Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-17 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 17, 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, and 2) 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. 356 Hawthorne Avenue [17PLN-00367]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Four-Unit, 4,032 Square Foot Multi- Family Residential Development and Construction of a new 4,561 Square Foot, Multi- Family Development Comprised of Three Detached Residential Units Each With an Attached Single Car Garage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple- Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Study Session to discuss the South El Camino Design Guidelines _______________________ 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. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2018. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 2018. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Wynne Furth Vice Chair Peter Baltay Boardmember Robert Gooyer Boardmember Alex Lew Boardmember Osma Thompson Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by Noon two Wednesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9220) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 5/17/2018 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, and 2) 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 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. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Attachments:  Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)  Attachment B: 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 Architectural Review Board 2018 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics June 7  4115 El Camino Real: 7 Unit Mixed-Use (1st Formal)  3945 El Camino Real: Comfort Inn Hotel Renovation (2nd formal) June 21  375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage  180 El Camino Real: Shake Shack 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9211) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/17/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 356 Hawthorne Avenue: Three Residential Units (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 356 Hawthorne Avenue [17PLN-00367]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Four-Unit, 4,032 Square Foot Multi- Family Residential Development and Construction of a new 4,561 Square Foot, Multi-Family Development Comprised of Three Detached Residential Units Each With an Attached Single Car Garage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple- Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed new three unit, multi-family residential project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63880. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment H. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the ARB and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On March 15, 2018, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB’s meeting is available online http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2/. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Further Distinction Between Units. Each unit needs further distinction from one another in terms of color, material, and style. Revised exterior treatments of street- fronting units (Units 1 & 3) patterned after Craftsman-like design cues; the middle home (Unit 2) maintains the originally proposed modern farmhouse design. Color Scheme. Contrasting white (primary) and black (trim) exterior color scheme not appropriate within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. Exterior color schemes of the street- fronting units have been changed to warmer green and blue hues. Landscape Species Selection. Appropriate native species should be incorporated into proposed landscape plan. Applicant has replaced the majority of proposed landscaping vegetation with low water use species native to California. Analysis1 The ARB provided specific project related guidance to the applicant during its initial formal review of the subject application. The ARB’s primary comments and the applicant’s response to the feedback are further detailed in the following sections. Further Distinction Between Units Some members of the ARB expressed concern that the proposed units were not differentiated enough from one another, resulting in a blended and homogenous design across the parcel. The suggestion was made that the units should vary in color, material, and style from one another. In response, the applicant has modified the exterior designs of street-fronting units 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 along Hawthorne Avenue and Bryant Court, incorporating Craftsman-like design features. Unit 1 (along Hawthorne Avenue) features beveled lapped siding patterned after the traditional Craftsman style, as well as a hip-gabled roof supported by a wooden column at the front entry and accompanying corbel elements, which help to identify the entrance at street-level. Unit 3 (along Bryant Court) is designed in a similar Craftsman style bungalow featuring a gabled roof over the front entry supported by two wooden columns and hanging ornamental “sun-burst” gable pediments, as well as a trellis above the garage door. The middle residence (Unit 2) will maintain the originally proposed modern farmhouse design. Color Scheme The initially proposed modern farmhouse design featured a primary color scheme of white exterior paint with black trim accents. Some members of the ARB felt this stark contrasting color scheme would not harmonize well within the existing neighborhood context, particularly along Bryant Court. The applicant has responded by proposing new warmer color schemes for the street-fronting units. Unit 1 is proposed in a muted blue gray hue as the primary exterior paint color with off-white trim, dark gray composite roof shingles, and dark bronze window and door cladding. Unit 3 is proposed in a sage green hue with off-white trim, dark “weathered wood” composite roof shingles and black window and door cladding. The middle residence (Unit 2) maintains the white primary exterior color scheme with exception to the entry and first-floor volume which are painted in a contrasting light gray. Landscape Species Selection The applicant substituted some of the originally proposed landscape plants with low- maintenance native species based on suggestions received from the ARB. All of the proposed plants are categorized as very low to low irrigation needing grass, shrub, and tree species as categorized by the Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) rating system. The proposed sizes, counts, and planting locations of all landscape vegetation are detailed in the Landscape Planting Plan Sheet L-4.0; see Attachment I. In addition to the specific comments and guidance addressed in the aforementioned sections, per the request of the ARB, the applicant has clarified narrow traditional true-divided light muntins will be utilized on all windows and accessory doors for all three proposed units. Further detail related to each unit’s design concept and material descriptions are provided in the revised Project Description Letter; see Attachment G. Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject lot is located in Palo Alto’s Downtown North neighborhood in an RM-15 zoning district block, surrounded by a mix of single-family and low-density multi-family residential developments along Hawthorne Avenue, and in close proximity to Johnson Park. The lot abuts Bryant Court, a narrow one-way alley to its east and shares the length of its north side yard lot- line with the rear yards of four lots along Waverly Street, while the south side yard lot-line is shared with two abutting lots located at 350 Hamilton Avenue and 351 and 357 Bryant Court. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The immediate surrounding neighborhood is comprised of an eclectic mix of one- and two-story residences of various architectural styles including modern, Spanish revival, bungalow vernacular, and modest Craftsman. The three proposed units are designed drawing upon Craftsman and modernized traditional farmhouse designs that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, utilizing shallow-pitched roof lines and simple rectangular profiles which subdue massing and volume from street view. The streetscape along Bryant Court is highly varied composed of a mixture of one- and two-story homes, carports, and higher density multi-family apartments, and presents a more intimate surrounding environment due to the shortened setbacks and width of the one-way alley. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with RM-15 zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment F. 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. In addition to the necessary compliance with the aforementioned zoning district development standards, the project is also subject to the Context-Based Design Criteria and Performance Criteria specified in PAMC Chapters 18.13 and 18.23, respectively. On balance, the project is consistent with these Criteria. However, the ARB may want to discuss the project’s consistency with the performance criteria related to refuse disposal for multi-family zoning districts outlined in PAMC 18.23.020 (A), that states “[…] refuse disposal structures and enclosures are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible.” The project as proposed currently has the trash enclosures of Unit 2 and 3 located against the shared side yard fences of the abutting lots. Should the ARB agree that the trash enclosures should be moved away from the neighboring lots, the Planning Division has included a condition of approval (see condition #4 of Attachment C) that would require the refuse enclosures of Unit 2 and 3 to be relocated as far from the neighboring residencies as reasonably possible. Summary tables outlining the proposed project’s consistency with these performance and context-based design criteria are provided in Attachments D and E. 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. 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. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Low Density Multi-Family Residence District (RM-15), which prescribes a density range of eight to 15 dwelling units per acre. The project site has an allowed maximum density of 3.27 dwelling units (or 15 units per acre). The proposed three units comply with the intended low-density multi-family residential density. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site is not located on a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) path, however, both Hawthorne Avenue and Bryant Court feed directly into Bryant Street, which is a designated SRTS route serving Addison Elementary, Jordan Middle School, and Palo Alto High School. Units 1 and 2 are proposed to share a common driveway accessed from Hawthorne Avenue with Unit 3’s access to be taken from Bryant Court. Each lot is designed to accommodate an uncovered parking space in addition to the required covered parking stall; Units 1 and 2 feature tandem parking orientations as permitted in this zoning district. Additionally, the project proposes a long-term bicycle storage locker to be located on each condominium parcel. Consistency with Application Findings Overall, the design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the required Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Draft findings substantiating how the project satisfied each required finding is provided in Attachment B. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA in accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). 