The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-05-03 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: May 3, 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. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3406 Hillview Avenue [17PLN-00438]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 62,500 Square Foot R&D Building and Construction of a new two-Story Approximately 82,030 Square Foot Office/R&D Building. This is a Designated Project Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: A Review of the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Research Park (RP-5(D)). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 3. 565 Hamilton (18PLN-00067): Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed Three-Story, Approximately 29,900 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Office and Residential, Second Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (19 Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking Level. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P) & RM-40 (Downtown Commercial and High Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Haleigh King at Haleigh.King@cityofpaloalto.org. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2018. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 1, 2018. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 15, 2018. Subcommittee Items 7. 620 Emerson Street (17PLN-00331): Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Landscaping on the Roof. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 # 8906) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 5/3/2018 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. 4 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. 5 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 5/3 Furth/Lew July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A R B M e e t i n g S c h e d u l e A s s i g n m e n t s ( 8 9 0 6 : 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 a new illuminated wall sign and to install a new dark bronze colored storefront window system in the existing opening.. Applicant: Mark Albian Address: 392 California Avenue, 17PLN-00088 Approval Date: April 25, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: May 9, 2018 Project Description: ARB staff level review to remove two Coast Live Oaks and replace with two box Coast Live Oaks. Applicant: Chad Machinski Address: 3176 Porter Drive, 18PLN-00100 Approval Date: April 18, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: May 2, 2018 Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for the installation of one internally illuminated halo wall mounted sign. Applicant: Terry Long Address: 285 Hamilton Avenue., 18PLN-00098 Approval Date: April 18, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: May 2, 2018 Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for the replacement of light pole fixture heads and LED bulbs.. Applicant: Brian Iwashita Address: 3401 Hillview Avenue, 18PLN-00004 Approval Date: April 16, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: April 30, 2018 1.b Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : S t a f f A p p r o v a l s ( 8 9 0 6 : 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 May 17  4115 El Camino Real: Mixed use building (1st Formal)  Study Session: Architecture June 7  375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage  250 Sherman Avenue: Public Safety Building (2nd formal) 1.c Packet Pg. 8 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 0 6 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9123) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/3/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3406 Hillview Avenue: New R&D Building (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3406 Hillview Avenue [17PLN-00438]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 62,500 Square Foot R&D Building and Construction of a new two-Story Approximately 82,030 Square Foot Office/R&D Building. This is a Designated Project Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: A Review of the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Research Park (RP-5(D)). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The application is a request for Site and Design Review to allow construction of a new 80,030 square foot (sf) two-story office/research and development (R&D) building with a one-level subterranean parking garage and associated site improvements on a 6.5 acre site. The site is located at the southwest corner of Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue in the Stanford Research Park south of Foothill Expressway, and abuts other office/R&D uses as well as undeveloped land encompassing Coyote Hill and Deer Creek. The application is designated 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 project under the City Of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project (“Mayfield DA”, which provides vesting for any net increase in square footage on designated sites for up to 125% of the maximum permitted floor area ratio of the zoning district (for RP zone: from 0:0.4 to 0:0.5; for RP-5 zone: from 0:0.3 to 0:0.375). Despite the Mayfield designation, the applicant is proposing a gross floor area that is below the maximum permitted for the RP-5 district. Background Project Information Owner: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Studios Architecture Representative: Mr. Jim Inglis / Ms. Lisa Lu Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 3406 Hillview Avenue Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 345 ft width, 685 feet length, 6.49 acres Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes. Two protected trees to be removed. Historic Resource(s): Not a historic resource Existing Improvement(s): One-story R&D building, c. 1968: addition c. 1981 Existing Land Use(s): R&D Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Research Park (RP-5) (PARC Campus) West: Agricultural Conservation (AC(D)) (Coyote Hill) East: Research Park (RP-5) (VMware) South: Research Park (RP-5) (SAP Campus) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RP-5 (Research Park) Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): No Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 ARB: None Project Description The project would demolish the existing one-story 62,500 sf research and development building located on the site and construct a new 83,030 sf office building with one level of subterranean parking and associated site improvements. The new building would consist of two occupied floors and a subterranean garage. The exterior materials would consist of terra cotta and wood composite panels, with silver painted mullions, trellises, and roof overhangs. Some portions of the facades, such as the main lobby, also use glass curtain walls to provide light and break up the solid building forms. The windows and curtain wall sections are broken up by sun shades and spandrel glass. The second story contains two terraces accessed via exterior staircases, which would provide seating under shade trellises. Mayfield Development Agreement In 2005, the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University entered into the Mayfield Development Agreement (“Mayfield DA”). Under the terms of the Mayfield DA, Stanford University was to lease to the City of Palo Alto the 6-acre Mayfield site, located at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, for $1 per year for 51 years. Stanford was to construct soccer fields on the Mayfield site at its expense and turn the fields over to the City upon completion, which was done in 2006. In turn, the Mayfield DA provided Stanford with vested rights to build 250 housing units on two sites in the Stanford Research Park, where R&D/office buildings exist. These homes have now been approved and are currently under construction. Stanford was also granted the right to relocate 300,000 sf of R&D/office space elsewhere in the Stanford Research Park, which is less than the amount of commercial area to be demolished at the two designated housing sites. As shown in the attached designation letter (Attachment B), Stanford has designated 19,500 sf of this Mayfield square footage for use on the subject site. Overall, Stanford has designated 280,738 sf to sites throughout the Research Park, leaving an additional 19,262 sf for future allocation. Additional information regarding the Mayfield DA and associated Environmental Impact Report are located on the City’s website for the project at: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects Existing Site Setting The site is located in the Stanford Research Park south of Foothill Expressway, and is surrounded by a number of large corporate campuses containing office/R&D uses. The site is located at the eastern foot of Coyote Hill, which is an undeveloped open space area currently used for grazing and habitat conservation. The site slopes uphill from Hillview Avenue and the existing building is situated at a pad level approximately 20 feet to 30 feet above the Hillview Avenue street level. Existing surface parking on the site is situated behind the building as viewed from the Hillview Avenue frontage, and is accessed by one driveway on Hillview Avenue and two driveways on Coyote Hill road. A number of prominent trees, including coast live oaks, redwoods, Monterey pines, and Chinese Elms, are located across the site. Additionally, the rear, upper portion of the site contains a dilapidated volley ball pitch, as well as an area formally 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 housing a chemical storage yard. Much of this upper portion of the site was graded with the original development, but has not been maintained and is undergoing ecological succession with volunteer trees and grasses taking root. Proposed Site Planning The project would retain the basic ordering of the site, with the new building located near the corner of Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue, and with surface parking relegated to the site rear. The existing driveway location on Hillview Avenue would remain, while the Coyote Hill Road drive aisles would be consolidated to a single curb cut near the site rear. The project proposes substantial grading to accommodate the subterranean garage beneath the building, as well as to provide an upper terrace at the site rear to provide surface parking. The pad and finished floor elevation of the new building would be about 6 feet lower than the existing building. Pedestrians would access the site via sidewalks along the site frontage, including a new sidewalk proposed with the project along Coyote Hill Road, as well as staircases and ramps leading from the right of way to the site interior. Cyclists would use the two vehicle drive aisles for access, and are provided a bicycle parking room in the subterranean garage. Delivery trucks would utilize a loading space on the southern façade of the building, which is located away from the two street-facing sides. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested:  Site and Design Review: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30.(G), except as modified by the provisions of the Mayfield Development Agreement for Designated Projects. The Site and Design Review objective and Architectural Review findings must be made in the affirmative in order to approve the project, however, the review process follows the standard process for Architectural Review (review by the ARB, decision by the Planning & Community Environment Director, appealable to the City Council). The objectives and findings to approve a Site & Design Review application are provided in Attachment C. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located on a hillside site in the Stanford Research Park which until recently housed a R&D use. Some of the campuses in the area, such as VMware, are more recent additions to the Research Park, while others, such as the PARC campus across Coyote Hill Road from the site, are among the oldest buildings in the Park. The surrounding office/R&D buildings are all two stories in height, and range from contemporary to modern architectural styles. The 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 sites in the vicinity primarily contain at least one module or row of parking along their site frontages, and most provide significant landscaping to screen the buildings from view. The topography in the area is relatively hilly, and the site rises along the Coyote Hill Road frontage to the west. The RP-5(D) zone is a sub-district of the base Research Park zone, and is intended to regulate large sites in hilly areas of the research park. The (D) combining district, which applies to the site, requires that development on applicable sites be evaluated for site and design review. Such site and design review applications are intended to provide a process for the review and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, and have specific findings for approval (Attachment C). Zoning Compliance2 Of relevance to this application is the allowed maximum gross floor area in the RP-5 zoning district, which is 0.3:1 FAR instead of 0.4:1 for the base RP zone. The Mayfield Agreement allows for an 25% increase in the maximum allowable FAR, or 0 : 0.375 on the subject site. Despite this allowance, the project is proposing a total FAR of 0 : 0.289. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, which allows for research and manufacturing uses. The project is consistent with this designation. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment C. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The site is located adjacent to a VTA bus stop along the Hillview Avenue frontage near the Coyote Hill Road intersection. This bus stop, combined with the staircase and accessible path along this frontage, would provide a direct path of travel to the building for people accessing the site by bus, as shown on Sheet L6.0 of the plan set. The site currently lacks sidewalk along the Coyote Hill Road frontage, and the applicant has proposed a sidewalk along the entirety of 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 the frontage to increase site connectivity. The project requires 274 parking spaces, 113 of which would be provided in the subterranean garage under the building, with another 161 provide at surface level. The arrangement of the parking is impacted by the proposed site grading, with 86 spaces provided in a higher terrace, and the balance arranged around the side and rear of the building. Pedestrian access between the upper and pad terraces is provided via a staircase that leads directly to the main entrance, with raised and demarcated paving sections to signal the pedestrian right of way across drive aisles. A trip generation and circulation analysis was submitted with the application, which indicated the project generate 30 net new AM and 29 net new PM peak hour trips, and that the project would have less than significant impact on the surrounding Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue roadways, which are under capacity. Consistency with Application Findings The findings to approve a site and design review application are included in Attachment C. The project has taken into account the natural and altered environmental conditions on the site, and has appropriately arranged the building and parking to not negatively affect the adjacent open space. Landscaping on the site is responsive to the context and incorporates native and drought-tolerant species in appropriate arrangements. The plan takes into account all modes of transportation and, through the proposal of sidewalks, stairs, and ramps, prioritizes the pedestrian experience. The building proper is well-composed and incorporates high-quality materials with hillside-appropriate colors. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is a designated project subject to the provisions of the Mayfield Development Agreement and the City Of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report (“Mayfield DA EIR”), which contains mitigation measures applicable for all designated projects, including the subject site. These measures include requirements for mitigating potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, traffic, air quality, biological resources, and public health concerns regarding hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and soil and groundwater contamination. This project was reviewed and determined to be consistent with the Mayfield DA EIR and an addendum and appendices referencing the project have been included in Attachment F and G. The existing site has undergone a facility closure process with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and Palo Alto Fire Department due to hazardous materials used and stored on the site in conjunction with the prior R&D use. The property owner has also performed Phase II soil and soil gas testing of the site, which detected in one soil gas sample Volatile Organic Compounds in excess of the environmental screening levels at a depth of 8 feet below grade. However, with the incorporation of engineered fill, the site should not exceed environmental screening levels. In accordance with the Mayfield Development Agreement EIR, the property owner has provided the results on the Phase II testing, as well as a Site Management Plan to mitigate potential health risks stemming from demolition and 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 redevelopment of the site. This SMP is included in the Appendices with the EIR Addendum in Attachment F. 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 April 20, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 23, 2018, which is 10 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Mayfield Designation and Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB and Site & Design Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment F: EIR Addendum (DOCX)  Attachment G: Mayfield DA EIR MMRP (PDF)  Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 16 54 2 A-4 Prom H 5 2 3 Foothill Club 4 University Club 1 HTG HTC A-2 HTE A-5 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 C Hillview Station Prom Garage Prom A Prom D Prom B Prom C Prom E CommonsBldg F HTB Landscape Overlay170'from 387.0' 492.6' 180.0' 160.0' 336.8' 31.4' 57.0' 787.4' 592.0' 544.2' 685.0' 410.3' 47.6' 101.5' 164.0' 81.7' 38.8' 78.0' 30.4' 194.5' 360.0' 47.6' 309.7' 685.0' 360.0' 194.5' 30.4' 78.0' 38.8' 81.7' 164.0' 101.5' 265.0' 291.0' 290.0' 216.0' 600.4' 524.8' 749.9' 393.3' 194.6' 1639.8' 55.0' 216.0' 290.0' 4' 552.3' 120.0' 545.4' 552.3' 584.2' 204.2' 255.8' 622 291.0' 950.0' 544.4' 43.2' 685.0' 360.4' 685.0' 360.4' 685.0' 325.0' 31.4'69.9' 80.9' 480.6' 78.8' 559.4' 255.9' 313.4' 584.2' 404.8' 749.9' 325.7' 2273.3' 176.2' 153.9' 678.7' 300.5' 696.9' 595.8' 373.7' 758.0' 544.2' 109.7' 313.4' 700.0' 17.3' 157.3' 88.3' 10.6' 196.6' 44.8' 8.3' 322.7' 433.3' 545.0' 1087.0' 492.6' 180.0' 160.0' 264.3' 216.7' 154.5' 1109.3' 322.6' 617.1' 619.2' 51.1'5.0'32.7' 55.7' 6.9' 133.8' 126.8' 358.4' 111.6' 607.6' 329.1' 30 276.2' 103.7' 63.5' 26.1' 260.6' 168.9' 45.4'103.1' 82.2'37.7' 48.3' 241.7' 358.4' 557.4' 03.1 82.2' 199.9' 280.3' 793.4' 259.3' 725.1' 758.0' 373.7' 595.8' 696.9' 300.5' 11.5' 599.3' 10.6' 132.5' 273.0'51.2' 34.0' 35.9' 85.4' 40.7'30.4'17.3' 8.2' 157.3' 88.3' 57.1'27.0'27.6' 334.6' 51.2' 69.9' 85.4' 40.7'37.7' .3' 241.7' 379.0' 381.4' 89.0' 89.0' 154.3'154.3' 232.4'232.4' 379.0' 330.3' 166.5' 166.5' 269.0'269.0' 51.0' 422.6' 422.6' 513.0' 513.0' 260.2' 260.2' HILLVIEW AVENUE MIRANDA AVENUE HILLVIEW AVENUE HILLVIEW AVENUE MIRANDA AVENUE C O Y OT E HIL L ROAD COYOT E H I L L ROA D F O O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y F O O T H I L L E X P R E S S WA Y F O O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y M I R A N D A A V E N U E M I R A N D A A V E N U E ) AC(D) RP-5 RP-5(D) RP-5 P P 5 (D ) 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) 3406 Hillview Avenue Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 425' 3406 Hillview 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 gowen, 2018-04-16 16:11:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 17 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 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 : A p p l i c a n t ' s M a y f i e l d D e s i g n a t i o n a n d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 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 : A p p l i c a n t ' s M a y f i e l d D e s i g n a t i o n a n d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t ϭ WZK:d^Z/Wd/KE ϯϰϬϲ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞ͕^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬ DĂũŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůZĞǀŝĞǁΘ^ŝƚĞĂŶĚĞƐŝŐŶ^ƵďŵŝƚƚĂů ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϳ dŚĞϯϰϬϲ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ;͞WƌŽũĞĐƚ͟ͿǁŝůůƌĞƉůĂĐĞĂŶŽďƐŽůĞƚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŚĂƐƌĞĂĐŚĞĚƚŚĞ ĞŶĚŽĨŝƚƐƵƐĞĨƵůůŝĨĞǁŝƚŚĂŵŽĚĞƌŶZΘͬŽĨĨŝĐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚŝŶ ƚŚĞ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬ͘ WZK:d'K>^ dŚĞŐŽĂůŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂƐƚĂƚĞͲŽĨͲƚŚĞͲĂƌƚ͕ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŝƐǁĞůůŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŽŝƚƐ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ WĂƌŬ ĂŶĚ WĂůŽ ůƚŽ ĐŽŶƚĞǆƚ͘ dŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵů ƐŝƚĞ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ ǁĞůůͲƐĐĂůĞĚ ŵĂƐƐŝŶŐ͕ ŚĂƌŵŽŶŝŽƵƐ ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ĂŶĚƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚďĂůĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐŽĨƚŚĞŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝǀĞZΘ ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ ǁĞ ĚĞƐŝƌĞ ƚŽ ĂƚƚƌĂĐƚ ǁŝƚŚ ŽƵƌ ŐŽĂů ŽĨ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĞĐŽůŽŐǇ ĂŶĚ ďĞĂƵƚǇ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂĚũŽŝŶŝŶŐ ŶĂƚƵƌĂů ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘^ŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĨŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŽĨ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬ͕ŽƵƌŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶƚŽŶƵƌƚƵƌĞĂŶĚ ƉƌŽŵŽƚĞĂƚŚƌŝǀŝŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞŵƉůŽǇŵĞŶƚĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƚŚĂƚŝƐĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚWĂůŽůƚŽŝŶĂůůƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƐʹƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƚǇ͛ƐĨŝƐĐĂůŚĞĂůƚŚĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŝƚƐĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŚĞĂůƚŚ͘dŚŝƐWƌŽũĞĐƚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝǌĞƐŝƚƐĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďŝůŝƚǇ ǁŝƚŚŝƚƐƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚďǇƐĞƚƚŝŶŐĂĐŽŶƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŵŽŶŐŽĂŬƐ͕ƌĞĚǁŽŽĚƐĂŶĚƉĞĂĐĞĨƵůĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐ ƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂƉůĂĐĞǁŚĞƌĞƉĞŽƉůĞĐŽŵĞƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƚŽĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚĞĂŶĚŵĂŬĞŶĞǁĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌŝĞƐ͘ WZK:dDdZ/^ dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůƌĞƉůĂĐĞƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐϲϮ͕ϱϬϬŐƐĨďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶϯϰϬϲ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞ;͞^ŝƚĞ͟ͿǁŝƚŚĂŶĞǁϴϮ͕ϬϯϬƐĨ;&Z ŐƌŽƐƐĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂͿŽĨĨŝĐĞͬZΘďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ƌĞĨůĞĐƚŝŶŐĂĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƌĂƚŝŽŽĨϬ͘Ϯϴϵ͗ϭ;ƐůŝŐŚƚůǇůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶǁŚĂƚƚŚĞZWͲϱ;Ϳ ǌŽŶŝŶŐĂůůŽǁƐͿ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůĂůƐŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞϭ͕ϬϬϬŐƐĨŽĨ͞ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐͲŵŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŶŐĂŵĞŶŝƚǇƐƉĂĐĞ͟ĂůůŽǁĞĚ ƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞĐŽĚĞ͘dŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ;ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞďŽŶƵƐĂŵĞŶŝƚǇƐƉĂĐĞͿǁŝůůďĞϴϯ͕ϬϯϬŐƐĨĂŶĚĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĞĚĂƐƚǁŽƐƚŽƌŝĞƐ ĂďŽǀĞŐƌĂĚĞǁŝƚŚĂďĞůŽǁͲŐƌĂĚĞ͕ŽŶĞͲůĞǀĞůƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘ Dz&/>^/'Ed^/dEWZK:d tŚŝůĞƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞ&ZĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞZWͲϱ;ͿǌŽŶŝŶŐ͕^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚŚĂƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚƚŽ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞƚŚĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƐĂDĂǇĨŝĞůĚ^ŝƚĞĂŶĚWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ƵƚŝůŝǌŝŶŐϭϵ͕ϱϯϬƐĨŽĨǀĞƐƚĞĚDĂǇĨŝĞůĚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ ^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ŽŽƚĂŐĞĂŶĚϲϮ͕ϱϬϬƐĨŽĨǀĞƐƚĞĚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚ^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ŽŽƚĂŐĞ͘ dŚĞϮϬϬϱDĂǇĨŝĞůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞŝƚǇŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽĂŶĚ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇĂůůŽǁƐ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ ƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƚŽƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞŽĨĨŝĐĞͬZΘŐƌŽƐƐĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂĨƌŽŵĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƐŝƚĞƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚĨŽƌĐŽŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƚŽŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĞůƐĞǁŚĞƌĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ WĂƌŬ͘hŶĚĞƌ ƚŚŝƐ ŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͕ ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ ŝƐ ƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚ ƚŽ ĞǆĐĞĞĚ ƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ ǌŽŶŝŶŐ ůŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŽŶĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƌĂƚŝŽďǇϮϱй͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚĐŽƵůĚƵƉƐŝǌĞϯϰϬϲ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞǁŝƚŚĂϭϬϲ͕ϭϭϮƐĨ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ;ƵƉƚŽĂŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƌĂƚŝŽŽĨϬ͘ϯϳϱ͗ϭͿ͘EŽƚǁĂŶƚŝŶŐƚŽŽǀĞƌůŽĂĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞǁŝƚŚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͕^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚŚĂƐĐŽŶĐůƵĚĞĚƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƐĐĂůĞĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŝǌĞŝƐϴϮ͕ϬϯϬƐĨ;Ϭ͘Ϯϴϵ͗ϭ&ZͿ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐ ŵŽƌĞƐŝƚĞĂƌĞĂĨŽƌĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŶĂƚŝǀĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐĞŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƵƚĚŽŽƌĂŵĞŶŝƚǇƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ y/^d/E'KE/d/KE dŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐĂƉƉƌŽǆŝŵĂƚĞůǇϮϴϮ͕ϵϲϲƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ;ϲ͘ϰϵϲĂĐƌĞƐнͬͲͿǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞZWͲϱ;ͿǌŽŶĞĂŶĚĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĂĚƌĂŵĂƚŝĐ ƐůŽƉŝŶŐƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚǇ͘dŚĞ^ŝƚĞƐůŽƉĞƐƵƉǁĂƌĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚ͕ǁŝƚŚĂĨůĂƚ ƉůĂƚĞĂƵŝŶƚŚĞŵŝĚĚůĞǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚ͘dŚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞƐůŽƉĞŽĨƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐĂďŽǀĞϭϬй͘ dŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇďƵŝůƚŽƵƚǁŝƚŚĂϲϮ͕ϱϬϬŐƐĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŶŽƚĂĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞĨŽƌĂĚĂƉƚŝǀĞƌĞƵƐĞ͘dŚĞ ĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌŝƐƉĂƌƚŝĂůůǇďƵƌŝĞĚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŚŝůůƐŝĚĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůǇĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞƐƚŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚǇŽĨŶĂƚƵƌĂůůŝŐŚƚĂŶĚ ĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂůŝƚǇŽĨƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂ͘dŚĞƉƌŝŽƌŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐ͕yĞƌŽǆWZĂŶĚĚƉŝy͕ƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌĨŽƌŽŶͲŐƌĂĚĞ ,s͕ĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐƚŽƌĂŐĞ͕ĂŶĂĐŝĚŶĞƵƚƌĂůŝǌĂƚŝŽŶƐǇƐƚĞŵ͕ĂŶĚĂƵƚŝůŝƚǇƉůĂŶƚ͘ dŚĞϱϬͲǇĞĂƌͲŽůĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐĂƌŐƵĂďůǇƚŚĞŵŽƐƚŽďƐŽůĞƚĞ͕ŽƵƚĚĂƚĞĚĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝŶ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ WĂƌŬ͘&ŽƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚĨŝǀĞǇĞĂƌƐ͕yĞƌŽǆWZŚĂƐĞŶĚĞĂǀŽƌĞĚƚŽƐƵďůĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĨŽƌΨϭ͘ϬϬͬƐĨͬŵŽŶƚŚ͕ďƵƚ ǁĂƐƵŶƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵů;ĚĞƐƉŝƚĞƚŚŝƐƐƚƌŽŶŐƌĞĂůĞƐƚĂƚĞĐǇĐůĞͿďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞƌĞĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĞĚĨŽƌĨůĞǆŝďůĞ ZΘͬŽĨĨŝĐĞůĂǇŽƵƚƐ͘ 2.b Packet Pg. 20 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s M a y f i e l d D e s i g n a t i o n a n d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t Ϯ ^/dW>E dŚĞŐƵŝĚŝŶŐƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶǁĂƐƚŚĂƚĐĂƌĞĨƵůƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĨŽƌĂ ƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶŝŶƐĐĂůĞ͕ŵĂƐƐŝŶŐĂŶĚǀŝƐƵĂůĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞǆƚŽĨƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůů͘ Ǉ ƐŝƚƵĂƚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ŶĞǁ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ ƉůĂƚĞĂƵ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ^ŝƚĞ͕ ĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƐůŽƉŝŶŐ ƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚǇ ŝƐ ŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂƌĞĂĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůŝƐŵĂǆŝŵĂůůǇƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚĨŽƌŶĂƚŝǀĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ dŚĞƐĞƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͛ƐĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďŝůŝƚǇǁŝƚŚŝƚƐďƵŝůƚĂŶĚŶĂƚƵƌĂůĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐĨŽƌĂŶ ĂŵŽƵŶƚĂŶĚĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞƚŽŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƚŚĂƚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ͕ ǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐŶĞǁůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚŚĂƌĚƐĐĂƉĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘ dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĂůƐŽĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞƐǁĂǇĨŝŶĚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͛ƐŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐĂŶĚǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚǁŽĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ͘dŚĞŵĂŝŶĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞŝƐĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞĨƌŽŵĚƌŝǀĞǁĂǇƐŽŶŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚĂŶĚ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁ ǀĞŶƵĞ͕ŝƐǁĞůůĚĞĨŝŶĞĚďǇĂǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌĚƌŽƉͲŽĨĨĐŽƵƌƚ͕ĂŶĚĂƚǁŽͲƐƚŽƌǇŐůĂƐƐůŽďďǇƚŚĂƚŝƐĨůĂŶŬĞĚďǇĂĨƵƌŶŝƐŚĞĚ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƉĂƚŝŽƐĞĂƚŝŶŐŽŶŽŶĞƐŝĚĞĂŶĚƐŚŽƌƚͲƚĞƌŵĂŶĚůŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵďŝŬĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞ͘dŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌǇ ĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞŝƐƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůǇĨŽƌƚƌĂŶƐŝƚƌŝĚĞƌƐĂƌƌŝǀŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞďƵƐƐƚŽƉ͘tŝƚŚŶĞǁĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďŝůŝƚǇ ƉĂƚŚǁĂǇƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞďƵƐƐƚŽƉƚŽƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐĂƚ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁĂŶĚŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůů͕ƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ͛ƐƐŝƚĞ ƉůĂŶĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌĞĂƐĞĂŶĚƐĂĨĞƚǇŽĨƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐ͕ďŝĐǇĐůĞĂŶĚƚƌĂŶƐŝƚƌŝĚĞƌƐ͘ KŶĂůůƐŝĚĞƐ͕ƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐƐĞƚďĂĐŬǁĞůůďĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƐĞƚͲďĂĐŬƐĨŽƌƚŚĞZWͲϱĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͗ϴϬĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞĂůŽŶŐŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚ;ϳϬ͛ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵͿĂŶĚϭϮϮĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞĂůŽŶŐ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞ ;ϭϬϬ͛ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵͿ͕ϱϵĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚ;ϰϬ͛ƐŝĚĞͬƌĞĂƌǇĂƌĚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵͿ͕ĂŶĚϮϴϴ͛ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ;ϰϬ͛ƐŝĚĞͬƌĞĂƌǇĂƌĚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵͿ͘ ^/d^^͕/Zh>d/KEEWZ</E' dŚĞ ŬĞǇ ŐŽĂůƐ ŽĨ ƐŝƚĞ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ŵĂǆŝŵŝǌŝŶŐ ƐĂĨĞƚǇ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞ ĨŽƌ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐ ĂŶĚ ďŝĐǇĐůŝƐƚƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚƐĂĨĞĂĐĐĞƐƐĨŽƌǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĐůĞĂƌǁĂǇĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞŵĂŝŶůŽďďǇĂŶĚ ĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞ͘ ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĨŽƌŽƌĚĞƌůǇ͕ƐĂĨĞĂŶĚƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĚǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͘dŚĞŵĂŝŶ ůŽďďǇŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĞƌŶƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐǀŝĂƚǁŽĚƌŝǀĞǁĂǇƐ͕ŽŶĞĨƌŽŵ ŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌĚƌŝǀĞǁĂǇŽŶ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞ͘dŚĞŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůĚƌŝǀĞǁĂǇĞŶƚƌǇŝƐƐŚŝĨƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ĞĂƐƚĨƌŽŵŝƚƐĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚǁŽƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐ͖ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚƐĂĨĞƚǇĂŶĚůŝŶĞŽĨƐŝŐŚƚĨƌŽŵĚƌŝǀĞƌƐĂĐƌŽƐƐŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůĂƚ ƚŚĞ ĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ yĞƌŽǆ WZ ĚƌŝǀĞǁĂǇ ĂŶĚ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚ ǁĂǇĨŝŶĚŝŶŐ Ăƚ Ă ŵŽƌĞ ůŽŐŝĐĂů ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚǁŽ ŽƉƉŽƐŝŶŐ ĚƌŝǀĞǁĂǇƐ͘dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞƐ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ͛ƐŝŶƚĞŶƚƚŽƌĞͲĂƐƐŝŐŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞ͘ dŽŵĂǆŝŵŝǌĞƐĂĨĞƚǇĂŶĚĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞ͕ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞŵĂŝŶůŽďďǇŝƐƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ͘dŚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƌŽƵƚĞĨƌŽŵĂŶĞǁƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬŽŶŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůƚŽƚŚĞŵĂŝŶůŽďďǇĂŶĚĂŵĞŶŝƚǇĂƌĞĂŝƐǁĞůůůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚǁŝƚŚ ƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐ͘dŚĞƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĨĂĐŝŶŐ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚǀŝĂĂŶ ĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƌĂŵƉƚŽƚŚĞĚŽŽƌĂŶĚƉĂƚŝŽ͕ŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞ͘ůůĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚǁŝƚŚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͕ƐƉĞĐŝĂůƚǇƉĂǀŝŶŐ͕ůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƐŝŐŶĂŐĞ͘ sŝƐŝƚŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝƐĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚůǇůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĚŝƌĞĐƚůǇĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞĂƌƌŝǀĂůĐŽƵƌƚ͘ ŵƉůŽǇĞĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝƐĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚůǇůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚǁŽƐŝĚĞƐ;ǁĞƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ŵƉůŽǇĞĞĂĐĐĞƐƐ ƚŽƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞĂƐƚĞĚŐĞŽĨƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͕ŝƐĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞĨƌŽŵďŽƚŚ ŽǇŽƚĞ ,ŝůů ZŽĂĚ ĂŶĚ ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁ ǀĞŶƵĞ ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ǁŝůů ŶŽƚ ŝŶƚĞƌĨĞƌĞǁŝƚŚǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŽŶ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁ ǀĞŶƵĞ͘ĞůŝǀĞƌǇƚƌƵĐŬƐŚĂǀĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽĂůŽĂĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƌĂŵƉ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐǁĞůůͲ ƐĐƌĞĞŶĞĚĨƌŽŵǀŝĞǁĨƌŽŵ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͘ ŝŬĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚďŽƚŚŽŶƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞĂƌƌŝǀĂůĐŽƵƌƚ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŝŶĂƐĞĐƵƌĞĚĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚďŝĐǇĐůĞ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐŚĞůƚĞƌĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘ƚŽƚĂůŽĨϮϴďŝĐǇĐůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐϲƐŚŽƌƚͲƚĞƌŵ ďŝŬĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ;ůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝŶďŝŬĞƌĂĐŬƐͿĂŶĚϮϮůŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵďŝŬĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ;ůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶϴůŽĐŬĞƌƐĂƚŐƌĂĚĞĂŶĚϭϰďŝŬĞƌĂĐŬƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĂƐĞĐƵƌĞĚďŝŬĞĞŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞŝŶƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞͿ͘ sĞŚŝĐůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞĂƚĂƌĂƚŝŽŽĨϭ͗ϯϬϬ͕ƚŽƚĂůŝŶŐϮϳϰƐƉĂĐĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ϭϭϯŽĨ ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞďĞůŽǁͲŐƌĂĚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐϭϲϭƐƉĂĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂƚŐƌĂĚĞ͘ƚŽƚĂůŽĨϭϰ 2.b Packet Pg. 21 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s M a y f i e l d D e s i g n a t i o n a n d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t ϯ ĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐǀĞŚŝĐůĞĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐϲsĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞ ĂŶĚϴŝŶƚŚĞǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƌĞĂĂƚŐƌĂĚĞ͘ h/>/E'^/'E dŚĞŬĞǇŐŽĂůƐŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉƌŽŵŽƚŝŶŐĂĐƵůƚƵƌĞŽĨĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĨůŽŽƌƉůĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁ ĨŽƌŵĂǆŝŵƵŵĨůĞǆŝďŝůŝƚǇŝŶůĂǇŽƵƚĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĐĞůĞďƌĂƚŝŶŐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĚĂǇůŝŐŚƚĂŶĚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐĨŽƌ ƚŚĞŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŵŝŶŝŵŝǌŝŶŐĞŶĞƌŐǇƵƐĞ͕ĂŵŽŶŐŽƚŚĞƌŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇŐŽĂůƐ͘ tŝƚŚĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐƚŚĞĚƌŝǀŝŶŐŐŽĂů͕ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽƐƚŝŵƵůĂƚĞĂĐƵůƚƵƌĞŽĨŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶĂƌŽƵŶĚĂ ͞ƐŽĐŝĂůŚĞĂƌƚ͘͟dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐĚŝǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŽƚǁŽϳϱͲĨŽŽƚͲǁŝĚĞǁŝŶŐƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŽƌŐĂŶŝǌĞĚĂƌŽƵŶĚĂĐĞŶƚƌĂů͕ĚŽƵďůĞͲ ŚĞŝŐŚƚƐƉĂĐĞƚŚĂƚĨŽƌŵƐƚŚĞƐŽĐŝĂůĐŽƌĞ͘dŚŝƐƐƉĂĐĞďƌŝŶŐƐŶĂƚƵƌĂůůŝŐŚƚƚŽƚŚĞĚĞƉƚŚŽĨƚŚĞĨůĞǆŝďůĞĨůŽŽƌƉůĂƚĞ͕ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐŽƉĞŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĨůŽŽƌƐ͘ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĞƐƚƌŽŽŵĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞĨƵůůǇƉƵůůĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌĨƌĞĞĂŶĚĨůĞǆŝďůĞƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚŝƐƐŽĐŝĂůĐŽƌĞ͘ϯϬͲĨŽŽƚŐƌŝĚ͕ĚŝǀŝƐŝďůĞďǇϭϬͲ ĨŽŽƚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨĨŝĐĞŵŽĚƵůĞƐ͕ĨŽƌŵƐĂĨůĞǆŝďůĞůĂǇŽƵƚĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌĂŶĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶƚŚĂƚ ŵĂǆŝŵŝǌĞƐƚŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚǇŽĨƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͘ dŚĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ƵƐĞƐ ƐĞǀĞƌĂů ĚĞƚĂŝůƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂ͘ƚƚǁŽĞǆƚĞƌŝŽƌĐŽƌŶĞƌƐ;ŽŶĞĨĂĐŝŶŐŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚĂŶĚŽŶĞĨĂĐŝŶŐƐŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚ ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůůͿŽŶĞͲƐƚŽƌǇǀŽůƵŵĞƐĐůĂĚŝŶǁŽŽĚͲĐŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞƉĂŶĞůƐŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƚĞŶƚƌǇ͕ƐƚĞƉǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŚŝůůƐŝĚĞĂŶĚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƉĂƚŝŽƐƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐĞŶƐĞŽĨŝŶǀŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚǇĂŶĚǀŝĞǁƐŽĨƚŚĞďƵĐŽůŝĐƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƐ͘dŚĞƐĞ ŽŶĞͲƐƚŽƌǇĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐƉƌŽŵŽƚĞŚĂƌŵŽŶŝŽƵƐƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƐĐĂůĞĂŶĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂƐƚŚĞƉĂƐƐĞƌďǇ͕ǀŝƐŝƚŽƌŽƌĞŵƉůŽǇĞĞ ĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞŵĂƐƐŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ /ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐ͕ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐĞůĞďƌĂƚĞƐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĚĂǇůŝŐŚƚ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͛ƐŶŽƌƚŚͲĨĂĐŝŶŐ ĨĂĐĂĚĞ ŽƉƚŝŵŝǌĞƐ ĚĂǇůŝŐŚƚ ǁŚŝůĞ ŵŝŶŝŵŝǌŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĚŝƌĞĐƚ ƐƵŶůŝŐŚƚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƉĂĐĞ͘ĂƐƚĞƌŶĂŶĚǁĞƐƚĞƌŶǁŝŶĚŽǁ ŽƉĞŶŝŶŐƐĂƌĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĚĞĞƉƌŽŽĨŽǀĞƌŚĂŶŐƐĂŶĚƚƌĞůůŝƐĞƐ͘^ŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŽƉĞŶŝŶŐƐĂƌĞƌĞĚƵĐĞĚŝŶƐĐĂůĞĂŶĚ ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŚŽƌŝǌŽŶƚĂůƐƵŶƐŚĂĚĞƐ͘WůĂǌĂĂƌĞĂƐ͕ŐĞŶĞƌŽƵƐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂŶĚƉůĂŶŶĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĞĂƐ͕ĂŶĚĞǆƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶǁĂůŬƐĂƌĞŵĂĚĞƉŽƐƐŝďůĞďǇƉůĂĐŝŶŐĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝŶĂďĞůŽǁͲŐƌĂĚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘ dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞƐŚŝŐŚƋƵĂůŝƚǇŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ƌŝĐŚƚĞǆƚƵƌĞƐ͕ĂŶĚǁĂƌŵĞĂƌƚŚͲƚŽŶĞĐŽůŽƌƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůǇĐůĂĚŝŶƚĞƌƌĂĐŽƚƚĂĂŶĚŚŝŐŚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞŐůĂǌŝŶŐƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ͘dŚĞ ŐůĂǌŝŶŐƐǇƐƚĞŵƐĞƌǀĞƐƚŽŵĂǆŝŵŝǌĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ͕ŵŝŶŝŵŝǌĞƐŽůĂƌŚĞĂƚŐĂŝŶĂŶĚĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚĞŐůĂƐƐĨŽƌŵĂǆŝŵƵŵ ƉƌŝǀĂĐǇĂƚƚŚĞƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌĂŶĚŵĂǆŝŵƵŵŽƉĞŶŶĞƐƐƚŽǁĂƌĚƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƚǇĂƌĚ͕ǁŚŝůĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞϰϬйŐůĂǌŝŶŐ ƌĂƚŝŽŽǀĞƌĂůů͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŽŽĚƉĂŶĞůƌĂŝŶƐĐƌĞĞŶǁĂůůƐĂŶĚǁŽŽĚͲĐŽůŽƌĞĚƚƌĞůůŝƐĂŶĚƐƵŶƐŚĂĚĞƐĂĚĚƉĂƚƚĞƌŶ͕ƐĐĂůĞ͕ ĂŶĚĂƐĞŶƐĞŽĨǁĂƌŵƚŚƚŽƚŚĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ͘dŚĞŵĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂůĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐĐƌĞĞŶƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶĞĚƚŽ ƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŝƌǀŝƐƵĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞůĂƌŐĞĂƌĞĂƐŽŶƚŚĞƌŽŽĨĨŽƌƉŚŽƚŽǀŽůƚĂŝĐƉĂŶĞůƐ͕ĂƐŵĂǇďĞŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚďǇ ƚŚĞƚĞŶĂŶƚ͘ ^h^d/E/>/dz^dZd'z dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƐƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽĞŶĞƌŐǇĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇ͕ǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌĞĨůĞĐƚƐĂĚĞƐŝŐŶĨŽƌĂϱϬнǇĞĂƌůŝĨĞƐƉĂŶǁŝƚŚĂ ƚŝŵĞůĞƐƐ ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂů ĞǆƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ĨůĞǆŝďůĞ ĨůŽŽƌ ƉůĂŶ ƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁƐ ĨŽƌ Ă ŵƵůƚŝƚƵĚĞ ŽĨ ƚĞŶĂŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƵƐĞ ĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĚĞĐĂĚĞƐƚŽĐŽŵĞ͘ dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚŵĞĞƚƐŽƌĞǆĐĞĞĚƐWĂůŽůƚŽdŝĞƌϮƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘hŶůŝŬĞƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͕ƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŝƐƌŽƚĂƚĞĚƐŽƚŚĂƚŝƚƐůŽŶŐĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŝƐŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚƚŽĨĂĐĞŶŽƌƚŚ͘ŶĞƌŐǇĂŶĚĚĂǇůŝŐŚƚĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐǁĂƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚƚŽŝŶĨŽƌŵ ƚŚĞƐŚĂƉĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĚĂǇůŝŐŚƚƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŶĚŵĞƚŚŽĚƐŽĨƐƵŶĐŽŶƚƌŽů͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŬŝŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽ ĞǆĐĞĞĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĞŶĞƌŐǇĐŽĚĞƐďǇĂůůŽǁŝŶŐĨŽƌƐŵĂƌƚĚĂǇůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉĂƐƐŝǀĞƐŽůĂƌƐŚĂĚŝŶŐƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƐŽůĂƌŚĞĂƚŐĂŝŶ͘ dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚĞǆƚĞŶĚƐƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇďĞǇŽŶĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŶŐƐĞǀĞƌĂůƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞŵŽƚŽƌǀĞŚŝĐůĞ ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐĞĐƵƌĞďŝĐǇĐůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͕ƐŚŽǁĞƌƐĂŶĚĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕>sĂŶĚĐĂƌƉŽŽůƐƉĂĐĞƐ͕sĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐ ƐƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚůĂƐƚͲŵŝůĞĂŶĚůŽŶŐͲĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞƐŚƵƚƚůĞĚƌŽƉŽĨĨ͘ 2.b Packet Pg. 22 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s M a y f i e l d D e s i g n a t i o n a n d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t ϰ ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĂŶĚŐƌĞĞŶďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗ x&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚĂŐĂŝŶƐƚĚŝƌĞĐƚƐƵŶǁŝƚŚĚĞĞƉƌŽŽĨŽǀĞƌŚĂŶŐƐ͕ĞǆƚĞƌŝŽƌƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞůůŝƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŚŽƌŝǌŽŶƚĂů ƐƵŶƐŚĂĚĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĂůƵŵŝŶƵŵĐƵƌƚĂŝŶǁĂůůƐǇƐƚĞŵĂƚƐŽƵƚŚ͕ĞĂƐƚ͕ĂŶĚǁĞƐƚĨĂĐĂĚĞƐ͘ x,ŝŐŚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ͕ůŽǁͲĞŵŝƐƐŝǀŝƚǇŐůĂǌŝŶŐŝƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ͘dŚĞƌŵĂůůǇďƌŽŬĞŶĐƵƌƚĂŝŶǁĂůůĂŶĚǁŝŶĚŽǁ ƐǇƐƚĞŵƐĂƌĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞƌŵĂůďƌŝĚŐŝŶŐ͘ x,ŝŐŚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĞŶǀĞůŽƉĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƌŝŐŝĚ͞ŽƵƚƐŽůĂƚŝŽŶ͕͟ĐŽŽůƌŽŽĨĂŶĚƌŽŽĨŝŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶďĞǇŽŶĚĐŽĚĞ ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ;ZͲϯϲ͕ƚǇƉͿ͘ x,ŝŐŚĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇ>ůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐŝƐƵƐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĂŶĚƐŝƚĞůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ͘ x>ŽǁͲĨůŽǁƉůƵŵďŝŶŐĂŶĚƐŚŽǁĞƌĨŝǆƚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞƵƐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ͘ x^ƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĚ;ďĞůŽǁͲŐƌĂĚĞͿƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂƌĞĂƐ͘ xƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞďŝŽͲƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐ͘dŚĞƐĞďĂƐŝŶƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŚŝŐŚůǇǀŝƐŝďůĞƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞ ǁŚŝůĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵŝŶŐƚŚĞǀŝƚĂůĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĐĂƉƚƵƌŝŶŐ͕ƌĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƚŝŶŐƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƚŚĂƚĨĂůůƐŽŶƚŽŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇ͘ xƌŽƵŐŚƚ ƚŽůĞƌĂŶƚ ĂŶĚ ŶĂƚŝǀĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ ƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐ ŝƐ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞĚƵĐĞŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĂŐĞŽŶƐŝƚĞǁŚŝůĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƐŚĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƵƐĂďůĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ x&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽŵĂǆŝŵŝǌĞǀŝĞǁƐĂŶĚĚĂǇůŝŐŚƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŵĨŽƌƚŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐ͘ xZŽŽĨƚŽƉWsŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĨŽƌϱйŽĨĞŶĞƌŐǇůŽĂĚ͕ĂŶĚŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĂŵƵĐŚůĂƌŐĞƌ ƐŽůĂƌƉŚŽƚŽǀŽůƚĂŝĐĂƌƌĂǇďǇĂĨƵƚƵƌĞƚĞŶĂŶƚ͘ x'ŝǀĞŶ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚŝƐƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͕ƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞƚĞŶĂŶƚǁŝůůƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞŝŶƚŚĞ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝƚƐƉůĞƚŚŽƌĂŽĨƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶĚĞŵĂŶĚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͘ xŝƌĚͲ&ƌŝĞŶĚůǇĞƐŝŐŶ͗ƐŝŶĂůůƌĞĐĞŶƚ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬ͕ƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ĂŶĚ ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ ŚĂǀĞ ďĞĞŶ ƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞĚƵĐĞ ƚŚĞ ůŝŬĞůŝŚŽŽĚ ŽĨ ďŝƌĚ ƐƚƌŝŬĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͛Ɛ ĚĞĞƉĞƌ ĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚƐǁŝůůƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞǀŝƐŝďŝůŝƚǇƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŐůĂƐƐƚŽŽƚŚĞƌŽƵƚĚŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƐ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽƌŶĞƌƐĂƌĞ ƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůǇĐůĂĚŝŶƐŽůŝĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐƚŽĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨ͞ƐŚŽƌƚĐƵƚ͟ƐŝŐŚƚůŝŶĞƐƚŚĂƚŵŝŐŚƚďĞŝŶǀŝƚŝŶŐƚŽ ďŝƌĚƐ͘dŚĞůĂƌŐĞƐƚĂƌĞĂƐŽĨŐůĂƐƐĂƌĞŚĞĂǀŝůǇŵŽĚƵůĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŵƵůůŝŽŶƐ͕ƐƉĂŶĚƌĞůƉĂŶĞůƐ͕ĂŶĚƐƵŶƐŚĂĚĞƐƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƉŚǇƐŝĐĂůĐƵĞƐƚŽĚŝƐĐŽƵƌĂŐĞďŝƌĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ͘ >E^W^/'E dŚĞŬĞǇŐŽĂůƐĨŽƌƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĂŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĐŽŶƚĞǆƚĨŽƌƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐ ĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐŝŶŐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐŽŶƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͕ƵƚŝůŝǌŝŶŐŶĂƚŝǀĞ͕ĚƌŽƵŐŚƚƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶƚƉůĂŶƚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞ ŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͕ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐŽƵƚĚŽŽƌŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶũŽǇŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞǁŽƌŬŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘ dŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚƐĐĂƉĞĞĚŐĞĂůŽŶŐ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůů ZŽĂĚƚŽƚŚĞKĂŬŐƌĂƐƐůĂŶĚƐŽŶƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůů͘,ŝŐŚͲǀĂůƵĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƚƌĞĞƐĂƌĞƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞŽǇŽƚĞ ,ŝůůZŽĂĚĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞĂŶĚŚŝůůƐŝĚĞĂƌĞĂƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŶĞǁŶĂƚŝǀĞ͕ĚƌŽƵŐŚƚƚŽůĞƌĂŶƚƚƌĞĞƐĂŶĚƐŚƌƵď ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͕ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞĚŝŶŝŶĨŽƌŵĂůŵĂƐƐŝŶŐƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĞĂƐŽŶĂůĐŽůŽƌĂŶĚƚĞǆƚƵƌĂůĐŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ͘EĞǁƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐƐĐĂŶďĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌůǇŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚĂŶĚĂƌĞĚƌŽƵŐŚƚͲƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶƚƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶ͘ dŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůďĞŶĞĨŝƚƚŽƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƚƵŶŶŝŶŐŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůů ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ͕ƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐŶŽƚŽŶůǇƌĞƚĂŝŶĞĚ͕ďƵƚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚ͕ĂƐŶĂƚŝǀĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͕ĂƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽ ŝƚƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĚĞŐƌĂĚĞĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘EĞǁŶĂƚŝǀĞƉůĂŶƚƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĞĞƐ͕ƐŚƌƵďƐ͕ƉĞƌĞŶŶŝĂůƐĂŶĚŐƌĂƐƐĞƐ͕ǁŝůůĞŶŚĂŶĐĞ ƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƚĞǆƚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚĐŽůŽƌƐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂŶĚĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞŽŶŽǇŽƚĞ,ŝůů͘ EĂƚŝǀĞƉůĂŶƚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽĨŚŝŐŚǀĂůƵĞƚŽǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĂƌĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐƉůĂŶƚŽĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƚŚĞƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚǇ ŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĞĐŽƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘ ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ ĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ ĂŶĚ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ ĂƌĞ ŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ƐŝƚĞ ƉůĂŶ͕ ŐŝǀŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ WƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂŵƉůĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚǇƚŽƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝǌĞǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĞŶĞƌŐǇĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐǇŝŶƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůĂŶĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ƐǇƐƚĞŵƐ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ dŚĞ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶͲŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌ ƐƉĂĐĞƐĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞ ǁĞůůŶĞƐƐ ĂŶĚ ĞŶũŽǇŵĞŶƚ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐ͘,ĂƌĚƐĐĂƉĞƐƉĂĐĞƐĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĞŶƚƌǇƉůĂǌĂƐ͕ƐĞĐŽŶĚ ĨůŽŽƌƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƐ͕ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐĞĂƚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚǁŝŶĚŽǁŐĂƌĚĞŶƐǁŝƚŚǀŝĞǁƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ͘ZŝĐŚƉĂǀŝŶŐ ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ ĨůŽǁĞƌŝŶŐ ŐĂƌĚĞŶƐ͕ ƐŽĨƚ ůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞĂƚŝŶŐ ĂƌĞĂƐ ĐŽŵďŝŶĞ ƚŽ ǁĞůĐŽŵĞ ƉĞŽƉůĞ ƚŽ ĞǆƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐ͘dŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƐŵƵĐŚŽĨƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚǇĂƐ ƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͘ 2.b Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s M a y f i e l d D e s i g n a t i o n a n d P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3406 Hillview Avenue 17PLN-00438 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. 