking in the neighborhood or some garage that’s far away. It would be much better if the project provided more accessible parking on site where it belongs. Shouldn’t Palo Alto be a leader in meeting the minimum requirement of the ADA, also compiling with its spirit and intent? Finally, we’re concerned the proposed complete teardown and rebuild is only cost-justified if it provides office space for software and internet companies. These buildings being torn down once houses many healthcare and other professionals serving our community. Software and internet companies and administrative offices are not allowed in CC zones where this building is located. Our City has been lax in enforcement but the City Council resolved just a month ago to clarify that software companies are allowed downtown but they explicitly said they are not allowed in CC zones. That’s consistent with the Municipal Code declaration that CC zone is for local regional City of Palo Alto Page 8 activities, not tech companies that serve worldwide customers. What you can do as a review Board to help us with this is first ensure the building is suitable for uses that are allowed in CC zones such as retail and community based serving businesses which tend to be small firms. Second, encourage Staff to remind applicants not to assume the City will look the other way and allow zoning violations. Thank you, happy holidays. Chair Furth: The next speaker is Anthony Ford to be followed by Karen Price. Mr. Anthony Ford: Good morning Chair and Board. Thank you for having this meeting and my name is Anthony Ford. I’m a resident of 420 Cambridge, we are a collection of four condominium townhouse that sits directly adjacent to the planned property on the westside. These were units built about 6-years ago and contain a retail business and a garage underneath. As a group collectively and I speak for others that we’ve discussed this, we collectively do not oppose progress. We’re not (inaudible) and we except that there are some developmental needs at this premise because it is dysfunctional and esthetically needs to be upgraded. As neighbors we expect that the problem disruption and mess that will be created and noise and many other polluting features will be well organized, respectful and caring for residences; not just us but for the folks behind and so on. We do feel this is a component that adds insult to injury however and that really extends our patience in the manner of the proposed DEE to add additional 8-foot height above the existing allowed extension. I can only say that if you were living in a single-level house and had a neighbor who proposes to change your 6-foot wall to a 14-foot wall, you could imagine exactly how we feel about having an 8-foot additional extension above the current level. Cambridge Avenue is a very busy and poorly supported by parking. It’s close to residents who like us are sort of ignored in this highly business oriented district and could question very seriously the need for this extension which has come in we suspect it’s a bit like a trojan horse activity of the latter part of this proposal. In finishing, I think it’s very easy to plan but one really seeks to create the most creative and non-disruptive plans and there’s a lot of creativity that could have been brought forward to enhance, for example, floor to ceiling heights without needing this DEE. I know that my neighboring residences will also be expressing their concerns. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Ford. The next speaker is Karen Price to be followed by Birgit Warner. Ms. Karen Price: Hello, my name is Karen Price and I have been renting an office at 378 Cambridge since the sense of 1979. I am a certified advanced Rolfer which is deep tissue bodywork, specializing in pediatric care for a wide range of issues. In addition to serving the women and children of Palo Alto for 39-years, I have done 6-years of groundbreaking research with Stanford School of Medicine on Rolfing for young children with Spastic Ciribralpalsy. Long-term professionals such as myself, lawyers, accountants, therapists etc. have been systematically displaced as software companies have replaced neighborhood businesses. The plans for the replacement of the three buildings labeled 380 Cambridge are open floor plan that can only be occupied by a large tech company. As other people have mentioned this is not legal in the California Avenue zoning. These companies add no value to the neighborhoods, they great increase congestion and lack of parking, as well as driving out local businesses. They destroy the character of California Avenue which is so highly valued. This area is zoned for professional, medical, personal service, retail and retail service. These are things people walk in and use. It is not zoned for RND, research and development and RND is allowed in RND zones. No one walks in and uses a service at a software company. In addition to traffic congesting and parking, these large companies and their multitude of employees greatly contribute to increasing carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. Currently, I live less than a mile from work and can walk. If I am displaced, both myself and my clients will have to drive much further, also exacerbating both traffic and carbon emissions. I know that Palo Alto is committed to lessening both traffic and emissions. It is imperative that we retain the very small stock of Class C professional office space still left, both for now and into the foreseeable future. This huge building will not help or benefit the people of Palo Alto at all. As it’s happening with the rest of the country, only a few wealthy ones will benefit and the rest will suffer. I was able to rent my space at 27- years old with no money and start a lifelong career in a self-employed business serving thousands of people. I want another 27-year old to be able to do that as well. Thank you very much, happy holidays. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: Thank you. Birgit Warner to be followed by Matt [Vasca]. Ms. Birgit Warner: Good morning, my name is Birgit Warner and I’m here today on behalf of Robin Pfaff who owns one of the properties directly behind the proposed development. She’s the one that Sheldon mentioned who has the immune system disorder which makes her extremely vulnerable to any air pollutant particulates and fumes or otherwise known as odors. This prevents her from being here today in person so that’s why I am here and also means that the long construction project plan for directly behind her is a severe health challenge for her. She’s been in discussions with the developer and the Planning Department over the last 3-years, working with them to develop plans to protect her health as much as possible. Her disability requires that her air quality be controlled both long-term and during the construction is especially important. The developer has been open to discussion and has already agreed to some accommodations. For example, they’ll keep her apprised of the weekly construction schedule so she knows when she needs to shelter in place. They will also use the hypoallergenic plantings like the bamboo they are proposing across the back of the lot. She greatly appreciates that and thank you very much. We’re not actively discussing ways to limit Robin’s exposure to the unavoidable construction dust and odors and are making some progress. We will continue to work together in the current spirit of corporation to find mutually agreeable solutions. Our goal is to protect Robin’s health without impeding this project’s progress. Our request of you, as the Board, is that you make successful agreement a Condition of Approval for this project and add the agreed upon solution to the construction logistics plan as appropriate. The outcome of this matter has a very significant impact on Robin’s health and we deeply appreciate your consideration and support. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. The next speaker is [Matt Vasca] to be followed by [phonetics] [Cabean Anoon]. Mr. Matt Vasca: Hi, my name is Matt Vasca, I apologize in advance -- I’m a single-family homeowner on the same block at this development. I apologize in advance because I’m very unfamiliar with this process. We learned just a couple days ago that this whole project was even happening. I talked to our two neighbors who are also single-family homeowners adjacent directly to the Northeast of this development. We are just now learning about it and hope that there’s an opportunity to have some input regarding the potential impacts to our privacy and light. I assume that’s the case and perhaps you could confirm that we’re still early enough here to have some input. Chair Furth: Could you – which block – which street do you live on Mr. Vasca? Mr. Vasca: We’re at 365 College Ave, our neighbors to the left and to the right all are single-family homes that are going to be impacted by this. Chair Furth: Thanks, and the Staff recommendation that this matter be continued to another date so there will be other opportunities to participate. [Cabean Anoon] to be followed by [phonetics] [Anoshi Sing]. [Mr. Cabean Anoon:] Good morning, thank you for hearing me out. I think though – my name is [Cabean Anoon] and I’m… Chair Furth: I reread the rules this morning and I’m supposed to ask you what your address is. [Mr. Anoon:] Yeah, I was just going to say that so I’m at 420 Cambridge. I’m actually Anthony’s neighbor and I’m actually here to echo a lot of what Anthony was saying so I’ll keep it short. I think people have made good points about how parking and zoning and things like that will change the character of the neighborhood and the community and I think those are good points. The specific point that I want to make as someone that’s going to be right next door is that the exception for the height is going to have a huge impact on our home and both the aesthetics, as well as the property value frankly. For our home, in particular, that height change would actually wipe out any sort of light or view that we have in its entirety so that’s a big change for us. I’m just here to say that I see any real reason for that exception – to grant City of Palo Alto Page 10 that exception because it’s going to have a pretty negative impact. I don’t see any upside to balance that out so that’s basically it. Chair Furth: Thank you and excuse me, which unit is yours in the building? [Mr. Anoon:] My unit is Unit One. Chair Furth: Thank you. The next speaker is [Anoshi Sing] and I believe that’s our last speaker. [Ms. Anoshi Sing:] Hi, I’m also speaking – I’m here from 420 Cambridge Ave, also Unit One. Thank you for pronouncing my name properly. I’m here also to discuss the height exception. Right now, as the project currently it’s at 35-feet and at 43-feet it would tower over our unit. Our views are limited by Anthony’s unit in front of us and so the views that we really get from, as well as the natural light we get into our unit, comes a lot from the East. With the increased height of the retail space on our East, that would really severally impact us. It is a big concern for me, I have two young children, we have two little boys and it’s a big deal for us so it would – I strongly feel that you should agree with the Staff recommendation and not go with the increased height. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. That ends the speaker cards I have so I’ll bring this back the Board. First, are there any questions of Staff or the applicant? Sorry, you get to respond. Applicant please, I forget how many minutes. Mr. Pierce: Again, Steve Pierce… Chair Furth: I – you have another 10-minutes. Mr. Pierce: I’m – first off, I wanted to address our conversations with Robin Pfaff to the property to the rear of us and the solution that we’re sort of – that looks likes going to work best is that we’re actually going to install at our cost an air filtration system at her home. Our current bid on that is about $24,000 and this we fell. – now we looked at a number of solutions in terms of physical barriers, you know a number of things I won’t bore you with but really being able to deal with the air that will be entering her home we fell this is really the best approach. So, we have basically brought on board an HVAC people who have done clean rooms and so forth and so we’ll be – basically we kind of designed a system there and now we’re sort of working out the detail of how that would work. With respect to the DEE, as it’s been mentioned the maximum height in the CC2 zone is 37-feet and because we are adjacent to the RM- 30, we have three apartment houses to our rear so the height is reduced to 35-feet. There are two findings that the Board will have to make for any DEE and one is that there are an exceptional or extortionary conditions and secondly that it would not be detrimental or ingenious to the neighbors and certainly we have heard some comments in respect to that. The – with respect to that first condition, what’s exceptional, well last year you know the City Council did see fit to require retail on any new structure on Cambridge Avenue. This was not a preservation of retail but really creation to retail because there really isn’t much on Cambridge, it’s sort of a marginal location. Unfortunately, within that change of the ordinance, they really didn’t take into account, as I’m sure many of you understand at architects, that retail requires a much greater clear height than office space does require. On Page 59 of the book that you have, we’ve cited a number of the City Standards, as well as county standards and it is pretty much established that for a clear height in retail you need about 15-feet while an office is 9-feet so we have a 6-foot shortfall right off. We’ve – you know if we look specifically – well, I won’t take time to – with the drawings but on Page 28, you’ve got our existing condition that is to say without the DEE and our floor to bottom of structure, not ceiling but bottom of structure, that’s about 9-feet 5-inches in the retail space that we’re now required to provide. Where in 15 would be much more desirable so we have a considerable shortfall there and likewise, at the office where we’d like to have 9-foot to the ceiling, we have about 8-feet 5-inch to bottom of the structure. So, everything is really quite tight which is why we’ve made the – this proposal. The real issue for us than I think for the City Council and the City that desires to have good successful retail basically seating retail on Cambridge is that we need and retail needs to have optimally configured space. We’ve got a real tough location to draw retail in, there isn’t any on the block where we are and (inaudible) on Cambridge. So, we need to have well-configured space City of Palo Alto Page 11 that’s going to attract the maximum – maximum attraction to retailers so that we can get somebody in who will basically would be successful there and will hopefully – I think is the goal is to kind of seed that street. What we don’t want is this to have substandard space that we can’t lease and that’s we’re – pardon me, that we’re back to the City asking us, as some building owners have, to allow them to go to the office uses. That’s certainly not the goal so what we want is really adequate height for that retail space. Now with respect to detrimental effects with the – to our neighbors, speaking to the neighbors to the rear, the situation now is that we’ve got a cinderblock wall and I’ve got a couple photos. I guess I’ll send those to you but the cinderblock walls are featureless, they are right on the property line and basically, it’s not a real attractive environment for them. It will be of course desirable with a new structure, we will be moving – setting that back 10-feet, we’ll have a landscape buffer and on I think Page 59 of the booklet or pardon me, Page 63 we’ve sort of drawn a sight line of somebody standing in the backyard. That sight line is about what it is today, in other words having a taller building setting it back 10-feet. It basically allows the same sort of light and so forth into the structure – into the backyards of those homes or those apartments. Basically, again with respect to exceptional, we feel like we’ve been sort of put into a corner by the City Council by saying have retail but get the height to really have successful retail. Then with respect to our neighbors to the left, I’m actually kind of disappointed because we had reached out to them and offered to have a presentation and discuss with them issues and that was not followed up upon. We certainly would have liked to have dealt with that with them personally as opposed to hear it at the podium but certainly we – you know I understand the issues they have there. On the third-floor of those structures, there are certainly clear story windows two in the bathrooms. They are fairly high and two in the master bedrooms, again either side, they are sort of square windows to let in natural light. It’s not like there’s a great view, in fact if you look out those – if you were able to look out those windows because they are rather high, you’d be looking – you look over our roof and all of our air conditioning equipment is there now currently so it’s a view, it’s more of a natural light issue. That’s certainly one that we would be – we would certainly work with our neighbors as we’ve worked with Robin to come up with solutions to that. Indeed they are a 40-foot building and we’re allowed a maximum of 35 so there’s some disparity there but I think we can certainly come up with solutions to a lot of that natural light. With respect to presidents also, I know too that 385 Sherman I guess is a relatively new building and is a 42-foot building and that’s contiguous with RM-40. So, this is certainly happening but I think the more important issues is if we want retail, we need to basically create the spaces that retail needs to be successful and unfortunately the height allowed is 35-feet, it’s so low that you can’t take it out of the office floors because they are already substandard. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Pierce and I’ll bring this back to the Board. Any preliminary questions from Staff for anybody? Staff – from the Board for the Staff or applicant? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, thank you. I have a question for Staff regarding the loading exemption and in your Staff report Sheldon, you mention there are various Comprehensive Plan policies that need to be found. Can you – do you mind just outlining really quickly what these Comp. Plan policies are regarding loading zones? Mr. Ah Sing: Well, they don’t particularly speak directly to loading zones but just in general, these Comprehensive Plan policies speak to encouraging design and reduce (inaudible) of street frontage that contributes to retail vitality. There’s always preserving the ground retail space so in one sense if you were to design a site that has the loading space, that precludes the project from meeting some of those Comprehensive Plan policies but as with any project, it’s not that they have to meet all the policies. There will become that may conflict so it’s just on balance do they meet the policies? Vice Chair Baltay: Could you repeat once more? You just said two or three of the policies are… Mr. Ah Sing: So, one of them has to do with encourages a design that would reduce the (inaudible) of the street frontage that contributes to retail vitality and also preserving existing ground floor retail. So, if you were to place again the loading space on the site, it may conflict from retail having a space that is vital with the streetscape. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Vice Chair Baltay: Got it, thanks. Chair Furth: Thank you, anybody else? Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff, on the California Avenue parking (inaudible) district, my recollection is that it’s closed. Is that correct? The additional square footage that they are proposing here has to be parked on site and there are no other options for them. Does that -- the square footage, the volume of that, does that count toward floor area? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: The floor area discussion and the parking is a little different but what you were saying about the parking district is correct. There are no additional spaces to be brought in the district and actually, it’s closed but those credits remain. If they are adding to the building, then yes, that needs to be parked on site. Chair Furth: Commissioner – Vice Chair Baltay, I think you had another question. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Yes, this is a question for the architect, it’s regarding the – just the detailing on the façade. To save me from having to plow through the plans, what is the reveal between the white plaster frame and the actual glazing? How deeply recessed are the window walls? Mr. Castro: You’re 3-foot, about the size of your door swing. Vice Chair Baltay: 3-foot… Mr. Castro: Let me take out a plan here. The actual window wall is probably about 14-inches back, the doors are set back additional 3-foot in alcoves. The entry to the office building is plus or minus 8 to 10- feet and then we have recesses between the parking pavilion and the building; which again is set back probably about 3-feet from the property line. I tried to get this undulation on the Cambridge and break up the mass. Vice Chair Baltay: So, I’m confused then, I’m looking at Detail 3 and 4 upon sheet 25 perhaps and it seems to indicate 8-inch recess. Am I reading that wrong? Mr. Castro: No, you’re reading that correctly. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Castro: So, that’s just to accentuate the pillars coming down. Chair Furth: Can additional questions? Ok, who would like to begin on commentary? Shall we start – would it make sense to start with talking about the Design Enhancement Exception first? Just to address the Design Enhancement Exception for height first. Do you want to start Robert? Board Member Gooyer: It interesting you mention the whole concept of breaking up the masses and I just don’t really see that. I mean it’s a very large building with a very – with about a 15% or 20% change at one side. The – it’s – my fellow Board Member here is (inaudible), the undulation between the glass and the framing and that sort of thing is 8-inches or so. To me, this is just a big square box which in itself might be ok but then when you’re also asking for an additional 8-feet, I can’t see that justifying or justifying that at all. It – I’m well aware that – I’ve done retail buildings for a lot longer than I want to admit and I can see the height variations deal with 20,000-30,00-square foot buildings but we’re talking a couple of 1,500 to 2,000-square foot retail spaces. There’s no problem with them being – the intent of these spaces is to be community serving spaces, not retail giants that you come from a couple miles to go to. I don’t see any problem at all being able to fit the heights in the 35-feet. The whole concept would – I keep hearing all these things about we need all these heights. A very easy solution is make it a two- story building. I mean I know you don’t want to hear that but that’s the answer to it. You’re trying to fit a City of Palo Alto Page 13 three-story building in an area that’s been a two-story concept for years and has addressed the smaller communities or I should say the area on small services. The same thing, I agree – when I first looked at the second and third floor, obviously the intent is to put a large firm in there. There’s no practical way to break that up into half a dozen smaller firms other than putting, for instance, a hallway in there and you really don’t want to put a hallway in there because that wastes space. Hallways just – travel areas that – that doesn’t pay the rent so the way it sits right now, I can’t except the additional height. In fact, the design of the building, as far as I’m concerned, has a long way to go. As far as the parking – the loading space, I agree that it would be difficult and the problem is you end up with a larger opening to get a truck in there, that sort of thing but the reality of it is true. In so many of these areas, you see the trucks parked there in the morning or any time of the day because truck drivers are on a time schedule so they don’t care. They are just going to double park right in front of the building and once you’ve got this massive truck sitting there, if I’m in my small little car, I’m not going to sit there and make a big issue about it or try and challenge the guy. I have to somehow or otherwise fight to go around them and if this was an existing building that never had the capacity or was in a historic area or whatever, then you kind of go well ok, it’s the price of doing business. This is a brand-new building so if the requirement is that you need an on-site loading space, then I think it needs to be there. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex? Board Member Lew: Great so I’ve been struggling this one a little bit. I think my first reaction is kind of similar to Roberts but then I’ve been thinking about it a little bit more and I’m not – I think I’m – I have a – I’m not quite so sure about that position. I think I understand Mr. Pierce’s argument for additional height and in some of the projects that I’ve worked in, in San Francisco, the City when they went through re-zoning for each neighborhood did increase the height limit in certain places. They increased it by 5- feet in order to get higher retail spaces; they did it on purpose; they did it in – it was strategic. On certain blocks where they knew that rents were going up and they wanted to add retail space in adjacent – on adjacent streets so that there was enough space for existing businesses and new businesses and that’s retail businesses. Generally, I’m – I think that we should have that discussion if the City wants to add retail space, it should – they should be high-quality spaces and we should have that discussion. I’m not certain that DEE process is the right way to do it, we had a lot of problems with appeals here with regards to height and setbacks. It seems to me that the argument – we have to make a finding that there’s something – some sort of special circumstance here and I don’t really – I’m not sure that I see it. I think that what applies to your site would actually apply to many other parcels on Cambridge so it seems to me it should be a bigger discussion maybe perhaps with the Planning and Transportation Commission or the Planning Director if it’s a variance. It seems to me that it’s not – my take on it is it’s not an ARB decision to make because it’s a bigger issue. You did raise the height of the 42-foot high building on Sherman like the Visa Research is the current tenant and there are some units facing the park. I think there are four residential units facing the park and the City purposely put that in there and so we do allow that on Sherman and it’s because there’s the residential use behind it is either PC or RM- 40. In this case, the residential use on College is RM-30 and so I think that those things mean something. I’ve been following the Comp. Plan updates and I do understand that Evergreen Park community – neighborhood wants a transitional area between Cal. Avenue and the single-family and multi-family areas. I think the rules were put in place on Cambridge for a purpose so I think it’s fine to reexamine them but I don’t think it’s the ARB’s purview. On the – do you want us to do building too or (crosstalk) (inaudible) Chair Furth: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Got it. Chair Furth: Loading zone. Board Member Lew: I don’t necessarily have a position on the loading zone. I think I understand issues that people have outlined. My take on it is to have – my preference would be to have loading zones on the street. I think San Francisco does that, commercial loading zones. Usually the first and last spaces on City of Palo Alto Page 14 the block where it’s easier to get a truck in, right? It’s hard to get a truck in mid-block and I think I agree with Robert. There – the truck – UPS drivers are in a hurry, they are not going to pull in – well, they are not going to pull into a parking garage, that’s my take on it. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: I found myself in agreement with my fellow Board Members. Put it this way, Design Enhancement Exception should enhance the design and I haven’t heard any arguments why this does. I don’t see any arguments why it does so I just couldn’t make the findings that the building should be taller through the Design Enhancement Process. Board Member Lew’s comments are appropriate that that sort of thing is a different kind of appeal that you would need to make. I’m also conflicted about the loading zone, I would like to a smaller type of loading zone on the property. Something that would deal with the kind of trucks that might well be coming to this building; more like the UPS truck, not a 45-foot long loading bay. I really wish we had a – not a black and white choice, doing nothing seems inappropriate. Reading the full extent of the code in this case also seems really difficult so I wish I had a better answer but I don’t so right now I’m on the fence. Thank you. Chair Furth: Commissioner Thompson. Board Member Thompson: I also find myself in agreement with a lot of my fellow Board Members. There’s – the building design in itself, you know using the spandrel to sort of hiding things of (inaudible) on a two-story solution in some ways. The current floor to floor height as you have it right now is sort of encroaching on inaccessibility in many ways. Having a huge open floor plan with 8-foot 5 height is very stifling on its own unless you break it up even more and then it gets a little bit more manageable. I don’t think there’s – I think you need to work with the heights that you’ve been given and make something better with that like having two-stories that have a lot of space. Even office spaces in that sense can breathe a bit more so that’s where I find myself. Then regarding the loading zone, I actually think it’s really important to take into consideration given that there is retail, given that there is going to be not just mail but also potentially other kinds of supplies that get delivered to this location. I think it’s important to include that and I don’t think it needs to be something that is sort of looking service, I think that can be very pretty. You could put permeable pavers, you know make that really nice and so I’m in favor of including that. Chair Furth: Thank you. On the topic of the DEE, I couldn’t make the findings that would allow the building to be taller. I understand the dilemma that’s expressed by the applicant but I couldn’t make the finding that they are unique circumstances. I couldn’t make the finding that it wouldn’t have any adverse effect on anybody else and I think this is really an issue about zoning. When you ask for or are granted an 8-foot increase in height for an entire building, I think it’s not a Design Enhancement Exception, it’s a zone change. With respect to the loading bay, it does seem to me that it’s very difficult to put that on site on this site without further messing up the walk along the street which right now it fairly unimpeded. If we are going to recommend a waiver of that or modification of that, then the question is going to be where will people load? So, I would hope to see more analysis of that before this comes back to us so we’re not looking at a building which complies with the zoning height so other comments on the project. Ms. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: Chair, can I make a brief comment? Vice Chair Baltay had made a comment about the loading zone and wishing it weren’t a black and white issue and the code actually does provide for some leeway to the Director to modify the dimension of loadings. So, there is some flexibility if you believe that loading is important on site, it doesn’t necessarily need to meet the specific standards if we can find a reasonable, functional solution. Chair Furth: That’s very helpful Jonathan. Any further comments in light of that information? Vice Chair Baltay: With that said I would certainly support a loading zone on this site with modified in size. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. I agree you’re not going to have a full- size semi coming there for the size of the businesses that are there so I agree. I would be more than willing to do that but I think there needs to be something there. As far as the design itself, like it said it – I keep hearing the concept about broken up façade and that’s not really doing – that isn’t the case. If you look at that entire façade, you’ve got about a 15% or 20% variation at one end and the rest of it is pretty much a single, large entity building. Chair Furth: Ok, anything else or are you done? Alex. Board Member Lew: I’m generally ok with the building design as it’s proposed. I think that making the garage entrance different helps. I think having the lobby portion in the middle recessed, I think that helps and having the balconies is good. I think the low iron glass is great and I like that the windows are turning the corner. You have some questions, I guess this – maybe we need to address this in the future is that you’re showing a 7-foot fence along the side property line to the right, next to the parking lot so I was just curious how is that – what were you thinking because you’re proposing windows like retail windows like floor to ceiling glass along there but then you also have the fence – a tall fence with vines so I would like to see more about that. Then I think my other question would be on the glass, I haven’t looked at the regular glass for the upper floor windows but it seems to me that if you brought the lobby entrance -- like the central bay of your building with two different kinds of glass that might look kind of – it might look strange. Then also I would like to see a little bit more on signage placements possibly. I think you’re indicating that it could be above or below the awnings which is fine and I think the – some of the problems that we get into later with actual tenants is that usually they want illuminated signs and so that gets a little more difficult to place on the awnings. So, if you had some thoughts about where those could go and the sizes that you think would work best, I think that would help. Also on the glass, sometimes we’ve had discussions – the Boards had discussions about what happens to the glass below desk height so on some of our buildings in Palo Alto, sometimes we’ll put – the architects will put a film on the inside of the glass to sort of obscure anything that is stored below desks. At least from the outside, the same reflectivity and transparency reads the same from the outside or sometimes we’ve had – some people will put blinds on the lower portions so that could be screened separately from the upper shades – window shades. Yeah? Male: Alex, could you show me the glass? Board Member Lew: Yes, well actually if you could point out – because I don’t think or are any of these low iron? These are just the upper. Mr. Castro: (Inaudible) Board Member Lew: Could you come up to the microphone please, Michael. Mr. Castro: The center glass has been changed to low iron. I believe that is just clear glass so that will be ultra-clear glazing. The glazing above it is a light grey, little blueish, it’s called Z-50 PPG and you’re correct. I think that’s an oversight in our actual rendering of our lobby that the glazing will be clear glass for the two-story volume that is. I think we’re still going to keep the – well, it could either way on what’s above at the deck. Board Member Lew: Then I don’t have the technical specs and I don’t know that we need to get into it but I mean like a 50% -- if this is about a 50% visible light transparency, it’s – (inaudible) – pretty dark. Mr. Castro: No, it’s actually one of the clearer gray glasses out there. It’s considered clear glass but when we had the sample, we used that in a couple different high rises in San Francisco and it is – just has a little bit of a grey tint. It distinguishes itself from ultra-clear glazing. Board Member Lew: Ok, I think my only – my main point is that we have new mixed-use buildings here in Palo Alto where people are putting this on the ground floor and to me, it doesn’t work at all. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Mr. Castro: I agree. Board Member Lew: So, I do appreciate the effort that you’ve made. Ok, that’s all that I have on the building. Chair Furth: Just for my enlightenment, what’s the significance of low iron glass? Board Member Lew: Think of the Apple store. Chair Furth: Very clear. Board Member Lew: Super clear. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: Super expensive. Chair Furth: Thank you, that’s helpful. Commissioner – Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Yes, I agree with Board Member Gooyer, the building is too boxy. To me, it’s almost a diagram of the zoning code on most sides. It’s as tall as it can be, it’s to the setbacks on three sides at least, there’s really no reveals or changes on the roofline height, and the 8-inch recess on the façade to the glazing is not enough. In many ways I feel it just needs more development, it needs a better design. It’s not exactly bad, it’s just blah and we’re looking for better than blah on Cambridge Avenue. So, I made a sketch for myself with just what the roof would look like with some variation on it and it’s 175-feet long if I catch that. That’s a pretty long single building on Cambridge Avenue, you’re replacing three buildings with distinct feelings – characters to them. I’ll be it those characteristics may not be perfect and could be improved but I think it needs a little – quite a way to go to improve, not just to replace. So, I feel the building needs to be much less boxy, much more varied and relieved and any more reveals both vertically and in and out horizontally. I won’t say that I am concerned but I would like to see considerable more information about the impact of your building with the condominium, the residential building on the left down on Cambridge Avenue. Both residents are here speaking about that and you’ve made statements about how it’s just a high clearstory window, they’ve made statements about their children being dramatically affected. I think we should get to the bottom of what the true impact will be. To that effect, if you could show us some renderings of how that building relates to your building right now, at least the renderings I have don’t seem to show it accurately. As well if you could show it on the floor plans, on each floor what is adjacent to your building on their building? How is it impacted? It would help us a lot to make a determination on that. It is very important that you don’t impact them any more than is absolutely necessary. With the neighbor in the back, again I find that it seems that you’re making good work to accommodate her particular needs and it sounds to me like you’re going above and beyond the call of duty, at the same time it is incumbent on you to work with everybody. The question that will come up is as the applicant’s representative asked, are you willing to put that in a Conditional of Approval in the Staff report? This new heating system or ventilation system so I would expect that Staff will try to come back with an answer on that but to have to teeth in it, it would need to be required not just an offering at a public hearing. Another item that I’m quite concerned about is the whole pedestrian frontage of the building and it feels to me that you could do considerably more to enliven the pedestrian experience walking along here and that’s something that the City is looking for very strongly. To make this retail spaces work to improve, Cambridge Avenue right now is not a strong commercial retail shopping center. We know that you know that, and the whole goal is to try to make it so. To do that it needs ins and outs on the building, places to sit, to stop, to put a bicycle. Not just to meet the minimum requirement with a bike rack in the middle of the sidewalk but to architecturally, to creatively make the spaces that are public in front of the stores, next to, as you come closer to the landscaping, with benches and other public amenities. With having your building give a little bit, step back a little bit from the sidewalk and I’m afraid I just don’t see too much of that. This looks very corporate, very – after 5 o’clock City of Palo Alto Page 17 it’s not very inviting and so I would like to see you do more to enliven the sidewalk area. Maybe – I want to come back to the DEE and the height and the whole parking thing… Chair Furth: (Inaudible) Commissioner Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Hi. Board Member Lew: Board Member Thompson, sorry. Board Member Thompson: I would also agree with Gooyer that the massing is extremely oppressive in terms of it being unbroken in many ways. In fact, the one break that you have made on the left of the picture is very confusing and feels extremely unrelated to the rest of the design and I think it would – even just looking at the materials, the relationship isn’t very clear why you’ve decided to single that part out and kept the rest of it sort of singular. Currently, the way the lots are designed, it’s sort of on a 25- foot 50-foot rhythm and I think that does something to break up the mass. When you’re looking at this again, it might be worth looking at that, sort of having a rhythm, having something where the breaking apart has consistency or sort of a relationship. Even just to look at the adjacencies, you know the buildings that are around you, it’s one thing just to look at the materials and copy that which is less convincing than if you were to say well, this has a scale and it has a rhythm that is – it speaks to a certain level. It would develop your concept and make it much more convincing if you were to take those things into consideration. Even just the way that you’ve rendered the apartments on the left is that they have these striations and use that if that’s something that factors into your design concept because right now, it does feel very foreign. It does not feel like it has a place here right now, even just the fenestrations, the way that you’ve detailed the fenestration on the larger building is different than how you’ve detailed it in the smaller break apart on top of the garage. Given that this is a relatively low building, why not (inaudible) windows? Something that can allow for passage ventilation, that would also change the ceiling that this currently giving if there are operable windows and there’s a more human connection between the people that in the building and outside. I think it also is a little dangerous to call that thing a pavilion because a pavilion has a lot of connotation for public interface and it doesn’t seem like that’s getting accomplished right now. Chair Furth: Thank you. Before we go back to the Design Enhancement Exception request, thank you for your presentation. I found the packet and the presentation helpful. I think it was interesting in particular to see the site lines with the additional read lines – rear yard setback. When I looked at this building I thought well it does have the kind of latticework elements that seem to be very popular in the Cal. Ave redevelopment. It does have the sort of light and creamy colors that are also popular but it has the massing and the overall impression that I’m more used to seeing on El Camino Real where you see quite armored, defended buildings because it’s a big, wide, noisy street with lots of traffic and air pollution. This seems to me to be an inappropriate design for Cambridge Avenue in this block. It’s to defended, it’s to armored, it doesn’t engage with the street and balconies are good, windows that open are good. This is a great climate still, more landscaping is essential, it needs more in and out so that – you know 175- feet without a bench, that’s too long in my opinion. This is somewhat of an obsession of mine because I sprain my ankle from time to time but you need to be able to sit down. If you want to encourage pedestrian traffic or me meeting a friend in front of your building then you need to make it comfortable. With respect to the landscaping, it may very well be that bamboo properly confined is the best treatment for the back. I think you need more on the front to convert this block to a retail block. That’s one of the hallmarks of much of Palo Alto retail and I’m puzzled that almost none of the plants you’re choosing are either native or particularly good as far as I know for habitat. I think I – I think kangaroo paws are gorgeous but I’m not sure – I don’t think this meets our new standards which require thinking more about native plants and plants that are habitat for birds or bees or whatever. Let’s see if I have any other notes here I can read. I’m glad that you have much more light in your building than you did in the first proposal that you made to the City. I am concerned about the issue of whether the upper floors are designed for lawful uses and I look forward to hearing more from Staff when this comes back. Over and over again we see the demolition of buildings that provide smaller office space – community serving office spaces and big open floor plans which appear to be designed for tech companies and software City of Palo Alto Page 18 manufacturer. So, the choice of tenants is the applicants but the design of the building needs to be suitable for lawful uses so that’s something else that I’m going to be looking at when this comes back to us. So, Peter, you wanted to speak further on… Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah so, I wonder if could just address my colleagues really but the applicant has made a couple choices here at the beginning. One is to get whatever parking is required at grade level and then to fit three-stories of building and that’s what creates the boxiness. It’s just trying to maximize that 35,000-square foot. There is an option of putting below ground, that certainly would alleviate the boxiness and give them extra space to modulate the building. It would also perhaps provide a little more parking, I mean god forbid you to go beyond the minimum. Clearly, it’s necessary and if you put a basement there you could get probably twice that parking. Maybe some clever way to loading as well but I find myself on the one hand obviously the Design Enhancement Exception findings that are very hard to make. On the other hand, reading through the applicants carefully made presentation about the need for taller retail spaces, I find that convincing. The 12-foot floor to floor for retail is not doing it so when I think about -- and I listened also to the medical person presenting to us who explained that for her particular profession, I suspect that a tall ceiling is not as important for her type of office. So, maybe what’s going on is that they’ve also decided to make two-floors of office that are taller, more software corporate type offices and what really needs to happen is the retail does need to have a taller ceiling. The other two floors, if you insist on having two-floors of office above it should be less tall. That would force you to find ways to do the mechanical in soffits around the edges or small localized units. There are other technologies to get around that so if you had say a 14-foot floor to floor plate on the first floor, then went down to 10-feet on the top two floors it would shift that nature of the building. It would make it more focused on viable retail on the ground level which we want. It would force the office spaces to be more suitable for smaller local businesses which we want. Maybe we should be stepping towards that and not stipulating floor heights but strongly encouraging it. With this design, we’re sort of forcing retail less and commercial software development more with these offices. Board Member Gooyer: I agree in the sense but on a lot of these things we mention the – it has to go let’s say 10-feet floor to floor. I’d rather just say I need an 8-foot ceiling and then have my engineer get creative as far as getting the air distribution or whatever the case is through whether it’s an open web truss or whatever the case is. Then, as you said, even if we – then you have the ability to, as you said, raise the ground floor somewhat because you’re absolutely right. If this is going to be a community based small office space type criteria, 8-feet is plenty or 8 ½-feet or whatever and that you don’t need 10-foot ceilings. I mean I’ve spent numerous years in offices that are 8-feet and never felt cramped by it. Chair Furth: You’re tall, right. Any other comments before we – before I try – yes. Board Member Lew: I just wanted to point out that there’s a sun-shading study on Page 53 and 54. I think we were – I think the residents of 420 Cambridge had asked about sun impacts and I think some of the residents on College Avenue had also expressed some concern. I just want to clarify from the applicant, the sun shading that you’re showing is the height that meets the current 35-foot height limit and not… Mr. Castro: Correct. Board Member Lew: …the 45-foot height limit. So, I think I just want to make a general point, I think they can meet with neighbors privately to explain this but it seems to me with respect to 420 Cambridge is that their own building shades their site more than 400 Cambridge. That’s just because it’s not (inaudible) North-South in Palo Alto – in this part of Palo Alto but as I’m looking at the sun study I don’t see a significant impact on there. Just taking a quick look at it but I haven’t seen – a study for the higher height limit. Chair Furth: To try to summarize what I think we’ve heard, I have not heard support for a Design Enhancement Exception for height. I have heard support for some sort of modified loading facility that would accommodate smaller trucks of the kind that might actually come to this site. I have – I think City of Palo Alto Page 19 those are consensus and I think there’s a majority in taking the position that the building that’s presented is too blocky; too much of an integrated unit. There are at least two of us who find it not sufficiently pedestrian friendly in lacking in – what do you call that, going back and forth? Undulation. There are comments that have also been raised about the possibility to make it engage with the street more by having windows that open. There’s been a request for landscape that is more focused on our relatively recently adopted requirement that it be good habitat and preferably native. A request that it be designed to be suitable for a lawful use which may be smaller rather – offices rather than software factories. Anything else folks that I have forgotten? Oh, a question about the 7-foot fence and how that relates to the windows that would be adjacent to it. A comment that underground parking might solve part of the blocky problem. This comes up over and over and over again, if you try to build the full FAR and have parking above ground we get very large blocky structures. It happens a lot in the proposals that we see. Anything else? Board Member Lew: I think Board Member Baltay was looking for additional drawings. Chair Furth: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Just be sure that you present clearly the impact of the building on the neighboring residential structures. Chair Furth: I would say that we see buildings that are on easy sites and we see buildings that are on hard sites and you have a hard site. It’s existing development, it’s infill, it’s in a neighborhood where clearly you don’t want to – some of the buildings aren’t worth emulating, some maybe, you’re next to residential on two sides, you suppose to introduce a new lovely, attractive retail to a street that hasn’t really done that so I don’t think any of us are saying it’s easy but we think it’s possible. If I could have a motion to (inaudible)… Vice Chair Baltay: I wonder if the Board is willing to push this farther and stipulate that the retail must be taller rather than leave it as a recommendation of all our comments summed up by the Chairperson. I’m just beginning to think… Board Member Gooyer: Must be taller you said? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, the retail – the floor to floor height of the retail is at 12-foot, it’s too low, it needs to be bigger. On the one hand, I am very uncomfortable we’re very close to delving into the role of the Architect, not the Review Board. At the same time, I’m so tired of having these come back over and over again and we’re fighting the same questions. Board Member Gooyer: No, you’re right but I think again that depends on having spent 20 plus years in designing retail. A lot of that depends on the scope of the entire volume rather than – this is a 1,500 or 2,000-square foot space. Those areas are going to be smaller than this or if not about the same size as this and you don’t need 16-foot ceilings in a space like this, I’m sorry. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t be willing to – I should say I don’t care how high they do it but I don’t think it should be mandated that it needs to be that. If that’s the case, if we’re requiring it here then it’s going to set a president or whatever. Vice Chair Baltay: I hear you, Robert, I hear you, I just – I’m not sure they are hearing us as much as I want them too. Board Member Gooyer: Well, then you know I mean maybe it gets to the point where – this is sidetracking a little bit but it gets to the point where we’re serious about indicating what we do up here. I mean it’s not – and you’re right, I’ve done this long enough and this is not lecturing or maybe it is lecturing but we spend our time giving criteria. Then, as you said, these things come back and it’s like did they even listen to us? Well… City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Furth: Ok, gentlemen, now that we have vented. Board Member Gooyer: We’re not arguing the point, we’re in agreement but it… Chair Furth: I’m going to cut you off for the moment. We can talk about this further later and we are – we do want to give clear direction and I’m sympathetic to that point. One of the findings that we have to make it so that the space is suitable for the occupants for the intended use so this needs to be good attractive retail space. I understand Vice Chair Baltay’s question to be, is there a majority of the Board that is of the opinion that it needs to be at least… Vice Chair Baltay: 14-feet floor to floor. Chair Furth: 14-feet floor to floor, anybody support that position? Dies for lack of a second. Vice Chair Baltay: It wasn’t a motion. Chair Furth: I understand, I’m teasing you. Vice Chair Baltay: I move – can I make a motion? Chair Furth: So, the motion – yes, a motion… MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. Chair Furth: All those in favor? Opposed? None, the motion passes 5-0 and who was (inaudible – mic shut off) MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 Board Member Lew: Robert. Chair Furth: Robert I think. Alright, we’re going to break for 5-minutes and we’ll be right back. [The Board took a short break before hearing the next item] 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2370 Watson Court [17PLN-00306]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program That Would Allow for Changes to Donor and Tenant Names That are Consistent With the Master Sign Program Without Subsequent Planning Review. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: ROLM (E)(D)(AD) (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing Subdistrict-Embarcadero With a Site and Design and Automobile Dealership Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: We are back in session, still without our usual recording system but with a makeshift one. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing, it’s quasi-judicial, it is for an approval of a Master – a Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program for 2370 Watson Court. It is exempted from CEQA, Staff if we could have the report. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Ms. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Thank you. Good morning Board Members, Claire Hodgkins, project planner. I’m just going to give a very quick presentation today. This project, as you mentioned, is for a Master Sign Program at 2370 Watson Court. Essentially the City requires at Staff level a Discretionary Review for any changes to a sign so what’s being requested today is a Master Sign Program to allow for – to set the parameters for future changes to tenant and donor names on the sign without having to come back for an additional Discretionary Review Process. I do want to be very clear that the sign itself in terms of the size, the materials and the location of the sign has already been approved as part of a previous Architectural Review Approval at a Staff level. The project before you today only include the parameters for that future – for those future changes to the sign. The process following the ARB recommendation today, the Director would make a decision on the project and as you noted, the project is exempted from CEQA in accordance with Category 11 exemption for on-premise signs for a commercial facility. There are a few relevant guidelines, mainly the Sign Ordinance, the Bay Lands Master Plan, and Design Guidelines are applicable to the project and the Airport Land Use Plan. That’s – as outlined in the report, the project is consistent with all of these plans and ordinances so the recommended motion today is the ARB take the following action. Recommend approval of the Architectural Review application based on findings and subject to Conditions of Approval included in the draft finding and the Condition of Approval. The applicant is here today, I don’t believe that they are planning to speak unless – but they are available if you have any questions. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Staff? I have one, what does the Bay Lands Master Plan say about this signage in this area? Ms. Hodgkins: It simply provides parameters the same as it does for all signs within the Bay Lands area. Chair Furth: The red and white isn’t usually what we do in the Bay Lands. Ms. Hodgkins: Right so it does look at more natural colors so – or muted colors I think is the language which typically red does not constitute. The reason we made a decision on the color of the sign was essentially just that we do like to give some flexibility for – it is kind of a Stanford color. The sign across the street has a very similar signage so it fits in with the context of the area and it’s being used minimally. Chair Furth: Thank you so it’s Cardinal not red, ok. Does the applicant wish to add anything? Hearing… Ms. Vivian Jones: My name is Vivian Jones from Stanford University School of Medicine and I’m here if you have any questions and if you need me. Chair Furth: Thank you. Comments from Board Members, start this way. Osma? Board Member Thompson: At the time I don’t see any reason right why we shouldn’t go with the Staff recommendation. I’m open to hearing my fellow Board Members opinion on this matter but currently, that’s my position. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: I have no comments. I can support this project as presented. Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I can support the project. With regards to your question about the Bay Lands and the red color. It was an issue on the building next door when the eye clinic came into the existing building and it was discussed at length and it was deemed approvable. Chair Furth: Thank you for that backstory. Board Member Gooyer. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Gooyer: There really isn’t that much to discuss, it’s fine the way it is. Chair Furth: (Inaudible) I would entertain a motion. MOTION Board Member Gooyer: I move that we accept the or approve the – I shouldn’t say approve, it recommends approval of the project as it’s presented. Chair Furth: Subject to the findings and conditions in the Staff report. All those in favor? Second, sorry? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Seconded by Board Member Lew. All those in favor? No opposed, that passes 5 nothing, thank you. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 Ms. Hodgkins: Thank you. Chair Furth: I believe that’s a new land speed record for us. We wouldn’t want you to think that we’re not taking these things seriously but because the plan had already been approved, that changing that approval to a Master Sign approval was a bit of bureaucratic housekeeping. Study Session 4. 4256 El Camino Real (17PLN-00357): Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for a new 51,266 Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 90 Guest Rooms 96 Parking Spaces. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Alright, we are ready to move to Item Number Four, I do have speaker cards for that. If anybody else who hasn’t submitted a speaker card wants to submit one, they are right there so Staff report, please. Well, I should introduce it. Board Member Lew: Well wait. Chair Furth: Well, I should let everybody set up, alright. What have I done with my agenda packet? Item Number Four is a request for Preliminary Architectural Review for new approximately 51,000-square foot, 5-story hotel with 90 guest rooms, 96 parking spaces and because this is a Preliminary Review, there is no CEQA; no California Environmental Quality Act Review. The zoning district is CS and because this is a Preliminary Architectural Review nothing will be done in terms of making a final recommendation today and our procedure is a bit less formal. The project planner is Samuel Gutierrez, whenever you are ready. Mr. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Thank you. Once again, my name is Samuel Gutierrez and I’m the project planner assigned to this Preliminary Application. It is located at 4256 El Camino and it is for a new hotel. This did previously go before the Board for a preliminary hearing so this is a second preliminary hearing and just to go in a little on the background of it. Here you can see the existing conditions of the site. It currently has a restaurant use which has been in operation for quite a while and has gone through different restaurant ownership so that is the conditions of the site. It’s a small building, it’s just a large at-grade parking lot towards the rear, and it’s pretty open. Moving onto the proposed project here, it’s the new multi-story hotel with 90 guest rooms totally 51,266-square feet of floor area with 96 parking spaces so that would be a FAR of 2.0 to 1. The height of the proposal ranges, it is nearing the maximum height of 50-feet along the El Camino frontage. That tapers down to approximately 34-feet to the rear so City of Palo Alto Page 23 it’s a step-down kind of approach to the rear of the property. It does have a 12-foot wide sidewalk per the El Camino Design Guidelines so the frontage is stepped back a bit more than the current building that’s there which is a small restaurant. We do have a couple of issues that came up with the review of this prelim that we discussed with the applicant at a DRC meeting. Starting with a large portion of the front… Chair Furth: Excuse me, could you spell out the acronym so or could you – DRC is? Mr. Gutierrez: Developmental Review. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah so that’s Developmental Review Committee with all the City departments that would be involved with this review of this type of application so that ranges from planning to utilities, Public Works, fire etc. So, moving back to one of the main issues, one of the issues that we discussed with the applicant at the Developmental Review with other City Staff was the frontages is largely dedicated to vehicle movement. There are a large carport porte-cochere and driveway in the front and also, we have a parking layout that’s mostly mechanical lift system in the garage and the code requirement for the non- mechanical lift parking spaces is two spaces or 10% of the overall parking, whichever is greater. The 96 spaces in this proposal so they do need at least 9.6, they don’t have that currently and we do have some question about the functionality and the efficiently of the mechanical lift system. They are a three-tiered lift and they do have a tandem setup so there’s on lift system that places behind another so you will drive through one to get to the other. The other issues that we identified to the applicant where that portions of the below-grade parking garage would count as floor area. They are just void empty spaces, there’s not very many, I do have an example to show you of that so that was something that was noted to the applicant so they are potentially over their FAR now. The transformer location -- this type of building would require a large transformer for utilities and the location that is currently proposed would not have the clearance for installation and for maintenance. They do need a 35-foot height clearance above the transformer. I was told from utility engineering that that is for a crane because these utility transformers are extremely heavy and require a crane to install. The development would also lead to excessive excavation for the below-grade parking so the Redwoods are something of a concern on the adjacent property. The applicant did submit a revised arborist report from the previous prelim, however, it is kind of a preliminary arborist report. It does give additional details but a more thorough surveying of those Redwood’s root systems would be needed in the future application. Then the site is listed as a housing inventory site in our Housing Element so it's going for fully – it's going to a pure hotel use so that’s something that we did note because we would be losing a housing inventory site per the Housing Element in the code. Just a quick overview of the site plan here, you can see the large carport port cochere, the location of the transformer on the North right corner of this layout and you can see how the down driveway crosses the accessible path of travel; as well for these at-grade surface parking spaces. Towards the rear of the property on the left side of the site plan, you can see the Redwood on and adjacent to the property. That is where this advanced surveying of the root system that needs to be conducted in a future application. The —this is the below-grade parking plan, you can see that that’s the tandem systems thereof the parking lifts that are suggested. If you look to the left of the driveway as you enter, you’ll see this notched area that’s kind of a void space. It’s not really needed for turning radius so that would be an area for example that would count as floor area against the total. Just to the lower, I guess South portion of this map, you can see that there’s a void area that’s long, kind of rectangular beyond the tandem parking spaces. That kind of void area would also count as floor area, it’s not serving a function for accessibility or for parking. We also did receive a number of public comments from the neighboring multi-family complex and Staff did have a number of meetings and email correspondence with the neighbors. I can say that the applicant has been in correspondence and has had a meeting with the neighbors as well to try to address their concerns. These are part of the concerns, the height of the proposal involution to their multi-family complex. The Municipal Code allows the height of 50-feet if it’s not located within 150-feet of a residential district other than RM-40 or TC zone. So, I did look into the density and zoning of the adjacent complex, it is zoned CS so it’s not a multi-family or excuse me, it’s not a residential zone and based on their density, even if it were to be a residential zone it would be RM-40. City of Palo Alto Page 24 That would be the closest zone that would fit their density and their approximately 43 units per acre. Per the code, it wouldn’t impact the height of this proposal in any way and it’s wouldn’t force it to lower in height. The other comments from the neighbors where regarding the potential shadows that would be cast on their open space of their complex. The overall design compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area, the impacts of the proposal in regards to traffic, noise and the adjacent Redwoods and then the project being converted into housing. There were questions from the public about this project going into housing and again, reiterating my earlier point, the current zoning doesn’t allow for this to be a pure housing development. The key considerations that we’re asking for you to take here are the parking layout and carport porte cochere driveway, the site plan, the potential shadow that this development would cast on the adjacent open space, the proposals overall design compatibility with the surrounding area, the open space on site and the conformance with the El Camino Design Guidelines. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Staff? We have speaker cards from about nine people, the first speaker is Sharlene Carlson to be followed by Neil Murphy. Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: Typically Chair we let the applicant speak first. Chair Furth: Don’t know why I forgot that, I apologize, of course, we do, let’s hear from the applicant, please. Mr. Gutierrez: We do have a presentation from the applicant and they have a supplemental video to show as well. Chair Furth: Ok so good morning. I apologize for overlooking you. This – you have 10-minutes. Mr. Chek Tang: Good morning, thank you Board Members. My name is Chek Tang, a partner with Study T Square and I just want to bring up our holiday greetings to you. Our client representatives extend his greetings from Romania, he could not be here today but we’ll try to answer as much of the question from the ownership point of view as possible. We do have our team, Chris Lee who is my partner, as well as our hospitality consultant who represents the owners is also, Eric (inaudible). One of the things that I think when we left the last meeting we were given a directive to really work with the community and the neighbors to resolve a number that were confronting us. There was a lot of really constructive comments from the Board and from the community that I think we’ve taken to heart. Then in addition to that, I think we worked very closely with Sam, Staff and other agencies to really come up with some – we feel is a workable solution that we even heard this morning with early projects. We (inaudible) present it to you but I think we wanted to make sure that we state that we have heard the comments and we’ve really, in good faith, addressed all the comments not only from the Board but from the community as well. Let me see if I can work this, how do I advance this? Oh, I’m sorry, wrong button. I think it’s really important before we get into the project before the previous proposal to the new proposal to really kind of refresh on the context of the site. Obviously, we have our community behind us, the Palo Alto Redwood behind us. This is the image of probably the frontage on the South – I guess the West, Southwest side that’s really confronting us and addressing kind of the rear property line, there’s a lot. If you look at these photos here it’s along the pool fence area. The condo building actually kind of slide onto our project site, it fronts onto the pool so there’s actually quite a few – quite a bit of blank wall that’s fronting our site here. In addition, on the Southside we have essentially an office warehouse facility that has a fairly large blank wall also there. Another thing to highlight is there almost like a screen of Redwood trees to the South of the project that is really a buffer between us and the adjacent property. I think it’s important to note also some of the things that we heard from last time that I think we have really addressed. There is shadow impact, some of the comments from last from the Board was the shadow impact on the residential portion onto the Palo Alto Redwoods and we have reconfigured substantially the site plan to address that issue. We have some issues about insufficient loading and parking – surface parking area drop off zone. I think we’ve worked very hard to work with Staff to address that as well. The courtyard was a main point of concern being the narrowness of the courtyard and with the reconfiguration of the building, we were able to really open up the courtyard. Especially relative to the pool area of the adjacent City of Palo Alto Page 25 property. We worked very closely with Staff also to create a much more activated – truly activated street edge on ECR (El Camino Real) in addition to kind of the circulation that needs to happen within the port cochere area. Bike parking was actually relocated, all the bike parking on site at some of the very, I think pedestrian friendly area so that it could co-mingle with the pedestrian activity. It’s not just kind of in the back and in the dark kind of forgotten area. There were some concerns about the bamboo trees along the side yard opposing the pool area. We’ve actually looked at that and I think the main issue with that is about kind of screening so by reconfiguring the site plan, I think the need for screening has gone away. In additionally, we’re also proposing other, not as invasive kind of planting along the side property line. In terms of the architecture, there were comments about the façade being too complex and disjointed. I think we’ve taken a fresh look at it, really work on the massing. Not just kind of cosmetic changes but really looking at the massing and how the building addresses the street well on ECR and how it breaks up the massing on the back as well. Obviously, we’ve been working very hard in protecting all the Redwoods around the site and we’ve been working with the City arborist and our own arborist to have a game plan for that as well. I think it’s also important to note the adjacent community’s concerns and our -- (inaudible) our project director on the owner side has worked very closely with the community. It’s gone back and forth numerous times, we actually have revisions on the design that we have actually vetted with the community to get their input before we even document it on the design and so several of these are highlighted on this slide here. Signage, we’re – to be used to direct traffic so that we can prevent blockage on ECR. I think in the reconfiguration of the site the ramp actually becomes a stacking distance down to the garage so that there’s not stacking onto ECR. Then also the actual port cochere or the kind of service area, we’re going to sign that and do the landscape articulation so that we can make those circulations clear. I won’t address the dimension issues, those were just really purely just to address the comments. Then back to the Redwood trees, again we’ve worked with both the City arborist and our arborist to address those concerns. Many of the traffic safety noise concerns will be part of the EIR that will be moving forward with once we’ve settled on the site plan. Construction process, obviously we’ll be having to do that as part of the condition of approval. The shadow, we have reconfigured the site plan so that there is essentially no shadow in fact on the Palo Alto Redwood project. Then one thing that I think is really important to note is we not seeking any variation from the zoning ordinance for our zone. We are consistent with all the heights and zoning provision on the project and then we are also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Last time we came before you we had some – several condominium projects that were part of the hotel plans. Since we’ve change the program for three units of extended stay, you know townhomes rather than having any residential on site so it’s essentially all hospitality uses on site. There was a comment from the community – I think this is the only thing that we have not responded to the community, that there was a want or a desire for this project to change from a hotel use to a residential use. I think from ownership point of view, that’s not the best use for this site. That a hotel is something that brings more benefit to the community. Onto the design itself the diagram shows, on the top, the previous scheme and then the new scheme. I think as you can see on the upper diagram there’s a three-story edge basically aligning along the Palo Alto Redwood’s property where we’ve reconfigured so that that are has the lowest massing. There’s essentially no physical massing along that side with the exception of kind of the five-story element that’s on the front adjacent to ECR. In terms of creating a little bit better circulation on site, we have carved out this port cochere to accommodate both onsite parking, I think that was one thing that was talked about, as well as on-site loading so that we have less impact on ECR – the circulation on ECR. That’s one thing that we will show the alternative (inaudible) as a comment from the [DRC]. We – again, we have illuminate the residential units to provide full, 100% hotel or extended stay program onsite. You see on here, those are the tree extended stay hotel, kind of a townhome use so the idea is folks who might stay here longer than a week and that’s a little bit more home environment for them. The hotel itself is actually kind of a diagram like this so that most of the density or kind of the wall is along ECR and as it steps down to the back, that it drops down to three and four-stories here. The other thing that we’re also aware of is if we look at the site plan is there’s an opportunity along this frontage here and even also here to provide some public art. Also, the intention is working with the Public Art Commission is not only the public art would stop here, there’s potential bringing the landscape feature as part of the public arts program. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Are we ready for the public hearing – public comment? I think we are ready for public comment now, let’s hear from the general public. The first speaker card I have is Sharlene Carlson to be followed by Neil Murphy. Ms. Sharlene Carlson: Good morning, my name is Sharlene Carlson and I have resided in Palo Alto Redwoods for 20-years. Today I am speaking as President of the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Redwood Homeowners Association. A multi-family neighborhood community of 117 homes with approximately 275 residents living on 2 2/3 acres next to and behind the Sue Hung property. Collectively, we object the revised development proposal, 4256 El Camino Real. The association provided written and verbal comment to you in the first study session and we again are providing written and verbal comment in this study session. Our written comments are included in your agenda packet, along with a report from an independent arborist that the association retained, Smith Tree Services – I’m sorry, Tree Specialist. We do want to emphasize that we welcome a new neighbor with whom we can reasonably and comfortably co-exist but regrettably, what we face today is not acceptable to us. We previously provided demographic information about our multi-cultural neighborhood community, ages newborn to 96, with a growing number of families. About numerous architectural awards, we received when the building was completed in 1983. About the care, the developer took to build around existing Redwood trees to create a unique oasis in a former Redwood tree farm and about the attention the association has paid to preserve the architectural integrity and the trees in our beautiful, private Redwood forest. We also previously expressed concern about the proposed dense development design and the impact it would have on our people and property. Nothing about the proposed development benefits our community but there many things that present potential harm. Unfortunately, we still have ongoing concerns which other speakers will address including parking and traffic safety, density, tree health and environmental impact. We do appreciate the efforts that the developer has made to meet with us and address some of our concerns. However, we do not agree that they are resolved and for us, everything remains either unresolved or questionable of the concerns that we raised. The ARB has a difficult challenge of trying to balance build to right versus right to light and Palo Alto Redwoods appreciates the time and attention that you give to weighing our concerns. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. The next speaker is Neil Murphy to be followed by Jean [phonetics] [Crossnika]. Your handwriting is better than mine but not flawless. Mr. Neil Murphy: Good morning, my name is Neil Murphy and I’ve been a resident at the Redwoods for 6- years and like my neighbors, I am concerned about this project. It creates several serious safety and traffic problems for our stretch of ECR with the flawed carport design, insufficient distance between the exit and left turn light, questionable puzzle parking, and illegal parking. First, the proposed carport design will back traffic up on ECR. What happens when valets bring up several cars into a full carport and more cars are trying to enter from the street or when UPS and FedEx show up at the same time? Where does the garbage truck park when another truck is in the loading zone? This design will cause cars to block the sidewalk where our children bike to school and obstruct circulation as our residents leave our driveway. Second, the proposed location creates insufficient distance for exiting cars to make the left turn light. Drivers who need to head North on ECR after leaving the hotel will try to cross four lanes of traffic in less than 100-feet or (inaudible) blocking southbound vehicles. This creates a safety hazard for passing cars and interrupts normal circulation. Third, the puzzle parking has been increased and the more moving parts something has the more likely it is to fail, especially as machinery ages. What – if there’s a malfunction in the first tandem lift, cars in the second are inaccessible until it’s resolved. What happens when multiple guests want their cars and a mechanical malfunction occurs? How does this effect carport congestion? Additionally, the construction depth of the garage may threaten our foundation and infrastructure. Forth, illegal and dangerous parking will occur in front of the hotel despite no parking zones. There’s no location for tour buses to unload and as we see it at the Hilton Garden Inn, buses and ride shares will park illegally in front of the hotel despite signs and red curbs. This blocks visibility for drivers both exiting and passing. Since the sidewalk is not hotel property, they have no reason to actually enforce the no parking zone there. This is also a low priority for police and we see this at the Edgewood Plaza where delivery trucks park illegally and block traffic despite signage. Those plans included commercial loading spaces but once built, the drivers take the path of least resistance and its naïve to City of Palo Alto Page 27 pretend this won’t also occur here. In reality, this proposal exacerbates the dangerous situation that no one will take responsibility for actively mitigating after the fact. To conclude, the proposal will create safety hazards and worsen circulation on ECR with its flawed carport design and insufficient distance between the exit and turn light, questionable parking technology and illegal parking. Thus, fails to meet ARB finding Number Two, to enhance living conditions in the adjacent residential areas. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Jean [Crossnika] to be followed by Julie Baskins. Ms. Jean [Crossnika]: Hello, good morning. I’m here to talk about my passion which is the Redwood trees. My name is [Crossnika], I live at the Palo Alto Redwoods where for the past 17-years I have been the Chairperson for the maintenance of our Redwood tree with the contracted arborist for 20-years. His name is Henry Elan, City arborist with Menlo Park, California. We have well over 117 trees with a number of them eligible for (inaudible) in California statues. When we became aware a 50-foot tall building being developed next door, we started to be concerned for the health and the care of the 28 Redwood trees in our grove that would be impacted and the quality of life these trees provide to homeowners. In early October I met with the developer’s arborist, Kielty Arborist Services for a walkthrough of this particular area so he can measure the diameter of the trees and the distance from the common-sense area. In the summary report, our trees were identified to be in poor condition, although we have been diligent in taking care of them through all the various water conditions. In late October, we contracted a completely independent arborist, Moki Smith of Smith Trees Specialist, to provide us with a completely independent assessment of the condition of our trees with the view of determining what might be of ultimate impact in construction on the Redwood trees. In the initial report, our trees are identified as being in good condition and showing evidence of consistent and appropriate care including irrigation. In order to acquire a deep assessment of our tree condition, we asked the City and the developer to perform the following various tests. One soil to determine the mechanical and chemical profile of the soil, water analysis to determine (inaudible) irrigation of water, live tissue testing to determine nutrient status of the tree. These tests would give us a better understanding of exactly what condition our trees are in but for our purposes today, there are three main areas of concern we want to call out at this time. Above ground portions of the trees providing benefits to privacy and screening, air quality and quality of life. Two, below ground impact of grading and excavation of a multi-level building close to the canopy and root base increase and three impacts and mitigation of the trees; (inaudible) above ground. The trees provide privacy screen, air quality and quality of life for the homeowners who benefit from the overall aesthetics. We have concerns the amount of sunlight and wind which is vital for the health of the tree will be severally compromised with a 50-foot building. We wish to emphasize we considered a so-called shade study as presented to be inadequate and we ask the City to ask the developer to get a more sophisticated, more independent shade study of the entire property. Some areas of impact of loss of sunlight, of course, would be the loss of lower limb structures, privacy, the only greenery would be at the top and the homeowners would just see trunks outside their windows. Also, we would be susceptible to dry rot on outbuilding which would be a significant cost. Two, below ground, the impact of grading – Oh, I guess I’m done. Chair Furth: You may finish your sentence. Ms. Crossnika: Ok, thank you. The impact of grading and excavating for multi-level building so close to the canopy and encroaching on the root base (inaudible) would severely impact the root system of the trees. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you Ms. Crossnika. The next speaker is Julie Baskins to be followed by Evangeline [phonetics][Inroacha] Ms. Julie Baskin: Hello, good morning. My name is Julie Baskin and I’ve lived at the Redwood since 1988. While prior speaker identified ongoing concerns resulting in traffic congestion, parking issues, and trees preservation, my focus is the environment and totality. The developer has not addressed issues raised previously and specifically, they are one, health impacts from air, sound, noise pollution both during and after construction. Smoke impact, Palo Alto Redwoods in a non-smoking environment. We see no City of Palo Alto Page 28 designated smoking area and the wind typically blows from East to West. The loss of light, the developer shade study included in your packet does not adequately address the loss of light. As mentioned before, an independent study should be a requirement. Safety risks, especially for the children and families either walking or biking to school at peak commute times. Safety hazards, as a result of illegal and dangerous double parking including vision impairment along with a perpetually blocked white lane on ECR. Finally, number six, loss of privacy, the revised proposal diminishes privacy of all windows facing the development. Guest in 27 hotel units will look out directly into the living rooms and bedrooms and balconies of 18 of our homes. The proposal includes privacy fenced gates, excuse me, made of glass and glass does not insulate noise, in fact, it transmits noise. Glass is also fragile and shatters, representing a safety concern. As a community, we hope the ARB will give consideration to how the project will impact our residents in the neighborhood from a quality of life perspective. Someone else couldn’t be here so I have the summary sheet, can I have another 60-seconds to read theirs? Chair Furth: You still have another minute left. Ms. Baskin: Oh ok. In summary, the revised plan does not provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses. It does not enhance living conditions in the adjacent residential areas, therefore, the project is inconsistent with required ARB Finding Number Two. Until this project is redesigned to reduce the scale and mass of the buildings and to integrate with the existing neighborhood, the required findings cannot be made. To recap what was expressed back in our opening remarks, we unequivocally disagree with the developer’s conclusions that they resolved all of our concerns in the 9/3 – September 30th correspondence. There are still many unresolved issues with the project as it exists today and in fact, ironically, they are the same issues the ARB raised with the developer during the August study session. In summary, the Palo Alto Redwood is a hidden gem, isn’t it similar to the kinds of residential neighborhoods the City is hoping to achieve? Chair Furth: Thank you, Ms. Baskin. Evangeline [Inroacha] to be followed by Josephine [phonetics][Shooster]. Ms. Evangeline [Inroacha:] Good morning, thank you very much. My name is Evangeline [Inroacha], I’ve been a resident of the Palo Alto Redwoods for more than 22-years. I’m very concerned about this hotel project. I feel like our neighborhood was declared a hotel corridor and has been allowed to become, as the Palo Alto Weekly put it, all string and no pearls. I want to ask if anyone has been paying attention to what is actually happening on the ground? In 2008 I think there was an economic resource associate study commissioned by the City that said at the time there as 1,865 hotel rooms in all of Palo Alto. Now within walking distance of the Redwoods, we have 19 hotels with 1,595 rooms on El Camino alone. One of these has already submitted plans to nearly triple from 36 to 97 rooms. That’s over 1,600 in a stretch of less than 2 ½ miles, just in the blocks of El Camino between 3200 and 4500. I suspect this may undercount because all I could do was map the area and look upon Trip Advisory but if we were to include the mass of Merits that are going on San Antonio and who knows what else is under consideration for properties not vacant. Surely there are thousands of rooms and if the City insists on more hotel rooms, I do think the burden should be more equitably shared throughout the City and not continue to be dumped on our neighborhood. This particular dense hotel project with almost 90 rooms in a long stretch of 50-foot high walls is unsuitable in the neighborhood. The project as draw is too bulky, significantly effects our daylight for many of our units, including all 12 of our BMR units. It endangers the health of our redwood trees and it adds to the already fragile traffic circulation and bike safety. This is just another in a series of massive buildings being built along El Camino. I would make a plea, I don’t think there’s in a whole region another multi-family residential development that has outdoor walkways amid more than 100 trees, most of them Redwood and a number of an oasis of green spaces and also provides easy access to public transportation, good schools, workplaces, community services. It seems to me we are actually the kind of housing that the new Comprehensive Plan wants to see more of and that Palo Alto should protect. We recognize that the property next door is zoned commercial and we’ve lived peacefully with Denny’s and Su Hong as next-door neighbors for over a decade. This project has proposed – it just offers nothing of benefits to those about to live in South Palo Alto. There are no City of Palo Alto Page 29 amenities for the community, no invitation to walk and pause and nothing pedestrian-centric at all. Thank you very much for your attention. Chair Furth: Thank you, [Ms. Shooster.] The next speaker is Julie Handley. I beg your pardon, yes, I got ahead of myself. [Ms. Shooster]? [Ms. Josephine Shooster:] (Inaudible), good morning, I’m Josephine Shooster and I have to put my glasses on because I’m really old. I’m 87-years old and have lived in the Redwoods for longer than any of the other participants, for 32-years. I moved to Palo Alto because of the Palo Alto philosophy of people/trees and that’s why I am here. I’ve served as president of the Board of Directors when we had a $2 million project and I remain on the Board as the Senior Member because of my experience. For 32- years I’ve enjoyed the beauty and convenience of this great Palo Alto neighborhood but I now fear that these features will disappear. Since I no longer drive, I’m spending more time at home and shall be severely impacted by this project. I often cook for the Veterans Trauma Center as part of a group and I also cook Italian food for friends who cannot any longer cook because I can do that even though I can’t drive. I’m an active citizen of Palo Alto and have started fundraisings across the street at the Pacific Art League which is a 95-year old Art School and gallery. I started the fundraising there several years ago which is still going on so I am an active Palo Alto citizen, not just a resident of the Redwoods. My home is 50-feet tall and this hotel will definitely impact air and light. I did not move to Palo Alto to live in a cave and that’s I will be living if this project is approved. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I believe the next card I have Julie Handley to be followed by Robert Moss. Ms. Julie Handley: Thank you very much. I’m Julie Handly, I have Dinah’s Garden Hotel and also the property (inaudible) by Alexanders so I’m directly across from this project. 