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 May 4, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 7, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 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 Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (JPG)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria Compliance (DOCX)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Description Letter (PDF)  Attachment H: March 15, 2018 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 13 2.a Packet Pg. 14 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 356 Hawthorne Avenue 17PLN-00367 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 Multiple Family Residential. The project continues the Multiple Family Residential land use. 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 three unit condominium development is appropriately scaled and architecturally compatible within the surrounding neighborhood context. The proposed project’s use of high grade materials and finishes enhance the overall design, and serve to provide the immediate area and city overall with a quality residential development. 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. Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. While the proposed development will demolish four existing units it will enhance the neighborhood with three new housing units. Further, the proposed three-unit development would bring the lot back into Zoning compliance for maximum housing density. Policy L-2.7: Support efforts to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhood, including smaller housing types. 2.b Packet Pg. 15 Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools and/or other public gathering places. The proposed three unit condominium project maintains the Downtown North’s neighborhood character, providing another high-quality multi- family development. The through-lot features two street-facing units at opposite ends, each with articulated facades and clear front entries that engage the streets and help improve the existing streetscape. The development is in short walking distance to Johnson Park and the Downtown University corridor. Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood pattern of low-density multi-family developments on long narrow lots. The project conforms to all the applicable zoning requirements, design review processes, and performance and design-based criterion to ensure high quality architectural design that will provide additional curbside appeal along Hawthorne Avenue and Bryant Court. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. As required per municipal code the project provides three long-term bicycle lockers (one per unit). The provision of these facilities implicitly promotes active modes of transportation for residents that may utilize bicycles to travel to nearby shopping, commute to work or school. Policy T-1.16: Promote personal transportation vehicles an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Natural Environment Element Goal N-2: A thriving urban forest that provides public health, ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. The project takes active measures to protect the two regulated trees (silver linden street tree and coast live oak) on or adjacent to the subject lot. These 2.b Packet Pg. 16 Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. mitigation strategies include Type I & II tree protection, site planning to reduce impacts on the root network, and root cutting monitoring and documentation. Nine (9) new landscape trees are included in the project scope which will serve to increase canopy coverage on the lot. 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 finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project proposes one- and two-story interpretations of Craftsman and modern farmhouse designs that fit appropriately within the established streetscapes along Hawthorne Avenue and Bryant Court, and provide harmonious transitions with the adjacent residences. The site planning of the three condominiums was purposefully designed to preserve natural features including the prominent coast live oak on the adjacent lot that provides canopy coverage and shade to multiple residences and part of the neighborhood’s existing character. The project is compliant with the Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria and Multiple Family Performance Criteria specified in PAMC Chapters 18.13 and 18.23; see Attachments D and E. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project utilizes high quality materials and finishes that are associated with the Craftsman and modern farmhouse architectural motifs, including wide groove vertical boards (without battens) contrasted with horizontally oriented nickel gap exterior lap siding that distinguishes volumes. The proposed two-story units utilize simple gables at the first floor to create visual interest and separate the lower and upper floor profiles. The homes share the same elegant but simplified palette of white and gray exterior colors accented with black trim (e.g. window frames) and finishes. Each of these design elements help to create a pleasing overall visual aesthetic. 2.b Packet Pg. 17 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 finding can be made in the affirmative in that project’s site planning provides ease and safety for pedestrians and practical accessibility for the residents of the development. Units 1 and 2 share a common driveway that provides ingress and egress off of Hawthorne Avenue while Unit 3 possesses its own driveway off of Bryant Court. All three units provide two off-street parking spaces as required; one covered (garage) and one uncovered in a tandem orientation. The narrow lot width (50 feet) and necessary protection of the large neighboring oak tree makes the provision of a functional turnaround area for Unit 2 problematic. As such, residents of Unit 2 will likely need to back out of the long driveway onto Hawthorne Avenue. While this mode of egress is not ideal, it is also not an uncommon in the city as many detached garages are located on the rear half of deep lots. The Transportation Division has reviewed the project plans and has recommended approval with no conditions. 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 finding can be made in the affirmative in that project includes a landscape plan that provides each proposed unit with an appropriate combination of softscape and hardscape. The hardscape includes individual patio and porch areas, interior fencing to define spaces, and permeable pavers along the driveways that will reduce storm water runoff. The project’s softscape includes drought tolerant species and a variety of evergreen tree species, shrubs and perennials suitable to the site with the plantings focused on the most visible locations along Hawthorne Avenue and Bryant Court. Additionally, the landscape plan calls for irrigation systems for each unit, conforming to the City of Palo Alto’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CAL Green 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. 2.b Packet Pg. 18 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 356 Hawthorne Avenue 17PLN-00367 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3-Unit Condo Development_356 Hawthorne Avenue,” stamped as received by the City on April 4, 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. RELOCATION OF REFUSE ENCLOSURES. As required by the Multi-Family Performance Criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23.020(A), and upon review and approval by the Planning Department, the applicant shall relocate the trash and recycling enclosures of Units 2 and 3 off the side yard lot lines shared with the abutting lots to a location as far from the neighboring residences as reasonably possible. 5. 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. 6. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 7. OBSCURE GLAZING: All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either decorative glazing that does not allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public right-of-way. 2.c Packet Pg. 19 8. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Development Impact Fees currently estimated in the amount of $199,180.00 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 10. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 11. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: The following comments are provided as a courtesy and shall be addressed prior to any other permit application submittal. This includes Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and Encroachment Permit but after the Planning entitlement approval. 2.c Packet Pg. 20 12. SUBDIVISION. Map types and review procedures vary depending on the number of units proposed. Depending on the number of units proposed, the applicant shall submit a minor or major subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Parcel or Tentative map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. Tentative/Final maps are submitted under a Major Subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Public Works will review and provide comments on the documents provided as part of the submittal. Please be advised that under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, off-site improvement plans are processed as an extension of the subdivision application process and the applicant may be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and provide security for work shown in the plans. 13. DEMOLITION PLAN. Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 14. GRADING PERMIT. Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 15. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN. The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splash blocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 2.c Packet Pg. 21 16. UTILITIES. Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 17. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 18. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right- of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 19. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 20. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER. As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. 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. 21. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 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. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 23. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION. The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 24. This project triggers the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures on the grading and drainage plan:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces 25. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION Strictly comply with all recommendations contained in the tree protection report. Results of exploratory trenching shall be submitted as part of the building permit or as a special arborist report prior to initial inspection of tree protection fencing. There is a duty for the project applicant/developer to protect neighboring trees. 26. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect and monitor neighboring protected oak during construction and share information with the tree owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so as to ensure the long term health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on the neighboring property as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or perform treatment. If access is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be performed from the project site. 27. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring 2.c Packet Pg. 23 method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 28. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures as a condition of the building permit, Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. 29. 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. 30. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, AND WASTEWATER The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 31. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 32. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 33. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for 2.c Packet Pg. 24 utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 34. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 35. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 36. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 37. 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. 38. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 39. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 40. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 41. Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 2.c Packet Pg. 25 42. 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. 43. If a new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 44. 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. 45. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 46. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. A profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities. 47. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 48. 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. 49. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 50. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 51. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any 2.c Packet Pg. 26 damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 52. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. FIRE DEPARTMENT 53. The public fire hydrant located at Hawthorne Avenue and Waverley Street intersection shall be upgraded to a Clow model 76. Contact CPA WGW at 650-566-4501 to submit a work order. PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION The following comments must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit: 54. Stormwater Treatment  Clear, detailed maintenance agreement regarding driveways composed of pervious pavers. These measures, although not required, will be inspected by City staff once project is completed  Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements.  Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for pervious pavement specifications. 55. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org)  Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment.  Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay- Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bayfriendly- landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance.  Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. 56. Stormwater Quality Protection  Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers.  Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. 57. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water. Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. 58. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper. On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles 2.c Packet Pg. 27 shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinad at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 59. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping. Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 60. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches. Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 61. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers. It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS NOTICE FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER 6/22/15.: Please be advised that the Palo Alto City Council has approved Energy Ordinance 5326 and Green Building Ordinance 5326 for all new permit applications with an effective date for June 22nd, 2015, as summarized below. To review the specific changes, visit the Development Services webpage .On the left hand side under “explore”, hover over “Green Building” and select “Compliance” You may also email Melanie Jacobson at Melanie.Jacobson@CityofPaloAlto.org for specific questions about your project. 62. GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project is a new construction residential building of any size and therefore must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1, 2016) (1) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy Reach Code section of this letter. 2.c Packet Pg. 28 b) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO): The project is a residential new construction project with an aggregate landscape area of 500 square feet or more included in the project scope of work and therefore shall comply with the requirements of the Landscape Documentation Package (§492.3). Please see the Outdoor Water Efficiency Webpage for compliance documentation. (MWELO Title 23, Chapter 2.7) c) The project is a residential construction project of any size and therefore must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at Tier 2 (7580% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) d) The project is a new detached single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE): (a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420 (Ord. 5393 §2, 2016) 65. LOCAL ENERGY REACH CODE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project includes new residential construction of any size and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential there are two compliance options and one all-electric exception. i) Single-Family Residential Options: (1) OPTION 1: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects without a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 10% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building does not include a PV systems. (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. (2) OPTION 2: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed single-family residential construction is at least 20% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. 2.c Packet Pg. 29 (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. b) All Electric Exemption: i) All- Electric Exception to the Local Energy Reach Code: New single-family residential construction that is designed and built to be all-electric shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 100.3. Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. 66. Additional Green Building and Energy Reach Code information, ordinances and applications can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions regarding Green Building requirements please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179. 2.c Packet Pg. 30 Attachment D Context-Based Design Criteria 356 Hawthorne Avenue 17PLN-00367 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 Findings 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). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed designs of each unit utilizes varying materials, colors, and articulation along the building facades to help distinguish volumes, scale and mass. The street facing units provide front entries and walkways visible from the street that help engage visually from the street perspective and pedestrian walkways. 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed homes are designed to be compatible with existing abutting properties. The street facing units are proposed with one- and two-story designs that are appropriately dimensioned in height with respect to height and privacy of the surrounding structures along the streets they share, incorporating mitigation measures such as raised second-story window sill heights, obscured window, and landscape screening to ensure privacy is maintained. 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed site design satisfies the open space requirements of the RM-15 zoning district (see Attachment F), providing adequate private and usable open space for residents and guests to utilize. 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the site planning and proposed parking design work with the restrictive lot dimensions to provide efficient parking access for each unit while avoiding making it a visually detracting design aspect from the pedestrian environment. Low-profile landscaping is proposed in the front yards of both street facing units to distract and soften the views of the uncovered parking spaces. 2.d Packet Pg. 31 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. This finding is not applicable as the project site is 0.21 acres. 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed development includes both one- and two- story detached condominiums designs that are compatible with the adjacent existing developments. 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed development will be required to comply with the California Green Building Code and the City of Palo Alto’s local amendments; see PAMC Section 16.14. 2.d Packet Pg. 32 Attachment E Performance Criteria 356 Hawthorne Avenue, 17PLN-00367 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project provides covered trash enclosures for each unit that shall be able to store at minimum the default service – one 32 gallon garbage cart, one 64 gallon recycling cart and one 96 gallon compost cart. As conditioned, the applicant will relocate the trash enclosures of Unit 2 and 3 away from the abutting residences to be fully consistent with the stated performance criteria. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the outdoor sconces proposed on the first-floor level of each of the units are downward directed, resulting in minimal light pollution on neighboring properties. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick- up. The stated performance criteria are not applicable to this residential development project. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed landscape plan provides adequate screening between properties as appropriate and utilizes the canopy of existing trees on the subject site and the adjacent lots to screen views. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 2.e Packet Pg. 33 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 stated performance criteria is not applicable to this residential development project as the subject lot is located in a residential zone (RM- 15) that does not abut an industrial or commercially zoned property. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed parking layouts are designed to make the required parking spaces a secondary aspect to the overall visual impact of the homes. 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 project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed site design does not create or increase potential conflicts for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to the site, and that bicycle and pedestrian connections are maintained through and 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. The stated performance criteria are not applicable to this residential development project. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. The stated performance criteria are not applicable to this residential development project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 2.e Packet Pg. 34 ATTACHMENT F ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 356 Hawthorne Avenue, 17PLN-00367 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-15 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 9,506 sf, 50 foot width, 189.98 foot depth Maximum Residential Density 15 units per 1 acre (3.27 units max. units for this site) 3 total units Minimum Front Yard 20 feet 20 feet (to the closest front exterior wall of Unit 1) Street Rear Yard 16 feet 16 feet (to the closest rear exterior wall of Unit 3) Interior Side Yard (for lots w/widths of < 70 feet 6 feet 11 feet (left); 6 feet 3/4 inches (right) 6 feet 5/8 inches (left); 9 feet 2 3/8 inches (right) 6 feet 1 inches (left); 6 feet 7/8 inches (right) Max. Building Height 30 feet 23 feet 23 feet 5 inches 16 feet 8 inches Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Compliant Rear Yard Daylight Plane* 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Compliant Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) 35% (3,325 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 0.48:1 (4,561 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 35% 40% (3,846 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 200 sf per unit 660 sf 597 sf 690 sf Minimum Common Open Space 100 sf per unit 287 sf 338 sf 450 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 129 sf 358 sf 337 sf *Lots in the RM-15 zoning district which are less than 70 feet in width have no daylight plane beyond 10 feet from the property line Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking Two (2) spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. Two (2) spaces per unit; includes one (1) covered parking space per unit Bicycle Parking One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space Three (3) total; one (1) for each unit 2.f Packet Pg. 35 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 1 April 4, 2018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT 356 HAWTHORNE AVE SGLG Investments, LLC 320 Kellogg Ave, Palo Alto CA 934301 Architectural Review Board (Major Project Submittal) OWNER ARCHITECT Michael A. Chacon 135 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301 2.g Packet Pg. 36 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 2 April 4, 2018 PROJECT SCOPE Project Location: The project is located in Palo Alto's 'Downtown North' neighborhood which is a mix of multi- and single-family residences. Over the last few decades the neighborhood population has transformed from mostly graduate students and professionals to include young families. The City's recent years traffic calming efforts have resulted in quieter, pedestrian- friendly and safer streets. The property is considered a through-lot that is bordered by Hawthorne Ave to the west and Bryant Court to the east. Project Goal: The goal is to develop the site with three seperate residential units. Each will contain an attached garage and uncovered parking stall. The residences are as follows: Unit 1 (adjacent to Hawthorne Ave) is a two-story (4 bedrooms / 3-1/2 bathrooms) residence - 1st floor 1,055 sf (includes garage) - 2nd floor 960 sf - Total Area = 2,015 sf Unit 2 (located an the center of the property and accessed from Hawthorne Ave) is a two-story (4 bedrooms / 3-1/2 bathrooms) residence: - 1st floor 1,066 sf (includes garage) - 2nd floor 937 sf - Total Area = 2,003 sf Unit 3 (adjacent to Bryant Court) is a one-story (2 bedrooms / 1 bathroom) residence: - 1st floor 1,204 sf (includes garage) - Total Area = 1,204 sf Ordinance: The property is zoned RM-15 which requires that the property be developed with three residential units. The adjacent properties are all zoned RM-15, but contain single-family residences and therefore treated as R-1 properties. 2.g Packet Pg. 37 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 3 April 4, 2018 NORTH 356 HAWTHOREN AVENUE 357 BRYANT COURT EXISTING USE EXISTING USE HAWTHORNE RESIDENCEBRYANT CT.RESIDENCE GARAGE GARAGE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY HA W T H O R N E BR Y A N T CT . Existing Structures: Currently, the property contains a total of four structures: two residences and two accessory structures (garages). Built in 1922 (per County records), there are several non-conformances with the applicable zone RM-15 ordinance. Of these various non-conformances most are considered "legal non-conforming" (e.g. setback encroachment and exceeds maximum allowable lot coverage), with the exception of the number of dwelling units in the Hawthorne Ave residence which results in a shortage of required two- stalls per unit off-street parking. We are proposing to construct three residential units which is the appropriate number of dwelling units for a 9,506 sf lot located in Zone RM-15. Below are photographs of the existing homes. 2.g Packet Pg. 38 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 4 April 4, 2018 NORTHPROPOSED USE 356 HAWTHORNE AVENUE 357 BRYANT COURT Ordinance: The applicable development standard is RM-15, which allows for 15 dwelling units per acre. The site is 9,506 sf or .22 acres which allows for a maximum of three dwelling units. Three separate single-family residences are proposed with each containing an attached single-car garage. The 2nd parking stall shall be uncovered and located in front of each garage. Vehicular access for Units 1 & 2 shall via a shared drivewa from Hawthorne Ave. Unit 3 shall have direct vehicular access from Bryant Court. A condo map will be submitted to delineate the yards and open space requirements. Our proposal complies with all applicable ordinance. Key statistics: Maximum allowable FAR = 4,753 sf Proposed FAR = 4,695 sf Maximum allowable Lot Coverage = 3,327 sf Proposed = 3,305 sf Maximum allowable height = 30' Proposed = 23'-5" Below are three-dimensioned montage renderings of the units adjacent to the streets: PROPOSED USE UNIT 3: RESIDENCE DRIVEWAY HA W T H O R N E BR Y A N T CT . UNIT 2: RESIDENCE UNIT 1: RESIDENCE 2.g Packet Pg. 39 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 5 April 4, 2018 Design Strategy: Our initial efforts began with an analysis of the neighborhood's character (style, mass, orientation, etc.) From there we shifted our focus to the site (solar orientation, shading, existing mature trees on / overhanging the site). Lastly, we drilled down to the individual units with emphasis placed on the occupant's sense of single-family ownership as it relates to privacy through the use of yards. Additional privacy considerations of views toward / away from adjacent neighboor's homes required a crticial anaylsis of 2nd story window placement. DESIGN CONCEPT: Strategy and Neighborhood Analysis Neighborhood Analysis: The neighborhood is a mix of one- and two-story single- and multi-family residences. Immediately adjacent to the project property are single-family uses. This drove our decision to maintain a reasonably low overall height for the new residences, as well as utilizing hip roofs for the least imposing mass to reduce shading impacts and reasonably maintain views toward the sky. The mix of two- and single-story residences is notably weighted with more two-story homes fronting Hawthorne Avenue and more single-story homes fronting Bryant Court. Taking our cue from this pattern, we proposed a single-story residence on Bryant Court and two-story residence fronting Hawthorne Avenue. The two-story residence proposed at the center of the property is partially in response to the existing two-story accessory to the north. There are multiple styles of architecture in the neighborhood: bungalow, mediterranean, clapboard, shingle, craftsman and more - a variety of styles. We combined the owner's modern sensibility with the tradional-based styles of the neigborhood drawing features from practical aspects of craftsman and transitional farmhouse and fused it with clapboard style selectively placing horizontal lapped siding. Refer to the architectural style selection for additional information. The isometric image below shows the massing / siting relationship of the proposed project and existing neighborhood. Privacy arrows (red) depict views from windows where privacy glazing will be utilized and open-sky views (blue) from the neighboors' backyards. V I S U A L S C R E N V I S U A L S C R E N 2.g Packet Pg. 40 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 6 April 4, 2018 NORTHSITE CONTEXT NORTH NEIGHBOR ELEVATION SOUTH NEIGHBOR ELEVATION RELATIONS TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD Site Context: The site (9,506 sf) is rectangular in shape (50' x 190') with the long direction oriented southeast to northwest. Siting of each unit is predicated upon vehicular access, oak tree's canopy overhanging the site from the south, shading, neighbor / unit privacy and the overarching goal of providing three separate units each with their own private yards. Siting of Unit 2 was critical for several reasons: vehicular access, shading, privacy and preservation of the oak tree. Our response was to place the residence away from the oak tree which provides multiple benefits: utilization of existing street infrastructure for a shared driveway, minimize shading onto adjacent properties, preservation of the oak tree's protection zone and balancing the 1neighbors' privacy with open-sky views. OAK TREE DRIVEWAY HA W T H O R N E BR Y A N T CT . PROJECT SITE UNIT 3 UNIT 2 UNIT 1 1 At the ARB study session, July 20, 2017, neighbor's from both sides of the project property expressed concerns over privacy and a reduction in their open sky view. Unit 2's 1st floor overall length and width nearly form a square with the second floor selectively setback from the 1st floor. Siting the (mostly) square unit near the center of the property allowed us to provide open space all around the residence while providing (practical) distance from the adacent properties (to the north and south) to maintain an open-sky view. The open space toward the south is greater than the to the north to preserve the oak tree. Overlaying a moderate building height serves to further minimize the overall mass / volume. UNIT 2 UNIT 1 UNIT 3 UNIT 3 UNIT 2 OPEN-SKYVIEW OPEN-SKYVIEWOPEN-SKYVIEW UNIT 1 HA W T H O R N E AV E HA W T H O R N E AV E BR Y A N T CT BR Y A N T CT Siting Unit 2 toward the center of the property balanced the neighbor's open-sky views as shown by the elevations to the right. 2.g Packet Pg. 41 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 7 April 4, 2018 DESIGN CONCEPT: Architecture Style Architectural Style | Design: The design of the project was organized around the following principles and ARB comments: 1) Single-family detached home - it was decided early in the process that each unit would be designed as free-standing home with yards on all four sides which offered the possibility of indoor- outdoor space that can be enjoyed in our moderate climate, as well as private yards to garden or enjoy leisurely activites with family and friends. 2) Functionality balanced with sensible site-sensitive design that not only provides for its occupants, but respects the neighbors privacy, views and the neighborhood's mass / scale / siting patterns. 