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 Research / Office Park. The project proposes an office / research and development (R&D) building in an area surrounded by other office / R&D uses. . The designation allows for research and manufacturing uses, and an R&D building is therefore 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 a contemporary R&D building at the southern end of the Stanford Research Park, which is a major employment center in the City. The project would replace a functionally obsolete building on the site, and would provide several landscaped open space and traffic-mitigating amenity spaces. 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, The project proposes a two story building in an area surrounded by other two-story office / R&D buildings. The project would be compatible with the surrounding uses and 2.c Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B a n d S i t e & D e s i g n R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan efficient development pattern. overall scale of the neighborhood. 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 18,000 net new square feet of office/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 constructs a new pedestrian walkway along the Coyote Hill Road frontage. All potential impacts to adjacent development and the environment are mitigated through compatible site design and with the adherence to the Mayfield Development Agreement MMRP as detailed in the Environmental Analysis for the project. 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 lease due to its inflexible floor plan 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 large street setbacks that would be filled with trees, shrubs, and other greenery to enhance the appearance of the site. Several outdoor plazas, both on the ground level and second story, would provide amenities for future building occupants. Stormwater infiltration facilities are placed 2.c Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B a n d S i t e & D e s i g n R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan around the site to capture runoff from the building an parking lot, and have been incorporated into the landscape plan. Additionally, a large portion of the rear of the site will remain in a semi-natural state and allowed to revert to a native landscape. 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 existing facility has undergone formal facility closure procedures with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and the Palo Alto Fire Department. Soil testing indicates the project is located on a site with suspected soil and soil gas contamination due to the detection of Volatile Organic Compounds. In accordance with the Mayfield Development Agreement EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the applicant has provided a Site Management Plan that details steps that will be taken to protect human health from potential risks associated with soil and soil gas contamination during demolition and redevelopment. Further soil testing will be conducted post-demolition in order to further evaluate site conditions underneath the existing concrete slab. 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 2.c Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B a n d S i t e & D e s i g n R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan 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 site is located in the southern portion of the Stanford Research Park, and is located relatively far from the Caltrain stations at University Avenue and California Avenue. However, the site planning has prioritized the connection to the adjacent bus stop to make transit a more attractive and viable option for future building occupants. Moreover, the sidewalk addition along Coyote Hill Road will allow for better site connectivity. The applicant will also ensure that future tenants join the SRP Transportation Management Association, which will provide access to a variety of TDM resources. 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 The project includes a below-grade parking structure beneath the building that contains slightly less than half of the project’s required vehicle parking. Mechanized parking is not 2.c Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B a n d S i t e & D e s i g n R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. proposed with the redevelopment. The surface parking is relegated to the site rear and is broken up into two terraces, with landscaping proposed throughout to shade the impervious surfaces. Runoff would be treated in a series of stormwater infiltration areas. The project provides a unified architectural style with a number of high-quality materials, and is consistent with the surrounding development patterns. In addition, the design of the project as conditioned is internally consistent. The project is consistent with the development standards for the Research Park zone, including height, floor area ratio, setbacks, daylight planes and lot coverage. 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 located in the Stanford Research Park and is surrounded by several corporate office/R&D campuses. Buildings in the vicinity are generally two stories in height. The project would mirror this existing land use pattern, while 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 stairs and paths providing pedestrian access throughout the site. The building includes a unified, contemporary style with a hillside-appropriate palette. All four sides of the buildings provide appropriate visual attention. The project’s design is consistent with the Performance Criteria for the Research Park 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 2.c Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B a n d S i t e & D e s i g n R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The surrounding area includes a variety of architectural styles that range from mid-century modern tilt-up construction to more recent contemporary themes. The project includes a palette of high quality materials, including terra cotta and wood paneling, as well as glass curtain walls and aluminum mullions and edges. The design fits within the hillside context, and appropriately balances heavier and lighter elements. The architecture would be consistent with the Research Park context and would represent a significant betterment of the site over the existing building. 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 two points of access for vehicles entering and leaving the site on Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue, which is desirable given the size of the site and its location near the intersection. The project includes the construction of a new sidewalk along the Coyote Hill Road frontage to enhance site connectivity, and provides adequate short term and long term bicycle parking. A variety of pedestrian staircases and ramps provide universal access throughout the site, and work with the semi-natural topography. Open space is provided along the street frontages as required by the City setback requirements, as well as in the upper terrace area adjacent to the Coyote Hill open space area. 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 includes substantial frontage, patio, and parking lot landscaping that are both aesthetically pleasing and functional. The design includes multiple stormwater infiltration facilities that capture and treat runoff on-site and allow for groundwater recharge. 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 2.c Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B a n d S i t e & D e s i g n R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 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. ATTACHMENT B SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES 3406 Hillview Avenue 17PLN-00438 The ARB shall review the site plan and drawings, and shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following Site and Design objectives, as required in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC and as modified by Section 6.3.9 of the Mayfield Development Agreement. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project is consistent with Objective (a) as it redevelops a site used historically for research and development with a new building in an area surrounded by similar developments. The site is ordered intuitively, with the building located at the street setback lines and functional areas, such as parking and loading spaces, relegated to the site rear. The site planning provides for a substantial open space in the rear southwest corner of the site in order to protect the semi- natural state of this area, and while also providing appropriate setback and transition to the open space/agricultural use on the Coyote Hill property. Lighting, tree preservation, and new landscaping in this open space area would work to enhance the environmental value of this area, and would be compatible with the adjacent uses. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project is consistent with Objective (b) as it proposes a new office/R&D building that would replace an obsolete building that the applicant has found difficult to market to prospective tenants. The project would provide future tenants with a range of floor plan options and a number of natural and occupational amenities, which will support the office/R&D function and enhance the desirability of the site for future occupants. 2.c Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B a n d S i t e & D e s i g n R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The project is consistent with Objective (c) as it utilizes a compatible palette consistent with the hillside setting, provides “solar ready” areas on the roof, and uses high performance and energy efficient materials that would exceed code requirements. The site planning retains a semi- natural open space area at the site rear that provides habitat value and is reverting to the native ecology of the hillside setting. The project would include the use of drought-tolerant, native plants throughout the site that would compliment the existing plants and further enhance the habitat value across the site. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As detailed in the ARB findings for approval in Attachment C, the project is consistent with Objective (d) as the use is in accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which allows for research and manufacturing uses in the Research/Office Park designation. 2.c Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B a n d S i t e & D e s i g n R e v i e w F i n d i n g s ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3406 Hillview Avenue 17PLN-00438 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, 3406 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on February 5, 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. TRAFFIC MITIGATING AMENITY SPACE. The approved 83,030 sf building shall include a minimum of 1,000 sf of amenity space to ensure conformance with the allowed FAR for the property. The plans submitted for tenant improvement building permit shall include a floor plan describing the use of the 1,000 square feet of traffic mitigating amenity space. The space may include, but is not limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias, day care centers, automated teller machines, convenience stores, and onsite laundry facilities, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project is associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A. The MMRP is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document and as further detailed in site-specific technical reports provided with the application. 6. 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 2.d Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 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. 7. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION. Employers at 3406 Hillview Avenue shall participate in the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association or any successor Transportation Management Association that is designed to reduce employee commute trips to and from the Stanford Research Park. 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 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. 9. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the 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. 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 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. 11. MAYFIELD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The project includes 19,500 square feet of the total Mayfield 300,000 square feet that can be relocated (replacement square footage). No impact fees are due for this square footage. A total of 19,262 replacement square feet currently remains which may be relocated throughout the Stanford Research Park. 12. 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 13. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650- 2.d Packet Pg. 33 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 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. 14. 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). 15. 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. 16. 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 17. 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. 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. 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 2.d Packet Pg. 34 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 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. 20. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 21. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 22. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 23. 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. 24. 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. 25. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: As applicant is proposing to connect the site’s discharge directly into the City Storm Drain system, please 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 2.d Packet Pg. 35 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 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. 26. 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. 27. PAVEMENT: Hillview Ave was resurfaced in 2011 & Coyote Hill Road was resurfaced in 2015. 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 Hillview Avenue and Coyote Hill Road 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. 28. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION 29. On sheet L4.1 add a column to show the number of each species to be planted. 30. On sheet L5.0 the total trees removed in the table should be 82, not 80. Other entries in the table appear to be consistent with numbers in the tree protection report. 31. On sheet L5.2 in the executive summary of the tree protection report, correct the number of protected trees to show 28, not 27. 32. 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 2.d Packet Pg. 36 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 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. 33. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 2.d Packet Pg. 37 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 34. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 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, 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. 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. UTILITIES – ELECTRICAL 37. The existing transformer on site is a 2500KVA unit, vintage 2003, and as a relatively new unit, can likely be reused for the new building, pending submittal of loading requirements. The newly proposed vault locations are satisfactory. UTILITILES - WATER,GAS,WASTEWATER 38. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet 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. 39. 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 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. 2.d Packet Pg. 38 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 40. 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. 41. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 47. 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. 48. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. GREEN BUILDING 49. 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 2.d Packet Pg. 39 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 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. 50. 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. 51. 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) 52. 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 requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 53. 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. 54. 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. 55. 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. 2.d Packet Pg. 40 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. 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 61. 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. 62. 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. 2.d Packet Pg. 41 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 ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLES 3406 Hillview Avenue, 17PLN-00438 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (RP-5 DISTRICT) Regulation Project Development Standard Minimum Site Area, Width, and Depth 6.5 acres, 325 feet width, and 707 feet depth 5 acres, 250 feet width, and 250 feet depth Minimum Front Yard 150 feet 100 feet Minimum Rear Yard 345 feet 40 feet Interior Side Yard 60 feet 40 feet Street Side Yard 80 feet 70 feet Max. Site Coverage 16% (45,110 sf) Mayfield Agreement allows for 25% coverage, or 70,742 sf Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.28:1 (82,030 sf + 1,000 sf amenity space Mayfield Agreement allows for 0.375:1 (106,112 sf) Max. Building Height 34.75 feet 35 feet (with additional 15 feet for mechanical and screen) Daylight Plane N/A N/A Employee Showers 16 showers R&D: 50,000 sf and up requires 4 showers Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Administrative Office and Research & Development uses* Type Combined Required Vehicle Parking 274 spaces 1 per 300 sf of gross floor area (274 spaces) Bicycle Parking 49 bike spaces (43 long term and 6 short term) 1 per 3,000 sf (80% long term, 20% short term = 28 spaces (22 long term, 6 short term) Loading Space 1 space 1 loading space for 50,000-99,999 sf * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 2.e Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Page 1 of 4 ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 CITY OF PALO ALTO/STANFORD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND LEASE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Date: April 17, 2017 Project Name: City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project; 3181 Porter Drive SCH #: 2003082103 Project Location: 3406 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California Applicant/Owner: Stanford University This document is an Addendum to the approved City Of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report (“Mayfield DA EIR”) and has been prepared to address a changed circumstance. The applicant and the City have prepared technical reports to analyze the potential for environmental impacts on the site. The change has been determined not to create any additional impacts compared to those identified in the Mayfield DA EIR. ANALYSIS: Cultural Resources: The building proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new building under the Mayfield Development Agreement has reached 51 years of age, and must be analyzed for potential impacts to historic resources. According to CEQA, properties identified in an historical resource survey are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a property is not historically or culturally significant. Also according to CEQA, a project that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would not have a significant adverse impact on a resource. Demolition of this building was analyzed in a Historic Resource Analysis analyzed and determined not to constitute a new significant environmental impact compared to those analyzed in the Mayfield DA EIR. The City has concluded that the building does not constitute a historical resource. As described in the attached Historic Resource Evaluation for 3406 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California, the building is associated with significant events and persons in the advent and development of personal computing. However, the building does 2.f Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : E I R A d d e n d u m ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Page 2 of 4 not exemplify the midcentury modern architecture style, and the building has lost many important aspects of its integrity due to the later additions and renovations that significantly altered the building’s appearance. Therefore, the building is not eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources. Hazardous Materials: The Mayfield DA EIR identified a number of potential public health concerns related to the 200,000 square feet of R&D/office uses permitted during Phase Two of the Development Agreement. These concerns were analyzed and categorized as hazardous materials, hazardous waste, contaminated soil and groundwater, and hazardous building components. The Mayfield DA EIR proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts related to these concerns to a less-than-significant level. As the project is a “designated project” subject to the Mayfield Development Agreement, the mitigation measures contained in the Mayfield DA EIR are applicable to the project. In accordance with the Mayfield Development Agreement MMRP, the applicant has provided environmental management plan documents, including a soil and soil vapor sampling report (Attachment C) that describes the subsurface conditions and associated considerations for the redevelopment of the site. The project site is not located within the nearby Hillview Porter Regional Groundwater Plume, and is therefore not subject to Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) orders for oversight and remediation. However, the site has undergone a hazardous materials facility closure process with Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and the Palo Alto Fire Department due to the prior hazardous materials storage. In accordance with the Mayfield MMRP, the applicant has provided Phase II soil and soil gas testing results, which detected the presence of Volatile Organic Compounds in one soil gas sample that exceeded environmental screening levels for commercial sites without engineered fill. However, with the incorporation of engineered fill, the project would not exceed the applicable screening levels, and would not pose a significant health risk. Further testing is recommended in the Phase II documents and will be conducted after the existing concrete slab has been removed during demolition. Additionally, the applicant has provided a Site Management Plan that details steps to be taken during demolition and redevelopment to avoid health risks associated with soil and soil gas. The soil and soil vapor sampling report and site management plan implement Mitigation Measures HM1.1 Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), HM1.3 Implement Site Management Plan, and HM1.2 Prepare a Work Plan and Corrective Action. A Health and Safety Plan will be required to be prepared to protect construction contractors during construction due to exposure to existing contaminated soil and/or groundwater. This Health and Safety Plan must be provided to DTSC, who may conduct inspections to ensure adherence to health and safety protocols. This will implement HM3.1 Prepare and Implement a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan. Biological Resources: An arborist and tree preservation report was prepared to catalog existing trees on the site and propose site-specific protection measures. This report implements Mitigation Measure BR2.1 Require Arborist Tree Survey and Tree Protection and Preservation Plan, which is applicable for both demolition and construction. Adherence to the recommendations in the report, which identifies Regulated Trees, will further implement this measure during demolition and construction. Two protected trees (1 coast live oak, 1 redwood) are proposed for removal due to their poor health and proximity to the construction zone. The 2.f Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : E I R A d d e n d u m ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Page 3 of 4 Urban Forester has recommended their removal and replacement in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Forest Master Plan. Additionally, a biological review was prepared to describe the extent to which sensitive wildlife species occupy the site. The site is located adjacent to an undeveloped area of the Stanford Campus, and is located approximately ¼ mile from locations where California red-legged frogs have been recently observed. The southwest corner of the site is relatively undeveloped and contains a number of native wildflower species, as well as suitable foraging ground for dusky- footed woodrats which were obverted nesting immediately off-site. The project plans avoid development in this area, which will limit the impact of the project on this habitat area. Additionally, prior to construction, measures BR-1.1 Implement Procedures to Protect Sensitive Plant Species, BR1.2 Implement Procedures to Protect Sensitive Wildlife Species, and BR3.1 Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Measures if Identified will be implemented to avoid any potential impacts to any sensitive plant or wildlife species or nesting birds on the site. Transportation: While on-site circulation/ingress/egress for Phase Two projects was identified as a less-than-significant impact in the Mayfield DA EIR, a trip generation and circulation analysis was prepared for the 3406 Hillview Avenue redevelopment to ensure no new significant impacts would be created. The report concluded that the additional trips generated by the project would not cause a significant impact due to sufficient service capacity on Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue. Construction-related traffic impacts are mitigated through TR-1.1 Prepare and Implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan, which will be implemented with the requirement of City approval of a logistics plan prior to the issuance a grading permit. This plan will describe any construction-related changes to local traffic patterns, construction working parking, equipment storage, and truck traffic to and from the site. The Public Works Department has required a construction logistics plan condition of approval for the project. Noise: The project plans include mechanical equipment on the roof of the structure, as well as a screen to shield the equipment. This design feature implements NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose Roof- Mounted Mechanical Equipment. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that the new building is in compliance with the Noise Standards in the Municipal Code, with any recommendations in the analysis to be incorporated into the construction documents of the project. Air Quality: AQ-1.1: Implement Construction Dust Control Measures. As a requirement of the construction documents, the applicant will be required to adhere to control measures as developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. These measures include watering all construction areas daily, covering all trucks hauling soil, and sweeping public streets in the vicinity if visible soil material is carried onto the streets. The implementation of this mitigation measure will help mitigate the short term increases in PM10 emissions that could violate air quality standards. Additional potentially significant impacts identified in the Mayfield Development Agreement, In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15164(c), “an Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted Negative Declaration.” This 2.f Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : E I R A d d e n d u m ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Page 4 of 4 Addendum shall become public record as an attachment to the adopted City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR or supplement to the Mayfield DA EIR may be prepared, because changed circumstances do not create new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Prepared by: Date APPENDICES A. Mayfield DA EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan B. Historic Resource Evaluations for 3406 Hillview Avenue C. Environmental Management Plan Cover Letter From Stanford University D. Palo Alto Fire Department Closure Letters E. Site Management Plan, 3406 Hillview Avenue F. Results of Subsurface Investigation 3406 Hillview Avenue G. Ingress/Egress and Circulation Analysis for Office at 3406 Hillview Avenue H. Biological Review, 3406 Hillview Avenue I. Arborist Report, 3406 Hillview Avenue 2.f Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : E I R A d d e n d u m ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 2.g Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t 2.g Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a y f i e l d D A E I R M M R P ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t Attachment H 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: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects 2. Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects” 3. Scroll to find “3406 Hillview Avenue” and click the address link 4. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information 2.h Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 9 1 2 3 : 3 4 0 6 H i l l v i e w A v e n u e : N e w R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9061) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/3/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 565 Hamilton Avenue: Mixed Use Project (Prelim) Title: 565 Hamilton (18PLN-00067): Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed Three-Story, Approximately 29,900 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Office and Residential, Second Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (19 Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking Level. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P) & RM-40 (Downtown Commercial and High Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Haleigh King at Haleigh.King@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. 3 Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: Mark Frapwell Architect: Aidlin Darling Design Representative: Brandy Bridges, Wilson Meany Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 565 Hamilton, 571 Hamilton, and 542 Webster (APN: 120-03-062, 120-03-061, and 123-03-060) Neighborhood: University South Lot Dimensions & Area: CD-C(P) portion-50’ x 105’; 7,450 sf RM-40 portion-100’ x 150’; 15,000 sf Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, street trees in planter strip along Hamilton and Webster. Five (5) existing redwood trees on adjacent Cowper/Webster parking garage property. Historic Resource(s): No; 2016 Historic Resource Evaluations for each site have determined the individual buildings are not eligible for listing as a historic resource. Existing Improvement(s): 565 Hamilton; single family residence; one-story; circa 1899 571 Hamilton; multiple family apartments (4 units); two-story; circa 1922-23 542-548 Webster; multiple family apartments (4 units); one-story; circa 1926 Existing Land Use(s): Single family and multiple family residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-40 (multi-family residential); West: PC-3995 (Webster/Cowper parking garage); CD-C (P) (office 3 Packet Pg. 64 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 space) East: RM-40 (First United Methodist Church) South: PC-2545 (multi-story office) Aerial View of Property: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Split Zoning: Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Overlay (CD-C(P)); High density multiple family residential (RM-40) Comp. Plan Designation: Community Commercial; Multiple Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicable, see further discussion below Downtown Urban Design Guide: Applicable, see further discussion below 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, RM-40; RM-30 Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None. PTC: None. 3 Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 HRB: Study Session on April 26, 2018; Staff will provide a brief summary of the Historic Resources Board comments at the May 3 ARB Study Session. ARB: None. Project Description The proposed project would merge three existing parcels and redevelop the combined parcel with a three story, mixed-use development with underground parking. The total lot area of the resulting parcel would be 22,450 square feet (sf). The parcel would have split zoning, which requires each zoned portion of the lot to be developed based on the respective zoning (PAMC 18.08.070). The 565 Hamilton parcel is zoned Downtown Commercial with the Pedestrian Combining District overlay (CD-C(P)). The parcels at 571 Hamilton and 542-548 Webster are zoned RM-40 High Density Multiple Family Residence District (RM-40). The image below illustrates the proposed project site with the zoning lines. An additional location map is provided in Attachment A. The proposed project would demolish an existing 1,210 sf single story home and detached garage on the 565 Hamilton parcel, a four unit, two story multiple family apartment building and associated rear garage on the 571 Hamilton lot, and a four unit, single story multiple family apartment building on the 542 Webster lot. The proposed 40 foot mixed-use project, located on the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street would include 19 residential rental units and approximately 7,450 sf of office space on the merged 22,450 sf lot. The CD-C parcel allows a 1:1 floor area ratio (FAR) for non- residential uses and 1:1 for residential uses, for a total of 2:1 FAR for mixed use projects. The RM-40 parcel allows a 1:1 FAR and a maximum density of 40 units per acre for residential uses. 3 Packet Pg. 66 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The total residential floor area for the project is approximately 21,806 sf, where 22,450 sf is permitted (1:1 on CD-C parcel and 1:1 on the RM-40 parcel). The project proposes the maximum residential density individually prescribed for the CD-C and RM-40 zoning district; six (6) units on the CD-C(P) zoned portion and 13 units on the RM-40 zoned portion, for a total of 19 units. The residential units are proposed to be rentals and therefore subject to the City’s housing impact fees (PAMC 16.65.040) to mitigate the projects’ impacts on the need for affordable housing. The subterranean parking garage would provide 39 parking spaces (37 standard and 2 accessible) of the required 66 parking spaces for the entire project site. The applicant is proposing to purchase 20 in-lieu parking spaces for the office use since the CD-C(P) zoned parcel is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The applicant will also be requesting a parking adjustment which will be reviewed by the Transportation Division and subject to submittal and approval of a Transportation Demand Management program and parking management plan. Long-term bicycle parking for the residential and office uses is proposed in the subterranean parking garage. The proposed architectural style is contemporary, incorporating cedar wood siding, board formed concrete, cement fiber board panels, glass, and painted metal in warm grey and brown tones. Transparent glass window systems are used for the office space with metal brise-soleil features at the second floor and a balcony projecting from the residential unit on the third floor. Along the Hamilton frontage, grey cement fiber board panels span the mid-section of the building and wrap around the corner to continue along the Webster Street frontage. Along Webster Street, the third story includes transparent glazing on the building corners and incorporates an open air, shared terrace with a natural cedar trellis encapsulating the space. The ground floor residential facades along Webster and Hamilton propose cedar wood screens and light grey board formed concrete to articulate the base of the building. Open space for the office use would be provided via a rear, private garden area located adjacent to the neighboring redwood grove and a second interior open space. The proposed building and interior pathway wraps around a central, open air courtyard that would provide open space for the residential uses. Also, the concept plans propose a third floor shared terrace area for use by the building’s residents. The applicant has provided a project narrative included as Attachment J. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Development Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project 3 Packet Pg. 67 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment H.  As three lots are proposed to be merged, a Preliminary Parcel Map, Tentative Map, OR a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Merger (if applicable) will be required for the proposed development. Map types and review procedures vary depending on the type of development proposed. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. The project is subject to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, multiple family and downtown commercial context-based design criteria and performance criteria, as further described in Attachments D, E and F. The applicant requests ARB’s consideration of the project’s compliance with the applicable design guidelines, as further discussed below, and feedback regarding the overall design. Contextual Setbacks The applicant requests ARB’s consideration of the proposed setbacks depicted on the concept plans as the Code allows for ARB discretion as it relates to front and street side setbacks for multiple family zoning districts. In the RM-40 zone district, the front setback along Hamilton Avenue is governed by the 25 ft arterial road setback (PAMC 18.13.040.b.1.A) as well as a 17 ft special setback. However, the Code gives discretion to the Director with recommendation from the ARB to allow a lesser setback given the standards in the multiple family context based criteria. However, in no case may the setback be reduced below the 17 ft special setback. The concept plans propose a 17 ft setback for the residential building fronting Hamilton Avenue. Along the Webster Street frontage, the street side setback is between zero and 16 ft with discretion given to the ARB upon review pursuant to the ARB findings and context-based criteria. Currently, the applicant proposes a 25 foot setback for the first and second floors, and a 20 foot setback at the third floor. Included below are approximate existing setbacks for neighboring buildings along Hamilton and Webster based on city records;  555 Hamilton (office building): 7 ft front setback  537 Hamilton (office building): 14 ft at ground floor and 10 ft at upper floors front setback  530 Webster (garden/courtyard apartment): 20 ft front setback  550 Hamilton (multi-story office building): 10 ft street side setback along Hamilton and 15 feet front setback along Webster 3 Packet Pg. 68 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Floor Area Ratio The project site is unique in that the site has split zoning; CD-C(P) and RM-40 and is therefore subject to different floor area regulations, as well as other development standards. Even though the project site has split zoning, the proposed development will be comprised of one building and the lots will be combined. On split zoned sites, each portion of the property must comply with the underlying base zoning standards. For instance, commercial office space is not allowed in a residential zone. However, when it comes to site access, refuse collection and circulation, staff has taken the position that these areas may be distributed regardless of the underlying base zoning district. This approach allows for better site planning, reduces the amount of space dedicated to circulation and attempts to address the intent of the zoning ordinance and technical ingress/egress requirements of the building code. Where ‘commercial’ circulation, refuse or similar areas are located on the residentially zoned portion of the lot, a commensurate reduction in the maximum office floor area is applied to the commercially zoned portion of the lot. This promotes the concept that site planning is designed best on appropriate location and function and not to advantage commercial floor area over residential. A preliminary breakdown of the proposed gross square footage is shown in Attachment I. Pedestrian Shopping Combining District The mixed use portion of the project on the CD-C(P) zoned portion of the site is required to comply with the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (P), which requires new construction to provide design features intended to create pedestrian or shopper interest, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to preclude inappropriate or inharmonious building design and siting. The require features include; (1) display windows, or retail display areas; (2) Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontages times 1.5 feet; (3) landscaping or architectural design features intended to preclude blank walls or building faces, as further described in Attachment G. The CD-C(P) zone district also allows office space on the first floor but requires that the architectural design accommodate the possibility of retail on the first floor. The concept plans include a glass front for the majority of the ground floor elevations, consistent with the retail/display window requirements. Within the CD-C (P) zoned portion, the project has 50 feet of street frontage, and therefore is required to provide 75 sf of covered recessed area for pedestrian use. The challenge with this site is that the 17 foot special setback does not allow projections of any kind, where a normal setback would allow some encroachments (awnings, porches) up to 6 feet into the setback and eaves or similar architectural features up to 4 feet into the front setback. Since this is a preliminary review, further refinements will be made to comply with pedestrian design features and ARB input is desired. The Pedestrian Shopping Combining District regulations are included as Attachment G. Downtown Urban Design Guide 3 Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 The Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide) provides direction to the applicant, staff, and ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The project site is in the Cowper Center District which is anchored by the Palo Alto Office Center at 525 University Avenue and the less visible Cowper/Webster parking garage, which is directly adjacent to the proposed project site. The Cowper District, while on the outside of the Retail Core suggests the “encouragement of multi-family housing on the periphery of downtown”. The garage, located in the center of the block serves as a main destination point and people generator for the area. The Guide calls for the Cowper Center District to “create a viable district that helps to define the eastern end of the downtown area.” The Guide also indicates that Hamilton Avenue is the beginning of the transition zone from downtown into residential areas. The transitions shall be further distinguished through the use of appropriate sidewalk and landscaping treatments. Excerpts from the Guide and a map of the Cowper Center District in which the proposed project site is located are included as Attachment F. Context-Based Design Criteria and Performance Criteria Considerations and Findings In addition to Zoning Compliance and Architectural Review approval findings, Context-Based Design Consideration and Findings found in PAMC Chapter 18.18.110 are applicable to projects in the downtown commercial zone district and the multiple family context based criteria found in PAMC Chapter 18.13.060 are applicable to projects in multiple family residential zone districts. The criteria and findings have been included as Attachment C and D. The project is also subject to performance criteria included as Attachment E. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Setbacks  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Project open space  Access to the site  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials During a meeting of the City’s internal Development Review Committee, commenting departments provided feedback on the project proposal. The following department comment summaries describe a few of the primary issues with the project proposal that are deemed significant and may alter the project’s design. Public Works Engineering 3 Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Public Works Engineering provided comments concerning the project’s location with a Special Hazard Flood Area (SFHA), specifically flood zone AH. As such, the applicant shall be required to comply with all regulations for new buildings in a SFHA. In addition, while the underground parking facility is allowed, the applicant will need to comply with certain design criteria and FEMA technical bulletins. For below grade facilities in the SFHA, electrical equipment is limited to those only serving life safety purposes (i.e. lights, fire alarms, etc.). Car lifts or stackers may be permitted in the below grade garage pending design and specification review by Public Works Engineering. Electrical equipment associated with the car lifts will need to be located above the base flood elevation. This also would include electrical equipment for any required electrical vehicle chargers. Options for required floodproofing may include ramping the driveway to the below grade parking facility or constructing a hydro static flood barrier, pending review and approval by Public Works Engineering and the City’s Floodplain Administrator. Transportation Division The Transportation Division provided comments indicating the single project curb cut on the Webster Street frontage is preferable as an access management and pedestrian and bicyclist friendly building measure. As previously discussed, due to the restrictions in the flood zone, the below grade parking garage is limited in the amount of parking it can supply. Therefore, the applicant will likely be seeking a parking reduction as well as the payment of in-lieu parking fees for the portion of the site in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The application will also require a parking management plan and a transportation demand management plan (TDM) to be submitted at the formal review stage. Further details will be provided and required when the application and associated TDM plan is submitted for formal review. The Transportation Division provided additional comments concerning the location of short term bicycle parking, as well as additional detail and specification related to ramp design and parking garage dimensions. These details and requirements, as well as any other required by the ARB stemming from the preliminary hearing should be reflected in the plan set submitted for formal review. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, a CEQA analysis of the project will be performed. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require any form of notice for a Preliminary Architecture Review application. Nonetheless, as a practice, the City publishes notice of the review in a local paper and mails owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at 3 Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on April 20, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 23, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no written public comments were received. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Haleigh King, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2662 (650) 329-2575 haleigh.king@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Preliminary Zoning Compliance Table for CD-C(P) and RM-40 Zoning Districts (DOCX)  Attachment C: CD-C Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment D: Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Excerpt (PDF)  Attachment G: Pedestrian Combining District Regulations (PDF)  Attachment H: AR Findings (DOCX)  Attachment I: Staff's Floor Area Breakdown (PDF)  Attachment J: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment K: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 72 First United M ethodist Churc h Alain Pinel R ealtor 43.0' 15.0' 150.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 140.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 250.0' 100.0' 200.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 75.0' 150. 50.0' 50.0 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 75.0' 90.0' 150.0' 00' 150.0' 105.0' 55.0' 105.0' 55.0' 105.0' 85.0'105.0' 85.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 100 50.0' 200.0' 250.0' 50.0'50.0' 150.0' 300.0' 50 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 50.0' 110.0' 100.0' 100.0' 40.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 45.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 250.0' 225.0' 200.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 250.0' 512 512 619 619609 609 605 605 518 518 653-687 653 655 657 659 661 663 665 667681 543 543-545 545 548 542 542 548 568 568 524 524 550 550 578 578 564 564 50 505 505 525 525 537 537 555 555 565 565 571 571 530 530 619 520 625 625 523 523 518 518 610 610 600 600 616 616 624 642 638636 636-638 567 555 555 611 611 601 601 608 608 600 600 620 87 611 544 544 546 546 515 515 526 52 519 519 H A MIL T O N A V E N U E W E B ST E R S N ST R E E T W E B S TE R ST R EE T H A M ILT O N A L A N E 39 PC- 2545 RM-40 C-3995Lot W C 7 7 17 7 17 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 100-Year Flood Subject Site Zone Districts Tree Parking District Project Site Special Setback Frontages 0' 57' 565 Hamilton: Preliminary Architectural Review 18PLN-00067 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 hking2, 2018-04-04 11:19:31 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\hking2.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg. 73 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 ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE (PRELIMINARY) CD-C(P)-Mixed Use; 18PLN-00067 7,450 sf portion of lot zoned CD-C(P) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None however, 17 foot special setback along Hamilton Avenue 17 feet Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 10 feet Interior Side Yard None Required Appx. 0 feet Street Side Yard No requirement Not applicable Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 4,774 sf (64%) Landscape Open Space Coverage 20% 1,490 sf 36% Appx. 2,676 sf Usable Open Space 150 sf per residential unit (900 sf total) 5,687 sf (shared with RM-40 side) Maximum Height 50 feet 40 feet Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts or a residential PC district Daylight plane height and slope identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the lot line Not applicable Residential Density (net) 40 (6 units max for 7,450 sf lot) 6 du/ac Maximum Nonresidential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 7,450 sf See FAR Discussion Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 7,450 sf See FAR Discussion Total Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1 14,900 sf See FAR Discussion 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3.b Packet Pg. 74 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P r e l i m i n a r y Z o n i n g C o m p l i a n c e T a b l e f o r C D - C ( P ) a n d R M - 4 0 Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) 1/250 sf of gross floor area for a total of 30 required parking spaces Residential Units: 2- 1 bedroom units and 4-2 bedroom units for a total of 11 required residential spaces Guest: 1 space + 10% of total # of units; 1 space 15 spaces Bicycle Parking Residential: 1 space per unit (100% long term) 6 required Office: 1 space/2,500 sf. 40% -LT 60%-ST 19 spaces 3 spaces; 1 LT, 2 ST (short term location TBD) 3.b Packet Pg. 75 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P r e l i m i n a r y Z o n i n g C o m p l i a n c e T a b l e f o r C D - C ( P ) a n d R M - 4 0 Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d ATTACHMENT B CONTINUED ZONING COMPARISON TABLE (PRELIMINARY) RM-40 District; 18PLN-00067 Table 1: Comparison with Chapter 18.13 (RM-40 District) Regulation Required/Allowed Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 15,000 sf (0.34 acres) 100 foot width, 150 foot depth Minimum Front Yard (2) 0-25 ft. (1)(A); 17 foot special setback along Hamilton and 25 foot setback for arterials. 21 feet at ground floor; 17 feet at upper levels and 17 feet below grade Rear Yard 10 feet 18 feet at ground floor; 10 feet at upper floors; 10 feet below grade Interior Side Yard 6 feet Not applicable Street Side Yard 0-16 ft. (2) 25 feet at ground floor; 20 feet at upper floors above grade and 3’-6” feet below grade. Special Setback 17 feet along Hamilton Ave. 17 feet along Hamilton Ave. Setback from major roadways [18.13.040(b)(1)(A)] 25 feet along Hamilton Ave. (A) 17 feet along Hamilton Ave. Max. Building Height 40 feet 40 feet Side and Rear Yard Daylight Plane Not applicable Not applicable Max. Site Coverage 45% (6,750 sf) Plus 5% (750 sf) for patios/overhangs 21.5% (3,229 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 1.0:1 (15,000 sf) See FAR Discussion Max. Residential Density 40 @ 0.34 acre = 13 du/acre 13 du/acre Minimum Site Open Space 20% (3,000 sf) Compliant Minimum Usable Open Space 100 sf per unit (1,300 sf) 5,687 sf Minimum Common Open Space (B) 50 sf per unit (650 sf) If combined with private, then 1,300 sf required. 5,687 sf Minimum Private Open Space (B) 50 sf per unit (650 sf) If combined with common, 1,300 sf required. (B) Combined with common, see above 3.b Packet Pg. 76 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P r e l i m i n a r y Z o n i n g C o m p l i a n c e T a b l e f o r C D - C ( P ) a n d R M - 4 0 Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d (1) Minimum front setbacks shall be determined by the Architectural Review Board upon review pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76 and the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060. Arterial roadways do not include residential arterials. (2) Minimum street side setbacks in the RM-40 zone may be from 0 to 16 feet and shall be determined by the Architectural Review Board upon review pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76 and the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060. (A) Setbacks for lot lines adjacent to an arterial street, expressway or freeway, as designated in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25'), except that lesser setbacks may be allowed or required by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, where prescribed by the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060. Special setbacks of greater than 25 feet may not be reduced except upon approval of a design enhancement exception or variance. (B) In the RM-30 and RM-40 districts, part or all of the required private usable open space areas may be added to the required common usable open space in a development, for purposes of improved design, privacy, protection and increased play area for children, upon a recommendation of the Architectural Review Board and approval of the Director. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking Studio-1.25 spaces/unit (6 units) 1 bedroom-1.5 spaces/unit (6 units 2 bedroom- 2 spaces/unit (1 unit) 22 required Guest Parking: 1 space + 10% of total number of units 22 spaces 2 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) 13 required 19 spaces 3.b Packet Pg. 77 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P r e l i m i n a r y Z o n i n g C o m p l i a n c e T a b l e f o r C D - C ( P ) a n d R M - 4 0 Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d Attachment C CD-C Context-Based Design Criteria 565 Hamilton 18PLN-00067 Pursuant to PAMC 18.18.110(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 3.c Packet Pg. 78 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C D - C C o n t e x t - B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) Attachment D Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria 565 Hamilton 18PLN-00067 Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with the street(s). 2. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. 4. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units, attached row houses/townhouse, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design shall be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. 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 : M u l t i p l e F a m i l y C o n t e x t - B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) Attachment E Performance Criteria 18.23 565 Hamilton 18PLN-00067 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 3.e Packet Pg. 80 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 3.e Packet Pg. 81 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) COWPER CENTER DISTRICT UlmAN DESIGN OBSERVATIONS This district is centered around the intersection of Cowper Street and University Avenue. The highly visible Palo Alto Office Center at 525 University Avenue and the less visually intrusive Cowper/Webster public parking garage anchor the district on either side of University Avenue. The garage is located in the heart of the block, but serves as a destination point and a people generator for the area. From the parking garage, the district extends to the office uses located along Hamilton Avenue. Although recent changes have improved the ,front plaza areas of the Palo Alto Office Center, the rear plaza is a significant and underutilized resource. The Cowper Center District is important because it provides a secondary activity center (the ---.:-:x_:_::::ir_>_,,_--.--- !iii'' rr~~iKt,jf~:~~~~~~!1iiii~;,r i-~ , j,~~~!e~it;!!~~;ai~~t~~j· , primary center being at University Avenue and the Civic Cross AXis intersection) for the downtown retail core. The district can be further strengthened by enhancing active use of the Varsity Theater, such as a public/private ownership creating a performing arts center. Tilis area is dominated by buildings of large area and mass. The President Hotel at street level maintains the approximately 25 foot wide structural bay' creating a street rhythm and enhances the pedestrian experience. In contrast, the Palo Alto Office Building is not pedestrian friendly at the ground floor and does not enhance the pedestrian experience. Redevelopment of the ground floor of this property with active retail or restaurant uses would greatly improve the life and identity of this area. Landmarks within this district include the Palo Alto Office Center building, the Webster/Cowper parking garage, and the Varsity Theater. Existing zoning should be respected to protect residential neighborhoods to north, east, and south. Limit any further intrusion of commercial and office uses into the residential areas on the north, east · and south edges. Architecture The existing. Palo Alto Office Center lacks pedestrian vitality at the ground floor plaza. ,This major open space is a great opportunity for a future pedestrian activity node. Redesign of the ground floor of the Palo Alto Office Center can improve the pedestrian scale of the building. A sample illustration is presented on the following page. Consider screening for the antenna farm on the top of the Palo Alto Office Center to improve the appearance of this landmark building. Urban Design Plan -38-Cowper Center D1stnct 3.f Packet Pg. 82 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : D o w n t o w n U r b a n D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s E x c e r p t ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) COWPER CENTER DISTRICT DISI'RICf GOALS • Create a viable district that helps to define the eastern end of the downtown area and creates a secondary major activity center at the Cowper/University intersection. • Promote. lively and-active destination points by utilizing· the Palo Alto Office Center Plua apcn space and the Varsity Theatre, and encouraging improvemeniS to lhe Cowpertwebstcr Parking Garage enlly on Co9?J!er Street. LEGEND .., ... Pllolei!Nnl!rl:l)' ACiivily Node Ccnln .,, AciiYity Dsvelop f'edatlwl Way SUo1!1 BWidint Volumes I'EWtiAt or -......wl ....,,_ -· Opponu~ity For Pedestrian FM!>dly UJe ·~·- _l 'IL__! ·-= J > .-r1r""H""""1 ;!, = PALO ALTO OFFICE CENTER PLAZA 'J a Provide wind and weather protection • Encourage a ground floor retail. _, outdoor or nighttime use -l 3 Improve padestrl•n c.nuance . .:o CoWJHJriWebster park1ng garage -=:! n U W\._____j .UW ·~-- r.:·-[JJ lt-r--'-, t ~, ~ r Future district development is encouraged to follow the existing pattern two to four story buildings on the southeast corner of Cowper Street and University Avenue in order to complete the visible form of the district. Secondary Districts One secondary district is related to the Cowper Avenue District, the Varsity Theater Parking Lot H. Efforts should .be made to Unify and complement this secondary district through the use of appropriate building design, landscaping and public.amenities. General guidelines for the district are discussed below: Varsity Theater Parking Lot H The area around parking lotH, which is located behind the Varsity Theater, is a secondary district that should be developed arid will become more prominent as the proposed alley/pedestrian way on the south side, and parallel to, University Avenue is established. The development of the Garden Court Hotel has signaled the beginning development of this district. Redevelopment of the theater with a rear entrance arid redevelopment of the 1950's buildings on the south side of the parking lot could be designed to complete this secondary district. As part of the overall vision for this district, the overall vision of this entertainment center, this area can be developed in to a positive, exciting addition to the urban environment through the use of architecture, landscape design, public amenities, and works of art. Urban Des1gn Plan -39-Cowper Center D1stnct 3.f Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : D o w n t o w n U r b a n D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s E x c e r p t ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) PUBLIC AREA GUIDEUNES Entries Increase the perception of safety and improve the visibility and pedestrian access points to the Webster/Cowper Garage from both Cowper Street and University Avenue in order to increase use of the garage by the public. Ooen spaces Improve the plazas at the Palo Alto Office Center, particularly the rear plaza, to provide wind and weather protection in order to e!lllance this area as a destination point and make this a more active and viable district. This would allow and encourage a ground floor retail, outdoor or nighttime use, such as a restaurant. If the microclimate on the rear plaza can not be controlled, consider allowing development on the plaza as part of an overall program to bring life and activity to this area. Activity Nodes Allow for improvements, such as a pleasant pedestrian access between University Avenue and ih.e parking garage, to increase the pedestrian,use and entry visibility characteristics of the Cowper · Street/University Avenue intersection. Circulation Enhance pedestrian circulation between the landmarks in the district. Connect the Cowper/Webster garage. to, the proposed alley/pedestrian way parallel to University Avenue on the south side. Building design and improvements should encourage and allow for this extension. Orban Des1gn Plan -40-Cowper Center District 3.f Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : D o w n t o w n U r b a n D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s E x c e r p t ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.30(B) PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING (P) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 18.30(B).010 Special Purposes 18.30(B).020 Applicability of Regulations 18.30(B).030 Zoning Map Designation 18.30(B).040 Use Limitations and Site Development Regulations 18.30(B).010 Special Purposes The pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the CN neighborhood commercial district, the CC community commercial district and the CD commercial downtown district in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. (Ord. 3792 § 1, 1988: Ord. 3098 § 1, 1978; Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(B).020 Applicability of Regulations The pedestrian shopping combining district may be combined with any CN, CC or CD district, in accord with Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.80. Where so combined, the regulations established by this chapter shall apply in lieu of, or in addition to, the provisions established by Chapter 18.16 or Chapter 18.18. (Ord. 3792 § 2, 1988: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(B).030 Zoning Map Designation The pedestrian shopping combining district shall apply to any site adjacent to designated pedestrian frontage or pedestrian ways shown on the zoning map. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.30(B).040 Use Limitations and Site Development Regulations (a) Pedestrian Design Features Required On any site, or portion of a site, adjoining a designated pedestrian sidewalk or pedestrian way, new construction and alterations to existing structures shall be required as determined by the architectural review board, to provide the following design features intended to create pedestrian or shopper interest, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to preclude inappropriate or inharmonious building design and siting: (1) Display windows, or retail display areas; (2) Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontage times 1.5 feet; (3) Landscaping or architectural design features intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. The specific nature and requirements of pedestrian design features shall be determined as part of architectural review pursuant to Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). 3.g Packet Pg. 85 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P e d e s t r i a n C o m b i n i n g D i s t r i c t R e g u l a t i o n s ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) (b) Parking and Vehicular Access Restricted Vehicular access to sites adjoining designated pedestrian sidewalks or pedestrian ways which requires vehicular movement across such pedestrian sidewalks or pedestrian ways shall be prohibited, except where required by law or as may be authorized by a use permit in accord with Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). (Ord. 4826 § 88, 2004: Ord. 3792 § 3, 1988: Ord. 3108 § 18, 1979: Ord. 3098 § 2, 1978: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 3.g Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P e d e s t r i a n C o m b i n i n g D i s t r i c t R e g u l a t i o n s ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 565 Hamilton 18PLN-00067 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 3.h Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : A R F i n d i n g s ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) STEP 1 Level 3 Use Square feet Residential 8332 Office 0 Circulation 1753 10085 Total Residential Circulation STEP 3 Level 2 Use Square Feet STEP 2 % of total Circulation Allocation Shared Unshared Total Residential 6813 Total Res Core for Floor 2 6813.00 0.67 Residential 180.63 1066 1246.63 Office 3333 Total Office Core for Floor 2 3333.00 0.33 Office 88.37 256 344.37 Circulation Total Core for Floor 2 10146.00 Total 269.00 1322 1591.00 stair(shared)170 walkway (shared)99 lobby/stair (all res)524 walkway(all res)542 Total Shared Circulation 269 Total Residential Circulation 1066 Total Office Circulation 256 STEP 3 Level 1 Use Square feet STEP 2 % of total Circulation Allocation Shared Unshared Total Residential 2614 Total Res Core for all floors 17759.00 0.73 Residential 976.69 113 1089.69 Office 3382 Total office core for all floors 6715.00 0.27 Office 369.31 256 625.31 Circulation Total Core Uses for ALL Floors 24474.00 Total 1346 369 1715 Shared Stair 240 Shared Trash 254 Allowed Office 7450 Shared Lobby 852 GRAND TOTALS (including circulation)USE PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED Deduction 457.67 Utility Room (all res)113 RESIDENTIAL 21848.33 22450.00 Total office 6992 Office Circulation 256 OFFICE 7684.67 7450.00 Proposed office 7227 Total Shared Circulation 1346 Total 29533.00 29900.00 Difference 235 Total Residential Circulation 113 Total Office Circulation 256 Level 2 The shared circulation is allocated based on the use percentage for the floor. Level 1-The shared circulation is allocated based on the use percentage for the entire building. 3.i Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S t a f f ' s F l o o r A r e a B r e a k d o w n ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) 3.j Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) 3.j Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) 3.j Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) 3.j Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) 3.j Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) Attachment K 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://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/current/default.asp 2. On the left hand side click “Development Proposals” 3. In the drop down window click “Pending Projects” 4. Scroll to find “585 Hamilton” and click the address link 5. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4231&TargetID=319 3.k Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t K : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 9 0 6 1 : 5 6 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : M i x e d U s e P r o j e c t ( P r e l i m ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Board Member Alexander Lew, Robert Gooyer, Osma Thompson Absent: Vice Chair Baltay Chair Furth: Good morning and welcome to the meeting of the Architectural Review Board. Find my agenda shortly. Could you call the roll, please? Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for anybody who wishes to speak to us on an item not on the agenda. Is there anybody? I don’t have a speaker card. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: So, agenda changes, additions and deletions? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. 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: Does anybody on the Board have any comments? I mean the only comment if you look at item one which has future agendas you will see that March would seem to be a fairly intense month in terms of agenda items. Ms. French: There are some changes to those items. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. French: We have one additional item for March 1st, that’s the Junior Museum and Zoo and that’s proposing to modify the roof materials. On March 15th the Tier Three, Cluster Two for Vinculums Verizon will not be coming to you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Let’s see, do I – is this… Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD February 15, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Furth: Is this a request to speak during oral communication? Oh, ok. Good enough, I never remember which Lot is which letter. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]: Consideration of an Architectural Review Application for a Five-Level, Nearly 50-Foot Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level Providing 338 Public Parking Spaces. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared for Publication in Late February 2018 for a 45-Day Public Comment Period. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Alright, then I think we’re onto item two, a public hearing, its quasi-judicial, the site is 375 Hamilton Avenue, it’s a consideration of an Architectural Review Application for a five-level, nearly 50- foot tall parking structure, with one below grade parking level providing 338 public parking spaces. It also has retail space, it would eliminate one existing public restroom and is designed to comply not with the current Public Facilities Ordinance zoning standards but with proposed new standards which were considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission recently. The draft environmental report is still in preparation. This agenda says late February but I believe that Staff will tell us that date has been moved back. Could we have the Staff report, please? Ms. French: Thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official overseeing the process on this project. Excuse my voice today, I’ve had Laryngitis since Sunday. The project is indeed a garage that would provide parking spaces for the public, as well as retail space; a small amount. I will note that on the future notice for this project we will includes the words retail space in the notice. Today the purpose is to learn about the project and the statues and the timeline to understand that, to receive the architect’s presentation, ask questions of Staff and the applicant and the architect and provide guidance for the next plan set that would come to you. We’re targeting April 19th as the next agenda date for this. Board Member Baltay did provide written comments that were distributed to the Architectural Review Board yesterday. Again, we want to continue the public hearing for several reasons. One is that we have not yet published the draft Environmental Impact Report and the target date is now – timeline is now the end of March. So, we want to have some comments – public comments in the public record at the Architectural Review Board hearing in April. This gives an overview that is contained in the Staff report. You saw this project last year, you – a different constitution of the ARB – in September. Those minutes were excerpt minutes were forward by email to the Board and there was a link in the Staff report as well. As noted, the Planning and Transportation Commission on January 19th – January 31st recommended the proposed zone changes that were requested with the Sherman Avenue garage and Public Safety Building project. Those are to modify -- to allow Council to approve case by case each project modified zoning standards for Public Safety or essential Public facilities and public parking garages within downtown and California Avenue in the PF zone. Those included height, lot coverage, setbacks and including the special setback. I’m going to kind of skip through because I’m getting a tired voice here. As you can see I’m handling both projects so I don’t want to walk you through this but this is what I’m faced with personally. It is to get both – there really are three projects; the public parking garage on Sherman, the Public Safety Building and this project through the process to the Council for them to approve the final EIRs and the two projects and the zone code change. We have some flexibility for the number of parking spaces actually in the garage through the Council said how many to put into the garage. We do have some flexibility because we are proposing to remove the mailbox that’s in the public right of way – City right of way that people drive by to put their mail across the street. That would introduce more parking spaces on the street. In addition, the Council – some Council Members noted their interest in having lift parking in this downtown garage and so that’s being explored and that’s the reason for the delay in the draft EIR. This drawing on this slide shows a concept that our transportation division Staff has put forward as to improve the pedestrian experience through the garage from Hamilton towards the proposed pedestrian alley. I’m getting tired. Our discussion today is, of course, to provide guidance on this project. Some questions have been raised, particularly about the pedestrian experience at the back to the building near City of Palo Alto Page 3 CVS and that interface and the questions about landscaping and seating. In the Staff report we recommended some additional tension there with taller landscaping along that façade. Another question was raised about when the parking system goes in with those gates preventing cars from going through without paying in the future. Where would the pedestrians go who are parked at the back of that garage when they want to go to CVS? So, that was a question that was raised and it’s a good one so exploring that now. The special setback, again this is dating back to the 1950s. We think it was about the cars came – giving more space to the cars and that we would widen the street at some point. Well, our thinking has changed and we prefer narrower streets to calm traffic so in any case it’s been recommended. The contextual setback in this area is of interest and certainly the AT&T building next door is a 7-foot setback but this proposed project does have a building separation essentially providing a 20-foot setback for the first 15-feet of the building next to the AT&T building. So, there’s – there is a 20-foot setback for some distance but the remained would be on the lot line. Now to compensate for that, the project has a wider sidewalk proposed and so the other consideration was – has – Chair Furth mentioned the removal of the public restroom. There are nearby retailers including CVS that have restrooms for their customers. I’m going to move forward. I do have a slide for the Downtown (inaudible) Design Guide -- Hamilton Avenue District, if you want to see it later, let me know. I’m going to switch over to the applicant now. Thank you. Ms. Holly Boyd: Good morning Board Members. My name is Holly Boyd, I’m a Senior Engineer in Public Works, and I’m the project manager for this garage. I just wanted to introduce some members of our design team who are here. We have Michelle Wendler from Watry Design and Genaro Morales from Watry Design and we also have Ken Hayes who is our lead architect on the project and he will be giving the presentation so I’ll ask him to come up now. Chair Furth: Good morning Mr. Hayes, the rules give you ten minutes. Mr. Ken Hayes: Alright, thank you. Good morning Chair Furth and Members of the Board. Welcome Board Member Thompson. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects and I’ll be making the presentation on behalf of the team. We’re actually working for Watry Design Group, the experts in parking garage design on this project and thank your introducing everybody Holly. So, Council’s direction for the redevelopment of Lot D, the existing parking lot, was five levels above ground, one level below ground, 338 parking stalls, bikes spaces, a retail space on Waverly – excuse me – as well as future photovoltaic panels on the roof. The project site, I think we’re all very familiar with it. It’s a 29,00-square foot project site and a little more context here shows the project in the center. It’s currently zoned PF, it’s surrounded mostly by CDC, GF with a P; pedestrian overlay zoning district. Although the AT&T building is a PF, the post office is a PF and the post office is also a historic Category I. We have a historic Category III at the Palo Alto Toy World on Waverly. As well as a Victorian house next to that and the Decker Oak building on the corner of University and Waverly as well, it’s also a historic building. You can see here the 7-foot setback across the front. We will be widening the sidewalk on Hamilton and reconfiguring the drop off for the mail. This sidewalk will be 12-feet, the sidewalk along Waverly at this location will be about 18-feet so we’re going to extend those out and create a little bit more generous area. Lane 21 enters here and exits onto Bryant Street. It is one way in that direction from Waverley to Bryant Street. Just some images of the surrounding buildings I showed you back in September. The AT&T building is about 25-feet taller than our building. The All Saints Episcopal Church, 400 Hamilton, is all clad in brick and then we have the historic post office image there with its arcade across the front. When we were here in September we showed you three options and there was some focus essentially on Options One and Three. Option One and Three had a strong arcade at the ground floor level both on Waverly and on Hamilton. They had one or the other perforated metal panels above or metal fins that add interest to the garage but also allowed for the ventilation that’s required. This is an unventilated garage at the upper levels. They all had a corner plaza as well as a larger welcoming stair than this option here. So, we focused our – what you see today on kind of a combination of Options One and of Options Three. Some of the changes that were expressly made based on feedback from you, this is a detail of the corner. Originally, we had a 28-foot deep retail space and I think everyone thought that was a little bit shallow. So, we’ve now made that 35-feet so we’ve increased the depth. We’ve also increased the area by about 450-square feet. There was some concern about how you see into the garage from the street frontages City of Palo Alto Page 4 and so before it was just a single path from Hamilton. You really couldn’t see through in this direction so the idea was to reconfigure this corner plaza. Make it a little bit more generous, push the elevator back so that we can actually create a clean pathway here and one coming in from Waverly Street so that no matter where you’re coming, you can see into the garage. That helps I think in terms of wayfinding and also safety. Walking down Waverly, this was one of the comments and this really applied to Option Three but is there a way to make sure that the post office is afforded as much view opportunity as possible. So, the option we have today basically has pulled everything back that went into the corner plaza so as you approach the corner on that ground floor, you do see the post office as soon as possible; the main entrance there. Then we wanted to create a walkway to CVS and we really like transportations suggestion at the expense of some parking so now we’re at 334 spaces instead of Council’s directions for 338 but it does create a great way to come into the garage. You’d be walking along were all the bike racks would be. I think we can expand that bike rack area to include areas for people with strollers or bike trailers so we’ve increased the potential for parking. It’s not on your plan but it’s on the slide that you see here. Then having right angle crossing that would send you right to the stairways that then comes from four levels above and feeds into this pedestrian connection that we have here, as well as the alley connection that is behind the building that faces onto Waverley Street. So, we get a little synergy here which I think would be really great and it reinforces people coming down, it’s a circulation point. It will probably be used more frequently than the one over here on the corner. Then future underground parking and adjacent lots, there was concern about – Elizabeth Wong and Brad Ehikian parcels. So, the thinking is that from the basement level, we could actually plan into the structural walls of that basement ways for block out panels to take place to allow connections here. At grade level, the proposal with the alley in the back actually is wider than what they have now on those parcels because what they have now is just a drive aisle of the parking lot. That drive isle now is going