4261 for Dinah’s Hotel and 4269 for We Trade It Well, it used to be Trader Vic but it’s now the (inaudible) by Alexanders who is my tenant. This is John Hutar who we – they very kindly allowed me to bring up, he’s my General Manager, he is an expert hotelier. Recently he GMed the (inaudible) Hotel in San Francisco, prior to that the Sofie Hotel in Redwood Shores and prior to that Nikko. He is an expert in hotels and he will speak very shortly about the hotel aspects and the safety aspects and the (inaudible) aspect. In my case, this is a legacy property that I inherited from my parents. I have slightly over 5-acres, it’s a hotel, 129-rooms and I recently did a quick and easy -- had an interior do a quick study for me. If I was allowed to use this kind of density, I could build over 1,200 units on my property, making me the person most likely to profit from this kind of density and I am adamantly opposed to this project. I feel that it is totally contrary to the legacy in Palo Alto. My hotel has also been referred to as a hidden gem, we are Number Two on Trip Advisor out of 27 hotels in Palo Alto. At this point, I would like to turn this over to Jon who can talk a little bit about the reality of running a hotel with this kind of density and the challenges it represents. Mr. John Hutar: Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. We’ll restart the timer for your new speaker since I have cards for both of you. Mr. Hutar: Thank you. Our comments remain unchanged that we provided in written form at the last hearing. The density of the project has not changed, perhaps become even more dense. The issues that the developers spoke to as resolved, we respectfully disagree with and would still remain very much open and unresolved. The parking puzzle, I can tell you from 30-years of experience, 20-years a hotel General Manager will be an operational nightmare and will have overflow onto ECR. When you have that much mechanical equipment in tandem and deep with the unpredictability of when guests will want to arrive and depart. Inevitably the car that needs to be retrieved will be the deepest and while they’ve talked about provisions on the driveway for overflow, it will bleed out because you have vendors and deliveries and UPS trucks and all of that inevitably happening concurrently. As it relates to the architectural designs, Dinah’s as I pointed out in my last talk to you, in April of 1958 opened with accolades from the architectural community and having a massively dense structure like this across the street from an oasis and an architectural gem that is still revered as forward thinking would just be a shame for Palo Alto and everything that we stand for in our values. Thirdly I recently had a conversation with a colleague who City of Palo Alto Page 30 manages a similar property that just opened in Santa Cruz with this parking puzzle. The number one problem for them is parking. The biggest detractor on Trip Advisory and biggest detractor with their guests is the parking situation which is just a nightmare to manage. We are open to competition, that’s everyone’s right but to jam that much density onto a parcel and a neighborhood that is currently lovely would really be a shame. We concur with, I think we can say 100% of the points that were respected with our neighbors, the Redwoods, who have previously spoken. Ms. Handley: That would be correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Hutar: Anything else Julie? Ms. Handley: Nope. Mr. Hutar: Thank you. Chair Furth: Mr. Moss. Mr. Robert Moss: Thank you. I’m sure you’ve heard of two of the biggest problems people have in Palo Alto are traffic and parking and this proposal will worsen both along one of our most congested streets, El Camino. It’s too big, it’s bulky, it’s under parked and the under parking is verified by the fact that they are talking about using mechanical lifts. The first principle should be scaled it down so that all parking can be accommodated at grade or perhaps in an underground garage. If you can’t do that, the building is too big and they can’t do that now so the building is too big. Second, if you look at the pictures they had a long El Camino, it’s a very poor attempt to meet the El Camino Design Guidelines and speaking as one of the people who created those Design Guidelines, the building is too blocky, too bulky, it doesn’t have any consistency with any other building along that street in that block and so it should be scaled down and made much more attractive. Right now, all they are trying to do is jam in as much development on that site as they can possibly fit. It’s not a good way of doing things. We have to be very careful about what’s allowed along El Camino because we’re having some real major problems with some of the things that are being built, especially in Mountain View, in creating real traffic jams. You drive along El Camino even as late as 10 o’clock in the morning, it’s totally congested and this is going to make it worse. So, scale it down, cut it back to the point where parking is accessible and adequate on site without going thru these mechanical lifts. By the way, there have been some – this is unusual to have mechanical lifts on projects in Palo Alto but in some areas where they’ve allowed them, they occasionally had failures and when you can’t get your car up or down on lift, it creates a real problem. That’s not a good way to be parking so as the reviewers of the design, I think you can find a lot of problems with the way it’s laid out and the appearance of the buildings and that’s got to be improved also. Right now, all they are trying to do is jam as much as they possibly can on site and ignoring any consistency with the rest of the community, that’s not good. We need to have something that’s more consistent and more compatible and especially traffic and parking. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Moss. Anybody else wants to speak? Then we will end this part of the proceeding. This is a – beg your pardon, this is a study session so we don’t always do disclosures but does anybody want to talk about other communications that are relevant to this matter? Board Member Gooyer: I have a question I guess to the applicant. What exactly is the function of the timeshare units or how do they work? [Mr. Eric ??:] Good morning Board, my name is Eric (inaudible), I’m the hotel consultant with the project. The – those three units are more extended stays. So, for example, if anyone has ever stayed at a Residence Inn where somebody can come in and they’ll have a small kitchen area and a separate bedroom area. It’s just a way to capture a different type of clientele that may be coming in for a month, two months, two weeks and they are looking for a little bit more than just your standard guest room. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Gooyer: Ok, thank you. Chair Furth: Anything else? Anyone else? Mr. ??: I don’t know if I could just have a minute to maybe just address just a few of the concerns? Chair Furth: Not right now, thank you. Mr. ??: Ok. Chair Furth: But you’re -- certainly you are welcome to respond. You another 10-minutes but I thought if we got any specific questions that people wanted to address that would make that more efficient use of their time. Ok, 10-minutes to respond. Mr. Tang: Thank you. Since we had not quite enough time to present our project, I would just address this because some of the concerns where mostly about the kind of larger policy issues. From our belief, we believe the land use – our project per the land use is fully compliant and I understand the Comprehensive Plan allows for the kind of building that we’re proposing but it a lot of qualitative quality that the Board has to evaluate. The way we have done the project is really putting all the density and kind of the street (inaudible) per the Comprehensive Plan on El Camino Real and on kind of the South end of the building to create much less impact on the neighbors to the North and to the West. That’s something that I think, as you can see in your package, is really important. Then another topic that was mentioned is the circulation of parking and the diagram that you see on the screen, I think just in a quick summary is all the loading services including perhaps buses – shuttle buses that drop off folks that actually pull in the port cochere. Along with Uber drivers who want to drop off or pick up there – the clients can have a full utilization within that port cochere area. However, we have an alternative plan that we can show you quickly for your comment of recommendation from (inaudible) Transportation Department. In terms of the protection of the Redwood trees, one of the things that I think is a really critical item for us to really think about is if you look at the garage plan which I don’t think this is the garage plan. The garage plan actually follows a setback of the building like this so if you look at the relationship between our garage footprint and the tree canopies, that’s the reason why we setback the garage footprint. In order to have the root bulb for the Redwood trees to be protected and also have plenty of room to grow. For the shadow study, we can definitely as part of the EIR process and also the noise studies as part of the EIR process, we’ll come forward with much more detail but I think to also note, right now there’s no street wall along ECR. So, as we put this building on ECR, the noise level at the back of the site should be reduced as a result so that could be validated when we have the noise report. The massing study I think is really important to also note that we have a component of the building where the five-stories is really where this darker color is and the extended stay area is actually two-story on the back. It’s even lower or shorter than the existing condo building here as a respectful kind of gesture both this kind of blank sidewall, as well as the condominium here. As well as the massing transition from a five-story down to a four-story and a three-story condition to really address that issue. Then the other thing is in terms of privacy that by reorienting this – these extended stay units, none of these units are – have the public face fronting onto the neighbor’s property. These on the upper floor of this – these units here, essentially (inaudible) with this blank wall and the public face is actually fronting onto the courtyard. In addition to a gate here that separates this more active area off the courtyard to kind of this rear, what we call it a more sculptural garden, of a much more passive garden back here. I think our project has really looked at all the comments from the Board, as well as from the community and we respected those comments. In terms of the architecture, I think one of the things that are important to note is that we have created – actually changed the program, the entire program so that the lobby is kind of in the center, mi-block of this project with the bar, the lounge area with outdoor seating spaces to really activate ECR. Unlike the Hilton Garden – the Hilton down the street that is kind of just a straight wall so that’s another thing that we have responded too. The other thing that is important to note is also on the back roof that kind of cascades down, what we’ve done is changed our mechanical system so the PTAC System, (inaudible) System so that we can actually don’t necessarily have to have City of Palo Alto Page 32 mechanical that’s on the roof on the rear of the site. The only mechanical system on the roof is really up front where we have the restaurant, the bar, and the common area. I think it’s really important to note that this is a project that I think we worked long and hard at and not only considering what is there right now. The Comprehensive Plan requires us to look at this project to the future of Palo Alto and these are the kind of projects being called for. Now, architecturally I think we’ve heard your comment about there was a street wall, there was too much height along the adjacent property line, and there wasn’t enough breakup and we literally broke up the building to that in terms of the street presence. We still keep the street wall but have a kind of a finer grain modular in terms of the architecture. Also breaking up not a disjointed material uses but much more kind of unified kind of a feel but I think the idea of having to – now is a balance between incorporating all the operational things that are required of the hotel – the operation of the hotel and also creating that activated street scheme. The port cochere that we’re talking about that we’re look – we’ll continuing to work the landscape architect to create a really nice paving area so it doesn’t feel like an asphalt port cochere. It’s really almost like a pedestrian plaza within in that whole area of the port cochere. With that, I will just end with I think we have been taking these comments to heart from a design side, from a land use side, from an environmental side and we’ll continue to work with the community on creating conditions that would be acceptable for everybody in terms of the construction, mitigation. We look forward to all our other engineers to validate the finding – hopefully the finding that we have in terms of shadow and noise. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: You still have 3-minutes if you’d like. Mr. ??: Thank you. I just want to say that we appreciate all the comments from the community and the local hoteliers. Just a couple quickly addressing the issues, one of the things that have really changed over the last 2 to 3-years is if you take a lot of the hotels here in downtown when it comes to parking is the use of Lyft and Uber. A lot of people that are coming to the hotels and the type of clients will be a very heavy corporate clientele. They are not even driving their own cars now because they give some hotels 25%-30% -- they are actually using Uber and Lyft to get to the hotels which does help the hotels from a parking standpoint because they are not using their own cars. Sant Cruz could be a little bit different because it’s more of a leisure market so you have a lot more families that go there so you definitely would have less people using Uber and Lyft. Where in the Palo Alto market you definitely have a lot of people now utilizing that. Hilton Garden Inn for example, which I work with that brand, they have 147 units, we’re only going to have 90 so from a use of tour buses and those types of groups, that’s not necessarily going to be something that we’re going to have a lot of. I’m not going to say we’re never going to have it but the Hilton Garden Inn can have a lot more buses because they have teams and different sporting events and that type of clientele so we wouldn’t have that much of a parking issue outside. A hotel would be definitely 100% non-smoking and we will have a designated smoking area to address that and like I said with the hotel, from a traffic flow standpoint, even when the hotel is sold out and there are 90 cars coming in and out. It will probably still be a little bit less than what comes and go from the restaurant that has been there in the past. Ownership is definitely committed to making that property a success and working with everybody in the local community. Mr. Tang: I also wanted to add since we have about 15 seconds left. We’re multi-tasking with the lift system, the (inaudible) of the lift system on how the threes stack would work. Generally, a concern might be found if this was an individual resident operating it but this entire system, whether it’s the stand along parking or the lift, is actually all operated by the valet Staff. I think this will give you an illustration of how it works and also because of the ramp condition, as well as the stacking distance within the garage itself, it creates plenty of stacking that’s outside of the port cochere and ECR so thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions from the Board of the applicant? Vice Chair Baltay: Sure, you told me that you have – you told us that you have at-grade parking. Could you point out where that is? City of Palo Alto Page 33 Mr. Tang: There is a handicap spot here, a parking spot as well as another spot here at grade. In addition – so these are now double-wide, kind of a drop-off area so you could actually park here for a taxi or Uber as well. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Could you explain how a service truck actually gets into that loading dock, please? Mr. Tang: So, the idea is they can pull in and back into this spot and I think is where we have provided per code a 42-foot loading area but one of the things that we would probably ask the Board to consider is what if we were to go to a smaller size loading area? That allows – this allows for basically a full (inaudible)… Vice Chair Baltay: So, a service truck is going to be backing up in the middle of the port cochere in front of the hotel lobby to get into that spot, is that correct? Mr. Tang: Yeah and… Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. How about the garbage truck, how does that pick up the trash from the enclosure there? Mr. Tang: The garbage truck would also – well, first of all, we went – we talked to the waste management and their initial thought was actually they would pick up the trash off of ECR instead of pulling into, that’s their preference. So – but we have made a provision that a truck can actually pull into here and be able to get out so that they don’t have to back – kind of back out onto ECR. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m sorry but I see a trash room shown on the edge of the ramp, is that correct. Mr. Tang: Right here, yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: So… Mr. Tang: So, they can be pulled out here for – during the pick-up time if the waste management company decided to use ECR as the access or our Staff can pull the trash out here as the trash truck comes into this area to collect. Vice Chair Baltay: Ok, thank you. Second question if I could to staff and maybe it could just help clarify this? At one hand you said the site is zoned so it cannot be used for residential and on the other we’re told that the Comprehensive Plan says this site should be used for residential. Is there a mechanism that which we could push this to be different than what’s being proposed through that? Mr. Gutierrez: Sure, so it’s not the Comp. Plan in general, it’s the Housing Element that identifies this as a housing inventory site. So that is has a potential of producing housing units per the Housing Inventory Study that they selected specific areas throughout the City where housing could potentially be. Vice Chair Baltay: Is the intention that the zoning code would need to be changed to put that into effect then? Mr. Gutierrez: Well, this does allow mixed use to be done there so they could have mixed-use residential with some commercial component or the mixed hotel with residential as they previously proposed in the previous prelim. To do pure, just 100% housing, yes, that would need to be some type of a zone change. Chair Furth: Anybody else have questions of Staff or the applicant? Board Member Lew: I have a question for Staff. So, if there’s an EIR being done for this project, does that means it’s going to the – be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission and then certified by the Council? City of Palo Alto Page 34 Mr. Lait: (Inaudible) an EIR for the project? Board Member Lew: Yeah. Mr. Lait: If an EIR is required, it does get certified by the City Council if there’s a finding of significant – like a statement of overriding consideration. If it’s short of that, then the Director (inaudible). Board Member Lew: It would be a Director’s decision. Ok, thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else? I had one question so how many sites – how – sorry, how many units were identified in that Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan for this site? Mr. Gutierrez: That’s actually listed in the Staff report… Chair Furth: I’m sure it is. Mr. Gutierrez: …and it is listed as having – one moment, 17 units but a realistic yield of 12. Chair Furth: Thank you so that’s an assumption of a combined non-residential and residential use or not? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Mr. Lait: Yes. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Chair Furth: This is a study session, we’re trying to give direction to the applicant. We don’t have the Environmental Review yet. Before we start, we are of course an Architectural Review Board, we don’t make the decisions on what’s the appropriate zoning or the land use. Your comments are interesting to us and of course to the Council as well but our purview is to look at the proposed use in the context of the existing zoning and the existing built environment and see if we can make the findings that we need to make before we recommend approval. The burden of proof is on the applicant and who would like to start? Alex? Board Member Gooyer: Fine, I’ll go. I mean it’s one of these things where do I start? It – initially it almost – when I saw it, it almost looks like the preverbal – I think what is it? The tail wagging the dog; that these three long stays, as you call them, units in the back seem to be driving the rest of the site. They’ve got some nice room around them and everything else but it is only three out of ninety spaces. So, having said that going to just the initial concept of when you drive up. You go into what looks like a parking garage and that becomes the port cochere. Yet then you go back out of the port cochere and that the actual front door is actually not under what I would classify as the port cochere. It just seems really strange to me and then the same thing with – you’ve pretty much indicated – I mean just simple things like if the trash truck is there. They literally have to walk over, take the dumpsters, roll them along the side of the building, across the accessible parking space ramp and then out. So, this stinky garbage truck is sitting there under the building for 10-minutes while the guy’s roaming around. Which to me, if I’m coming to this hotel and we all know it’s not going to cost $6.95 to stay here, that it – it’s just not really a sightly first impression of the hotel. The same thing with the idea of a UPS truck will come across the port cochere and then back up into the other space which as soon as he’s backing up, immediately pretty much stops everything going on in the port cochere. I mean it’s that sort of thing that – and I think the reality of it is, you need to give less, I don’t know, presence to the long stay units because the reality of it is, I think we’re in agreement that the long stay units in most cases are probably for business people who are here for a couple months or working Silicon Valley. First of all, from what I see here it almost looks like they have their own little backyard which I think is a waste of space. No guy who’s been working 8-hours or 10-hours a day is going to sit out in his little backyard in the hotel. If those three City of Palo Alto Page 35 spaces – they can still be two-story and everything else but if they are integrated into the hotel more, whether they just become part of the overall design. Where it isn’t one of these oh, look at our long – our three unique space units, then I think that gives you more flexibility to be more creative as to the space around it. As to the design, unfortunately, it’s funny where you show some sort of – I mean various ideas of look, this is the concept that we’re interested in and in almost all these things the one you’re using as an example is a much better example than what you’re doing. I’m not saying you can’t achieve that but that’s the way I see it. Also, the unit on the left to me almost has sort of a riparian look with the roof and all that and I like that but the thing is, it’s tough to make that work on a 5-story building. It’s sort of like creating a 5-story bungalow. I mean I’ve seen people try to do that it and it just really doesn’t work. The roof is too small, it doesn’t have enough of an overhang if that’s the case and I’m not saying you need to do it that way. All I’m saying is that if you take that approach, which I like, but you haven’t taken it far enough; it’s still sort of a plastered-on type concept. When we did the first one there was, as you said, one of the comments was that it was trying to do too much. I think there’s still some of that there, that you’re trying to do too much in the spaces. Especially you see it in, for instance like the A2.1 elevation or I should say perspective and there’s a whole lot of stuff going on there. I—maybe it’s also the type of thing maybe as an architect I’d walk by and look at that but in the overall scheme of things, I don’t know if people are going to – I think the main impression is it’s going to look busy. Rather than oh, look at all the nice detailing and because of that, it’s the same thing like we had with one of the earlier projects. There’s not enough undulation in that, I know you have an attempt to do that but it’s the same thing with the walls; is that there’s only like about a foot type of thing and because of that I understand where – what you want to do with it. So often, let’s face it, the reality of it is you can’t lose the floor area or whatever so it’s tough to make it work and still try to carry off the thing on the right side. Let me see and go through some of these things. The – I’ve never been a real big fan of the lift systems but they are getting better but if you have it so that basically 98% of your parking is that way, you’re going to have a lot of people who just don’t want to deal with that stuff. They are going to be some that are and I do agree with you though that let’s face it, now a day with Lyft and Uber, why bother taking the – you know you take a rideshare there. That alleviates a lot of it but it still doesn’t do anything for the person who drives their car up and just needs to park it for a few minutes. You either have to go into the whole lift system -- other than the two accessible parking spaces there really is – because we all – you know there’s no space to park up there. You and I both know yes, you leave the space for a car to be parked up there but the first time I leave my car up there, I will walk out of that – I will have eight bell captains or whatever people coming up to me and say hey, you can’t park there. I mean that’s just the reality of it so you leave the space but it never really is going to be used that way. Let’s see, let’s see, I tell you what, that’s good enough for me at the moment. Let’s see what some of the other Board Members have. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I have to be honest and say that my first reaction was negative when I was looking at your drawings. Then as I looked at it more carefully and was looking at what your – and looking at your revised design, I do see that you have tried to protect the privacy to the Palo Alto Redwoods, that you’ve tried to step the massing down to minimize sun shading so I do want to acknowledge those improvements. I think I do want to acknowledge that you’ve tried to make a larger entry area and add ground floor uses that are visible from the sidewalk so I think that those are all improvements. The – I think the – my biggest issue on this project is going to be the architecture. The way I look at is it’s always going to be really difficult putting in a hotel use because our Zoning Ordinance allows them to be twice as big as other uses. So, that’s just – like off the bat that’s – it’s a difficult problem and that the Board has previously really been very tough on the architects for hotels and trying to get really rigorous designs. We do have the Hilton – the home – what is it, Homewood Suites by Hilton? Which I think is a 1.75 floor area building and I think that one turned out well, considering. Then we have also had the 2.0 floor area building – hotel which is the – (inaudible) next to the Westin. The Board really insisted on rigorous proportions, meticulous details on that one and I don’t see it happening yet on this project and I’m a little concerned about it. Say for example your port cochere, I think your columns are just like a foot deep and that does not – that’s not going to cut it at all and so I could go around the whole building and find things that I don’t like. I would mention that one, I think on the south City of Palo Alto Page 36 property line I think you’re showing one – like a white section of stucco and then maybe a tan section of stucco but they are actually all on the same plane and typically the Board here has not liked that kind of situation. Where it’s just a 2-D architecture so I think you have a long way to go. I guess I’m saying that I’m generally in support of the parte of the building. I think this is a – I think given the site, that’s probably the best arrangement that I can come up with. With regard to landscaping, I do want to point out that we do have a revised finding for landscape. That should be in the packet and a couple things that I noticed in the landscape design. One is the – they are showing Nadina along the perimeter and that has poisonous berries to both birds and mammals. It’s from China and I would encourage you to find something that more native and more wildlife friendly. There are plants that grow under --- that have evolved to grow under Redwood trees. They typically require a lot of water so I don’t know if they can work within the water use budget that we do require you to do but I want to encourage you to try to do that. Then to factor in that most of those plants are used to growing in acidic conditions because of the Redwood trees so factor in all of that and try to provide habitat for wildlife in that area. Most of those plants are used to growing in dark conditions and they (inaudible) symbolic relationship between the different species. On the sun study, I think I was actually surprised at how minimal the impact were on the property – on the Palo Alto Redwoods. I think that’s probably because of the solar orientation of the project so I think that was looking actually fairly good. I think the residents have – the neighbors have issues with the study that’s been provided but I actually – when I was looking at it yesterday, nothing popped out at me as being inaccurate just doing a cursory look at it. If there are specific concerns with it I’m – I would want to know the actual details of that. On the massing, I think there – on the El Camino frontage, I do like the 5th floor set back on the right-hand portion of the building and I think it’s setback 10-feet. I’m concerned that the left-hand portion is not a setback as well. I think we did require that on both sides of the Hilton Garden Inn and I think that setback is working. I think that is working on that particular building. I don’t – I think like Robert I’m not crazy about the way the back of the building is looking but I think I understand why you’re doing it. We have a low-income housing project nearby on Charleston that did that stair stepping massing down and I didn’t really like it and the way it looked on that particular building either. In the end, it actually worked for the neighbors so I don’t want to discourage you from the stepping but yeah, it’s not looking pretty at the moment. That’s all that I have at the moment. I think it’s – I guess having to say it’s headed in the right direction, thank you. Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I agree with Board Member Gooyer’s comments regarding the overall form of the building, front and back. I agree as well with Board Member Lew’s comments, his sightful notions about the detailing and stuff are spot on. I don’t want to repeat it but you really need to listen and pay attention to that. I think the one good thing I’ve seen on this revision is that you have stepped the building back at the back to acknowledge the neighbors sense of privacy. I think it is a positive thing to be stepping from five to four to three-floors at the back. I did have a chance to look into some of the residential units and the impact is significant. I would advise you to see if that’s possible as well to put yourself in a resident’s point of view. It might make it a little bit more understandable why they feel so strongly but I do think you’re doing things in the right direction. I want to focus the majority of what I’m talking about today on your sort of site planning, transportation circulation because I just don’t think it works. I’m sort of surprised that you’re planning to build this fairly expensive and fancy hotel with – I mean I could go on and on. A loading dock right next to the front door, a garbage truck that’s blocking the pathway down, no realistic parking situation, those aren’t at grade parking spots. Those are accessible units, nobody can really park there and it just doesn’t work. You just heard it from another experienced hotelier telling us that this stuff isn’t going to work. I don’t have to be a hotel architect to look at it and tell you it just doesn’t work. Unfortunately to make it work, it’s going to revise big chunks of the rest of this design. You’ve got a lot of work ahead of you but I promise you that it has to work. You have to be able to drive in, drive out safely, greet a guest, park properly, find the front door, it has to look nice, there has to be space around it, these are all basic things that just aren’t happening. I don’t know what to say, I’m frustrated in the sense because this the same stuff that we saw in the first project. You came out of – no, please wait. You came at us with 90 stacked parking garages downstairs and we told you need parking spaces at grade and we’re looking at two accessible spots at grade. It still doesn’t work, it doesn’t work any better than it worked before and in order to make it work you’re going to have City of Palo Alto Page 37 to make some changes to the rest of your plan. I don’t know how much more to drill away at it but it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work so you need some form to get it better. The last thing is that I did have a chance to also go into the swimming pool area of the adjacent residential unit and I’m having a hard time either understanding your shadow study or being able to check if it’s true. It seemed to me that the shadow study didn’t properly present the current situation there, at the time I was in there and it’s also very difficult to read. I was quite concerned that that swimming pool area has fairly open sense about it to the southern sky and it does seem to be important that whatever you do, not to impact that greatly. So, I would think a shadow study of the impact of the building on that open swimming pool area would be important. A shadow study that really clearly shows what the sun looks like on that, maybe that’s a good place to do one of these videos so that you could show the community. It might be a great gesture if you could design a building that minimizes that study and present it in a way that everybody can understand and then get they’re by in on it and come back to us with something everybody agrees too; that would-be a (inaudible) thing. I’m going to leave it at that, I support what everybody else said and I think you need to rework your circulation. Thank you. Board Member Gooyer: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Hi there. I mean I’m going to reiterate a little bit but not too much. One of the first things I noticed when going through your whole package was yeah, the sun studies, they are extremely unconvincing. They don’t illustrate in the same way and I thinks in part to the fact that it’s in color so I would recommend for your next shadow study use just a white model and that way we can really see how the sun is traveling across all these times. Even for the trees I would say use this, I mean these shadow studies are more than just to know what the impact is. I would even recommend to use that shadow study to inform your massing because it’s quite evident that in some of the other designs of the buildings around that there’s a sensitivity to the trees and the shadow studies are informing where the building should really be. In that sense, it may be that when you’re looking – when you're analyzing the results of your shadow study, it might give you an idea of how to inform your massing so that it actually gives you the best outcome. That sort of leads me to other parts of the presentation that a lot of the renders are aerial views which no one really ever sees the building from this vantage point. I would recommend more views from street level and from pedestrian level. I also would really like the trees to be much more transparent because, in a lot of these drawings, they are obstructing a lot of the architecture which makes it hard to evaluate what’s really there. In that sense also, it’s sort of comes down to what you can see which right now is the beige and the wood which in this current rendition it’s unconvincing as a (inaudible). It sort of hard to understand exactly what the concept of this is but I think you have a lot of rich resources around you. You know there’s a really great development that surrounded around trees and maybe why not integrate that into the concept of this architecture? I think it would make the hotel appealing to sort of embrace the landscape, to embrace the nature around and integrate that more into your design. I think it would make it – even if you have to lose a couple units here and there or something. Bring it down and I think integrating trees and landscape, something native would actually make it a much more desirable and potentially more valuable at the end. Then in terms of other elements of the massing, just pay attention to the roof line because I feel like this would look so different from ground view and a lot of your presidents are for a lot smaller architecture which when they are used they are applied to a bigger thing it doesn’t translate in the same way. I’ll leave it at that. Chair Furth: Thank you and thank you all for your presentations and thank you to the neighbors for coming. (Inaudible), a complicated project so I’ll focus on a few things that are a particular concern to me. One of our findings, of course, is that this is doing a good job with existing natural features. The existing, at this point, natural feature is the Redwood grove, even though it was originally a Redwood farm. That has to be, in my mind, a big driver of all design. At the moment we have some rather conflicting tree reports but we’re talking – we’re not asking for tree reports here to decide whether it’s ok to take a tree out. We’re asking for tree reports to find out what do we need to do to preserve and enhance the health of those trees? So, I’m not going to be able to recommend approval of something unless I’m convinced that that’s been done. It may have been but I can’t tell. Secondly, I was not really able to understand the shadow study in a useful way and I think some of my colleagues have pointed out why those drawings might be difficult to understand. I think there are two –everything is important, of City of Palo Alto Page 38 course, if you live in the area but I think there are two areas of particular focus. One is the pool and clubhouse area, it seems to me that that’s an important public amenity for that large community of people so I’m going to be very – I’m going to want to see that it will continue to be attractive when this project happens. The second one is the below market rate units which are largely on the bottom level right? At the lower level of the Palo Alto Redwoods? Mr. Gutierrez: I believe so. They are in the taller tower buildings and I think they’re in the four-story buildings. Chair Furth: Well… Mr. Gutierrez: I can’t confirm exactly (inaudible)… Chair Furth: Maybe the neighbors could – maybe the Palo Alto Redwoods could? Female: Yes, I can confirm that there are 12 BMR units and they are in four stacks up three floors. Some of them are in our Area A and Area B and they all face the Redwood grove behind the Su Hung property. Chair Furth: Thank you. Well, I’m glad to know they are on various different floors but none of the units which presently have good or adequate light should be insignificant darkness once this is built. I mean I think that one of the findings that we have to make is that it enhances residential life on the side or next door and if it gets too dark, it won't pass that test. On the architectural design, I have two comments, one is this is a building that people see at fairly high speeds. They're – I mean not always, sometimes you see it at 2 miles per hour but often people go by fairly readily so I think it needs to make a pretty strong, pretty unified statement. There are beautiful buildings along El Camino but if you’re going to notice them, they have to really be well woven together. If it’s too subtle, we don’t get it and on the other hand, if it isn’t well detailed we’ll quickly be bored by it and won’t find it attractive. When I look at the elevation on the cover, it really presents a very unattractive view. I understand that the entrance to the garage is recessed but it looks like the big view I’m going to get as I approach this site is garage entrance into dark space and that’s not consistent with our design requirements or with the South El Camino Design Guidelines I suspect. Then that relates to probably a much more serious problem which is how the circulation works and part of it is we now have a City code that says that properties can be developed with puzzle – with lift systems. It requires how many – it requires ten surface parking spaces roughly, (inaudible)? Mr. Gutierrez: It requires two or 10% of the overall parking, whichever is greater… Chair Furth: Do we (inaudible)… Mr. Gutierrez: (inaudible) so it would be the 10%. Chair Furth: Do we round up or down? So, that’s ten spaces and that means… Male: You can’t have nine (inaudible). Chair Furth: I understand. You can have a fee but yes so, it’s ten and I don’t see them. They need to not only be somewhere but they need to be available and useful. This project seems to be trying – struggling with the issue of a transition in land use and a transition in transportation. One is the – you can almost see it as moving from suburban Palo Alto to downtown and probably the biggest example of that is the trash enclosure right by the front door. There are neighborhoods – urban hotels where I expect to see that because there’s no other space but this is a brand-new site. If the trash company is willing to say we’ll pick up late enough so that there’s no traffic but not so late that you disturb everybody’s sleep, then that might work but in the absence of a condition like that, it doesn’t. When I look at the patterns of circulation, essentially this is an all valet or drop off operation is what you’re telling me and it’s not designed to work well that way or send that message fast enough. If I come waltzing in here of El City of Palo Alto Page 39 Camino, I don’t have much margin of error. I can’t pause and look and try to figure out what’s happening. I need to get off the road and into your site and then I need to be able to do whatever I'm supposed to do without causing more congestion and conflict. I do not, at this moment, see how that works. I would support my colleague’s comments on landscaping. I don’t have any objection to the density and total volume per say if they can be made to work on this site. The City Council made that decision and it’s our job to see if – your job first of all and then ours as reviewers to see if all the other City standards can be met on this site at that density. At the moment, it’s not in my opinion for the reasons I’ve discussed earlier. Anybody else has anything they’d like to say? Board Member Lew: I’d forgot to talk about design linkages and making transitions to the neighboring buildings. I think we have a couple things, we have the El Camino Design Guidelines and we actually have two sets of them. We have our – we have the existing building which was – how do I characterize it? It seems like they were built from a different time period and different aesthetic and I think that can be a challenge on this particular site. So, the existing buildings mostly have wood or shingles and say the restaurant at Dinah’s is sort of oriented inwardly instead of towards the street. Cabana Hotel has a huge setback, again Palo Alto Redwoods has a large setback and they are more suburban. I do want to encourage you to try to make more linkages with those – with all of those building because they are going to be there for a while and so I do – I think some of the attempts your showing with the wood or a simulated wood façade, I think that’s a step in the right direction. It seems like the stucco color is very light and bright and it seems more appropriate on some of our other part of El Camino. It seems to me to stand out in this particular location but I think you should try to show the Board what you’re trying to do. I don’t think you’re – I don’t recall seeing a drawing in here showing those adjacencies. I think the one area that I think maybe the weakest perhaps is next to the – I guess this Thomas Foods next door, that outside corner. I think it’s actually very visible from northbound El Camino and how your building turns the corner right there. I think that that’s – that could be better. Chair Furth: Excuse me. Thank you. Does Staff have any questions of us? Mr. Gutierrez: Not at this time. Chair Furth: I would entertain a motion or I guess actually this is done isn’t it? We don’t need a motion. Male: We don’t need a motion. Chair Furth: We’re done. Well, thank you so much for coming. I know that both you and the neighborhood has spent a great deal of effort on this and we look forward to seeing the next iteration. Approval of Minutes: Chair Furth: There are no minutes for our approval. Subcommittee Item Chair Furth: There are no subcommittee items. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Chair Furth: Are there any Board Member questions, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: Yes, the Council extended all of your terms by six months. Chair Furth: Someday that would be a great piece of news. Board Member Lew: It was mostly internal workings of the City Clerk. It was not because you’re doing a great job. City of Palo Alto Page 40 Chair Furth: Though I’m sure we are doing our best. Thank you all so much, thank you, Staff, we’re done. Sorry, we’re adjourned Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Robert Gooyer, Osma Thompson, Alexander Lew Absent: Chair Furth: Good morning. I’d like to call to order the regular meeting of the Architectural Review Board for January 18th, 2018. Roll call, please? Oral Communications Chair Furth: Thank you. Now is the time for oral communications about any matter not on the agenda. So, if you aren’t here to talk about the 350 Sherman Avenue parking lot or the related EIR, now would be the time to let us know. Seeing none. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: We’ll go onto agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Does Staff have anything? Anybody on the Board wants any changes? Seeing none. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Chair Furth: City official reports, the transmittal of the ARB meeting schedule and attendance record, and administrative Staff-level architectural review approvals. I’m so glad we’re not reviewing tree removals, any comments or questions? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Chair Furth, we do need to make sure that we have Members that are able to stay for the subcommittee. Chair Furth: I’ll get to that in a second, yes. One of the things is subcommittee assignments and we have used various approaches to assign Board Members to work with Staff and the applicant to deal with fairly fine, small details after the main decisions – main recommendation has been made by the Board. I’ve decided that I’d like to do this on a project basis. We have two projects today, one of them is a return of the Junior Museum and Zoo and the other is 2120 Staunton Court. Vice Chair Baltay and Board Member Lew have volunteered for that one -- those two I should say. Action Items ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: January 18, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 350 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00257]: Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report and Review and Recommendation to Council of an Architectural Review Application for Construction of a New Four-Story, 49' Tall Parking Structure, and Photo-Voltaic Rooftop Panel Structure, With Two Below Grade Parking Levels to Provide 636 Public Parking Spaces on an Existing Public Parking Lot Within the California Avenue Business District. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published January 8, 2018 for Public Comments Through February 22, 2018. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: That brings us to the main agenda item for today which is a public hearing on a proposal at 350 Sherman Avenue for a parking garage – 40-foot tall parking garage with photovoltaics rooftop structure to provide 636 spaces to be built on an existing parking lot. It’s bounded by Ash, Birch, Sherman and Jacaranda Lane. There are two items before us related to this, the first is an opportunity to comment on the draft EIR that has been prepared for a larger project. That project includes this parking garage, an adjacent Public Safety Building and an ordinance that would change the City’s zoning standards for public facilities throughout the City; Staff can tell us more about that later. The documents available, it’s also available online, and the public comment period on this continues until February 22nd. So, if you have thoughts after this meeting, you are welcome to send them in so that when the final EIR is prepared it can take into consideration your thoughts. The parking garage itself – the project when it came to us last time was both the parking garage and the Public Safety Building. The Public Safety Building did not meet with as much approval as the garage so the projects have been split in terms of their ARB hearings. So today we’ll just be looking at the parking garage but they are – Staff plans to put them back together so that they will go to the City Council as a unit in what, late March? Early April? Is that the thought? Mr. Matt Raschke, Senior Engineer with Public Works: As soon as the EIR is certifiable. Chair Furth: And you get the other plan back to us for our comments. Alright, well the EIR won’t be certified for a while yet. So, I have a number of public comment cards, if you want to comment and you haven’t submitted a card, please do. Let’s hear from Staff. Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: I’ll be very brief, you did a good job of teeing up the project. With the draft EIR, the process is to receive comments and then the consultant that the City has hired will be preparing responses to those comments in writing. Collectively those will go to the City Council along with the project and the certification will be at the same time as the project. Both of the buildings – both of the sites are shared presented with Council for action on the project itself. So, just that – about the DEIR, we have been getting some comments, those were forwarded to you as we’ve received them and there are some folks here today perhaps to speak to that. You have a revised set of plans if anyone needs to see the prior plans I tried to, in the Staff report, provide contrasting images in the body of the report but we do – I do have an older set if anyone wants to look at that. Really, Staff has teed this up for approval, we are going to be modifying the Record of Land Use Action following the ARB’s review in March is what’s anticipated for the Public Safety Building. Once we receive those plans we will get those to you and then that single Record of Land Use Action would proceed to the City Council. I’ve prepared findings – draft findings for architectural review approval of this project and so if you could take a look at those and weigh in and provide edits as needed. I’ll let the applicant provide the images and their PowerPoint presentation and Staff is ready for questions. Here’s Matt Raschke to (inaudible)… Chair Furth: First, are there any questions before Matt begins? Go ahead, if you could introduce yourself. Mr. Raschke: Thank you, Amy. My name is Matt Raschke, I’m a Senior Engineer with Public Works and I’m the overall Project Manager for both this garage and the Public Safety Building. As you might be aware a Staff report has been published for City Council on this coming Monday night to consider removal of the lowest basement level of this garage. That – it’s related to the cost and speed of construction for the overall project and it will be looking at the parking needs of the area and Council will City of Palo Alto Page 3 have to deliberate on that item but overall the – that’s the only change we’re looking at. We’d like to get at least Conditional Approval on the garage today if possible. The garage is a critical path for the Public Safety Building which is overall looked at as one project under CEQA. We want to get the garage built and functional before we break ground on the Public Safety Building to minimize parking impacts on California Avenue business district. I think we heard Board Member Gooyer at that the last meeting say that the – there was no reason to necessarily look at them architecturally as one project. So, we heard you on that and we’re bringing back just the garage at this point because we’re making some major changes to the Public Safety Building that we’ll be bringing you very soon. I think – I’m hoping that you like those changes and can also then subsequently approve that project. Today we have Mallory Cusenbery from RossBrulisCusenbery Architects to give the presentation and we also have Ray Pendro from MIG. He’s the environmental consultant for the EIR and we also have Michelle Wendler from Watry the parking garage specialist and I believe there’s someone from (inaudible), the landscape architect to help answer any questions that you have on the project. With that, I’d like to turn it over the Mallory to present his design. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Mallory Cusenbery: Good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you for this opportunity to present for you and I also want to extend a great thank you to City Staff and to key members of the Palo Alto Police Department and Fire Department for the tremendous support and effort that has gone into getting the project to where it is today. As you know the City is embarking on the design of probably the largest investment in infrastructure since the construction of this very building that we’re in. It’s on the two lots that you see there, C-6 and C-7. As you said Chair, in the intro, currently today we’re only talking about half of that project which is the garage portion on the left. We will come back to you subsequently once we redesign the Public Safety Building for an independent separate input on that. The last time we presented to you – the garage to you was in October of last year and we got detailed, extensive and very helpful feedback on the project. There – as you eluded to, there was definitely a lot of support of the direction that the garage was going. General positive feedback included that it’s coming along nicely, it’s a large building that will look quite nice, the Ash/Sherman elevations are quite interesting, the design is almost there, close to being something that can be recommended or approved. There was also support for the integration of the PVs, the circulation of the interior flow of vehicles, as well as the landscape approach. At the same time there was very constructive feedback that we received on areas that could use more work and those included more attention to the Birch Street stairs which was good in concept but needed to be developed. The idea of softening the look of the wall that’s facing Birch Street and that it was too harsh, to massive, that the arcade on Ash was not needed, that we need to look at maximizing parking and that, as Matt eluded to, that the design of the garage and the PSB (Public Safety Building) could be treated as independent elements. They didn’t necessarily need to be one overall design. We heard you, we agree with your assessments, and we believe as a result we have a better building. During the time since we last met you we have removed the arcade, we’ve added the parking back in that space, we’ve spent a lot of time coming up with a new concept for the staircase and the approach on the Birch Street side. In addition, the areas that you liked around the perimeter of the building, the exterior components, we have further refined those and developed those and making those better as well. The building is a 636-car parking structure, two-stories below grade, three-stories – four-stories above grade with a level of PV, photovoltaics, on the roof that shade the top level of parking. We all agree that it is a relatively large building but there are a lot of opportunities within the design of this building to still make it a good neighbor; still have it fit in to the neighborhood there. First of all, it’s not – and it’s unprecedented in its scale, there are other buildings in the immediate environment that are of a similar size, similar scale. However, there also are a lot of opportunities with the design of the building to actually work with the fabric and orientation of the historic Cal. Avenue retail district. Further, there are also a lot of opportunities to kind of build on and reinforce the more fine grain particulate pedestrian environment, both the landscape and the textual environment of the Cal. Avenue public realm. These are kind of City of Palo Alto Page 4 guiding forces that you’ll see in the design that you’re going to see. We limited our pallet in the design of this, focusing in fact more on things like light and shadow and how it plays in the building. Movement in pedestrian – movement of people, movement of vehicles, movement of the landscaping and the movement of the sun and how we enforce that; as well as the landscape environment itself, the organic shade, color, smells that you get from that environment. The result being that – the goal being a design that really weaves itself into the neighborhood in such a way that it feels like it belongs. It builds on the textures, the character, the quality of the colors of the area. This is looking up Birch, you can see the garage through the Eucalyptus trees, there or beyond or looking up Ash Street. There’s an opportunity to reinforce and build on, for instance, the patterns and colors of the Visa building beyond but also some of the local – the smaller retail functions and office functions; such as the one on the left where you can see the continuity of the structural member as they march up the street so it’s talking to both characters. Yes, we want it to be a good neighbor but at the same time it’s also, we felt, it’s important in this design to give the garage a character of its own, an independent character. It’s not a destination per say but it is an important moment in kind of the sequence of the daily activities. One strategy we used for that is the current redesign for the Birch Street stair as a feature element. We have introduced a basket weave of terracotta scrim outboard of the stairs that – the role is to soften it, to provide color, to provide an organic material which is actual a clay material and to offer—but the concrete wall that was behind is now a smooth steel trowel plaster surface that hosts the light and shadows that’s going to play off of it and adds to a brighter ambient light feel in that space. This stair is going to be an important component, you’ll notice it cascades down towards Cal. Avenue so people leaving their cars come down the stair toward the retail district. There are pedestrian inflections, at the base of the stairs, the seating areas that are gracious and generous and actually are receptive and welcoming to pedestrian activities. You can sit on the stairs, if you look up at the top of the stairs there’s a gentleman at the top who’s very proud about having walked all the way up there. The detailed activity that you see on that side that was not unique to that side, it carries all the way around in what we consider the syncopated elevational development where a surface slide past each other. They cast shadows on each other and they start to play off each other so there’s a variety—a visual variety as you move around the building with an end result that the building actually feels more (inaudible), it feels more fine grain than you would expect for a building of this scale. A couple things that I will point out is that this is a view from the corner of Ash on your left and Sherman goes off to the right. The reentrant corner that we have, obviously there’s an opportunity to reduce the mass at the corners, it’s a strategy we use on all four sides. We’ve introduced a sand color instead of the grey and then there’s that – even those the arcade is gone, there’s an opportunity to widen the pedestrian room right at that corner for a little bit of seating, a little more generous pedestrian zone before the sidewalk narrows again. The other thing that I will point out in this view is this is the one view where we’re actually representing the possible texture that comes from the ivy growing up the terracotta basket weave. The goal of the design is that works independent of the ivy and we see the ivy as more like a value-add. That is brings a patina of time should it succeed and grow as we hope it will. This view from the corner of Birch on your right and Sherman on your left, I will point out just a couple of things from this view. One is you can see the continuity of the basket weave of the terracotta fins as they wrap around the building providing a visual variety but continuity for the garage. The other thing that I will point out is the polycarbonate canopy that’s over the stairs. It serves the role as you would have a diffuser on a light. So, that even when the sun is not coming from the Birch side, when it’s coming from the back side, the translucent panel picks up the light, diffuses it creating an ambient – soft ambient glow within that staircase so that there’s light all day, even when the sun is on the other side of the building. This basket weave texture is something that we want to see really as an integrate to the experience of the garage, down to the experience that you have at an individual parking space and then also at night. We’re proposing that there be a soft grazing light along the front text of those terracotta fins to accent the texture at night but also to provide more balance between – reduce the glare that customarily comes from inside garages when there’s a lot of light inside but no light on the outside. So, this is a strategy to balance the light and soften the look at night. From a material detailing standpoint, the basket weave doesn’t just change direction vertically and horizontally but it actually changes in plans. As you see on the left, parts of it are proud, parts of it are recessed and then the materials slide behind so there’s a general kind of shadow boxing effect in materials. The materials themselves, I have this here which I can pass around to you, this is our materials board and I’ll make that available to you. In description from left to right, we have metal reinforced terracotta which is basically brick fins, we have board formed concrete – City of Palo Alto Page 5 cast in place concrete, we have the translucent polycarbonate panels, we have a smooth fiber reinforced concrete in a sand – it’s call Sahara but in a sand color. It’s sometimes referred to as Swiss Pearl and then on the right we have the ivy which is an integral component of the elevations as well. As they play around the building, this is looking at the Birch Street side, both the architecture and the landscape site design reinforce this idea that each elevation gets an independent identity with further helps break down the scale of the garage. On the Birch Street side there’s a more generous pedestrian realm for seating, for planting, the staircase. You can see the play of light and shadow that comes from the terracotta scrim. I’ll also point out, in this case, the reentrant corners on each side. The reentrant corner on the right has an interesting side benefit that that backplane, if you see on the upper right-hand drawing, that backplane lines up with the face where the mural is on the historic – on the Nut House. So, you’re – specially as you come from Cal. Avenue these planes line up. Then the front of the garage steps forward and between that plane and the forward plane is where the stairs go up. Also, the stairs are doing something else interesting that we like which is that on the right-hand side it goes to the one-story height and it goes up to three-stories on the left so the stairs mitigate the scale differential in the neighborhood. Sherman continues this, the basket weave and the syncopated design. Chair Furth: With the permission of the Board, since this is a single item and a huge project, shall we let the applicant (inaudible) continue? Thank you. Mr. Cusenbery: I will be brief, about two more minutes. Continues the planting areas at the base there are continuous along the building. They are actually rain gardens and then there will be a row of trees out – street trees providing shade and more shadow play along Sherman. The Jacaranda side, which you’re looking at here, does not have as much area for planting at the base but we do have areas where we can grow vines so that there will be an opportunity to grow vines on the back side on the Jacaranda side. Then the Birch side, you can see at the base where we’ve removed the arcade. The seating area at the reentrant corner is on the right and we’ve planted at the base there and you can see the terracotta fins in this location as well. It actually nice to look at the top because you can see the relationship of the column to the commercial building on the left and the scale to the Visa building on the right. I’m not going to go into detail on the landscape design, Zoey (inaudible) is actually here today and she can answer any more detailed questions you might have; they are our landscape architects. Also, (inaudible) to say that the plant design also reinforces these independent facades, independent zones for each of the streets, the character of each and then the site design materials are going to be a continuity of the building. So, the pre-cast seating is going to match the terracotta, the unit pavers are going to match the sand of the Swiss Pearl, the board form concrete at the planters will match the board form concrete of the building, the pedestrian landscape site elements will be an extension of the building design itself. It need be, Zoey can go into detail on these sections but this gives you an idea of a cross-section at Ash, the pedestrian cross section at Birch with a deeper seating area, and the pedestrian cross section at Sherman. This project is now -- my slideshow is frozen but in fact, that was the last slide, there’s just one more. The project is currently at 100% schematic design. We are – the last slide – we are – our hope today is – well, first of all, we hope that you agree that we have heard what your comments were from the previous go around. We hope you agree that it’s, in fact, an improved building and our hope is to get a recommendation for approval of this project so that we can move into design development on the project and proceed on providing the Cal. Avenue retail district with this important piece of civic infrastructure. Thank you and I can open to questions. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Are there questions you would like to ask the applicant before we hear from the public or do you want to hear from the public next? I have four cards – I beg your pardon? Oh, did you have a question Osma? Sorry. Board Member Thompson: Do you know what the floor to ceiling height is for the or sorry, floor to bottom of the structure height? It wasn’t noted. Mr. Cusenbery: The floor to the bottom of the structure. Michelle, do we know what that is off hand? I think the floor to floor is 11-foot 6 and the typically beam depth, do you recall? 3-feet. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else? You have 3-minutes to speak, you can speak both to the draft EIR and the project itself. The first speaker I have is Jack Morton to be followed by Christian Pease. Mr. Jack Morton: Thank you. Jack Morton representing the California Merchant’s Associations. First of all, we want to thank both Staff and the architect for hearing our concerns about the Ash and also responding to the comments of the ARB about the overall appearance of the building. We would have come with great happiness had it not been for one thing. At the last minute, we have learned that their proposal is to take away one whole level of parking, which in my mind should have a major negative impact on the Environmental Report. An under parked – the whole problem of the area is that there is relatively no parking. There are – most of the employees can’t get a permit and what we had hoped to be able to do was have that extra 100 parking spaces on the second level become employee parking. From the merchant’s point of view, this project now looks beautiful above ground but it's sorely underperforming what the expectation of what the community was. We have spent lots of time with Staff trying to get clear that as this area is densified, majorly densified, the issue of parking is one of the central things that impact the quality of life. Having people – I think one of the reports showed that the major need for parking is roughly between ten and six. This is an area that has very active appearances from the community to the restaurants to the businesses and shorting us on parking sort of undermines the whole point. So, while we are grateful for the external appearances, the utility of the building has been majorly impacted by this suggestion that at the last minute that we short one level. Whatever comments that the ARB can make, please keep in mind that the impact on the community is the fact that a building is underperforming its purpose and doesn’t do what it should do. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Christian Pease? So, I heard that as a comment on a need for EIR revisiting in light of this proposal. Mr. Christian Pease: Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I’m here today to represent the Evergreen Park Parking Committee and we think this is a lovely design. One of America’s great architects said form follows function. We do not believe that you should reduce this floor as Jack Morton has pointed out and we think this is a false economy. This neighborhood is going to be under extreme pressure for the next decade, Car-light Housing, new firms moving in, new office buildings are already in the pipeline, existing retail – formal retail spaces being filled with four or five times the number of employees they had before, Grand Boulevard, and the list goes on. It was a surprise to us to see in the proposal to remove this level, that it could be taken up – the lunchtime crowds could be taken up based on the efficacy of our RPP. This is wishful thinking at best, almost absurd if the consequences weren’t so impactful on us. There’s already a proposal for the Mayfield RPP to increase the number of employee parking permits by forty and that is going to come before the Council on the 29th. This problem is not going to go away. This is a lovely design, it’s function is to create parking and over this transition period there are people hoping for autonomous cars and new transportation modalities and walkability and all of that sort of thing. Our neighborhood in this business district is going to be under intense pressure. The businesses need that extra level for their employees and their patrons and we need it to keep the pressure off of our small neighborhood. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Jessica Roth to be followed by Mary Ryan. Ms. Jessica Roth: Hi, I’m a business owner on California Avenue and also a Palo Alto resident. Three things I wanted to point out today is that I’m very, very happy with the design. This is a very large structure going into my neighborhood, I grew up on California Avenue and the impact of the size of this structure above should represent what it can do with holding as many cars as we possibly can in this space. I would love to see a second stairwell on the Ash side because it is nice for people not to have to walk a whole block over to then return to walk a whole block back if they are trying to reach retailers on the El Camino side of California Avenue. Then I also wanted to point out that a lot of the people that parked in the Evergreen neighborhood have now moved across the tracks under the underpass to the residential California Avenue – California Street side. I have many customers that are upset about this City of Palo Alto Page 7 and so we are going to have that neighborhood coming and wanting to now put limits on who can park in their neighborhood. We are going to then be scrunched again on where people can – our employees, our customers can park so if you could really stress that to Staff and City Council I would really appreciate it. I’m really happy with the design and we’ve been working on getting a parking garage for 15-years on California Avenue. Parking is not a new problem and it’s only getting bigger and bigger down there. I mean I like seeing a change in our area, I think we’re a smart City, let’s plan for the future and not just try to fix an immediate problem. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Ms. Roth. Mary Ryan? Oh, did I get that backward? Ms. Mary Ryan: Good morning. My condominium home fronts along Birch Street, just down the street from where the parking garage is going to be. Currently, there are two parking lots that represent 306 spaces between the two lots and there are twelve access points for those 306 spots on four different streets. Now we’re going to 336 with one access point and that access point is across the street from a residential unit. I think that the access point should be down the street across from commercial instead of a residential area. I’m concerned about traffic congestion because of this one access point versus the current twelve. I am worried about air quality when cars are idling waiting to get into that parking lot because of only one access point and I’m worried about public safety because of the car congestion in that area. That’s it, thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Would the City like to respond to those points? Ms. French: I would like to respond to the third speaker, Jessica Roth, who asked for a second staircase on Ash. In the Staff report, Packet Page 13, I mention that there is now a staircase near Ash opposite the elevator so it should be quite easy to find. You get a choice elevator or stair and you can take the stair on the Ash side. Mr. Cusenbery: It’s visible on the slide that is up there right now. Ms. Roth: Thank you. Sorry, I didn’t see that. Ms. French: That’s ok, it’s hard sometimes to read plans, there’s so much information in there. Let’s see… Chair Furth: The single access point and its location. Ms. French: Right so that was a comment that we heard from other folks and we forwarded that to our environmental consultant who – and actually, that comment was anticipated in the draft EIR. There’s a paragraph in there about where the access – why the access was chosen and where it was based on queuing. That was provided to those folks and I can forward that email if I can get the email of Ms. Ryan so she can see what others have seen as far as where to find this in the draft EIR. So, noted, that was a question and we have a response for that. Chair Furth: Well, perhaps you could use a brief recap of why that was the choice that was made. Ms. French: Yes, it had to do with queuing from the – for the eastbound traffic and allowing eastbound traffic to turn left into that location. I think it’s 90-feet – I don’t have the email in front of me but I can go look for it in the draft EIR. Male: (Inaudible) Ms. French: Perfect. Mr. Cusenbery: I also would like to bring up Michelle from Watry Design, our parking garage specialist to answer that. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Ms. Michelle Wendler: Michelle Wendler with Watetry Design and we coordinated with the traffic consultant who was doing the traffic impact analysis to review the locations of the entries and exits. The parking lots today, part of the entries and exits are circulation and the way they circulate with the – partially within the lot to the alley. We analyzed for the number of parking spaces in this building with Van Peers and determined that one entrance location and an exit location was enough for the number of parking spaces in the building. Then the location of it was determined based on the street circulation so what was being described about the left turns and the access coming in from Birch and the distance that you have on Ash and Birch are very short. The distance from the intersections is a lot to allow access into those locations, along with the alley at that location also having circulation. The entrance being on Sherman was driven by the street circulation around the site and then the location along Sherman was based on the queuing that was analyzed as part of the traffic report. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: Just the only other comment from Staff on the public comments is that the issue of the subterranean garage possibly losing a level. This is obviously a policy discussion that City Council is going to have to consider as they evaluate the project. The project that’s before you with all of its level of the subterranean garage has been evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report. A lesser project or less impactful project could certainly be evaluated – is contemplated in the analysis of the impacts that are presented. They won’t be any worse if the impacts – if the one level of subterranean parking is removed but… Chair Furth: The alternative in the draft EIR is one off the top and one off the bottom, right? Mr. Lait: Well, even if you don’t take one off the top, the analysis, it a determination is made to remove one level of the subterranean garage, the impacts would not be any worse than have already been analyzed in the document. At the end of the day, it’s going to be a decision for Council to decided (inaudible) (crosstalk) Chair Furth: Thank you and they are thinking about this on Monday? Next Monday is that right? When is this going to Council? Mr. Lait: There’s a – I think there is an upcoming discussion. Chair Furth: So, Council on Monday, thank you. Questions from my colleagues? Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I have three questions, please. Perhaps the first one is for the Public Work Department. The solar panels on the roof of the garage are definitely a part of this project or is this a possible potential future thing? Ms. Raschke: It’s definitely part of this and the base bid we plan to include the structure for the PV panels. We’re still analyzing options for how the actual panels will funded. If they will be privately owned or publicly owned and how that power generated will be used. Vice Chair Baltay: The panels are fully intended to be part of this structure? Ms. Raschke: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Ms. Cusenbery: I will – sorry, I will expand the answer to that and just to mention that they are also integrated with the infrastructure of the Public Safety Building providing a redundant source of power in the event of a disaster. So, they are actually seen not just – they have multiple roles. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. My second question is for the architect regarding the grand staircase coming up along Birch Street. As you’re going up the stair on the right-hand side, what is the finish on that wall? I think that’s the structural concrete wall. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct, that’s a structural concrete wall that we have revised so that the concrete is concealed. I’m looking for that image right now. The concrete is concealed and the surface texture is a steel trowel plaster. Sorry, I’m having a hard time finding that image, there we go. It’s a smooth steel trowel plaster finish that covers all of the concrete below it and the plaster sample is on the board that we passed around. Vice Chair Baltay: Ok and the intention is that you then get a play of light from the basket weave terracotta… Mr. Cusenbery: That you get a play of light. It hosts the light shadows but it also adds to the brightness in that space so it would diffuse light bouncing off the translucent panel above and it bounces around in there. Vice Chair Baltay: Then I want to – if you could clarify for me, what is the orientation of that wall? Mr. Cusenbery: That wall is, on paper, the east side but it’s actually kind of a – it’s a northeast – yeah, because it’s a – we’re off the cardinal grid. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m looking at your site plan and it seems to show true north being more or less within 15 degrees of the orientation of that wall. Am I reading that correctly? Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, you’re reading that correctly. Vice Chair Baltay: So, the wall more or less is facing north? Mr. Cusenbery: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Ok, thank you. The last question was for the transportation person from Watry Consultant if we could. Is there a reason there’s no access to or from the garage from Jacaranda Lane? Ms. Wendler: Based on the review with the traffic engineer, Jacaranda is a one-way and with the other activities going on in that area, they did not believe that access from Jacaranda was going to be an appropriate connection since it mostly runs – the left turn in from Birch would be a difficult thing to accommodate in that area based on the volume. So, they determined we should not have an access in off of Jacaranda. Vice Chair Baltay: Ok, thank you. Mr. Cusenbery: To further elaborate on your question about the orientation. This rendering is accurate for, I believe it’s 9:45 a.m. in August I believe. I forgot the month so I apologize but the idea is that there would be morning sun that comes in and that’s a representative of the morning sun. Chair Furth: Any other questions? Kyu – Alex. Board Member Lew: It’s ok. I have lots of questions so I guess maybe for Staff, the traffic report in the draft EIR had two recommendations. One was to avoid parking at the ends of the isles within the garage and the second was to add crosswalks across Jacaranda Lane. I was wondering if those are – if the – if from the Staff, I was wondering if you’ve – those where – should be included or does the Staff have a different response or a different way of addressing those concerns? That was I think on page 52. Ms. French: I gave my draft EIR to… City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Lew: Yeah, we can – you can circle back to me with the answer. Ms. French: Ok, thank you. Board Member Lew: I have other questions to if you want to – I can move on. Ms. French: There was a moment where there were some other parking spaces that were removed. I don’t know, Matt might be able to explain that. Board Member Lew: Yeah, we took out the arcade, right. I think the arcade was taken out along Ash. Ms. French: Right and so then there was a rejiggering of parking – oh, thank you. Board Member Lew: It looks like in the plans those are that electric vehicle spaces. Ms. French: So, I’m on – I now have a copy of the draft EIR or is this the – this is the parking – sorry, the… Board Member Lew: Yeah, the traffic report is 52. Ms. French: Traffic Impact Report page 52, it’s the first bullet? No, the second bullet. I need a minute. Board Member Lew: Ok, I have other questions. For the architect, are the different floors in the garage going to be color coded? Normally in a garage we color code it and it seems – and so the inner workings of the garage are not my major concern but it seems like things like the elevator towers are partly visible from the outside. So – I’ve seen a new garage at San Antonio shopping center where the color coding is part of the exterior design. It was made like a rainbow, this is a design feature that’s meant to be seen from far away so there’s that. Then also is the – well, why don’t we – should we do it one by one maybe? Mr. Cusenbery: Well, currently there no – we do not have a plan for color coding the floors and we definitely have not proposed any of that color coming to the exterior of the building. The thought on the building was to keep more of a limited pallet. Certainly there – we would look in greater detail and design development for wayfinding. Certainly, the signage program would allow us such an opportunity to provide a more discreet color coding so people can get oriented and find their cars but not necessarily become a major architectural element. Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you. On lighting, I have two questions – three questions, one is you’re proposing new street pole lights along Sherman. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Board Member Lew: They are different than the existing street poles which are tall cobra head light fixtures. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Board Member Lew: I was wondering if you could explain the selection there. Mr. Cusenbery: The selection is based – I’m going to try to go to that night view right now, is to reinforce the pedestrian environment and bring the canopy of lights to a lower level. So, that the single-story component of the garage and the pedestrian realm and the canopy of the trees is reinforced not to over light that area. Then the – those are supplemented with a more subtle light on the surface of the City of Palo Alto Page 11 building. There we go, it should be up here momentarily I hope, well maybe not. Anyway, that – yes, the intent is to bring it down for the reasons of pedestrian’s experience. Board Member Lew: Ok and then there’s an existing cobra head light in the parking which works to… Mr. Cusenbery: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Ah, ok, good – to illuminate the alley and in the current lighting plans there’s nothing shown in the alley. I was wondering if that’s a conscious decision or is there something else proposed for the alley? Mr. Cusenbery: That’s a very good question and I don’t have an answer to that. Board Member Lew: Great and then my last question about lighting is there’s one sconce shown in the – near Antonio’s Nut House in the bicycle parking area. Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Board Member Lew: I was wondering why is there only one? What is it doing and… Mr. Cusenbery: I think if there’s only one that’s probably an oversight on our part. There should be more than one. The idea is that bicycle parking area should be illuminated as a continuous area and it’s also a pathway that leads you to the Paseo that’s mid-block. It doesn’t go all the way because of structural interference but it goes most if the way there so I would qualify that as an oversight and there definitely should be more than one downlight in that area. Board Member Lew: I think my last question – my last question is about the stairs that serve the lower levels of the garage. Mr. Cusenbery: Yes. Board Member Lew: So, I don’t know the code – how the code works with this but can they be open staircases or do they really have to be enclosed for smoke protection? Mr. Cusenbery: Do you want to address that? I’ll have Michelle answer that. Ms. Wendler: The stairs need to be fire rated on the inside of the basement levels and as we come up into the ground level, we’ve been able to keep that open since that level is open air but as you do go down, there is a wall… Board Member Lew: There’s a door. Ms. Wendler: … in the basement levels, yeah. Board Member Lew: It’s not unlike maybe outdoor ones here in City Hall? Ms. Wendler: Exactly, it’s exactly like that. Board Member Lew: Ok so I think – I will comment maybe on that later but thank you for the answer. Amy, did you have any follow-ups on the crosswalks (crosstalk)(inaudible). Ms. French: Yes, I was able to read that section and it does talk about the provision of signage and/or warning systems to be installed at the entry/exit point to make sure that pedestrians will not be endangered by cars coming and going. There are no details about that but certainly, that is something City of Palo Alto Page 12 that we would look at, at a Staff level to make sure – with transportation and planning to make sure they are the minimum size needed to get the job done and be effective. Board Member Lew: I think the warnings were for Sherman, like an audible warning or – then I think there’s also one for crosswalks at Jacaranda. Anyway, these aren’t like details, it seems like we could add them as Conditions of Approval if we get far today. That’s all the questions that I have at the moment. Chair Furth: Robert, any questions? Board Member Gooyer: No. Chair Furth: Yes, Osma. Board Member Thompson: I tried looking for it but I kind of wanted some more information on rainwater management and harvest. If there’s rainwater harvesting in the project? Mr. Cusenbery: I’ll bring Zoey Astrachan our landscape architect to answer that question. Ms. Zoey Astrachan: Good morning. Currently, the planters along Sherman are treating all of the roof water so there’ll be a network of roof water liters that let out into those individual planters and then spread it lengthwise of the planters and treat that water. So, that planting will have to be at least 30- inches deep, therefore the height of the planters and then the plant species will be selected accordingly. Is there any other questions? Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Astrachan: Is there any other questions? Board Member Thompson: Nope, that’s my only question about that but I do have two more questions. I read something about public art and that it might be – I was wondering though the statues of the public art. If it’s getting moved somewhere? If there’s some more information on its home in this project? Ms. Raschke: Yes. Matt Raschke, Public Works, the Community Services Department was unable to draft or come to an agreement with the Paul Knox studios who was the selected artist from the selection panel. They – because we were so far along, they basically have kind of passed on bringing in an artist for this project. They currently are in the process of selecting artists for the – in the Public Safety Building and once that artist is on board, they are going to look at supplemental opportunities for art on this structure. The runner-up in the garage artist selection panel was subsequently selected as the artist for the downtown garage on Lot D up on Hamilton and Waverly. They didn’t want to bring in the runner-up for this project and have them working on two garages in town. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Then my last question is if there’s any – in more recent parking garages – maybe this is a question for the parking consultant, is stall availability indicators and parking space availability systems. Ms. Wendler: Hi, yes, parking guidance systems are included in the project as part of an overall City objective so they will be included in this project; as well as being incorporated into other projects. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: Excuse me, while you’re still there or almost, so I always consider the pinnacle of this the Portland Airport garage which tells me exactly what’s going on before I get there. How will this work? There will be an external availability and then internal guides and green and red lights? What’s it going to be? City of Palo Alto Page 13 Ms. Wendler: Yes, we haven’t heard the exact selection from transportation about the exact system because we’re trying to match what’s going to be installed in the rest of the town. The idea is that there are signs at the entry and then signs as you go up so you know. In this case, because of the circulation pattern, you pretty much drive by each space as you go up the building because there are only two parking bays on the ramp. There will be an indicator at the ground whether there are parking spaces on level two, three, four, to help you adjust to where you need to go for the parking; especially if it’s full so you don’t go in. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions before we start with comments? I’d like to begin with comments on the draft EIR, anybody have some? Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Sure, I’ll address my comments here just on the EIR report as it is directed towards both the buildings. I find that there are two items that potentially need a little more addressing as far as the potential mitigation and one is on the tree removal. The report does mention that there’s a eleven heritages and protected trees being removed but it—as I read it, it just seems to say that the City ordinance says they will be replaced and that’s sufficient mitigation. I think that the report should go into a bit more detail about why that’s the case. On any private development, you wouldn’t be allowed to move those trees so just saying that following the code I think is not adequate. It’s a significant amount of trees being removed and I think we should address it in more detail. The second thing and I suspect there will be others on the Board supporting this is that when you do this much groundwater pumping to build two-stories underground because it’s below the water table, it’s bound to have an effect on the environment and I don’t see any mention of that in the report. So, again, some impact or some effect – some discussion about how we’re going to mitigate the impact of the groundwater pumping should be included in the report. Lastly, I have a comment and I can support it with a dozen or so quotations here but when I’m looking at Chapter Four which is regarding the aesthetic impact on the building. It seems to me that it doesn’t really mention the fact that the Board was not terribly pleased with the design of the Public Safety Building and by saying that essentially the aesthetic impact will be mitigated because the Board will approve the design isn’t really sufficient. So, if I could just start throwing out a bunch of sections perhaps that should be addressed. On Page 4.6, I have one, two, three – the fourth paragraph down, there’s a quote – there’s a line that says the secondary two-way ramp will be located on Birch Street etc. It’s regarding where the police cars come out onto the street. If I remember right, the Board had quite a bit of concern about that particular ramp and to leave it in the report as a given, I think is not correct. The next – first paragraph on Page 4.7 says the monopole will visually relate to the pattern of verticals in the PSB’s exterior design and mounting on the building to improve its overall visual integration. I don’t think that was the Board’s statement on that and I think that shouldn’t be in the EIR in that way. Three paragraphs down it say the PSB etc. carefully focusing on appropriate site planning and following that it references three concepts that the ARB is going to choose between. I think we were quite clear that none of those were adequate concepts. Rather than waste everybody’s time going through it, as I go through this section there just seems to be repeated references to a design that we didn’t really think was going in the right direction. We should be more careful to be factual and maybe get more references to the design that’s going to be built as we go through this. I’m curious to hear what everybody else thinks but as I look at the report, just Chapter Four there seems to be missing the mark a little bit. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other comments? Board Member Gooyer: No but I did want to indicate that I agree. It seemed like we weren’t really happy with the design and it – based on what’s written here, we basically were and you are just going to do some fine tuning to get it to work. I have to agree with pretty much every point that was mentioned. Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: On – I guess I have two comments, one is on – in the traffic – well, I have an overall comment. One is I think it was the draft EIR was done really well; like with all of the explanations in there were done really well compared to other EIRs that I’ve looked at recently. I mean they explain City of Palo Alto Page 14 things like relatively new things like vehicle miles traveled and I think that was done really well. The – I did see that there’s something out of date in the transportation impacts section on bike shares. I think that’s all changed since last November, that the Council shifted directions so that’s out of date. On the aesthetic mitigations, my recollection is that in the past, say like on a big – on big projects like the Stanford Hospital. That we just said that the ARB process was the mitigation, that once you get through the process, then that is it. So, when the report itself doesn’t necessarily have to spell out exactly what the ARB is going to decide and so maybe we can sort of separate it out a little bit. That’s all that I have on this one. Chair Furth: Thank you. My comment on the EIR – draft EIR, first I agree with the serious problem with the aesthetics. It has a lot of judgments about the design which sort of preempted anybody else’s analysis and I don’t know what the CEQA solution is but it certainly contradicts the opinions expressed by the body charged with advising the City on design. That needs to be reworked in some way because the statements it makes about the careful thinking of mass and whatnot – careful site plans I don’t believe are true. I mean they may have done a great deal of thinking but the result is not acceptable as it presently is there. The other thing is this would be an opportunity to update the description of the parking structure which has changed in many, I would say good ways since this document was prepared. I also think that the discussion of groundwater management is inadequate. I had a question which doesn’t need to be answered now and it may be answered somewhere in the document but there is a test for whether there’s too much shading from a new project. The shading has to do with the light on spaces other than streets between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. during – from September 21 to March 21st, from equinox to equinox. I’m just curious as to the source of the test and I’m also curious as to why we’re excluding streets? If this is a Citywide standard, I think there’s a problem. California Avenue, University Avenue, and I’m sure other streets function as important public spaces. I mean their – this is a horrible inversion but they are the equivalent of malls. I mean these are outdoor integrated across the street neighborhoods, it’s what we cherish, and the availability of some public light is what makes them places that are attractive to pedestrians. This is one of our two most pedestrian-oriented, pedestrian-focused areas so I'm concerned both about the test and curious as to where it comes from. I’m also concerned about the tree mitigation, it’s – we’re removing trees we wouldn’t ordinarily allow to be removed. I think they are mostly – are a number of them oaks because they are protected trees, right? I want to know where they are going to be mitigated, I think it needs to be close, not something planted far, far away. Basically, are we going to have a net increase in the canopy, I think so but we need a better discussion of that. In terms of construction noise, I was wondering if those hours are adequate for the neighborhood but then I recalled that the farmers market is Sunday but again, this is an important commercial neighborhood. It’s busy on Saturday, do we think that’s ok? My biggest noise concern is on Impact 13-3, operational noise, I think I read both this and the Conditions of Approval to say that 78.2 decibels are acceptable for the operation of this facility and that doesn’t seem right and shouldn’t be right if it is. I just would note also in the project itself, on Page 21, there are no – in the Staff report, there are no urban forestry conditions when I was trying to track this through. So, I think it would be good to revise the project description to reflect the improvements in this particular part of the project and then address the other issues raised by Board Members. Is that it for the draft EIR? Let’s get on to the more fun part, comments on the garage itself, please. Who would like to start? Osma. Board Member Thompson: Just kind of coming into this for the first time. It’s true, the first thing that I noticed was this beautiful render of the shadow of the trellis on that wall and then occurred to me that because of the orientation of the building, it was very questionable. It didn’t seem right so even if it was 9 a.m. in August, that might be the only time when that actually happens. It might be nice to integrate that more in the South and West facades where the public can actually enjoy that effect that you’re going for. Another thing I noticed was there are, inevitably in many parking structures, there is a large swath of sheer walls that are these grand open spaces and actually, that’s kind of where the public art ideas sort of came to my mind. I was like oh, these could be really nice public art opportunities that could actually enliven the structure. So, I don’t know if that was considered but it might actually make these large expansive of blank be really culturally appropriate to Palo Alto and give the residents more ownership of the space. Another thing – actually, maybe this should have been a question but in analyzing the floor plan, I noticed that with the accessible stalls there isn’t a real clear path of travel for the accessible cars City of Palo Alto Page 15 to get to the street. Typically, there’s sort of a hatched isle that shows the path of travel and that’s absent in your floor plan right now so unless you want to point that out, I couldn’t see it. Mr. Cusenbery: There’s direct access to the street. There’s actually breaks in the planting seat wall that provides direct access to the street. Board Member Thompson: Ok, great, thank you so much. Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah so you don’t actually have to circulate through the garage. Board Member Thompson: Ok because I was like oh no, where is everyone going? Mr. Cusenbery: I wanted to briefly just step back to the public art just to add a couple of layers form the history of this. Originally the large wall that’s facing Birch, we had proposed that that be a full height public art site and that was the original intent and that was one of the sites that were given to the public artist. Obviously, they would finally choose but we put that as a preferred site in part because there’s – its visibility from across the street would be profound too. When the public art component fell through, that was no longer an option and there is a remaining sheer wall on Sherman. One of the things – we had actually proposed public art – extensive public art on the Sherman Street side but one of the factors to consider in that location is there is a public art installation on the Visa building right across the street. Some of the comments we received on some of our initial – because we actually had a long art location on Sherman, was that you’re going to have two public art locations shouting at each other across Sherman. So, as we – and to the extent that we are able to bring in public art in subsequent roles, we would probably stir it towards the Birch Street side based on some of those comments. We, in principle, agree with what you’re saying, absolutely. Board Member Thompson: Yeah and potentially if you guys decide to reconfigure to do the light and shadow thing on the other sides, that potentially could work with that. I think otherwise, the basket weave is aesthetically – it’s a good choice. That’s all my comments for now. Ms. French: Could I mention something in response to the path of travel? If you look at the site plan, ARB O-2.01 it’s ten pages into the set, you can see that there are pedestrian paths of travel that go from the ADA accessible pathways to Sherman. There’s four of those, there’s a fifth one that is not indicated to have that feature so we’ll take a look at that but at least the pedestrians who are parking in those spaces have a path to Sherman sidewalk. Board Member Thompson: I actually didn’t notice that break before so that’s helpful, thank you. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Yes, overall, I find the building to be handsome and very supportable. In fact, I’d like to comment that I hope you can apply some of this same thinking you’ve done here regarding neighborhood scale and granularity and pedestrian friendliness to the PS Building. I think that was missing on that structure and it’s wonderful to hear the way – just your thought process in describing the building and the enthusiasm behind it is 180 degrees different than what we heard last time. I find it appealing and I think the building is going to look wonderful. I find especially removing the arcade was a good move and I think the grand staircase was a wonderful idea. It will just make it so much more accessible going in and out and it will be friendly and then the offsetting of the walls by the Nut House is a very clever way to do it. I’d like to suggest two things I think the Board might be able to ask you to improve on. So, one of them has – is regarding the staircase again, while the idea of a play of light on that wall is fine, I don’t think that’s going to happen. Your orientation doesn’t let that be the case and it seems to me there might be some way you could treat that large concrete wall more than just a smooth textured plaster. That’s a very tall wall with just a plain finish that would at best just have sort of a row of handprints on it where people touch it. There must be some way we could just liven that up and make it better and somehow perhaps relating to the idea of this play of light or what would the shadows City of Palo Alto Page 16 be like, something like that. Secondly, the same – I wonder if you could come back to the perspective showing that staircase from across Birch Street. No, not that one. I’m concerned the basket weave patterns, as they follow along the stair – right there. They seem to sort of have an arbitrary stepping up at the end of the staircase and I’m wondering if you couldn’t just improve that just a little bit more. It’s a refinement, it’s a small detail but… Mr. Cusenbery: Noted. Vice Chair Baltay: …the way it is isn’t quite right. It goes without saying that the way you build that terracotta slats is critical, you don’t want them to be so frail that they break. Mr. Cusenbery: No. Vice Chair Baltay: These buildings receive really no maintenance and terracotta is a brittle material but they look great. My other comment has to do with this circulation in the garage and I just don’t see why you couldn’t put a secondary entrance or exit off of Jacaranda Lane, back – at the opposite corner from where you drive in and out. It seems to me at the expense of one parking stall, maybe two, you could substantially improve the circulation through it. We did comment on this at the last meeting, that having just one entrance to a 600-car garage. I understand that the transportation guy says it’s going to work but in my experience in life, it just takes one person getting confused about direction whether they’re coming or going, something like that and that really clogs things up. Almost all the other garages in town that I’m aware of have two at least entrances and exits and it just seems like it’s an easy thing to do. Mr. Cusenbery: Well and if I could just respond in brief? Vice Chair Baltay: I’d rather just go through the Chair. Mr. Cusenbery: Ok, I’m sorry, I apologize. Vice Chair Baltay: So, those are comments. I can support the project, I’d like to see us make those two small shifts. Thank you. Mr. Cusenbery: Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. I am also generally supportive of the project. I agree with Peter generally about having a second entry/exit and even if we don’t do it today or initially, it seems to me that we should – it should be future approved. So, that at the very least you have a clear span and you don’t have columns coming all the way down to the ground so that we could open it up at a future time if it’s needed. Things change over the life of the City and if we imagine this is going to be here for 100- years, some things can change and it seems to me that we should have that option. On – I also agree with Peter on the stair wall, I think it’s looking good. I do – I think the plaster is better than having concrete and then again, I just worry about graffiti and dirt and repainting it and what not. I think I also agree with Osma’s comment on the sheer wall; at least on the one on Sherman. What I’ve seen on some other – on older garages is that they’ll do little openings, like a fortress opening, like a castle opening and I was wondering if that is – if something like that is possible. I’d also say that I was looking at serval other public garages and they have more stuff and I’m saying like tile base, awnings, little-punched openings and whatever. In a lot of garages its just – it can look – it can add a lot of clutter and it seems counter to what you’re proposing to do today but in a way, it does add pedestrian amenities. It seems to me in this particular case, since you have the planters along Sherman, that may be enough but I haven’t – we don’t have the landscaping plans so I couldn’t tell you for sure today and we do have a finding about that, a landscape finding. On the stairs that go down to the garage – to the lower levels of the garage, I think my recommendation is if you can do it, is to have them more open at the ground level. I mean to me going into some little dark staircase is just – it’s not desirable so in any way you can have it City of Palo Alto Page 17 more open and more open to the sidewalk, it will feel safer and it will seem – it will appear lighter and more open and more welcoming. I think we should address the recommendations in the traffic report about the parking at the isles and the crosswalks and the audible warning or some sort of warnings at the driveway entrance and exits. We don’t have any landscape plans and we do have findings for that so I think that has to come back to the Board in some way. Then on the lighting, I think we do need to have something along Jacaranda Lane. I’m generally in support of the massing, I think you’ve done a great job on the material selection with the terracotta and the board formed concrete. I guess I would – on some of the materials like say you’re proposing like a cement board – like a Swiss Pearl. Mr. Cusenbery: A Swiss Pearl, exactly. Board Member Lew: Some of these things I – in the back of mind, I was wondering – been wondering, are you proposing an integral color and then what happens over time? Are we – would we paint it and I guess I would say the same thing with the board formed concrete. You know if there is graffiti coding? Are we just going to let it be and paint over it as needed? Mr. Cusenbery: In the context that we have it set up, the board formed concrete is more vulnerable than the Swiss Pearl. The Swiss Pearl is pretty much inaccessible, the outer surfaces are. Board Member Lew: You know you see like highway overpasses… Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, I know. Board Member Lew: …and somehow some people… Mr. Cusenbery: If you’re motivated there’s a way. Board Member Lew: Yeah, if there’s a will there’s a way and we do have graffiti in town. Usually, it gets cleaned up immediately but it does happen. So anyway, I don’t know if we need to go into nitty gritty details about that but I do have concerns about that because I think it’s going to happen someday. I did want to agree with the previous comments about the tree mitigation and it seems we’re – for City projects, we want to lead by example and we’re removing all the trees. We don’t really know what the mitigation – where they’re being replaced so it doesn’t seem to me like we’re doing a great job on that. Chair Furth: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I have to go along with the other Members that I think it’s a big improvement over what we’ve seen. I guess I also have – the only area of concern or at least I think it’s worth commenting is that whole idea of the grand stairway and that the adjacent wall. I agree based on the orientation that I don’t know if you’re going to get the play of light that you’re looking for and to me, it’s almost – it’s going the wrong way; in that, a building like this is very large and bulky, to begin with. Then what you’re doing basically is you’ve got what looks to be an 8-foot or so stairway coming out and then you’re creating a trellis in front of it which adds to the overall bulk of the building. I guess part of that is also to give more character to the wall behind it. I would almost be tempted to – I’d like to see the trellis go away and actually make more interest in the actual stair itself. The stair right at the moment is sort of – blends into the wall adjacent to it. If the stair became the terracotta element for instances, that climbs up the wall, then you’re basically bisecting that large wall and a lot of the concern about this massive wall goes away. It also then allows you to cut the roof back somewhat and the overall bulk of the building, on that side, gets reduced greatly and really, you’re not changing the function because – I understand the overhang or the canopy but if you’re doing it for rain, a canopy that’s 40-feet up in the air isn’t really going to keep rain off your head all that drastically. I don’t know if that’s the intent of it but I think what it will do is – like I said in this case, there’s nothing really spectacular about the look of the stair as it relates to the rest of the building. It’s not an accent point, it’s not, you know like I said, the reddish terracotta stair right there so you could actually point it out. I think you’re missing something and also adding to the bulk because of it. I agree with the tree removal or that sort of thing, especially setting a City of Palo Alto Page 18 bad example and overall, this wouldn’t be a breaker for me but I’d love to see a little bit more effort considering people are calling it the grand stair and all this. To me there’s nothing grand about this stair, you’re basically putting a trellis in front of it than hiding it so to me that gets away from the concept of a grand stair. I pretty much agree with most of the other Members, I think I’ll leave it at that. Chair Furth: Thank you and thank you for this revised plan. There is so much about it that I really like and I think that it’s clear from the public comment that you’ve addressed concerns of the neighborhood and the merchants and the people who frequent it and of the Board. You know somebody at some point today said it wasn’t a destination but of course it is, this is the Union Station of that part of town. This is where those people who use cars, and that’s a lot of people, enter the neighborhood and so I think we’re going for a similar kind of experience. You know in the 60’s peninsula towns put a ballot measure on and adopted them, banning parking structures because they were seen as a symbol – an emblem of overcrowding and urban danger and just generally bad things. I think with a lot of effort we’ve managed to transform that experience in many parts of town and I hope this continues that project. I like the fact very much that – this is an odd thing to say about a huge parking garage but that it kind of flies its sustainability flag. I like the rain gardens, I like the highly visible photovoltaics, those are all good things. I like the fact that we’re going to have intelligent wayfinding, I also feel kind of deprived when we don’t have it. I’m concerned about how safe it’s going to feel to be in the subterranean levels but I don’t really know how you address that. If that is going to be employee parking, it’s going to present an interesting issue for employees getting their cars late at night. One of the things that I really like is the way that I think it now looks like a building that’s supposed to be in the California Avenue, both commercial and to the South. What do we call that? District, that it integrates both with the office and residential buildings and with Cal. Ave itself, I think that’s great. With respect to the sheer wall on – well, we do need a landscape plan, I think before we can approve this. With respect, for example, to the sheer wall on Sherman, whether it works and how it works is going to depend a lot about what’s planted there and what kind of tree shadows we get. I don’t think there’s much that’s lovelier than the pattern of light and shade from a tree on a wall but I don’t know what we’re going to have there and how it’s going to look. I’m not – I like your overall design so I’m not particularly interested in additional detailing at this point but I’m open to the thoughts of my colleagues on this and a view. It is a problem that that lovely light that we see on the grand staircase is a rare phenomenon and I think that means that needs further thought. I don’t know if you provide a painted version of that or you do something different. It certainly is true that there are lots of things one can do with a staircase, what I like about what you have is that this is a huge building. It’s – and the scale of the element is good, it’s big so I’m open to further thoughts about that but it’s close. I actually do like the idea of a light diffusing screen up above on both sunny and dark days. I do notice that the Staff conditions are not complete and we don’t have a full set of plans. When I look at what seems to be the critical path here, I know it’s a while before we can take this to Council and I would be inclined to ask this to come back one more time but what are my colleague’s thoughts? Does somebody want to make a motion or just chat? Vice Chair Baltay: I have a question about the process if I could? The reason we’re pushing to get this approved now is so they can get into a more of a construction drawing phase and get a jump on constructing this or is it just to sort of get one more thing out of the way? Mr. Raschke: Correct, we want to actually break ground on this in October. So yeah, we want to fast- track construction documents and get them out to bid because the escalation that we’re still seeing in the market is extreme. So, every month this -- that the Public Safety Building is delayed with what the cost estimates that we’re seeing right now, it’s probably $100,000 to $200,000 a month that we’re escalating the project as it drags on. Vice Chair Baltay: So, addressing my colleagues then, I understand the Public Safety Building will be coming back to us sometime in March and I’d say there’s a chance we’re going to continue that to another hearing. If we tie this building to that, they’re not going to start in October and so, in reality, we’re cost quite a bit more by delaying it. I think the comments I’ve heard are all things that could be addressed… City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Gooyer: Well, the other way to look at it is – I mean we all take chances. You could start construction documents basically with the way this Board feels about the existing project and get 85% of those done and some minor modifications that you leave purposely vague like the stair or whatever; the wall; something like that. You could do a whole lot of construction and that isn’t going to waster 3- months’ worth of time while it’s just sitting there so I think we should bring it back because there are some modifications. I’m not happy with like I said that one thing, I guess I feel a little bit stronger about it than the rest of the Board so that’s fine but I think there needs to be some redesign on that grand stairway. I don’t think that alone is going to like I said, will allow you to do 85% to 90% of the construction documents, even if that’s vague at the moment. I don’t – I wouldn’t think – I’d also – because this is a public building, I don’t want to get hung up in that hey, come on, we’re in a hurry. You guys have to approve it now because we’re on a time schedule. Board Member Lew: I have a follow up for Staff on Robert’s point. How does this work? The Council needs to authorize the next phase typically like on the bicycle bridge they authorized design development up to whatever, 65% of DD. Is that going -- is that the same process for the garage? I mean the Council needs to approve… Board Member Gooyer: What you’re saying is can they start construction documents… Chair Furth: What do you need in order to start construction documents? Board Member Lew: Yeah. Board Member Lew: You need some Council approval I would imagine. Yes. Chair Furth: Yes, thank you. Board Member Lew: Welcome. Mr. Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works: Good morning, I’m Brad Eggleston, the Assistant Director of Public Works, these projects are structured a little bit differently than the bike bridge was. I think what you’re recalling with that project is that we had to actually take a contract amendment to the Council to authorize the next phase of design. With these projects we have the full design authorized in the current design contract – right so there is – as we’ve said – as Matt and Mallory have said, we’re really wanting to forge ahead with a design with an eye to that October breaking ground date. There is a checkpoint with the Council where we would ask them to authorize the EIR and approve the Record of Land Use for the project. I’m not sure what that would mean in terms of at any point that we would pause with the construction documents process before getting to Council. Chair Furth: With respect, I don’t think we’ve been dragging the project here. The public comment period on the draft EIR doesn’t even end till February 22nd. I think the consensus here is that we think it’s a good building, we think it needs a little more work and I definitely think we need some more careful looking at the conditions which I do not think are not ready to go. I’m concerned that this is a very big project and I don’t want to miss something because we’re trying to amend conditions or add conditions on the fly. So, what would you suggest as a procedure? You, you’re good at this. Mr. Lait: Well, so I think that just taking a step back, I think the Board has had this sort of informal interest in wanting to move City projects forward at two meetings. This is your second meeting and I’ve heard a number of comments, a lot of it is positive though maybe perhaps not unanimously positive about the project. The things that I have heard I think could easily be addressed here after this point without subcommittee and then some points with the subcommittee. The grand stair and I understand that there’s maybe some objection to the term but that stairway is not going to move. There are treatments and elements that may be modified to enhance the lighting effect that the Board has talked about. I think that’s something that can be addressed in subcommittee. I think that wall – the large plaster wall is something that may benefit from a little bit more discussion today and if we can give some City of Palo Alto Page 20 clear direction to it for subcommittee members to explore that, that could be helpful. The landscaping, we don’t try to – landscaping is an element of the design. We don’t want to hide the building with landscaping – landscaping shouldn’t be the reason why a building gets approved or doesn’t get approved. It’s supposed to enhance and improve the design but it’s not the reason why. I mean I think that’s something that we can come back in subcommittee or even later to the Board and have a discussion about landscaping. I think there’s – and as far as the conditions go, I think we’re probably 98% there and the reason we added that in the Staff report is because I think we’re fine-tuning a few things related to the environmental analysis; which is frankly going to change even if you continue this over time as we get closer to the City Council. I think all things considered, from a Staff perspective, we are very mindful of the cost not only to other applicants that have to go through the process. We want to streamline and be efficient in our review but the City also has an expense that it’s accruing and that has potentially broader implications from other – as we spend more money to building the parking structure. There are less funds available for other capital improvements that we want to advance so our interest is to move it forward. Chair Furth: I think we all share the view that it’s important to do what we can to expedite this. What I’m trying to figure out is I don’t think we – well, we’ll just check and see but I don’t think we have – we have no landscape plans for example. How are we to make our findings in the absent of those plans? Board Member Lew: You condition it to come back. I mean you can condition the landscape plans to come back. That’s not – this is a… Chair Furth: So, this is an approval subject to further review by the ARB? Mr. Lait: You’re approving – you would be recommending approval of the project with the condition that the landscape plans return to the Board. Chair Furth: Ok, thank you, that was my question. Ms. French: Could I just mention that there is a landscape concept that shows where trees are to be located, where shrubs are to be located and specify the tree species. I think the – what’s missing is the smaller level plantings, the smaller plants. Chair Furth: Colleagues, what – first of all, are you – are we generally supportive of the idea of trying to put together a motion that approves this project subject to further review by us? Board Member Gooyer: What does that mean? Board Member Lew: Let’s just be more specific, let’s – I’m willing to approve the project today with all of the items that have been previously mentioned coming back to subcommittee. I’m actually ok with the staircase, I think I disagree with Robert but I’m fine with if we want to tinker with it. I think I’m – I would be willing to have that – how do we say – consider revising the staircase but it seems to me that the grand staircase issue had – there were safety issues regarding the police station. So, I imagine that there’s – that they’re going to want some sort of screen wall there. Anyway, let’s – I – it seems to me all of these things to me are – could be addressed in subcommittee. Board Member Thompson: I think – oh I was going to say my major – I mean I agree mostly with the Board Members. I think regarding the stair, it’s true, I did feel that it was missing some design thought. Part of it could be mitigated and in many ways, I understand there’s something wrong with public art integration but that doesn’t mean that the architect or the designer can’t take some initiative and improve the view from the ground in some way that you kind of have a basket weave fractal skin. That couldn’t somehow integrate either texturally or paint or something to improve it. As it stands right now, it’s true that right now it is missing that and so it would be worth seeing again. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Gooyer: The way I see it is that we’re – as you said we’re almost there. I would prefer to see it come back to a date certain and that way you can determine how that fits into the schedule and limit it to just those items that we’ve talked about; the stair, a couple of other items and if it could be done fairly quickly and I don’t think that that’s going to interfere with the overall scheme of things. Like I said, the stair is going to stay where it is so from a structural standpoint or a construction document standpoint, that’s not going to change. It’s going to be how it’s addressed and I think it’s a fairly big element of that corner and I think we need to do something other than subcommittee. Vice Chair Baltay: I agree with Robert on that. Chair Furth: I agree too so that’s three votes for that process. Let’s see if we can focus down tight on what it is that we’d like to have further work on. So, I have that we need a landscaping plan, I would like further details on what the actual operational noise level that the City is willing to commit to is. The one that we have seems oddly high. What would you say – let’s see, Peter I’ve forgotten what you’re points where? There in my notes here somewhere. What else did you want to add? Oh, somebody wanted crosswalks indicated on Jacaranda, is that right? Board Member Gooyer: That’s fairly minor (inaudible). Board Member Lew: No… Chair Furth: Do you want any additional work on lighting? Board Member Lew: … it was only – actually the – I wanted the Staff to respond to the recommendations in the traffic report. Chair Furth: So, but at the same time we could get additional completed detailing on lighting, that was a gap. Board Member Lew: No, I think their lighting is… Chair Furth: It’s ok? Board Member Lew: …there but that the… Chair Furth: There are gaps in the plan? Board Member Lew: Well, there’s no – there’s nothing addressing lighting Jacaranda Lane. Chair Furth: Right. I’m just trying to avoid further referrals to subcommittee. Board Member Gooyer: I basically think the grand stair, the trellis and the concrete wall behind it need to be – needs some further clarifications or refinement. Chair Furth: Well, before we talk about that, anything else I’ve left of this list? Vice Chair Baltay: At least two of us asked about a secondary exit onto Jacaranda Lane (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Furth: Ok, planning for a possible future exit. Vice Chair Baltay: Or creating one right now. Chair Furth: Exit on Jacaranda Lane. What else? City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Thompson: More information on the tree removal. Chair Furth: Yeah, landscaping plan, more tree. I will tell you if this is part of the landscaping plan, I’m going to be looking for benches that people who don’t have great muscle tone can (inaudible). In other words, armrests, something that lets people lever themselves up from benches – from the seating. Anything else? Is that it? I have such illegible notes here. We’re happy with the rainwater harvesting. I think we – could we get more of a – more statements of consensus on the grand staircase. Robert’s presented the view that it needs significant change. What’s the view of the rest of you? Alex. Board Member Lew: I don’t think I agree. Chair Furth: Ok, do you want anything or are you good? Board Member Lew: No, I think previously have stated my concern. It was mostly just keeping the plaster wall… Chair Furth: So, sturdy materials? Board Member Lew: …clean. So, like hard trowel plaster typically shows cracks. I’m not sure if you were proposing to paint it or not. Often times the paint is used to hide the cracks and public buildings and garages usually get pretty grungy and they don’t – they’re not spic and span, nice and clean and so those are my general concerns about the plaster wall. Chair Furth: Peter. Ok, sorry, Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: I think I stated my concern, that wall absent the play of light is going to be a big blank wall that’s getting dirty and so I’d rather not tell the architect how to resolve that issue but I think it needs resolution or refinement maybe. Chair Furth: So, the issue is that accept at 8:30 in the morning it’s going to be too big and to blank and to vulnerable? Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, it’s in shade 90% of the day, 90% of the year… Chair Furth: Ok, I think that’s probably pretty clear. Vice Chair Baltay: …and then I also felt that the detailing of the basket weave terracotta below the stair needed further thought. I think the architect would agree that it needs further thought and just giving them some space to do that. Those are my two issues on the staircase. Chair Furth: Anything else? Board Member Thompson: I think I would agree with Peter and Robert on that, that yeah, it’s kind of – it could need more thought. It’s true that it won’t look like that and so it would be good to just know more about the design intent. It’s a nice effect so it would be nice to see if it could be incorporated somewhere where it could happen and also just more thought on the big blank walls as well. That’s sort of my things. Chair Furth: Thanks, so I’m not in favor of relocating the lattice particularly. I think this approach but I do understand that it’s not going to work as shown and that we need to figure out or the architect needs to tell us how to address that. I’ve got landscaping, more good information about how the tree loss is going to be really well mitigated, assurances that the operational noise is going to be at some level that’s attractive to people in the neighborhood walking by, perhaps some corrections of omissions on the lighting plan and a plan for lighting on Jacaranda Lane, either an exit or a plan for a possible future exit on Jacaranda Lane, and some -- what’s the word? Refinements – some further thinking on how to make City of Palo Alto Page 23 the grand staircase wall study and as interesting as it appears in this elevation. Would somebody like to make a motion to – oh, is there a date that this could come back to us? Mr. Lait: Yeah, we’ll look at a date but can I offer… Chair Furth: Sure. Mr. Lait: … just another Staff perspective based on the motion and I don’t want to be argumentative about this but I just want to be clear about what the motion is and what we’re doing. As I hear the comments that we’re being asked to come back, there is the landscape plan which this Board has routinely conditioned as a condition for return. I don’t see a problem with the landscape plan not being fully developed at this point. There’s the operational noise level issue that’s been addressed, you know we don’t believe that this is going to operate any differently than any other parking structure that we have in the City but moreover, that’s an environmental point. We’ve heard the comment, it’s going to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report and if there’s additional mitigation that are required, we would address that. The tree removal, the trees are going to be removed and I understand that there’s concern about the mitigation about how that might be addressed. That too is an EIR point, we’ve heard the comment, we’re going to study it, we’ll respond to it in the final Environmental Impact Report. I don’t know why the project would have to be continued on that point alone. I heard a comment about the rainwater harvesting, that’s a technical detail that we can be – that can be worked out. It sounds like the plan has – the applicant has a plan for addressing that. Lighting plan on Jacaranda Lane, again a detail that the Board consistently has moved to a subcommittee to discuss lighting. That seems like a very discreet element related to one aspect of the project. There was a comment about the exit on Jacaranda Lane. Staff believes that this is infeasible for the project design due to the interior ramping of the project so we don’t feel like we’re going to be able to come back with any changes to that feature. The – there was a detailing about the basket weave and the terracotta. This is – we’ve heard some comments about that and I think this is a detail that was expressed as something that could be easily addressed. It sounds like the architect has an idea about how to address that and the final component has to do with the refinement of the staircase where we’ve heard ranging views from I don’t like it to it’s good, how’s the plaster going to work? I think that’s the one area that we could probably benefit from some further Board discussion and if the Board can’t come to a perspective of how to address that, then I don’t know what continuing that is going to do. If there are some specific comments that can be given to the applicant so that we can come back to a subcommittee to address that wall, then I think we should do that. Of all the comments or the reason that I’ve heard for continuing this item and coming back, I don’t think anyone of them rises to that level of a need to return to the Board. So, I just want to offer that in the interest of all the things that have been said before. Chair Furth: Thank you. One of the things that are perplexing me is that the issues that you’ve described as environmental carry over to the Conditions of approval of the project. Mr. Lait: We acknowledge that. If there are any mitigations that need to be incorporated, those will necessarily be a part of our Conditions of Approval. I mean I view this more as an administrative component for us to address in how we frame and address the conditions. In fact, we noted in the Staff report that even if the board were to approve it today or continue it, we still may be modifying some of these Conditions of Approval as the project moves forward to the City Council. Board Member Lew: Well, and Planning Commission too. Right? Mr. Lait: Planning Commission is going to be looking at the Environmental Impact Report but also the texted amendment that is associated with the project but they’re not going to be looking at the details of the project. Chair Furth: Thank you. So, you’re asking us – so, explain to me what 78.2 decibels sounds like? Ms. Gerhardt: I just want to be clear and I can grab the page, I don’t have it in front of me but… City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Furth: It’s Page 14. Ms. Gerhardt: Yesterday when we were discussing this, the operational numbers are closer to 52 so we’ll grab the page and find that answer for you. Chair Furth: Great because as it stands, we’re supposed to be approving noise up to that level which I wouldn’t be able to do. I wouldn’t summarize our concerns quite the way that Staff has but I understand their view. We could satisfy the operational noise problem by changing that condition to something more suitable. We still don’t have any transportation conditions and we still don’t have any – that’s on Page 15 and we still don’t have any Public Works Urban Forestry Conditions on Page 21. Ms. French: Can I clarify something there? Chair Furth: Sure. Ms. French: The transportation Staff member has been intimately involved with the redesigns that have been coming through and they have no conditions at this point. We do – we can add a condition about that – come back and let’s see the signs for the – the signage that’s going to be coming forward related to the safety at the entrance. Chair Furth: I’ll see if anybody wants that, thank you. So, we’ll just put none rather than to be determined. Ms. French: Sure, we were – I was hoping I would get something this week but then the other was the Urban Forestry Mitigation Measure 6.2 I think it is, does have some specificity as to what the Urban Forestry folks want back. Dave Doctor retired, we don’t have any conditions from Urban Forestry at this time. We do have a mitigation measure that’s fairly specific. Chair Furth: Thank you. Out of our list of five items, we could change that operational noise condition down to a lower level? Ms. Gerhardt: If you’d like we… Mr. Ray Pendro: Hello. Ms. Gerhardt: … do have the environmental consultant here. Mr. Pendro: Yes, my name is Ray Pendro from MIG. We’ve worked on the EIR with City Staff. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Pendro: The operational noise standards are based on the City Municipal Code and the number you’re quoting is the sound of the ventilation fan at the north end of the parking garage. I will give a very brief summary just by reading two sentences from Page 13-29 of the EIR. The paragraph in the middle to just – I hope this helps a little bit, it’s of course, just the summary of a whole chapter. It says the results of the calculation indicate the parking garage would result in noise levels of 52.8 decibels at a distance of 58 – of a distance of 50-feet from the building which is approximately 10 decibels lower than the existing noise on that street which is approximately 63 decibels. The operation of the parking garage at 50-feet from the fan, the exhaust fans for the basement would actually be 10 decibels less than the decibel level of the street traffic driving by the garage. Chair Furth: This is good. Remind me where they are? Mr. Pendro: Page 13-2… City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Furth: No, I’m no Page 13, where they are in the building? Mr. Pendro: Oh, they are on the north edge of the parking garage near Jacaranda Lane. Chair Furth: Near Jacaranda and what level vertically? Mr. Pendro: I don’t have the design of that but it’s for the garages so it would be near the alley. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Pendro: It’s for the basement level. Chair Furth: Right and so where does it exhaust? Mr. Pendro: Well, the fan – I’m not designing a parking garage. Michelle? Chair Furth: I’m sure somebody knows. Board Member Lew: It’s near the… Mr. Pendro: It is in the alley behind the (crosstalk) (inaudible). Ms. Wendler: The exhaust shafts are adjacent to the elevator towers and they go all the way to the top. Chair Furth: Ok so this is nice to know. I did read the code and I did read the new Noise Element and then I read our Condition of Approval which was not reassuring so can we change that? Why doesn’t Staff suggest some language? Ms. French: Are you talking about Noise Mitigation 13.1 that’s on Page 30. Chair Furth: I am talking about – well there’s that and then I don’t know that we can’t – we can’t exactly rewrite the mitigation measure for a document that we’re not – I figured that’s what it says in the EIR but when we have our own Conditions of Approval it would be a lower noise level that we would be tolerating. Where ever you want to put it is fine with me. Ms. French: So, add the noise condition to the planning conditions. Chair Furth: Which essentially says that the noise level of the equipment will not exceed whatever you’re willing to commit to. Mr. Lait: Well, I think we just need to say that the project shall operate in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance. I mean that’s ultimately what we’re looking for and we believe that can be achieved. Chair Furth: Not when you tell me that it’s 78.2 decibels. I mean is there a problem that I’m not seeing here? I mean I know there are a lot of rhythmic scales and all that but is there any problem with committing to a slightly lower level? This is a part of the City that doesn’t show up on any noise contours. This is a relatively quiet part of the City. Mr. Lait: Ok but as I’m understanding it, you’re not asking for it to operate lower than the City’s noise level, right? You’re asking it to be in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance? Chair Furth: I’m asking it to operate in a way that’s consistent with people being comfortable walking around it. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Mr. Lait: But I mean the standard is the City’s Noise Ordinance. I mean that should be the standard for review and so if – we’re saying that the project will meet the City’s Noise Ordinance. Chair Furth: My question is, is there a lower number that we can commit too? Mr. Lait: We can study that and get – send the Board a comment on that but it’s unprecedented for us to… Chair Furth: We don’t – when we review buildings, we don’t say you comply with the quantitative standards of the City and therefore you’re approved. We wouldn’t exist if that was one of the things that we did and I confess that part of my problem is just confusion that we would say in our ordinance that that decibel level was acceptable. It seems very high to me. I am willing to let this point go if I have no agreement from my colleagues. Mr. Pendro: I’ll just point out that I believe where the number comes from, it’s Mitigation 13-3, operational noise, it’s the second bullet and in combination with the information that I gave earlier, 78.2 decibels is the decibel at the location of the ventilation fans. It’s Page 13-32, the second bullet so that noise level disperses over distance. Chair Furth: If we were a private project as opposed to a public project, we’d be held to a stricter standard under our ordinance? Mr. Lait: No, the same standard applies for both projects. Chair Furth: Because I when I was looking at the exceptions, it appeared to say they got 15 decibels and we got more. Vice Chair Baltay: Wynne, it seems to me… Chair Furth: I’ll let it go. Vice Chair Baltay: … if we just eliminated that last clause which says which is estimated to be, just strike that from the Condition of Approval, we’d all be happy with this. Chair Furth: Alright, we’ll do that. That’s Page 14, it’s the second full paragraph after the first – after the second bullet. That takes care of that one, that leaves the landscaping plan – oh, let’s take the next – so, with respect to either building or planning for an exit on Jacaranda Land. Staff believes that’s something they would say no to, is that right? It can’t be done? Board Member Lew: From my point of view it – I was thinking it would be a second exit somewhere else. It wouldn’t have to be on Jacaranda Lane. There are other – there are City garages in – off of Castro Street in Mountain View that have exits onto the alley – one-way alleys and they work. I don’t think that the – it seems to me the traffic study indicates that people are coming from all directions and they would not necessarily be coming from the opposite lane on Birch making a left turn into the garage. They could easily – you could circle around the block around California, turn right on Birch and so right into the alley so it seems to me that we should have some flexibility. Chair Furth: So, then would it – what we are asking to see is a secondary entrance or exit – and/or exit? Board Member Lew: In my mind – well, so – I’ll let Peter speak to his but my own is just that it would not necessarily have to be implemented initially. Vice Chair Baltay: I agree with what Alex is saying. If we just ask them to eliminate that one post, then time will prove out whether the exit is necessary. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Furth: So, revise the design to make possible future exit or entrance? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I suppose we should verify with the architect if that can be done but I’ve got to believe that it’s possible but I really think we want to move this along and not keep negotiating these small things. Chair Furth: If we do this discussion and get this hammered out today, it will perhaps advance the project. Ms. Wendler: Subject to not actually being a traffic engineer but a parking designer, where you’re talking about is coming down the ramp to the right of the elevator and there’s a – the elevator vent shaft and there’s a column and then there’s a second column. For a single exit only, lane and not having an entrance, the space between the two columns would be wide enough without actually removing the column to allow for a potential future right-hand turn lane onto Jacaranda. Assuming that it would be consistent in the traffic impact analysis which I can’t speak too. Vice Chair Baltay: With all respect, the Staff already mentioned they’re concerned about is being proximate to the top of the ramp and I’d prefer to see us have more latitude with a larger space so that we don’t create a dangerous situation. It seems to me again that if it’s possible to remove one column at the lower corner there, then we all sorts of future possibilities at really no cost. Ms. Wendler: It’s not impossible to remove a column. We can evaluate the column spacing and see how we can make that and do the turning diagrams to show how that would work. Mr. Lait: So… Vice Chair Baltay: If that’s what it… Mr. Lait: Sorry. Vice Chair Baltay: …takes to get you approved today is that a fair deal? Ms. Wendler: I – Mr. Lait: So, Board… Ms. Wendler: If Staff is supportive. Mr. Lait: Board, if I may? It sounds like – so there’s interest in wanting to have an – having an additional egress, only right? Egress or ingress or egress? Board Member Lew: Look I’ve seen enough – I’ve seen several garages in San Jose where they’ve had – like at Santana Row and also downtown near the Martin Luther King Library and they have – there are issues. There’s – basically what happens is in this type of garage, if some space opens up close to the entrance and one car stops, it blocks all other traffic. That person could take 5-minutes to get out of the car and it’s been a problem in other garages and they’ve had to restripe the on in San Jose – on Santana Row. So, to me, it’s an issue and it seems to me it’s just – I’m only arguing for flexibility for something to be changed… Mr. Lait: I’m trying to get… Board Member Lew: … in the future. Mr. Lait: I’m trying to get the Board there so as – just to be clear, you’re saying ingress/ egress from Jacaranda or anywhere? City of Palo Alto Page 28 Board Member Lew: No, I’m just saying if – anywhere. It would be either egress or… Mr. Lait: Ok so then the condition that the Board could consider is that you recommend that the City Council consider an additional ingress or egress opportunity either now or plan for a future ingress opportunity. Then in the interim, the architect and Staff could explore where those possibilities exist, present those to the City Council and the Council could say yes, we think that’s a good idea. Let’s either do it now or let’s plan for it. At least you’re teeing up that you’re interested across in the recommendation to the Council, Staff is doing the work in the meantime, Council makes the decision as to what to do with it. Vice Chair Baltay: With all respect Jonathan, that’s to much detail for the Council to get into. That’s why we’re here, is to give them a firmer direction; it should be there or it shouldn’t and I feel very uncomfortable just leaving that to Council. They generally don’t – that’s just too much detail for them to get into whether to have a column or not. Mr. Lait: I’m just responding to what the Board had -- I heard a plan for it, I heard… Chair Furth: I think we’re asking that plan be made now in a revision to this plan before us. Mr. Lait: Ok so Staff shall plan for an additional ingress or egress opportunity. Chair Furth: I think the – the motion that I have in the back of my head is that we recommend approval subject to the following conditions. One, that the plans be revised to show a potential ingress/egress in addition to the existing one. Any other conditions that we want? I think that the landscape plan be prepared and reviewed by the Board for approval. That revised materials – revised – somebody phrased these – the grand staircase request for me. Board Member Lew: I don’t think we’re in agreement on the staircase. Chair Furth: Well, let’s see, give me your point of view. Somebody gives me their point of view. Board Member Thompson: Perhaps just further design development on the skin and the staircase. Board Member Lew: I think we should be more – I think at this point if we’re – this is already our second hearing on this, that we should be fairly specific. I think Peter has been specific that it’s below the staircase. Chair Furth: Maybe we could go backward so Robert has suggested removing the screen and taking a different approach. Does anybody else support that approach? Board Member Lew: I do not support that. Vice Chair Baltay: No, I don’t support that, I’m sorry Robert. Board Member Thompson: I do not support that. Chair Furth: So, that one is off the table so we’re talking about something else. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m just still trying to get my head around. Robert made, what I thought, was a convincing argument why we should just continue this project. We were about to do that and then the Staff made an argument why we should move forward with it. I guess I want to hear if Robert is convinced by Staff’s argument that we should be looking for a way to just get this out today rather than just continuing it. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Board Member Gooyer: I guess my – I mean I’m willing to just say fine, I’ll vote against it. I mean that’s very simple. No, I mean if we want to be realistic about this, I feel like we’re being bulldozed to make a decision today and the reality of it is I don’t see that if this comes back to a date certain, that it’s going to modify the schedule of the project. You can keep going with the construction documents even if you change the way I want the stair or you don’t do that, that’s not going to change the construction documents. That’s going to be the biggest time frame and all these other things that need to be done are going to happen while they are doing the construction documents and if they come back to – other than well, we can’t get it done for 3-months to get the redesign done. A lot of it’s going to be on the design team on how quickly they can respond. So, like I said, the easiest solution would just be – I’m unhappy with the design – why is this thing – well, I’m unhappy with the design of the stair. I think it’s trying to do something and it’s not very successful. Obviously, I’m in the minority on that so that’s fine. These projects don’t have to go five zero. Chair Furth: Thank you. I agree, I’m having a hard time understanding why this is a critical path but whether we bring it back not having voted yes or we bring it back having voted yes with conditions, we still need to define what we want from the designer. I’m asking for a consensus – a majority consensus, not (inaudible) on what you’d like to see back from the designer – from the architect on the staircase? Mr. Cusenbery: For the sake of for a motion on this, may I offer my interpretation of what I’ve heard and you can see if this sounds good? Chair Furth: Certainly. Mr. Cusenbery: The removal of the basket weave aside because I see that as a standalone piece, the parts that I understood which – and fully support, is the design development of two key components. One the wall behind the stair and two the experience when the sun isn’t cascading in from that side of the building. It will appear like this sometimes but there are the majority of the times that it will not. So, the few components that I heard that need design development are Board Member Lew mentioned durability and cleaning and what it’s like down at the level. Board Member Thompson mentioned the specularity, the light, the fact that is has during a certain time of day a beautiful specularity but then when the sun goes away it becomes flatter. Are there ways that you can do that? Board Member Baltay mentioned about well, can you simulate what the light might be doing during the times the light isn’t actually there? That you actually kind of have a continuity of experience even though you don’t have continuity of light. From our perspective, that would mean – that would translate to a surface development in durability and specularity of that wall. Get some design interest so that it’s interesting even when the light is directly not on it. I actually have a question that I’d like to pose to the Board related to that. Is there an openness to using artificial lighting in the evenings in such a way that we’re using on scrim on the Sherman side whereby there could be shadows that are recreated on the walls in the evening? That’s a question for discussion but the bigger picture is, we not only, I think understand the need to design develop that portion further but are enthusiastic about it. I think there are all sorts of great things that we can do that are relatively simple, just need more development. Vice Chair Baltay: Could you get them done in time to return on March 1st? Mr. Cusenbery: I don’t want to influence necessarily the direction. We will proceed at whatever pace that is required for how everybody approves. Vice Chair Baltay: February 15th, is that too soon? Mr. Cusenbery: I mean I can offer thoughts right now that immediately come to mind that… Chair Furth: (inaudible)… Mr. Cusenbery: Alright. City of Palo Alto Page 30 Chair Furth: …go that far but thank you, this is helpful. Can I have a straw vote, who would like to continue this? Just raise your hand if you want to continue it for another meeting. I’m going to suggest that we – Staff can tell me whether this is a feasible motion or not. That we recommend – our recommendation on this one is to the City Council, not the Director, is that right? So, I mean actually, the big design issue is whether or how many floors you’re going to have underground right? That’s the big design question that’s up in the air? Vice Chair Baltay: It’s not a design questions. Chair Furth: No, I mean not for us but I mean in terms of construction drawings. That… Mr. Lait: I wouldn’t even have that conversation, it's not relevant to the Board’s… Chair Furth: It has nothing to do with the critical path because we would prefer, I think, to continue this whole thing and see it one more time. You have strongly urged that we not do that, it’s been suggested that this would interfere with the moving forward of the construction drawings, there’s a certain amount of skepticism about that comment or point of view so that leaves us in a funny place. Alex, you have a good history of the Board, do we make motions to recommend approval subject to bringing it back to the Board as a whole for further consideration of certain aspects of the project? Board Member Lew: Say that again? I – you’re saying to approve (crosstalk) (inaudible) Chair Furth: (Inaudible) (crosstalk) to referral to subcommittee but I don’t want this to go to subcommittee. Board Member Lew: You want it to come back to the full Board? Chair Furth: I think these issues are important. Board Member Lew: Well, then it needs – let’s…. Chair Furth: Let’s just continue it. Board Member Lew: Well, then it just has to come back to the Board. I mean… Chair Furth: Fine. Board Member Lew: I think you just have to bite – I think the majority needs to bite the bullet then. Board Member Gooyer: I agree, you either approve it and bring it back to subcommittee or you bring it back to the full Board. Chair Furth: Got it. Board Member Gooyer: It’s one of those two options. Chair Furth: Alright. Board Member Lew: Or you can also condition it for Staff to follow up on items. Chair Furth: Right. Well, I would entertain a motion to continue this matter and if nobody wants to make that motion, I will make it. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Vice Chair Baltay: Then you make it. MOTION Chair Furth: I move that this matter be continued and return to us with a plan revised to show a possible second entrance or exit that could be designed – that could be implemented in the future. That it includes design development with respect to the grand staircase leaving in place the screen on the top of the screen in front of the building but that the – learn a new word every meeting, with further development to consider specularity and in particular the durability of these materials in light of the fact that the shadow interest will only be available in very limited times and with a full landscape plan. Is there a second? Board Member Thompson: Can I add something to that? Chair Furth: Well, not unless there’s a second. Board Member Thompson: I second. Chair Furth: Ok. Would anybody like to make an amendment? UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT Board Member Thompson: Can I make an amendment that the next time this project is presented that multiple times of day are shown on a single view to see how the sun changes over time. Chair Furth: You’re thinking just for the… Board Member Thompson: For the elevation. Chair Furth: …staircase face or all of them? Board Member Thompson: I’ll leave that up to the architect but definitely on the staircase but other elevations are encouraged. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Baltay: Oh, I would have to accept it. I don’t accept it, thanks. Vice Chair Baltay: (Inaudible) Chair Furth: Is there a second? AMENDMENT FAILED WITH THE LACK OF A SECOND Chair Furth: Any comment before we vote? Mr. Lait: I have one. Chair Furth: Yes. Mr. Lait: You had also wanted the condition change for the decibel levels. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Lait: So, is that part of your motion as well? Chair Furth: Well, my motion is that it would come back but I would – yeah, that was the deletion of the estimated 78.2 decibels on Page 14 and I would also expect completion of the omitted findings. Mr. Lait: Thanks, and just can I have one second to meet with Staff to talk about dates because right now it’s not continued to a date certain? Chair Furth: Sure. AMENDMENT Mr. Lait: If we could make the motion to – if this motion is passed, we would ask that it be continued to a date certain of March 1st. Chair Furth: I am willing to accept that, is the seconder? Board Member Thompson: Yes, I am. Chair Furth: Any further comment before we vote? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. MOTION PASSES WITH UNANIMOUS VOTE 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you. I know this is difficult, I know that it’s a complicated project but I think we think it’s going to be great and enormous progress has been made. Sorry, we couldn’t give you everything you wanted but we’ll get there. Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: There is no study session. We don’t have any minutes, do we? No minutes to approve. Subcommittee Item Chair Furth: We have two subcommittee items and they are 1451 Middlefield, the Junior Museum and Zoo and 2120 Staunton Court. The subcommittee will be Vice Chair Baltay and Board Member Lew. 3. 1451 Middlefield Junior Museum and Zoo [17PLN-00147]: ARB Subcommittee Review of Resolution of the Gable End at Main Entry Per Approval Condition #9 4. 2120 Staunton Court [16PLN-00419]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to a Second Story Bay Window. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: RMD(NP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Anything else before we adjourn? Board Member questions, comments or announcements? Vice Chair Baltay: I’m afraid I’m going to miss the February 15th meeting, I’m sorry. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Chair Furth: Going to have a really big Valentine’s Day, are you? I just wanted to say that the revised Comprehensive Plan is not available online. We got a notice about the link and if you want a physical copy, speak to Staff. Thanks. We have the draft, yes but it’s probably pretty close. Thank you, meeting is adjourned. Adjournment