3) In response to Palo Alto's Architectural Review Board commment to provide "more distinction between the units," we are proposing craftsman style for Unit 1 (fronts Hawthorne), bungalow (similar to craftsman) for Unit 3 (fronts Bryant Court) and Unit 2 to be transitional modern farmhouse (as originally desired by the project owner). Unit 1 - Craftsman Style: (reference page 4 for rendering) Craftsman style architecture is popular in Palo Alto. Some of the more common features are painted lapped siding, stucco or shingle-siding, gable roofs with eaves often supported by corbels and earth-tone or cool exterior colors. Although hip roofs can be found on craftsman-stle homes, gable roofs are frequently used. The front entry typically contains a gable roof supported by columns that create an entry porch. Often-times the columns are treated with stone or masonry bases. Due to limitations of the site (relatively narrow) and ordinance (daylight plane) we selectively incorporated craftsman-style features for Unit 1 (fronts Hawthorne Avenue). Providing a hip-gable roof at the entry which is supported by a wooden column and corbels, allowed us to create a sense of an entry porch. In keeping with the hip-gable above the entry porch, we utilized this feature throughout to create the appearance of gable-like roofs without creating a disproportionatley tall house (relatively narrow unit width which is a function of a relatively narrow site). Additionally, we utilized traditional beveled siding installed in a lapped manner. The entry is highlighted with a vertical-grain doug fir craftsma-style front door. True divided light narrow muntins are found at all doors / windows. And lastly, we specified a cool grey-blue exterior with a creme trim color. Unit 3 - Bungalow Style: (reference page 4 for rendering) Bungalow style architecture is very similar to craftsman-style (see Unit 1 for additional information re: craftsman-style), however they are typically smaller than craftsman-style homes, are one story and contain verandas or covered porches. Considering a majority of the homes on Bryant Court are single-story or designed to appear as a single-story, we have designed Unit 3 in the bungalow-style. The gable roof over the front entry creates a entry porch which is supported by two wooden columns. The entry door is a dark mahagony and creates a focal point for the street facade. We've added ornamental features such as a "sun-burst" at the gable, trellis above the garage and corbels which support the gable eave. 2.g Packet Pg. 42 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 8 April 4, 2018 UNIT 2 DESIGN CONCEPT: Architecture Style Unit 2 - Transitional Modern Farmhouse Style: Traditional American farmhouse style harkens back to a time when farming was an inherent part of life. Earlier Georgian-era homes can also be classified as farmhouses. Because farmhouse style is flexible and not specific to an era, we applied a more modern interpretation of farmhouse in our design. Though regionally, the term farmhouse conjures up various mental images, there are many common details found on most farmhouses, some of which we've incorporated into the design. This style has become quite popular in Palo Alto. It was selected for Unit 2 because it is surrounded on all sides by single-family homes and accessory structures and we wanted the unit to have a brighter appearance. Additionally, the property owner wanted farmhouse-style architecture (or some variant there of) which adds to the fabric of the existing ecclectic architectural style of the neighborhood. Steeply-sloped gable roofs, common to the farmhouse style homes, were substituted with moderately-sloped hip roofs in observance of the daylight plane and more importantly to reduce the overall mass of the house as viewed from the neighboring properties. The exterior siding is an inverted painted board-n-batt (a.k.a. channel siding - refer to page 10), with aluminum clad windows / doors with narrow traditional true-divided light muntins. A gable roof over the front entry system provides occupants and visitors the visual cue to the "street elevation." The entire house is painted white with the exception of the entry and 1st floor volume at the back of the unit which is a cool gray. These two volumes share a common axis and derive visual massing interest by linking them through color. 2.g Packet Pg. 43 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 9 April 4, 2018 5" 1'- 6 " 8" 1'-0" 5" GSM DRIP EDGE GSM FLASHINGGSM FLASHING SELF-ADHEREDWEATHER BARRIER SELF-ADHEREDWEATHER BARRIER OGEE GUTTER AC SHINGLE (0'-4")GRADE 1st SUBFLOOR(0'-0") 1st FLOOR TOP PL(8'-0") 2nd SUBFLOOR(9'-0 5/8") 2nd FLOOR TOP PL(17'-0 5/8") ALT: PIER & GRADE BEAM FOOTING STRUCTURAL SOGW/THICKENED EDGE 2" THERMASHEATH RIGID FOAM INSULATION 1'- 6 " MIN . CO D E RE Q D . DE P T H MIN . 8"4" 1'-3" 7'- 1 0 3/ 4 " 7'- 9 1/ 4 " TRUSS JOIST 8-10' PIER6' O.C. GRADEBEAM SOG 2X WOOD TRIM 3/4" WOOD SIDING 2X4 RAFTER TAILS 1/2" OSB SHEATHING 1/2" ROOF SHEATHING BATT INSULATION WALL DETAIL CONSTRUCTION METHODS: Construction Methods: The units will be wood framed on a structural 1slab-on-grade. We intend to utilize pre-cut framing panels and roof trusses fabricated off-site and shipped to the site for erection. See wall detail for additional information. 1 At the ARB study session, July 20, 2017, it was stated that a pier and grade beam foundation is appropriate to protect the oak tree's roots. An alternate pier-grade-beam detail is included to show the increase impact on the oak tree's roots over a SOG. 2.g Packet Pg. 44 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 10 April 4, 2018 5 Boral TruExterior™ Siding Craftsman Collection™ Channel Nominal Sizes Actual Sizes 1 x 6 11/16” x 5 1/2” 1 x 8 11/16” x 7 1/4” 1 x 10 11/16” x 9 1/4” WIDE GROOVE CREATES A RICH SHADOW LINE EFFECT 5 Boral TruExterior® SidingBuild something great™ Nickel Gap Siding Nickel Gap Siding is the newest addition to the Boral TruExterior® Siding Craftsman Collection™. The tongue-and-groove profile is self-gapping, creating a consistent nickel sized space between each board, allowing installers to achieve the traditional look of perfectly-spaced shiplap siding quickly and easily, without the need for spacers. Boral TruExterior® Siding Boral has created an entirely new category of siding products with its Boral TruExterior® Siding. The six new Craftsman Collection™ profiles recreate the look and feel of traditional wood siding but perform better, are remarkably workable and have a lasting look – offering a solution for homeowners who desire the look and feel of traditional wood siding without the constant maintenance and upkeep associated with exterior wood products. Nickel Gap Specifications 888.9BORAL9 | www.BoralTruExterior.com ©2016 Boral Composites Inc. 10/16 † See Boral TruExterior® Siding Warranty and Data Sheet for proprietary test results, located at www.BoralTruExterior.com Boral TruExterior® Siding Facts · Workability exceeds that of wood siding · Installs with standard woodworking tools and methods · No need to prime ends or field cuts · Easily accepts paint of any color · Accepts a wide variety of fasteners · Resists rot and termite attacks† · Maintains high level of dimensional stability† · No cracking or splitting from moisture · 16' lengths · Made in the USA · 20-year limited warranty† Nominal Size Thickness (A)Actual Width (B)Reveal (C)Gap (D)Tongue (E) 11/16 x 4 0.6875"3.50"3.1591"0.08"0.3409" 11/16 x 6 0.6875”5.50"5.1591"0.08"0.3409" 11/16 x 8 0.6875”7.25"6.9091"0.08"0.3409" 11/16 x 10 0.6875”9.25"7.9091"0.08"0.3409" Nickel Gap Profile C ED A B BORAL TRUEXTERIOR CHANNEL SIDINGBORAL TRUEXTERIOR NICKEL GAP SIDING BORAL TRUEXTERIOR BEVEL SIDING MATERIALS: EXTERIOR SIDINGS 2.g Packet Pg. 45 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 11 April 4, 2018 STORMWATCH® PROTECTION (HARBORMASTER® SYSTEMS) Designed for impact resistance, these systems use monolithic or insulated laminated glass in combination with structural enhancements to meet or exceed the stringent code requirements of ASTM and TAS testing protocols.* DECORATIVE AND SPECIALTY GLASS Select from our decorative glass collections found online at andersenwindows.com/e-series or combine beveled, frosted, grooved, colored or textured glass with three caming options to create your own design. Specialty glass includes tinted glass, spandrel glass and Mapes panels as well as rain, reeded and obscure glass options. A removable interior grille. Available with optional surround and a permanent exterior grille. PROFILES: 5⁄8", 7⁄8", 1 1⁄8", 1 1⁄2" and 2 1⁄4" Features permanent interior and exterior grilles with grille spacer bars between two panes of insulating glass. A traditional divided light look with modern energy efficiency. PROFILES: 5⁄8", 7⁄8", 1 1⁄8", 1 1⁄2" and 2 1⁄4" An economical solution featuring permanent interior and exterior grilles without grille spacer bars. PROFILES: 7⁄8" Ovolo (Colonial)Contemporary Ovolo Contemporary Ovolo (shown with permanent exterior grille)Contemporary PROFILES: 5⁄8" flat and 1" contoured Aluminum grilles conveniently placed between two panes of glass for easy cleaning inside and out. grille options additional glass options FULL DIVIDED LIGHT SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHT FINELIGHT GRILLES-BETWEEN-THE-GLASS *See your local code official for building code requirements in your area. REMOVABLE WOOD GRILLES E-Series French gliding patio door and rectangle and arch picture windows. Colonial divided light pattern. Shown with 1" contoured profile DESIGN YOUR OWN GRILLES We offer a variety of grille patterns to choose from or design your own with varying lines, curves and shapes to create a truly unique pattern. 25 Classic shades and dimensional appearance of natural wood or slate. LANDMARK® Landmark Landmark PRO Presidential Shake Landmark Solaris Platinum Presidential Shake TLArcadia Shake Presidio Metal RoofingGood:Better:Best: Solaris Max Def Georgetown GrayCRRC Product ID 0668-0122 Solaris Max Def Moire BlackCRRC Product ID 0668-0130 Landmark Pro is a heavier weight laminate designed specifically for the professional roofing contractor that takes pride in providing more to their customer. Landmark Pro improves upon the CertainTeed Landmark shingle, a leading consumer publication’s “Best Buy” for the past five years. LANDMARK® PRO Presidential Shake is a solar reflective asphalt roofing that is designed to replicate the look of authentic wood shakes, delivering the charm of hand-split wood shakes with durability and strength that outperforms wood. The rich mixture of surface granules adds a new dimension to the shingle. PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE® Solaris Autumn BlendCRRC Product ID 0668-0127 Solaris Max Def Heather BlendCRRC Product ID 0668-0123 Solaris Max Def Weathered WoodCRRC Product ID 0668-0125 Solaris Country GrayCRRC Product ID 0668-0128 Solaris Max Def Resawn ShakeCRRC Product ID 0668-0124 Silver BirchCRRC Product ID 0668-0072 Mojave TanCRRC Product ID 0668-0115 Silver Birch CRRC Product ID 0668-0072 Mist WhiteCRRC Product ID 0668-0071 BirchwoodCRRC Product ID 0668-0084 Solaris Moire Black CRRC Product ID 0668-0129 Solaris Aged CedarCRRC Product ID 0668-0055 Solaris Crystal Gray CRRC Product ID 0668-0058 Solaris Georgetown GrayCRRC Product ID 0668-0116 Solaris Dusky ClayCRRC Product ID 0668-0057 Solaris Heather BlendCRRC Product ID 0668-0117 Solaris Resawn Shake CRRC Product ID 0668-0118 Solaris Weathered WoodCRRC Product ID 0668-0119 With Landmark Solaris Platinum, you get a fresh, bright color palette but with an industry-leading solar reflectance value of over 40%. The rustic authenticity of our Presidential Shake TL shingles with the added strength of triple laminate construction. Arcadia Shake offers homeowners an artisan look at a price that makes it the smart choice for protecting and beautifying their home. Coastal TanCRRC Product ID 0668-0079 Santa FeCRRC Product ID 0668-0080 Sierra BuffCRRC Product ID 0668-0078 LANDMARK SOLARIS® PLATINUM ARCADIA SHAKE® PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE® TL Solaris CypresswoodCRRC Product ID 0668-0120 Solaris Weathered WoodCRRC Product ID 0668-0121 Solaris Autumn BlendCRRC Product ID 0668-0127 Solaris Country GrayCRRC Product ID 0668-0128 English Toffee CRRC Product ID 0668-0086 NutmegCRRC Product ID 0668-0096 Ash CRRC Product ID 0668-0095 Weathered Wood CRRC Product ID 0668-0090 Sand DuneCRRC Product ID 0668-0085 TILE SHAKE Presidio metal roofing replicates the charm of classical roofing materials with lightweight steel acheiving exceptional wind/hail resistance and solar reflectance. PRESIDIO® Speckled Bronze CRRC Product ID 0668-0088 Metal Roofing TerracottaCRRC Product ID 0668-0089 ANDERSON WINDOW / DOOR GRILLE LANDMARK PRO SOLARIS SHINGLES 7/8" OVOLO FULL DIVIDED LIGHT MATERIALS: ROOFING / WINDOW-DOOR GRILLE 2.g Packet Pg. 46 O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 12 April 4, 2018 UNIT 1 - THUNDER STORM GRAY UNIT 2 - GEORGETOWN GRAY UNIT 3 - WEATHERED WOOD UNIT 1 - FIELD BM AMSTERDAM AF-550 UNIT 2 - FIELD BM CHANTILLY LACE OC-65 UNIT 3 - FIELD BM FLORA AF-470 UNIT 1 - TRIM BM FROSTINE AF-5 UNIT 2 - TRIM BM FROSTINE AF-5 UNIT 3 - TRIM BM MASCARPONE AF-20 ANDERSON CLAD DARK BRONZE ANDERSON CLAD BLACK ANDERSON CLAD BLACK MATERIALS: ROOFING / WINDOW-DOOR CLADDING COLOR / EXTERIOR PAINT COLORS 2.g Packet Pg. 47 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8898) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/15/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 356 Hawthorne Avenue: Three Residential Units (1st formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 356 Hawthorne Avenue [17PLN-00367]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Four-Unit, 4,032 Square Foot Multi- Family Residential Development and Construction of a new 4,561 Square Foot, Multi-Family Development Comprised of Three Detached Residential Units Each With an Attached Single Car Garage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple- Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@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 new three unit, multi-family residential 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 major architectural review of a new multi-family development comprised of three condominium units, each with an attached single car garage in the Low Density Multi-family Residence District (RM-15). The proposed project would replace the existing four-unit, 4,032 square foot (sf) multi-family residential development currently on the 9,506 sf lot. The existing building was originally constructed in 1922, though is not considered a historic resource. 