to become an alley and so we’re about 2-feet wider than the free space that they have right now for garbage collection and pumping of the grease interceptor and that sort of thing. Can we reduce the 10-foot pedestrian alley to provide greater setback along Hamilton? We can if we want to get rid of about seventy cars, alright. Our advice is to not do that, to really put some attention into the detail and the amenities of this pedestrian alley. So, the garage is down at the bottom of the screen, this is Elizabeth Wong’s building, and this is Brad Ehikian’s building. This is what we’re proposing as that connection – that linkage. We need it for ventilation for the garage. We need 10-feet, anything less doesn’t work and so if it’s less than that, we’re going to have to go to a mechanically ventilated garage and in my opinion that would be a waste of energy. This actually terminates with a view corridor towards the All Saints sort of open area of their front yard. Then in this direction here it becomes the alley, we have a combined trash enclosure here and we have provisions for them to be able to get to those trash encloses. To get behind their buildings and to do any kind of servicing that they need to do at the grease interceptors and that sort of thing and like I said, more room than they have today if there’s cars parked in the parking lot that is. This is the street façade. Here you can see the AT&T building is quite a bit taller than our building. Our building is at about 49-foot 10 to the top of the railing. This is a larger view of the front of the building. You see the arcade or the rhythm of columns and openings that are along Hamilton. Each of those openings is filled with a bench for seating, an integral planter into the building and a ray of vine wires to give some plant material to – excuse me – plant material to fill those openings; as well as some decorative metal and the idea of the decorative metal throughout the garage is to celebrate some of the decorative metal you see in the historic buildings in the vicinity. We have a combination of the metal fins above to provide some interest. They’re controlled by a metal frame that wraps around them and then erode the corner at the end to highlight the elevator core. The stair becomes an enclosed stair now with perforated metal around it, before it was an open stair and one of the suggestions was to make that an enclosed stair. However, the stair sort of descends out of that volume so that you see people moving up and down quite easily to the plaza here. The perforated metal denotes the entrance there, it also denotes the entrance here and it denotes the stair at the back when you walk down the alley. This is the façade for Waverley and again we’re trying to pick up on the two-story rhythm and heights of the buildings of that block. This is the historic building here – I’m sorry, one more building down is the historic building but we’re trying to relate to the cornice line essentially of that building there. Then the retail space below that you see there with the glass and then above that would be again a decorative metal screen that would conceal the cars but bring that color, that texture of the metal into the project. The view from Hamilton looking I guess west and you see the corner façade here. The materials are a sandblasted concrete for the arcade and City of Palo Alto Page 5 we’re really trying to bring in the color that you find in the Sienna or Terracotta Tile Roofs, the brick on the corner building so I think one of the strongest ways to relate to context is through color. You can see the perforated metal here and again, we’re thinking that all the metal is some kind of a bronze color so it's dark. It’s not anodized aluminum in any kind of an aluminum color. This is if we add the solar panels on top and what that could look like. Then a view from above and across. You can see the perforated metal again back here and that’s there that you see when you look through. We have the solar panels above and then some detail of the plaza itself and 30-seconds and I’m there. Chair Furth: Take what time you need, you’re the only agenda item. Mr. Hayes: We want to bring that decorative metal quality into the stair work and so you see it coming down to the plaza and that would wrap up and through this perforated metal screen. This would a detail of the benches and the back slopes so that you can be comfortable there. The integral planters here and this is where the vines would infill those areas. Then we have the metal – decorative metal screen behind that as well. Just some detail of the fins with the metal work around them and then what that could look like on the right-hand side when the PV (inaudible) is added. Then lastly this is the alley, you see beyond the destination, the stair, the metal screen again because it isn’t an entrance identity. Then if you walk down that stair and look back, you can see how we could start to animate that alley with plant material. We have been opportunities and then some kind of interesting lighting. So, I think it could be a really interesting space and if you want to see a space that’s similar scale, go to Chop’s new building on the corner of Hamilton and High. Look at the alley between the Palantir cafeteria building and his new building, it’s almost identical. I think we could really enhance that space and it could be a nice space. That’s my presentation, we all look forward to your comments. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a number of public comment cards and if or members of the public wishing to speak, if you haven’t submitted a card, would you please. Brad Ehikian to be followed by Elizabeth Wong. Mr. Brad Ehikian: Thank you. We have Jaime Rodriguez here who would like to combine Elizabeth’s and my card for the full time for the presentation that we have. Chair Furth: Untangle me a little bit more. What – who – what – I’m fine to have you speak in whatever order you would like. I have four cards here, Elizabeth Wong, Jamie Wong, Jamie Rodriquez and Brad Ehikian and Andrew Wong. What would you like? Mr. Ehikian: We would like to combine them for one presentation. Chair Furth: That’s fine with me. Sure, feel free, that… Mr. Ehikian: Thank you. Chair Furth: …gives you… Mr. Jamie Rodriquez: I’m going to go ahead and get started. My name is Jamie Rodriquez, I’m with Traffic Patterns and I’m a traffic engineering firm providing services to a couple of the property owners adjacent to this particular project. Our peer review of the places for the garage really focuses on the operations of the existing buildings, the businesses that operate within those buildings and the long-term impacts both during construction and after. So, here’s a quick site plan, again your architect already showed this to you. This is Waverley and Hamilton, the garage – the existing surface lot on Hamilton, Lot D showing down towards the bottom right. We’re here working with two of the property owns, Manhattan Associates who’s represented by Brad Ehikian behind me and they’re basically the building that is owned where Prolific Oven is. Elizabeth Wong with Waverley Post, also behind me, is the building right next to that where the Tai Pan Restaurant is. So, those are the two buildings that are most immediately impacted by the construction of the garage itself. For the people that are home that haven’t had a chance to read the letter that was provided to you just yesterday, I’m going to walk through the City of Palo Alto Page 6 presentation so that people later can view this at home on their own to get a high overview of what some of the design issues are that we’re requesting additional accommodations on (inaudible) part of this project. Most important and specifically is the issue of grease clean outs. For people at home and for you who don’t understand that grease clean outs include two elements. There’s basically an underground storage tank that stores grease and other debris that gets generated in kitchens and they also include what is called clean outs. Cleanouts are where vehicles or vacuums are accessing that debris to basically vacuum it out of the ground to take it away for recycling or for cleaning. This is an example of what it takes to clean out these grease traps. Basically, they (inaudible) what they call a vacuum truck and the City Staff uses these around the City to clean out storm drains. They are used all over Palo Alto and other restaurants to pull out that debris and they are cleaned on a weekly basis at the restaurant at Tai Pan. What we’re seeing right now is that the only feasible way for both these buildings to access grease pits that exists and others that are being planned right now in construction in Brad’s building. You guess have a new application for a restaurant that will be building a second grease trap so you have to have a much higher ground floor. There’s no way that these vacuum trucks can connect the additional hoses and vacuums to vacuum out all this debris from these two kitchens from the alleyway. You have to have access from where it takes place today, the equivalent of the lot on the ground floor. That would require a much higher ground floor, I think right now you’re at about 11 ½-feet. You probably need closer to a 16-foot ground floor ceiling height to accommodate any of these services vehicles that came in and clean the grease trucks and potentially trash removal vehicles. Regarding parking, 550 and 552 is Prolific Oven and currently has two parking spaces. One is kind of dedicated to the space formally and they operate a second parking space that they use regularly informally. Informal versus formal, that’s still parking that’s used by these buildings that will get lost both during construction and post-construction. 558 and 560 Waverley where Tai Pan is doesn’t have any formal spaces but they use one space regularly every day for different operations. So, we talking about immediately three spaces that are going to get lost and what we’re seeing in the plans that were provided by the City is that only one parking space is being provided back to the Prolific Oven building. There’s an inequity in the parking distribution back to the Tai Pan Restaurant building with no parking and so that’s definitely been a concern for the team. What we’re suggesting that the City consider is to dedicate additional spaces within the ground floor of the garage immediately behind the buildings. There are six spaces that are shown on what is the northeast corner of the building. We would request that two spaces get provided per building, as well as a dedicated commercial loading zone with that higher 16-foot ground floor. Service vehicles can get in there, remove trash bins from the garage if you add second double doors sets on the inside of the garage to pull the trash out; as well as the vacuum trucks to clean out the grease pits from the Tai Pan Restaurant and the Restaurant that’s going to built at 558 or 552. Preferably, if that’s not something that the City is open to doing then we would just request that you provide a 24-foot alleyway around both sides of the building that maintains a two-way access to get vehicles in and out. That’s those buildings preserved their existing parking but that would have some significant impacts to the project and so we think that a really good kind of halfway point is dedicate those spaces back to the building owners. Regarding future development of the buildings, the architects mentioned that there were going to be accommodations to be able to punch through at the basement level of the garages future underground parking for the buildings if they were ever to get redeveloped. That’s a great idea but what’s really missing in the plans we have now is how that’s going to happen. If this was a development project, this – you guys at the City would want to see details about how that future construction is going to happen but that lacks today. So, there’s just a big concern from our clients that it’s great that the note is there but there’s no accommodation or design details. It may be found later on that (inaudible) feasible because the design doesn’t actually accommodate for it. We really think that this need to really get taken care of at this design phase so there’s not an issue later in construction. In addition, in order for that to happen, any developer would have to have agreements that are handed to the City that say that we’re going to work with another entity to give access to somebody else to move through our site. That actually hasn’t happened for these projects so as great as it is that we’re getting kind of notes on the plans that show future access connection points. What’s most important is that you have the dedicated access agreements agreed upon between the City and the project property owners, as well as the temporary construction easements or TCEs that allow them later to kind of punch through that wall. In addition, the long-term parking lost impacts from those walls punching through to provide the underground access, needs to be documented and accounted for in the parking stall count for the project because you’re City of Palo Alto Page 7 going to start out with a certain project space now. Then you’re going to lose that later on when you provide that access so the public really needs to understand what that long-term effect is going to be. Regarding trash operations, it’s really good that the garage has a combined trash bin kind of to the north but that provides some significant impacts to the two buildings. It’s great for the building behind Prolific Oven because the trash bins (inaudible) their location but for the Tai Pan Restaurant, it introduces almost a 100-foot walk to actually take trash and other debris into the trash enclosure. That’s a little bit of a concern for the property owner and the businesses because that introduces an opportunity for there to be injuries taking debris that far. It introduces blockages to the pedestrian alleyway that the City is trying to create while that trash (inaudible) relocated. It introduces the opportunity for a spillage and other kind of impacts to whatever decorative pavers you’re trying to create by that trash being hauled away. So, the more you minimize the distance from the buildings to those trash bins, the better in the long term for the community. What we would recommend is that you consider creating two dedicated trash enclosures, one that’s dedicated to the Prolific Oven building and a second that’s dedicated to the Tai Pan building. Both located immediately adjacent or behind each building to reduce that walking distance. Those though would need to be preferably remove the bins from the inside of the garage so that you’re not worrying about then taking debris and spilling other trash and liquids in the alleyway and staining that long-term and creating a long-term impact. What we think would work best is if you dedicate those spaces -- create those dedicated bins and you might have a one parking space impact but in the long run you’re going to end up with a much cleaner operating pedestrian alleyway and a much clearer operating garage. Regarding the shade study for the project, our clients are still evaluating that. We’re not going to provide too much specifics on the engineering side but we did want to make some specific notes that did bounce out to us. One is that both clients where already in the process of looking at the installation of solar panels to help reduce the operation cost of those buildings. We think that with those buildings coming in with their solar panels, that’s going to block the ability of sun to hit the panels that gets installed on these buildings. So, that’s a long-term impact that we’re still trying to figure out but we wanted to make that note to you. If the buildings were just to get pushed back 24-feet on either side to allow two-way alleyways, that would protect the ability of both of these buildings for our clients to get good sun exposure for their solar panel systems. Regarding the alleyway, we’ve already expressed concerns to the City that as great of an idea as the alleyway is, you’re basically creating an alleyway behind up to three kitchens now and those kitchens do generate noise, they generate trash and order that we don’t think are going to be really amenable towards pedestrians wanting to dwell in that space. The other issue is the issue how dark it is and just from this example in the architect’s rendering, you can see the alleyways are already dark, kind of (inaudible) at almost all times of the day. What really bounced out to us is that the average foot candle lightening of the alleyway is only one-foot candle. That’s the same footcandle design the City uses for its public streets that all the residents complain that are too dark at night. So, you can tell from here if it’s dark in the evenings, it’s going to be worse in the – if it’s dark in the dust period, it’s going to be worse in the evening for residents. The architect’s presentation showed a really nice examples of lighting kind of stretching between two buildings but that’s actually not what is proposed on the plans. All that’s proposed is string lights kind of on the garage side of the building and so with that you’re not going to get the type of lighting that both buildings feel is going to require or improve the safety of their employees in the buildings, as well as the public traveling on the back side. The other things is that we would request the removal of anything that would encourage people to dwell and sleep and kind of congregate in that back area for vandalism issues. Regarding the issues of the grease traps, again we showed you how those grease traps need to be accessed. You got to think that vacuum truck and those big vacuum hoses need to push them from the garage on the first floor through openings on the ground floor through the back doors of the buildings and into the kitchens. The trees that are shown, the planters that are shown, those all conflict with those long-term operations. This building as shown will kill the operations of both businesses and any planned businesses at both of these buildings. The only way to do that is to remove the trees that are shown which is highlighted in green and remove the planter wall and provide more access space for service vehicles to be able to get in there and maintain those buildings. A couple other issues regarding construction, you’re basically going to be building a pit when you construct the garage and that’s just part of construction. The applicant or the developer just don’t understand how grease trap operations need to get maintained but there’s an impact in cost, they are requesting that the City project take on the burden of removing that grease trap during the construction phase. Also because of the fact that all the loading happens from the back of the City of Palo Alto Page 8 buildings today, they are also requesting that during the construction phase that all of the parking or the majority of the parking along the frontage of Waverley Street be converted to loading zones so that service vehicles can continue to maintain those buildings. If possible, create some type of a parkette or some type of enclosure that let’s all the trash bins be stored there. So, that services vehicles can come in and grab that trash before -- then take it out after the project is done and move towards the hopefully preferably two storage bins on the ground floor if the garage. We’re also looking to hopefully request weekly cleanings of the buildings. You’re going to be generating a lot of dust and debris and any private developer would be required to do that. They do it on their own outside of the City but in this case the City has to take on that responsibility. The other issue that we didn’t see addressed in the plans is the issue of drainage from both buildings. Both buildings have rooftop drains that either spill into underground storm drain systems or spill into the alleyway and with the dark and loss of light to dry up that water that generates from the rooftops in the day and in the winter. We’re seeing an issue of potential rodents and kind of moss generated in the pedestrian alleyway. So, again, if you push the building back 24-feet, then that allows the sun exposure to come in and dry all that out during the day. In regards to these issues all that we’re asking is that you let us sit down with the City Staff more, Seth has met with the developers – with the clients in the past but they haven’t responded to the issues. So, these issues aren’t new to the City, it’s just issues that haven’t been addressed. That’s the end of our presentation. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Alright -- Roxy? Mr. Rapp. Mr. Roxy Rapp: Thank you. Good morning. Two ideas, one is across the street you have the post office and one of the problems with the development of the post office is they want to stay while you develop it and bring it up to seismic, clean out all the asbestos, etc. etc. which is impossible to do a good job. Especially in a historical building and my suggestion is for this Board to encourage the City to work with the US Postal Service and have them move across the street to the retail. It fits beautifully because it’s a very narrow retail spot so you can have all of the post office boxes and we really don’t need as big of the post office as we have now because that use to be the main post office. It no longer is so I think that would be terrific to move the post office across the street and that would find them a new home for where you can redo the existing post office. That’s number one and number two is as most of you know, I developed with Jim Bear 250 University, where we have the alleyway which didn’t come out as nice as I pictured it but someday maybe it will get changed. We do have a trash room in the alleyway and it’s a tough situation to do. Looking at the plans that Ken just shared with me, my first suggestion would be to move the doors -- that you move out the trash and move those doors to open up early in the morning to the alley itself for the – they can pull the containers into the alley. Right there the dumpster can pick it up and dump it and then you can move it back in. What I’m worried about is you move them out those existing doors and then you hit into Brad’s new building there. Then also you have that electrical box underground and I don’t care how careful you are, those dumpsters leak. So, then you would have all the smells of the different garbage etc. going down into the electrical boxes under the ground that has a grade on top of it so that would stop two things there. In regards to dumping the trash for the retailer, I would go ahead and keep a side door so the retailer doesn’t have to go down into the alley to dump their existing trash. So, you would actually have a set of doors or one door, a wide door, that they would open up to dump their trash from the retail operation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Would the applicant that is the City like to respond? It’s your turn. Ms. Boyd: I would just like to say that we received the letter from Brad Ehikian and Elizabeth Wong for the neighboring property owners yesterday and I believe it was sent to you as well. There are some existing issues that we have met with these neighbors in the past, a couple times and we’re working out some of the issues. There are some new issues that were brought up in this letter that we have not heard before. I do want to say that I think you also received a letter that was sent from our Attorney’s Office… Chair Furth: From Albert Yang? City of Palo Alto Page 9 Ms. Boyd: …from Albert Yang on Monday. So, our attorney, the City’s Attorney’s Office, and the neighbor’s attorneys are in communications and ask that City Staff continue meeting with these neighbors to work out these issues but we would still like to hear comments about the building. We’re not asking for recommendations of approval today but we’d like to hear comments from the Board regarding this project. Chair Furth: Thank you so just to go over it, we have the correspondence in the packet, we have the Valentine’s Day letter from Ms. Wong and Mr. Ehikian and we have a pretty long memo from our colleague Peter Baltay about his comments on the first round and his subsequent response. I think those are all available to the public. Ok, it’s over to us, any questions of Staff before we go on? Board Member Lew: I just – I have one question so there’s an existing bus stop on Hamilton near the mailboxes and is that proposed to stay in the various scenarios where the bulb out gets wider or we retain street parking and what not? Ms. Boyd: Yes, the bus station or the bus stop will stay in the same location. Board Member Lew: Ok but if there’s – if you widen the sidewalks in that – on Hamilton, is the – does that mean the bus stop is going to block traffic? Ms. Boyd: It will temporarily block traffic. That was the recommendation by our – the transportation division to leave it there. Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions before we start? Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I just have one question. The comment was brought up about an informal parking space. What exactly is that? Is that sort of a hey, we’re here first thing in the morning so it’s ours? I mean I can understand – from what I understand or what I heard was there was one, I guess, parking space that was sort of dedicated to the adjacent property owner and the second one was an informal dedication. Chair Furth: It’s parallel. I think (inaudible) (crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Ms. French: A formal… Chair Furth: Substandard standard space. Ms. French: I would try to answer that to say a formal parking space would be one that meets the City’s codes and as far as… Board Member Gooyer: I mean the idea being that it’s – I don’t want to say owned by them but they can – they park it there and nobody else can park there? The formal one. Ms. French: I’m not clear on it but I imagine it’s on their property, not on the City’s property where they are parking… Board Member Gooyer: Ok, obviously if it’s on their property (inaudible)(crosstalk) Ms. French: … in a way that doesn’t comply with a standard parking space size or access. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Furth: Perhaps we could ask Mr. Rodriguez to elaborate because I was looking at it this morning and I was thinking of it. Just identify which property and which spaces you are talking about maybe looking at the site plan. Board Member Gooyer: Also, if you could, could you show where your grease inceptor is located? Mr. Rodriquez: I’ll try and do my best here so I’ll walk you through what we mean by formal and informal spaces. Let me get this going real quick. Even with glasses, I can barely see that. The way the site works today, this is your typical scenario every morning is we see all the service vehicles that are coming in and parking in the spaces of the lot. Those vehicles also park adjacent to the building so it’s very common at both buildings for delivery trucks to park right up to the sides of the buildings here. So, they do temporary blockage of the alleyways or the isles but that’s how the informal parking spaces work and they are used mostly as commercial loading zones for pulling food out of them or dropping materials within the buildings. Here another view, here you see the formal parking spaces at 90-degree head in space kind of adjacent to this wall for the Prolific Oven building and here’s that informal, second, kind of parallel parking space that’s used regularly by the building. So, all in all, there’s about a three-parking space loss because there’s (inaudible) in those two buildings. There are more service vehicles here out in the back-dropping things off during the day. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Gooyer: Then also if you could answer where exactly is your grease interceptor located? Ms. Elizabeth Wong: Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Wong and my family and I own 560 Waverley Street. The grease traps are inside the kitchen, they are two below the floor grease traps and they are in the middle and frontage of the restaurant. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, all I needed to know was just whether they were inside or outside. Ok, thank you. Ms. Wong: You’re welcome. Board Member Gooyer: That’s it right now. Chair Furth: Thank you all for your informative presentations. We appreciate them. Complicated project. Complicated site. Do you want to just start with an additional round of comments or do you want to sort out the issues first? Start with comments first – general comments first? Board Member Lew: Can we do two rounds (inaudible)? (inaudible) Chair Furth: Let’s do two rounds. Yeah, let’s talk about site issues first. Robert. Site plan issues. Board Member Gooyer: I like the idea, but I guess this has been floated than lately other than what we’ve seen, is more of an access or an alley, whatever you want to call it, between the AT&T building and the project. I think having been down there quite a bit, you’ll see there’s a lot of traffic that moves back and forth from Gilman across to Lane 21 so I think that’s a good idea. I can see the point that I think one of the Board Member’s mentioned we should set the building back a little bit further but you get to a point where based – I mean parking spaces have a certain set requirement so you can’t just say well, we’ll shrink the building by 8-feet because that, as was mentioned, could emulate a whole row of parking. I’m ok with it the way it is. In the other direction, like I said if we do a – one away from AT&T that would only lose a couple of parking spaces so I’m ok with that. I think other than that, the fact that we’re providing a trash enclosure for them or to assist the adjacent property owners, I think is a great idea. I mean that’s a very generous way to do it. I mean I’ve been in situations where just because a property has had a convenience situation in respect to either a vacant lot next door or whatever the case is for 20-30-years. Doesn’t mean that’s a god given right. It just means that you happen to have been City of Palo Alto Page 11 lucky for 20 or 30-years so with this building being placed right next to those existing buildings is going to cause some hardships. I’m well aware of that but I don’t really see changing the whole design based on that. In fact, the – to give them what they requested basically makes the building almost -- I don’t want to say useless but I mean it really doesn’t allow it to do the function it needs to do. So, as far as the layout like this, I’m fairly happy with it. There were some questions I noticed on Board Member Baltay’s comment about going two floors down and cutting the height of it a little bit. (Inaudible) that’s not really layout but I think that would be a great idea but obviously, any layer that you go down, increased the cost tremendously so I can understand why – that’s it for me at the moment. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Great so I do want to thank Staff and the architects. I think the set and the Staff report where very – where all very clear and every – it was very thorough and it was very easy to understand what you were trying to do. The – with regard to just with the site issues, the – my main struggle is with the – with encroaching into the 7-foot special setback. I looked at it again this morning to try to see if I – just to help try to make my mind about it. At the moment I’m thinking it’s a mistake and we’ve done it before on their projects like 278 University, Chop’s building, your building here and I supported all of those at that time. I think those were – that was the right decision or decisions. I feel very differently about this one because it’s a different block. It’s a superblock, it’s that block of – goes from Waverly to Bryant, it’s twice as long, the façade length is fairly long and all the other buildings are complying with the 7-foot special setback. So, this is going to be the only one for three or four blocks that are going to – I think it’s going to stick out. I think it’s going to look like a mistake and that’s my take on it. Earlier this morning I was trying to – I was wondering if the lower floors could stick in if the upper two floors where setback. I was trying to figure out a way to minimizing the parking reduction. Mr. Hayes: It’s all about – right, it’s all about the parking (inaudible). Board Member Lew: I’ve been going – I’ve trying to rack my brain about this. Mr. Hayes: Well, that’s what we did at 240, if I may? So, at 240 the building at the upper levels actually encroach into the 7-foot special or the 6-foot special setback there but on the ground floor, we pushed it back so that you do have – it does acknowledge the 7-foot or 6-foot setback at 240. You’d lose this parking along Hamilton. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I know. I guess at the end of the day I’m trying -- I’m wondering is the site to small for what we’re trying to put -- what the City is asking you to put on there and maybe it is. Mr. Hayes: I had – may I just, through the Chair… Board Member Lew: Please. Mr. Hayes: … just ask a question? I did not understand Board Member Gooyer’s comment about the walkway along AT&T. We’re you proposing a 10-foot walkway along the AT&T building? Board Member Gooyer: That’s what I was thinking is… Mr. Hayes: Because that has the same effect on the parking then, right? Board Member Gooyer: Well yeah but it shrinks it this way so you only lose a couple space as compared to a whole row. Mr. Hayes: No, I think we’d lose the whole row. I mean unless you went closer to the Tai Pan building and got rid… Board Member Gooyer: Well, what’s…. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mr. Hayes: We’d lose that whole row Board Member. You could just lose it on the ground floor if we kept the upper floor but that would be a very dark and I don’t think that would be a very good space though. Chair Furth: What were you thinking (inaudible)? Mr. Hayes: (crosstalk) So, part of the concern… Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Mr. Hayes: …. was that when we – looking at Board Member Baltay’s comment on the 10-foot alley we have along Tai Pan, he was saying that would be a very unwelcoming and perhaps dangerous space. It’s got a two-story building on one side and a five-story building on the other. This would have a 75-foot story building on one side and a five-story – I’m sorry, 75-foot and a 50-foot building on the other side. So, I don’t know how that could be a good amenity if the alternative walkway is not a good amenity. Chair Furth: Ok. Mr. Hayes: Right so… Chair Furth: We’ll continue our… Mr. Hayes: Just trying too… Chair Furth: No, (crosstalk) I think it’s useful to do this in a slight study session format because this is a complicated project. We’ve got a little time, we should be thinking about this. It’s a big deal and appreciates that and we’ll keep going with the comments. I’m sure we’ll have you up here answering questions again. Osma, please. Board Member Thompson: Regarding site, I find that many parking garages suffer from not advertising bicycle parking adequately. So, the concept of bringing more attention to where the bike station is, pedestrian attention, the diagram that we saw today in the presentation that brings circulation through there I think is a good choice. Mainly because I think it will bring more attention to bike parking because otherwise in parking garages it tends to get very lost. I also – I hope that’s also like as the project progresses that that’s considered in terms of wayfinding and all that. The loading issue behind Lot 84 and 85 is certainly something needs to be addressed. Mainly in that, it would be – these areas are sort of meant to have these retail spaces thrive and if we’re siphoning off something that’s essential for their operation then I think that’s a mistake. I’m not sure, it seems that the pedestrian access to Lane 21 is being reconsidered and potentially as that is being reconsidered these concerns also ought to be integrated. Perhaps reconfigured a little bit so that these spaces can stay operational and we can still have a pedestrian pathway that works. I mean as it is looking at the plans, having the trash enclosure on one side and the back of house of these restaurants on the other side, that in itself isn’t an ideal alley in terms of program. Potentially there’s a way to shift things so that the back of house is on one side and the pedestrian amenity access is on the other side. I’m not sure what the solution is but I do think it needs a further look and potential reconfiguration on that side. Not just for what they need but loading and stuff. This is a commercial area and loading is an important part of that and I don’t really see any solutions there. Those are my comments for site. Chair Furth: Thank you. Well, I share Osma’s view that I don’t know what the solution is but I do see a problem. The problem tends to be about what is gained and what is lost because there are all these unofficial, practical uses of these spaces. I know that this isn’t a dedicated alley and that historically these buildings probably didn’t have any kind of official access down there. Could you explain to me Staff, what’s the situation with Lot 84 with what we call the Prolific Oven? Are there dedicated spaces behind that building that are entitled to some kind of access or not? I’m confused. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Ms. Boyd: There is one dedicated space for their entitlement which is why we included the Lot 84 space (inaudible). Chair Furth: That dedicated space essentially had an easement and necessity over the City parking lot? I mean how where you suppose to access it? We have no idea, you just could. Ms. Boyd: I’m not sure. Chair Furth: Ok, it’s like a lot of sewer easements actually. So, let me tell you what I don’t consider to be a problem and what I do consider to be a problem. I mean anything that makes it more difficult for a business to thrive is, of course, a real problem but things that are historic hangovers that would not be allowed and haven’t been allowed for 20 or 30-years I’m less inclined to try to solve. These buildings should all have, as Mr. Rapp’s building does, interior trash places. I mean we don’t – these alleys are not intended to be used to store trash bins, though most of them are and it’s a long-term project to get that changed and get that storage off the alley and into other places. I think that using some of this space to solve that alley problem is a great idea. I realize that it takes more time and energy to go to a slightly removed – to go to somewhat removed central place. If those buildings come down and get rebuilt, perhaps they’re going to have to do interior storage so we need to think about how that would access the alley for collection. I think we need some more thought about the whole – it might be useful to think some more about the whole trash problem in both parts of that alley because it’s a mess with the exception of one property. See if we can come up with a more comprehensive solution which would be a benefit to the City but it would also be a considerable benefit to the private property owners. I’d like to see some more thinking about that. I mean maybe more dedicated trash space so that we could really clean up that area. We’re not going to get them all in there but make that a much more attractive block because we do have this problem of the superblock that has had this informal access because of the parking lot but isn’t going to anymore. I’m not in favor of 24-foot alleys around this project or on either side. I’m not in favor of curb cuts on Waverly so I think we need to be looking for other kinds of solutions as you have been. I think pedestrian access is a big deal. I’m really pleased with your bicycle provisions. As you know I’m really pleased to see benches with handrails so I can stand up when I’m even more frail and elderly or just on the weeks that I’m carrying a heavy child or something around. I don’t know what the solution is for good pedestrian access. I’m sure lighting has a lot to do with it. I’m sure design has a lot to do with it. I’m not convinced with that long alley. I ran into Alex this morning as we were both checking out the sight one more time and that is a long way along the Tai Pan frontage. That is a deep building and I would rather this building were closer. I don’t like violating the 7-foot setback because I think it’s a real built setback. It’s not just some historic artifact. You know Stanford got itself a really good campus architect after it put the Business School in the wrong place and realized they’d messed up the line of sight down towards the Quad. Well, this is not at that level but this is a problem. I know when we talked about this before you said with a 5-foot alley would need a different kind of ventilation design but you weren’t positive. You would – I did not understand that to mean you needed mechanical ventilation but I don’t think that’s going to be a very good space and I don’t think – I think that intrusion is a problem for the findings we have to make. On low lighting level, I’m sure you can handle that. Drainage, I’m sure you can handle that. The fat, oil and grease FOG service, I don’t know what the solution is but I think there are a lot of restaurants that don’t have big backstage access for big backstage trucks so I’d like to know more about what’s possible. I do know that it’s a big issue for the City and we own our sewers and we want it to work as much as the property owners do. I don’t think solar access is something I expect this project to not interfere with. We don’t have a law in this town that protects ancient lights and there’s a proposal to put substantial solar on the top of this building. So, I would consider that a legitimate trade-off. I don’t know if my colleagues would agree. Dust management, construction adverse impacts management, I think that’s always our obligation and it’s going to be difficult. These things always are. Those are my comments at the moment. Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask you then, what you’re saying is push the whole building towards Lot 85? Ok, that’s what I thought. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Furth: I do like the better retail. I do like the better earlier chance to look at the post office. I did go on about that entryway a lot last time, I apologize. Shall we talk about design? Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Well, I wasn’t here for the last or the first presentation of this and when I started reading over this and the thing is basically or the – what I’m reading is it says that you wanted to relate to the Church across the street. To me, I don’t know, I’m not a big fan of sort of 70’s, brutalist architecture which I think that comes into. Now whether that’s right or wrong or whatever, I don’t know if that’s the appropriate thing to emulate. I – although there is a -- the Wells Fargo building across the street which is brick, the AT&T building has brick in it. I don’t know, to me that would be something a little bit better to emulate than the – not that I’m a big fan of the AT&T building, especially that elevation but I’m talking about just the materials involved. Also, the fact that the Wells Fargo buildings steps back at the corner. I know we talk about you should highlight a corner but in this particular case, I’d rather do the opposite and have it step back at that corner to open up that intersection. It allows better view of – actually of the Church, also of the post office and I just think it works better that way. Because of that, I’m not a big fan of the stair tower right at the corner. I don’t think that’s doing anything and the reality of it is when I first looked at – which is it? Basically, elevation or your sheet or your page – I guess Hamilton Elevation One. Man, I swear that thing looks like a prison. I mean it – because it is all just to uniform. I mean all the metal framing is going vertical like – I mean is the – there’s – I mean I’ve seen metal mesh used and I – and you have too I’m sure. It looks a little bit more creative. There’s some design in it. The mesh is basically intended to create a form and yet still keep an open space and that sort of thing but it doesn’t have to be done in this. I mean the only thing I can say in this is you copied the brutalism of the building across the street which I don’t think is a good thing on this particular case. It creates a massive volume that I don’t think needs to be there. It – so, I like the way you opened up the corner so you did it on a horizontal plane but you didn’t do it on a vertical plane. I’d prefer to see that corner opened up like you did and then also step back. Actually, the -- on this, like I said I wasn’t (inaudible) there last time but Option Three or even One where that stairway is open, I think works better than enclosing it. I don’t think you’re doing – I mean it’s not like you’re doing weather protection. To me it’s not really doing anything. Right now, stairways that are glass enclosed are very popular but that’s make it work in this particular case. Let’s see, what else? Like I said I agree that I think the building ought to be pushed back and it should line up at least with the AT&T building which will – which would make everybody happier here as far as obtaining the full 7-feet. I agree, like I said earlier, I don’t – you know the alleyway would be nice or the pedestrian access but it’s not critical as long as we come up with something that does it from the Hamilton to Alley 21, whatever it’s called – Lane 21. I think there needs to be some access there that needs to be developed and I understand just taking – it doesn’t even need to be adjacent to the building. (Inaudible) through the building or something that is highly accented. I mean it – for example, Mountain View has on Castro Street has these sorts of walkways in between the buildings that have been very nicely done. I’m not saying you need to emulate that but they’ve given it some – where it actually shows some thought was given to get from Point A to Point B. Not we’re sneaking through the parking garage to get to the alley. I think that’s it for right now. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex. Board Member Lew: On the design, I think you’ve done a very good job. I like – yeah, like a second-floor cornice element to align with the smaller scale buildings. I like the -- I think the fins work well. I like the revisions you’ve made around the corner stair access. I like the – I think the retail – the deeper retail space makes a lot of sense and I like the – I guess (inaudible) like the setback and awnings that you’ve done near the AT&T building. You tried to break the mass and changed the materials and I think that’s all working. I think the integral planters and benches I think are working really well. So, I can support – I think I can support all of those elements design wise. The – I have a question and I don’t think I need an answer today but is the garage going to be painted? So, on some of the other garage that has come to the Board from Stanford, they said that they weren’t going to paint them. Mostly based on a sustainable design criterion, it’s just less paint, less – you know less off-gassing but then when I went to see them, low and behold they were all painted. I don’t know exactly what happens with those but I do know on other projects at Stanford they’ve had problems with the concrete. So, they are pathing the concrete because of the popcorn texture and I don’t know if that’s the – exactly what happened but I guess I City of Palo Alto Page 15 would like some sort of thought about that because I think it does make a difference. Yep, great. On the landscape design, I think I am concerned about the Ginkgo’s and the pedestrian walkway. I mean I think there’s typically require full sun and I don’t think you’re going to get it in the shade of a – on the north side of a tall building. Same thing with the vines on the north side. I mean most vines require full sun or at least part sun. I think there’s like creeping fig that doesn’t require – doesn’t need – doesn’t like full sun but then it doesn’t need a green screen, either right? It just needs – it would prefer to grow on a wall so I’m not sure that all of that – the landscaping is working in the pedestrian walkway area. If the walkway area is only 10-feet wide, I think my – my hunch is that the best thing to do is try to keep everything as open as possible and not try to hide the building. Yeah so… Mr. Hayes: So, the building -- you’ll be able to see into the building as you walk along the alley so it’s – there’s an elevation I think in your packet. Board Member Lew: I guess I’m concerned about the green – mostly the tall greenscreen panels. Is – if that’s really going to work. Mr. Hayes: Oh, I see. Board Member Lew: Even if the plants don’t do well there, I mean I think the green screen is a nice enough material. I think you had also proposed maybe stainless-steel wires… Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Lew: …as an alternative as well. Mr. Hayes: You mean you’re saying that as a texture alone without the plant material? Board Member Lew: Yeah so even – well, so – maybe the best thing to do is plant it but even if it fails, I think it’s still ok. I’ve – so I’ve had that – I’ve had that problem… Mr. Hayes: The garage is painted except where the concrete is on the two street frontages. That’s a sandblasted concrete and that will just have a clear sealer, like a Siloxane sealer or something on it. Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you for that. I think that’s all that I have on the building design. I think you’ve done a really good job. Mr. Hayes: Great, thank you. Board Member Lew: I don’t necessarily agree with the programming and setbacks and all of that. I would also just disclose that I did watch the Council meeting on January 22nd about the California Avenue garage but they referenced this one as well. So, I’m kind of curious to see where this – where the Council ends up on this particular project. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Board Member Lew: Ok. Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: I would say that my views on this probably more closely align with Board Member Gooyer’s views. It is – the idea that it looks like a prison is not inaccurate. It does seem quite overbearing. Unlike my fellow Board Member, I am actually very much a big fan of brutalist architecture but it needs to be done well. Brutalist architecture does well when there is a lot of green like a lot of planting. Also, when there are more interesting forms than just the orthogonal and materialities is also a big part of it. I’m unconvinced, in at least in the renders, how the sandblasted concrete and the metal City of Palo Alto Page 16 fins pertain to the historic – I saw a note that the metal fins pertain to the historic context and it’s very unconvincing right now how that is the case. I do appreciate the concept to include a lot of greenery in it. I think greenery definitely softens the brutalist architecture but like Board Member Lew says, it does have to succeed. I disagree or at least I’m unsure if it does fail, what that screen is? Is it just kind of a cage? I feel like there is a green screen product but I’m not sure if that’s what you’re specking here and I’m also unconvinced if that is what you’re spec’ing if that will actually look good. I think some more thought to the overall appearance does need to be considered. I am also not a fan of the stair tower as it stands. It seems under designed in that the relationship between the edges and the floor and the stair are sort of out of sync. I think those datums and planes that you’re creating don’t mesh well and create a really awkward space as you’re exiting from the stair. I am concerned about the façade behind the existing lots. Currently, in render, they look blank, so I’m looking at the aerial view at Waverley on ARB sheet 3.6. On the elevation – like the façade is very much present on Hamilton but given that this building is so tall, its likely that we’ll see some it from behind and so it seems like that back of the back-alley area is ignored. The building as it stands as its designed will – if we’re trying to make that alley nice, it’s definitely being ignored right now. I do like the PV panels. I think they actually add something architecturally that the building doesn’t have right now. So, what that says, I don’t know, that maybe that sort of break down of mass or texture is something to consider. Those are my comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. I still like the idea that you have a two-story element along most of it. I agree with Osma that it looks better with a lid on. It looks better with the PV panels in place, at least in this drawing. I don’t know what the street experience would be but it becomes a better-looking building I think. It also keeps the stair enclosure from sort of appearing detached in an unpleasant way. I’m really perplexed by the staircase. I know that in September I was complaining that we have other unsuccessful open staircases on parking garages which are wet when it rains and too hot when it’s sunny and look like they are crooked as you walk down the sidewalk. I don’t know what the answer is but smaller, lighter, less obtrusive I would be supportive of. I think that open is better. I don’t know how you design the staircase to get that. I suspect you don’t do a spiral the way we did over on what, Alma and… Board Member Lew: The Joe Bellomo project. Chair Furth: Yeah, Joe Bellomo’s but at least it was compact and the poetry is good. I think this has become too big and that there’s a better solution that a skilled architect can figure out. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know how these vertical fins are going to look. I don’t know if it’s going to look like a City of Quartz jail or if it’s going to look differently. It is very vertical and just – you took a comb and you went like this and as we were talking I was thinking well what if it didn’t just go like this? Maybe it becomes impossibly complex to design and execute and maintain but as it stands it looks oppressively linear, not at all playful. Garages are a problem, we all know this, we’re a little embarrassed by them but they can be beautiful because they are big spaces. How high is the ceiling on the ground floor? Ms. Michelle Wendler: The ceiling height underneath the beams is 8 ½-feet and then the beam pocket is about 2 ½-feet so in between beams it's taller. So, the story (inaudible)… Chair Furth: If I’m walking through it, what do I experience? Ms. Wendler: You’ll experience every 18-feet there’s a beam so in between it’s about 11-feet and then it’s 8 ½-feet where the beams occur. Chair Furth: Ok. Board Member Lew: Can I ask a question? Chair Furth: Sure. Board Member Lew: Can I ask a follow-up question about that? About the ceiling heights? There are – I’m thinking like Santa Row, the first-floor height of the garage, I think my recollection is that it’s taller. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. Wendler: The one that’s up against Winchester? Board Member Lew: Yes, or something like – I’m just thinking that that – I’m thinking that there are other garages where they’ve done a taller first floor to make it more open. Am I… Ms. Wendler: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: No, no, no. Ms. Wendler: There’s different – 11 ½ is the most normal… Board Member Lew: Normal. Ms. Wendler: …height we do. It’s really about the ramp to get… Board Member Lew: Right, the longer… Ms. Wendler: When you raise it up you need a longer ramp to get to… Board Member Lew: Do you have a – if you had a 16-foot ceiling, is it like a 1 to 20 ramp? Ms. Wendler: The ramp we have now is about – is 18% on the main slope with blends top and bottom to get up the 11 ½-feet that we have now. So, it’s (inaudible)(crosstalk). Board Member Lew: Right so you’d have to increase – right but to go up to a 16-foot ceiling, you’re going to have to increase the ramp somewhere like 40%... Ms. Wendler: We need more length. Board Member Lew: … a lot and probably like – probably doesn’t work I would think. Ms. Wendler: We would lose parking space to somehow do that to make a circulation. I’m not sure exactly how we would do it right now. Or the – yeah because it’s going to cut into the retail space. There’s so little floor plate left. Board Member Thompson: So, what’s the – is that bottomless structure, does that continue to the retail so that the retail height would be – if there was a drop ceiling, it would be about 8-feet? Ms. Wendler: In the retail space we’ve been able to remove those beams so it goes all the way to the bottom of the slab which is about 11-feet. Board Member Thompson: Ok, thanks. Chair Furth: I guess I was thinking that I hope it’s as high as we can make it because it has a big impact on the experience of walking through that space. I’m trying to think of garages I enjoy walking through and there are some. By the way, do you have a materials board that we could see? Mr. Hayes: I thought – (inaudible) indicated you had it. Board Member Gooyer: I’ve just got a couple more questions. Can I jump in or are you… Chair Furth: Absolutely. Board Member Gooyer: A couple of things and I – it’s funny because I thought the same thing with the panels and I think the reality of it is it’s the old adage about a building should have a base, a middle and City of Palo Alto Page 18 top. This building seems to have a base and a middle and there’s no top. It just sort of dies at the top and the panels I think create that. The other thing that I was thinking is I still think there needs to be some sort of a link, like I said, across there but I understand what you’re talking about with the parking. So, my thought was the alley that is or the walkway, alley, whatever you want to call it, in between the existing neighbors like 48 or 84 and 85 and the AT&T building. That alleyway basically -- what if that just continues straight down towards Hamilton? You know so basically, you’re losing four parking spaces. Mr. Hayes: Right, we were talk – but… Ms. Boyd: It also (inaudible)(crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: I mean whatever but I mean that’s still a whole lot less than – and you could do that on one floor, just that one. Mr. Hayes: It’s just the conflict with the ramp. Ms. Boyd: Yeah, the ramp starts to go up… Board Member Gooyer: Yeah but the… Mr. Hayes: Everybody coming up and down the ramp. Ms. Boyd: Yeah, there would be a conflict in elevation between the pedestrian, alley, and the ramp going up to the floors. Board Member Gooyer: No – well, ok, I mean maybe it needs to jog – whatever, all I’m saying is if you do it in the middle of the building like that, you can get that and still not lose a whole row of parking. Mr. Hayes: Correct. If we didn’t have the ramp, it would be a lot easier. So, I do have… Chair Furth: I don’t know, those mechanical lifts are sounding better and better. Mr. Hayes: There is a way through the building, right? Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask one other question seeing though this is somewhat of a – we have 130,000-square foot building here and we’ve got 2,000-square feet of retail space. How – I mean I don’t know, retail space in parking structures to me have always been sort of used to hide as you’re walking past. I mean seeing as though do we really need the extra 2,000-square feet or would we be better having another ten parking spaces? Ms. French: That’s per the Council. Ms. Boyd: Yeah so Council directed us to include the retail on the Waverley frontage. Board Member Gooyer: What, supposedly like gosh, we’re hiding the parking structure behind this 2,000- square foot of retail space? Come on. You know you've got a four-story building with… Mr. Hayes: I actually think it’s about just the retail continuity for the experience along Waverley, the sidewalk. Chair Furth: We actually have quite successful retail in a parking garage over on Lytton. Board Member Gooyer: I don’t know for that 2,000 to 130,000 ratio it seems kind of -- ok. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: Well, let’s see if we get some coherent direction or at least clues. Yes, go ahead Commissioner… Board Member Thompson: Sorry, I just had some follow up comments after look at the material board… Chair Furth: Oh, yes, please, from everybody. Board Member Thompson: …and I have one question. For the perforated metal panel, in the material board there’s a pressed in image from the De Young Museum and then there’s that metal sample. So, they are quite different so which one – is it going to be the metal – the silver with the different circles? Mr. Hayes: No, actually the drawings indicate that it’s a bronze colored perforated metal. However, there’s been a discussion with the Art Commission and the artist that’s Amy Landsburg, she would like to be able to use this mesh as her backdrop for the public art. Chair Furth: Which mesh? Mr. Hayes: So, we wanted to come before you today without the public art, we don’t know what it is yet exactly, but if this notion of the perforated metal on that stair tower is not something that you think is supportable because it’s too overbearing, then we’re going to need to rethink that. I was not proposing the clean anodized finish. We are proposing a finish that is more consistent I think with the historical context in terms of color. I also think the metal fins in terms of color is where I was relating to the historical context. Not in terms of the material or the shape of the metal fin, it’s the color. Board Member Thompson: So, in light of that, the – I mean I did also note here that the N1 channel color as you have it on there appears to me far too dark but perhaps there’s a way that it can be reintegrated. That might be more convincing. I find that what the De Young president where they had an image that they water jet cut over a bunch of metal panels. That’s very successful and that’s not communicated in your drawings. In your drawings, it looks like a big wall but when it has that level of complexity it becomes really exciting. I would almost say like that level of – depending on how you work with your artist, instead of using the metal fins, that would be really exciting to have across the whole garage depending on how you do it. Mr. Hayes: That was one of the options that we had in September… Board Member Thompson: Ok. Mr. Hayes: … but thank you. Chair Furth: Our thinking is evolving. Board Member Thompson: I think it’s a matter of representation because I didn’t read that off of this but once I looked at your material board, that’s instantly already way more exciting in terms of a prospect for down here. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Furth: Let’s see if we can get some clarity. So, on the site plan, we have three people who would support an increased setback on Hamilton. Everybody but Osma, is that right? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah. Board Member Thompson: I can support that as well. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Furth: Ok which is a very difficult design issue but we think it’s important. In terms of any direction, we want to give on pedestrian access through the building? Just figure it out. We think it’s important. Board Member Gooyer: I still think there needs to be some link from Hamilton to across, yeah. Chair Furth: From – essentially from Hamilton back to CVS. That it is a good route, one that looks good, safe, inviting, people want to do it. We would like as high as a ceiling on the ground floor as possible – as feasible to make it a better pedestrian experience. Board Member Gooyer: The other possibility is instead of the actual slab being different is the framing being different so you don’t end up with a 3 ½-inch deep beam but you have either more beams or a space closer together. That way the – the biggest thing is when you’re looking down you perceive the 8 ½-foot level, not the ceiling. So, if we could change that 8 ½ to 10-feet and have the framing much more tighter increment it would make it visually look a whole lot taller. Even if it’s just for a certain portion or a certain bay… Chair Furth: Even just to highlight the pedestrian way. Board Member Gooyer: …which would be the one where you walk through. You can keep the other framing the way it is. Chair Furth: I’m sure that made sense to the technically skilled. We want the perception of height. Mr. Hayes: So, going through the garage is an option in your mind for this pedestrian pathway? It doesn’t have to be something that opens to the sky? Board Member Gooyer: Right. No, no, no, I agree. Right… Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Gooyer: … it just has to be something and that’s why I was thinking in between that one set of bays that I mentioned. If you change the framing just for that first floor, it’s not going to be radically different but then it will – the perception – if you get that up to 10-feet, I don’t think anyone would have a problem -- and it’s well lite -- walking through that garage area. Obviously, it’s not the full length, it’s only the (crosstalk) – right. Chair Furth: I think – we all think it could be on the first floor of the garage, is that correct? A pedestrian through way and I think the point that we’re trying to make is that it should be attractive, it should feel safe and it shouldn’t feel like an afterthought. It should feel like something you designed in from the beginning so you don’t (crosstalk) just think you’re… Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) not dodging… Chair Furth: … doing something you shouldn’t be doing. Mr. Hayes: So, straight. Chair Furth: Ok what else can we agree on? What do we think about the staircase? Opened? Closed? Covered? Somewhere else entirely? Board Member Gooyer: I don’t really care if it’s opened or closed. I just think its too dominant right on the corner. Chair Furth: What would you do with it? City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Gooyer: I don’t know I’m not the architect. Chair Furth: I understand that. You mean it shouldn’t be on – you’re saying you don’t like the corner as a location for the staircase? Board Member Gooyer: No, no, no the location is fine. All I’m saying is I don’t like the massive bulk of it. Chair Furth: It’s too big. Board Member Gooyer: That’s why if you get rid of the screen around it, it automatically reduces the volumetric bulk of it. Board Member Lew: Can I ask a question for Ken? The volume of the perforated screen is larger than the staircase. Mr. Hayes: That’s correct. Board Member Lew: So, you have extra space in there. Mr. Hayes: (inaudible), there’s extra space there. Board Member Lew: You’ve obviously done that for a reason so I was wondering if you could explain the rationale? Mr. Hayes: We wanted it to feel like you were actually in a space when you duck under that volume and you sort of – I’m not going to say it’s a celebration but you’ve got this larger space that you’re looking up into which could be quite interesting. As opposed to it just enclosing what’s required for the stair (inaudible). Board Member Gooyer: Would it be worth any – even in something like that having the first floor at the same footprint that you have now and then it tapers inward or something? Then it has a perception of reduction of volume? Mr. Hayes: Yeah, I would have to – we’d have to study it. Board Member Gooyer: I’m just saying if the (crosstalk) – then still it gives what I’m more interested in as a step back effect. Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Gooyer: Even if it’s the screen that does the stepping back, it still has that… Mr. Hayes: Right because right now it’s about 20-something feet back from the façade on Waverley but it’s not nearly that far back from the other side. Yeah so if we turn it… Chair Furth: What’s the top? Is it open to the sky? Mr. Hayes: No, no, it’s enclosed. We had a skylight up there originally but I think from a cost standpoint that’s been illuminated. Chair Furth: So, what is it? Mr. Hayes: It’s just a solid roof. Chair Furth: So, it’s going to be dark? City of Palo Alto Page 22 Mr. Hayes: Well, no so this perforated – it’s going to have this perforated membrane around it so it’s going to feel light and at night will glow. Oh, that may not be a good thing. Chair Furth: Ok. Mr. Hayes: If there was this wonderful way to create a design in the perforated panel, it could be really exciting. Chair Furth: If you make it fabulously beautiful we’ll probably say yes. We have been talking about the fact that seeing the art – public art as something that comes late in the process is really unfortunate and of course, it’s impossible to make everything happen at once. I think that in this case particularly it may be really important. Do we have any consensus on the stairway and its treatment or stairwell and the treatment, Alex? Board Member Lew: I would just – I think Ken is very talented and I think he hears that we think it may be too big so I would just think – yeah, show us some options and we’ll see. If there are any conceptual sketches from the artist by the next meeting, I think that – usually the Board here can make the leap. We did that for the Junior Museum and I think we asked for – at the very end of the project we sort of asked for it to come back to the Board just because they weren’t sure where the art was exactly going to be placed. Then they came up with a sketch and I think everybody was happy with it. Mr. Hayes: Ok. Board Member Lew: I think I’m fine with the staircase conceptually. Board Member Thompson: I think if you’re going to use the material in the way that we’ve discussed and make it fabulously beautiful with the perforation and with the artist. I think the next time you show this to us it might be worst considering the representation so that… Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. Board Member Thompson: … we actually see what you’re designing instead of a big old block. Mr. Hayes: Well, this was just massing. We weren’t asking for approval today. Thank you for the comment. Board Member Thompson: Sure. Chair Furth: Do we have comments on the trash enclosure issue? We have requests from the neighbors, we have proposals from the City so do we have any guidance we want to give? Board Member Lew: I know this is a tricky one. I’ve done some historical analysis of the site and so it seemed like the parking was added later. There’s never been an official alley behind Prolific Oven or Tai Pan so it’s sort of like a defector alley. I would say we would normally require the trash enclosures to be inside on their own property and it’s not – why are we giving them a freebie garbage space inside the garage because then everybody is going to want one? So, it seems to me difficult because the – because we don’t really have necessarily a trigger until they start to do a project. Once they start doing a project – and I’ve seen this – I think they’ve seen the sign out there from the Toy and Sports World but then we can require it inside. It seems to me if the buildings are staying as is then I think it kind of makes sense for the City to have space in the garage. I don’t think we need to have two. I think we do have other restaurants that do transport their garbage elsewhere. I think Ken, you had mentioned that the Mills Florist site and that the garage is not on the property so it happens. It’s not ideal, it’s not desirable but it happens. So, I’m thinking long term and what is the right decision for a long period of time? It seems to me short term I could live with any – I could probably live with any solution so yeah, Robert? City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, no, I was going to say the same thing. I think this is the City being a nice guy and providing that. I agree that they could just say you’ve had a real – you’ve been real lucky for the last whatever umpteen years and now you’re going to have to do what everybody else has to do. So, I agree that anything that fits within the criteria of the project is ok. Board Member Thompson: I think – I mean I agree that may be providing the trash enclosure isn’t the solution but I do think that loading is important and giving them the access that they need in order to function is important. Maybe that is a closer analysis on how they currently – what their current inner workings are in terms of trash and it’s just a matter – I do think that corner needs reconfiguration in general. I do think it works as it stands. Chair Furth: I would say that essentially, it’s good for the City to accommodate this need. I’m sure that they’ll listen to the potential future users and thinking about how and where it should be designed. This is valuable space and how the City wants to use it is essentially its choice. I look forward to seeing what came be done and I look forward to hearing about what – how these – when this is construction, how the FOG removal can be handled in a reasonable way. Yes? Board Member Lew: Can Staff provide a – maybe transportation can provide a – what do you call that? A truck turning diagram for getting – for the Apple Store because I’ve seen trucks behind there. Oh, maybe it’s already in the packet. Ok, I missed it. Ms. Boyd: Its included in the packet on the last page. Mr. Hayes: The last page. Board Member Lew: Awe, that’s why I didn’t see it. Ms. Boyd: This is the green waste garbage truck. Chair Furth: (Inaudible) before you got there. Board Member Lew: Ok so you’re saying it works. Chair Furth: Where is it? Board Member Gooyer: Where is it? Ms. Boyd: Very last page. Board Member Lew: Last page. Chair Furth: The last page I have is a bunch of cuts. Oh, there it is. Board Member Lew: Thank you for that and that’s taking into account all the trash enclosures? Ms. Boyd: That’s modeled for green waste – the garbage collector – the hauler the City uses. Their garbage trucks. Board Member Lew: Awe, ok. Board Member Gooyer: I think that’s fine. Board Member Lew: I was actually thinking of the – I’ve seen delivery trucks bringing stuff to the Apple Store and then they double park in the alley so I was just trying to figure out… City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Furth: There’s a lot of double parking in that alley. Board Member Lew: Yeah so, I was just trying (crosstalk)(inaudible) Chair Furth: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Ok but a truck can actually get through there. Although it’s… Chair Furth: It’s very tight. Board Member Lew: Yeah, ok, thank you. Chair Furth: Any comments on landscaping before we go? Board Member Lew: I don’t think it works in the pedestrian walkway area on the north side. Board Member Gooyer: It’s too dark. Board Member Thompson: It could just be a different landscape that’s required there. Chair Furth: Ok so we’re unconvinced but – excuse me – would you like to respond? Mr. Hayes: No, I missed Alex’s comment. You don’t favor the trash opening? Board Member Lew: How do you – on the pedestrian walkway area for all the plants that are in the shade of the building on the north side, have you had discussions about how… Chair Furth: Are we going to have grow lights? Board Member Lew: …viable they are? Then… Mr. Hayes: The landscape architect with Merrill and Morris, John Potis, who couldn’t make it today. I’d like him to address that (crosstalk) (inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Chair Furth: We’re talking about rethinking that whole thing. Board Member Gooyer: To accommodate that extra 7-feet? Chair Furth: Yep, we are. Board Member Gooyer: So, that means that area – that alley is going to get a lot narrower… Chair Furth: I think our point is… Board Member Lew: Well, not necessarily. Board Member Gooyer: … (inaudible) a lot. Board Member Lew: Well, no, I think there are two issues. I mean there’s the (inaudible) walkway and the other issue is the setback. You could make a garage smaller and lose spaces. You could make the garage smaller and add motorcycle parking. There are other… Board Member Gooyer: Yeah but I mean making – shrinking the width of that garage by 7-feet. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Furth: We’ve given them a project. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Board Member Lew: I’m not – this – there’s a 7-foot special setback and they’re encroaching 5-feet into it and that’s not to say that they couldn’t… Mr. Hayes: We’re actually going all the way. Ms. French: The columns go all the way to the property line. Board Member Lew: Awe so I think I read the 5-feet somewhere in the… Mr. Hayes: You did. Board Member Lew: I would say we have other building downtown, you’ve done some of them, that have encroached a little bit; like 278 encroaches… Mr. Hayes: 278 is the only building on that entire block of Bryant that encroaches and we have a display window as you’re walking down the sidewalk towards (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Furth: For the benefit for those of us who can’t remember all the addresses, which is 278? Mr. Hayes: That’s Keene Shoes. Chair Furth: Got it. Board Member Lew: So, Bryant and University and so sometimes it can work. My take on it… Mr. Hayes: At 240 we actually set the first floor back… Board Member Lew: Back, yes. Mr. Hayes: …so that you have the wide sidewalk but the upper floors did not respect the setback and we got a variance for that. Chair Furth: If this were not being coupled with a rezoning, this would be a variance full application and instead the City is proposing to change the Public Facilities District Standards. I think you’ve heard the aesthetic comments. Public art may save us all. We do not like this extent of encroachment into a built setback on a big street and we don’t think that the landscaping as proposed on the dark side of the building is likely to flourish. We think that the -- well, the staircase may or may not be terrific but I think you’ve heard all our thoughts on that. You’ve got Board Member Baltay’s thoughts in his letter which I’m sure will be shaped also by the hearing today. Anything else before we quit? Thank you all for indulging us in a rather freeform discussion. I think we want this project – it’s a big project. The City is sitting here in three different – at least three different aspects, it’s the client, it’s the Staff, and it’s the reviewing Board. We have had good participation from the public which we appreciate. We look forward to seeing you again. Board Member Lew: We need to make a motion. Chair Furth: So, you want us to continue this to a date certain or to a date uncertain? Ms. French: It can be to a date uncertain. That’s fine because we have – we’re going to re-advertise anyways. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Chair Furth: Would somebody make a motion? MOTION Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we continue this item to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: Second. Chair Furth: Robert seconds. All in favor? Opposed? None. MOTION PASSES WITH A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH VICE CHAIR BALTAY ABSENT Chair Furth: Anything else before we adjourn? Study Session Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: Do we have minutes to approve? No, we don’t do we? I didn’t read any minutes. Ok, we are adjourned. Subcommittee Item Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9181) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 5/3/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 620 Emerson Street: Subcommittee Review of Landscaping Title: 620 Emerson Street (17PLN-00331): Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Landscaping on the Roof. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On April 18, 2018, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the subject project. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee. Below are the items that were requested to return to the subcommittee and the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments: Architecture Review Condition:  ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Review of the landscaping design of the green roof area to ensure conformance with Finding #5. Applicant’s Response: 7 Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2  The applicant has provided a landscape plan for the ARB Subcommittee to review. This plan includes alternative plants that are local native plants. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3/ The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Applicant Response Letter (PDF)  Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 7 Packet Pg. 99 DATE TO FROM PROJECT RE NOTE www.montalbaarchitects.com MEMORANDUM April 17th, 2018 City of Palo Alto – Architectural Review Board Sub Committee Montalba Architects, Inc. NOBU PA 620 RESTAURANT, 620 EMERSON ST., PALO ALTO, CA 94301 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SUBCOMMITTEE Hello, Please see the attached notes referencing items required for subcommittee review as discussed during the ARB Hearing for the new Nobu restaurant at 620 Emerson St. (Minor Architectural Review 17PLN-00331) on Thursday April 5, 2018. Discussed items are noted in italic below with our corresponding responses below that. ARB Comments: The selection of plant species at the green roof was discussed by board members and requested to be followed up with and reviewed at the subcommittee level. In particular, board members had conflicting comments regarding whether or not the green roof planting needed to be more drought-resistant and native to the region. On one hand, it was discussed that this should be required, and on the other, it was noted that this green roof is an architectural design feature, NOT landscaping, and therefore exempt from any related requirements. Montalba Architects Response: The attached green roof visual garden has been designed to be indicative of a Japanese-influenced aesthetic that exhibits the characteristics of an architectural design feature more than a landscaped surface. Separated from the adjacent Hotel property, the green roof is meant to be a space of serenity and calm to amplify the Hotel guest’s experience from the Hotel second floor and improve viewing from the hotel rooms above (which overlook the roof) and the 620 Emerson St restaurant dining space below (through a large skylight in the ceiling). In an effort to thoughtfully address the Board’s comments and simultaneously maintain our design aesthetic, we have introduced (2) new Japanese-inspired plant species that are sensitive to the local climate and native to the region. Deer Grass (muhlenbergia rigens) replaced the previous Mondo Grass, and Common juniper (juniperus communis var. depressa) replaced the Dwarf Japanese Garden Juniper. We have also added a new species, Mugo Pine (pinus mugo), which shares a relationship to the ground floor planter species at the adjacent Epiphany Hotel approved landscape design. Due to the architectural design intent of the green roof and private location on the second floor, we feel the remainder of the planting should stay as previously designed and be considered free from the typical restrictions of landscaping at the public-pedestrian level (Additionally, all plant selection was made with water use and local climate in mind). We would be happy to discuss additional solutions if the current design is of any continued concern. 7.a Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A p p l i c a n t R e s p o n s e L e t t e r ( 9 1 8 1 : 6 2 0 E m e r s o n S t r e e t : S u b c o m m i t t e e R e v i e w o f L a n d s c a p i n g ) Attachment A 620 Emerson Project Plans Links to previous hearing and actions are posted on the City website. These 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 “620 Emerson” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details for Application Number: 17PLN-00331 and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2018.04.17 NOBU PA 620_ ARB subcommittee green roof” and dated April 17, 2018 7.b Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 9 1 8 1 : 6 2 0 E m e r s o n S t r e e t : S u b c o m m i t t e e R e v i e w o f L a n d s c a p i n g )