5 Packet Pg. 362 2.h Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76.020(b)(2)(B) of the Zoning Code, architectural review is required for any multi-family residential project that contains three or more units. Draft findings and conditions are included with this report as attachments (Attachments B and C). Background Project Information Owner: SGLG Investments, LLC Architect: Michael Chacon Representative: Michael Chacon Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 356 Hawthorne Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown North Lot Dimensions & Area: 190’ x 50’; 9,506 sf Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, two (2) protected street tree locations; one (1) red maple and one (1) vacant street tree planter area Historic Resource(s): The site was reviewed by the City’s Historic Planner and no resources were found Existing Improvement(s): 4,032 sf in total; one- and two-story residences; 1922 Existing Land Use(s): Multi-family Residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-15, PF (Johnson Park) West: RM-15 (low-density multi-family residential) East: RM-30 (Everett Manor, Everett Apartments, multi-family residential apartments) South: RM-30, PC-4339 and RMD(NP) Aerial View of Property: 5 Packet Pg. 363 2.h Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residence District (RM-15) Comp. Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, within RM-15 zoning district an adjacent to RM-30 and PC-4339 (within 150’ of subject site) Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary ARB review on July 20, 2017; see 5 Packet Pg. 364 2.h Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61787 for staff report Project Description The proposed project seeks to replace an existing four-unit multi-family development originally built circa 1922 (non-historic) and construct a three-unit condominium project comprised of a 1,803 sf, two-story residence (Unit 1) located along Hawthorne Avenue, a 1,791 sf, two-story residence (Unit 2) in the middle of the lot and a 974 sf, single-story residence (Unit 3) along the alleyway known as Bryant Court. Each unit is proposed with a covered one-car garage of which a maximum of 230 sf is excluded from each unit’s FAR total as provided by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.13.040, Table 2, Note 4. The two-story units are proposed at maximum heights of 23 feet and 23 feet 5 inches for Units 1 and 2 respectively, with Unit 3, a single-story home, proposed at a maximum height of 16 feet 8 inches. The floor area total (4,561 sf) of the proposed condominiums is under the allowed 0.5:1 FAR (4,753 sf) for the 9,506 sf lot. The three proposed residential units are the maximum density for this sized lot as prescribed for the RM- 15 zoning district. All three of the proposed residences share a similar modern farmhouse architectural design featuring vertical boards without battens mixed with sections of horizontal lapped siding. The units share a primary exterior color scheme of white and gray contrasted with dark (black) wood clad aluminum window and doors. The chosen roof material for all three units is asphalt composite shingle in silver birch. Unit 1’s proposed maximum height is compatible with both of the adjacent 24 foot tall roof profiles of the two-story homes (204 Waverley Street and 350 Hamilton Avenue) on each side of it along Hawthorne Avenue. Unit 3 is proposed as a small one-story residence which is consistent with the lower profiles of the neighboring properties to the rear (228 Waverley Street and 351 Bryant Court) and appropriate for the close proximity and residential scale along Bryant Court. The shared driveway serving Unit 1 and 2 is located on the left side of the lot in order to protect the large coast live oak that exists on the neighboring lot (350 Hawthorne Avenue) near the shared side yard lot line. Please see the applicant’s project description letter in Attachment H for further detail. A previous iteration of the proposed project was review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on July 20, 2017 during a preliminary review hearing. During this meeting, the ARB provided the applicant constructive non-binding feedback to which the applicant has responded in the formal application. A summary of those comments and the applicant’s responses is provided in the following table: ARB Preliminary Feedback Applicant Response Exterior Material Choices. The proposed use of T1-11 siding and stone veneer skirting are not appropriate building material. The proposed primary exterior materials will be a higher grade siding. The stone veneer building skirt has been removed 5 Packet Pg. 365 2.h Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 from the design entirely. Building Mass & Proportion. Proposed two- story residences are too aligned and lack modulation to help break up building form. Both two-story units have been redesigned to better articulate the second-story massing and proportionality. Additionally, the main entries have been relocated to face toward the street. Location of Unit 3’s Driveway. ARB shared in the commenting neighbor’s opinion that Unit 3’s driveway should be flipped. Driveway location of Unit 3 has been relocated to the opposite side (i.e. closer to 351 Bryant Court). Landscape Detail. Landscaping would help soften the streetscape view especially along Bryant Court. Extensive landscape has been proposed for the project site to help integrate and reduce the visual impact of the new development (see L-4.0 of the plan set). Egress for Unit 2. Unit 2’s residents may have issues backing out the ~100 foot driveway onto Hawthorne Avenue. Transportation Division staff reviewed the project plans and circulation and have no concerns with vehicle egress onto Hawthorne Avenue. The development application was submitted in conjunction with a separate Preliminary Parcel Map application (17PLN-00381) requesting to subdivide the 9,506 sf lot into three separate air parcels for condominium purposes. Approval of the subdivision application prior to issuance of the building permit will be included as part of this development application’s conditions of approval should the ARB move to recommend approval. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 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. 5 Packet Pg. 366 2.h Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject lot is located in Palo Alto’s Downtown North neighborhood in an RM-15 zoning district block, surrounded by a mix of single-family and low-density multi-family residential developments along Hawthorne Avenue, and in close proximity to Johnson Park. The lot abuts Bryant Court, a narrow one-way alley to its east and shares the length of its north side yard lot- line with the rear yards of four lots along Waverly Street, while the south side yard lot-line is shared with two abutting lots located at 350 Hamilton Avenue and 351 and 357 Bryant Court. The immediate surrounding neighborhood is comprised of an eclectic mix of one- and two-story residences of various architectural styles including modern, Spanish revival, bungalow vernacular, and modest Craftsman. The project proposes a modernized traditional farmhouse design that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, utilizing shallow-pitched roof lines and simple rectangular profiles which subdue massing and volume from street view. The streetscape along Bryant Court is highly varied composed of a mixture of one- and two-story homes, carports, and higher density multi-family apartments, and presents a more intimate surrounding environment due to the shortened setbacks and width of the one-way alley. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with RM-15 zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment F. 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. In addition to the necessary compliance with the aforementioned zoning district development standards, the project is also subject to the Context-Based Design Criteria and Performance Criteria specified in PAMC Chapters 18.13 and 18.23, respectively. Summary tables outlining the proposed project’s consistency with these performance and context-based design criteria are provided in Attachments D and E. 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 Low Density Multi-Family Residence District (RM-15), which prescribes a density range of eight to 15 dwelling units per 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 5 Packet Pg. 367 2.h Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 acre. The project has a maximum density of 3.27 dwelling units per acre (or 15 units per acre), which complies with the intended low-density multi-family residential density. There are two housing policies that are relevant to the proposed project: Comprehensive Plan policy H1.2 seeks to “Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods” and policy L-2.7 seeks to “Support efforts to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhoods, including a range of smaller housing types.” The proposed project seeks to demolish the four existing rental units on-site to construct three new condominium units, which would result in the net loss of one rental unit. However, the existing development on the lot is considered legal non-conforming as the four dwelling units exceed the maximum density permitted in the RM-15 zoning district. The proposed three-unit condominium development would bring the lot into conformance with the aforementioned RM-15 development standards. As part of the comprehensive plan’s implementation, staff will examine ways to discourage the net loss of housing units, however, at this time, no regulation currently exists. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site is not located on a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) path, however, both Hawthorne Avenue and Bryant Court feed directly into Bryant Street, which is a designated SRTS route serving Addison Elementary, Jordan Middle School, and Palo Alto High School. Units 1 and 2 are proposed to share a common driveway accessed from Hawthorne Avenue with Unit 3’s access to be taken from Bryant Court. Each lot is designed to accommodate an uncovered parking space in addition to the required covered parking stall; Units 1 and 2 feature tandem parking orientations as permitted in this zoning district. Additionally, the project proposes a long-term bicycle storage locker to be located on each condominium parcel. Consistency with Application Findings Overall, the design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the required Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Draft findings substantiating how the project satisfied each required finding is provided in Attachment B. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA in accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). 5 Packet Pg. 368 2.h Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on February 28, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 28, 2018, which is 14 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, one public comment was submitted directly to the project planner via email correspondence dated February 2, 2018, sent from the neighbor living at 351 Byrant Court, adjacent to the project site. The inquiry was regarding the City’s requirement for containment of potentially hazardous materials and pollutants during demolition. The project planner provided a subsequent email response and had a follow-up phone conversation with the neighbor. The email correspondence can be found under Attachment I included with this report. A second attachment is provided documenting correspondence between the same neighbor and applicant regarding the location of Unit 3’s trash receptacles, the shared fence between the two properties, and drip lines of new trees associated with the project. The applicant copied the project planner on the email correspondence on December 5, 2017. This correspondence can also be found under Attachment I. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (JPG)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria Compliance (DOCX)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Packet Pg. 369 2.h Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9  Attachment G: Project Description Letter (PDF)  Attachment H: Public Comment (PDF)  Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 370 2.h Packet Pg. 56 ATTACHMENT I 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 “356 Hawthorne 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 Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/current/projects/pending.asp 2.i Packet Pg. 57 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9206) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/17/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: South El Camino Design Guidelines Study Session Title: Study Session to discuss the South El Camino Design Guidelines From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Discuss the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines Background During the April 19th ARB hearing, staff and several Board members agreed to a future in-depth discuss on the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, to gain a common understanding of how these Guidelines should be implemented. The South El Camino Real Guidelines (Guidelines) can be found on the City’s webpage at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19041. The Guidelines apply to all new development and remodeling of building exteriors of frontage properties along El Camino Real between Stanford Avenue and the southern city limit boundary. The Guidelines provide direction for enhancing the quality of El Camino Real. While the guidelines address issues and details ranging from lot coverage and site planning to the treatment of parking lots and façade details, there are several overriding design principals which provide the guiding framework for new projects. These Guiding Principles are written below and can be found on Page 10 of the Guidelines. 1. Create a pattern of pedestrian oriented "nodes" linked by corridors. 2. Create a pedestrian-oriented 12 foot sidewalk along El Camino Real featuring trees, planters and seating. 3. Bring buildings up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street. 4. Public amenities such as a wider sidewalks, outdoor seating or outdoor dining are encouraged where appropriate. 3 Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 5. Buildings should have a minimum height of twenty-five feet in order to provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real. Two and three-story buildings are strongly encouraged. 6. All buildings should be oriented towards the street with entries facing El Camino Real. 7. Corners should be addressed with special features such as prominent entries, massing and architectural elements. 8. Building facades should animate the street with ample door and window openings, as well as amenities such as arcades, awnings, stairs, and balconies. 9. In order to create a cohesive streetscape, flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged. Building facades should be articulated with clearly expressed bases, bodies, and roofs or parapets. 10. Frontages along El Camino Real should have a scale and presence proportional to the scale and importance of the thoroughfare. Transitions to adjoining residential neighborhoods should be established with variations in scale, articulation, and setbacks. Today’s discussion will include, but not be limited to, the distinct portions of a building (aka top, middle and base), and how height limitations may or may not hinder good design. A previous discussion on height limitations can be found in Attachment E of a staff report for 380 Cambridge Avenue - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62660. Environmental Review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the subject is not a project. Report Author & ARB1 Liaison Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Alexander Lew, Robert Gooyer, Osma Thompson. Absent: Chair Furth: Good morning, and welcome to the April 19th, 2018, meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Oral Communications Chair Furth: The first item on the agenda is oral communications. This is a time for the public to address any item within our purview which is not on the agenda. I don't have any speaker cards. Is there anybody who would like to speak in oral communication? Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner: We need to do the roll call first. Chair Furth: Nah. Roll call later. Public first. I now would ask that the staff call the roll. (Roll call) Chair Furth: Thank you. Sometime before my term is up I plan to do everything in order, but not today. At least I did know when you said, "Good morning, Chair Furth," you were asking me if I was here. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Any agenda changes, additions or deletions? All right. 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: Our meeting schedule, our attendance record, tentative future agenda items. I understand they're a little out of date. Could you update us on future agenda items? I hear on May 3rd we probably won't be hearing the AT&T small cell nodes project. Is that right? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: If you'll give me just one minute, I'll pull that up. Chair Furth: No rush. All right. While you're thinking about that, you can tell us after this hearing. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES: April 19, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow Construction of a 57 Unit Multi-family Residence at the Project Site. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Zoning Code Text Amendment Ordinance to Create a New Workforce Combining District and a Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance to Apply the New District to the Project Site. Council Will Consider These Ordinances Along With the Site and Design Review Application. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was Published for Public Comment on January 19, 2018 and Circulation Ended on February 20, 2018. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Item 2 on the agenda is a public hearing, it's quasi-judicial, and it's 2755 El Camino Real. This is a request for approval of a site and design review to allow construction of a 57-unit multifamily residence at the corner of El Camino and Page Mill. The project also includes a request for a zoning code text amendment ordinance to create a new workforce combining district and a zoning map amendment to apply the new district to the project site. The council will consider those enabling changes, as well as our comments. And those are the Planning and Transportation Commission. There was an initial study with a mitigated negative declaration prepared and circulated. That circulation period has ended. Staff report, please. Claire Hodgkins: Thank you. Good morning, board members. Again, the project before you today is a site and design review for 2755 El Camino Real. A brief overview. Demolition of an existing at-grade parking lot at 2755 and construction of a four-story multifamily residential development with 57 rental units. Just a brief background on the project. We've gone to Council a couple times for prescreening. We've gone to PTC, and the PTC recommended approval in January 2018. We're looking for a recommendation today from the ARB, and tentatively scheduled for May/June 2018 for Council. The MND was circulated in January; circulation ended in February. Some of the key project changes addressing ARB comments. I won't go into too much detail on this because I know the applicant is planning to. But, some of the requests you guys had were to add a top to the building; to provide more detail on the landscaping design; clarify circulation and the proposed pick-up and drop-off area; further refine massing on the building by providing some more windows and some more articulation on the building; and, clarification and improvements to the ground floor units. Staff feels like all of these changes have been made and improvements have been made to the plan to address these comments. Some same key items for consideration: Consistency with the South El Camino and El Camino Real Design Guidelines; consistency with the context-based design criteria, as well as the performance criteria; relationship between the building and the street; and then, just overall massing and articulation and circulation on the project. Staff recommends that the ARB take the following actions: Consider the MND and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and recommend approval of the site and design application to City Council, based on the findings and conditions of approval included in the Record of Land Use Action. With that, I'll turn it back to you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Has anybody seen the site? Okay, everybody has seen the site. Does anybody have any conversations they wish to report concerning this project? Okay, no conversations to report. Any questions before we hear from the applicant? Alex. Board Member Lew: I have one question for staff. This is just a zoning overlay? Ms. Hodgkins: Mm-hmm. Board Member Lew: Are we going to have a separate opportunity to comment on the proposed zoning overlay for this? Like for the housing on public facilities? Or is this our only...? City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ms. Hodgkins: This is the only opportunity. That is part of Council's purview and will be for the PTC recommendation for the zoning overlay, is going to be forwarded to Council. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: All right. May we hear from the applicant? You have 10 minutes. And if we could have your name and its spelling for the record. Tod Spieker: Hi, my name is Tod Spieker [Spells name] with Windy Hill Property Ventures. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Spieker: Thank you, Claire and staff, for all the work you have put into getting this project where we are today, and thank you Board members for giving our project thoughtful consideration and feedback today and the previous two hearings. Windy Hill Property Ventures is a small Palo Alto-based development company. We primarily work in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, with a strong focus on amenity-rich sites close to transit. I just want to get into the timing of this. This slide illustrates the time we spent working with staff and the community to come before you with this project today. This was the former VTA site purchased by Pollock Financial in 2014, and at the time, they proposed a primarily office project. As part of the feedback during their September 2015 pre-screening, a majority of Council members mentioned the need for more housing or being an appropriate location for more housing in Palo Alto. Based on that feedback from Council, Windy Hill and Pollock Financial formed a partnership in 2016, where Windy Hill would propose to entitle this studio and one-bedroom housing project. We submitted our application for a City Council study session in the summer of 2016. In September of 2016, we had a prescreening with City Council, where the majority of councilmembers gave positive feedback for a housing project on this site. In December of 2016, we submitted a formal application with the City. We were then asked to go to Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board for further study sessions. During this time, we did extensive community outreach, meeting with neighbors, respected community members, elected officials and appointed officials. In January of this year, we received unanimous approval to move forward with our project from the Planning and Transportation Commission. Based on these study sessions, public hearings and community meetings over the past almost two years, we have made significant modifications to our original proposal. We know that we did not make everybody happy, but we hope that it can be appreciated that we gave thoughtful consideration to the concerns and made changes and compromised where we could. When we submitted our changes to staff based on the comments from the previous ARB, an immediate comment we got back was we'd still like to see more native plants. Most recently, that's not shown in your packet. We are going to show you today an update with more native plants. If that's one of your comments, I'll let Paul talk to you about that. Now, I'm going to turn it over to Ian Murphy at BDE Architecture and Paul Lettieri from Guzzardo to talk about the specific changes that were made since the last hearing. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Spieker. Ian Murphy: First off, I'd like to thank staff and the board. Thank you for all your comments previously. We think that what we're presenting today (inaudible) those comments and really makes the project better. Chair Furth: Thank you. Could you give us, again, your name and spell it for the transcriber? Mr. Murphy: Ian Murphy [spells name]. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Murphy: I'm just going to skip through to a few slides here. One of the comments that we got from the Board last time was to clarify the circulation on the site. In re-addressing the project, we included this slide in the package that was given, and we expanded to show all the way up El Camino, to show that City of Palo Alto Page 4 the first lane of traffic is not actually a lane of traffic, but it's a bus parking zone and a 30-minute loading zone. And then, the remainder of the block is parking. I don't think that was 100 percent clear in our previous submittal, and I think this helps a lot to explain that people turning off of Page Mill are not turning directly onto the front of the project. There's actually a lane of separation and a bike lane before the first actual vehicular traffic lane. We also wanted to clarify how people coming to the site as pedestrians would come to the lobby and park in short-term bike parking, or come through the driveway entrance and get to the long-term bike parking for residents. I think that we've help to do that here with this slide. Again, in the overall site plan, we wanted to clarify where that loading zone that people would be coming to the, you know, drop off Ubers, or a FedEx truck, or someone dropping off a package, be able to stop momentarily for a short term, and the proximal to the front entry lobby, and be able to come into the project. We have a couple updated landscape plans. I'm going to let Paul speak to that more in a little bit, but we've tried to greatly increase the number of native plants per previous comments on the project, as well as clarify where we'll have some opportunities for vertical planting and vines that will kind of activate some of our frontages and our entry. This is the added slide that Tod was just speaking to, kind of clarifying which planting we believe qualifies as native planting, and a couple exceptions here and there throughout the project. Paul will come back up and speak to that in a second. This is the overall building plan of the roof deck. We received comments to add shading structures on the roof deck in a couple different manners. First off, we've added umbrellas to add spot shade to different seating areas, and we've actually incorporated an architectural trellis that wraps around into the roof deck area, providing a more robust and integrated opportunity for shading different seating areas. Another comment we got was to clarify how we plan to visually buffer the ground floor units on Page Mill. While the lot line falls away from the building and it's variable in depth, we've actually decided to raise the building 12 inches off the ground further and have raised plantings and have a raised sill that could be further enhanced by shades that go from the bottom, up. This provides a minimum five-foot height barrier so that the sight line of pedestrians walking by on the street is not looking directly into people's units for the most part, but it still adds a soft edge with landscaping, and it's still fairly activated. Here we have a few elevations showing before and after of what we came to ARB previously, and how we've changed the architecture to better reflect the top to the building. What we've tried to do is use color and a few more changes of material to define the top, as well as add a functional shade structure that, given the orientation of the building, should help with shading the top floors and provide interesting shadow lines, and hopefully address what the Board commented on previously. That's El Camino, adding further articulation. And then, on the back of the building, we've tried to add a lot more interest to the side facing the senior care facility. Added windows per comments, and more articulation and color change and detailing at the top level of the building, even on the back side. Previously not mentioned, the masonry walls on site are between 5 foot 6 and 6 foot 6 and in keeping with the planning standards, so we decided to remove the proposed wood fence and leave the masonry walls as is, including the tile artwork that was noted to be on the site already. We've added a couple, edited our renderings to better reflect some of the street planting, as well as the large shade structures that we've added, and some of the articulation and material changes. With that, I'm going to give the last few minutes to Paul to talk about the planting changes that we've made. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Paul Lettieri: Good morning. Paul Lettieri with The Guzzardo Partnership, landscape architects. Native planting is always an interesting topic because it's native to where, exactly, and all of that. This is a relatively difficult site for natives because of the nature of the project being on podium, most of it, and smaller planters. But, one of the things that we always try to look at is not just the list, which we annotated the plant list that's up on the screen with little n's for the plants that actually are native. But it's not so much the list of them, it's how you use them. We looked at this plan and the green areas are all the areas where the ground plain is native planting. The little bits of orange that are up there are the ones that are non-native. This doesn't include the trees. It's interesting, we got some negative feedback on some of the native trees we had in our plans about a year ago that we took out in favor of, Japanese Maples were suggested instead of the Cersis that we had. We don't have any native trees on the plan now, but we looked at it a bit more and we think that, there is some Tristania we have shown on El Camino Real that could become Lyanathamis [phonetic], for example, which is not technically native to City of Palo Alto Page 5 Palo Alto, but it is native to California. It would function similarly to what we were doing. We also have Archtistapholis [phonetic] on the ground plane now, along the edges. The right-hand edge vertically on the plan and the upper portion now have Archtistapholis [phonetic]Pacific Mist on it, which you don't have that on your plan now. We thought that could happen. We're trying to balance the longevity and success of the project with the idea of getting native planting in it, as well. We think with these alterations, I think it is responsive to at least the spirit of what you're trying to do, and it's not 100 percent. I think that's really the goal, but that's where we went with it. We're hoping that that is at least a reasonable response to it and something you'll find acceptable. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about it. It says I have to stop now. Chair Furth: If you could spell your name for our transcriber, who is very creative otherwise. Mr. Lettieri: [spells name and name of partnership]. Chair Furth: Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Lettieri: You're welcome. Chair Furth: Any questions? Board Member Lew: Actually, Paul, stay there. I was wondering if you could address any changes that were made up on the roof terrace. Mr. Lettieri: There's a few more native grasses up there in the raised planters. We're always nervous about the raised planters and natives because part of the beauty of natives, they're deep-rooted, and they find groundwater. Well, there is no groundwater to be had on a podium. We've had uneven success with some types, but the grasses tend to do pretty well because their roots, you know, deep rooting for them is 18 inches or so, and that's about how far down we are. They never will become draught-tolerant on their own kind of planting in those kind of containers. We tried to balance the success going forward because we want Tod to hire us again on the next project. And also, to have it be successful because we have a pretty good portfolio of successful projects in Palo Alto, and we want to continue that. That's kind of the balance. That's really all very minimal there. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions of any member of the design team? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Good morning. I have a question for the architect, I suppose, please. I'd like to know what the railing proposed on the, let's see, it's the eastern corner of the building. It's the corner along Page Mill Road seen in rendering 1.2. What I'm looking at on this rendering here is, it looks like a glass railing wrapping around that corner, and yet the parapet wall must already be the height of the railing. Is that glass wall additionally a couple of feet higher? And then, is one side of it opaque? Is that what I'm understanding? Because on your elevation you're showing some change in color and texture. It seemed like that line was doing that. What is that railing there around the tree? Mr. Murphy: That railing is intended to be glass and it is higher due to the fact that we have a raised planter in that location, and we don't want to have the raised planter negate the raised parapet, so we'd like to keep the solid line datum of the solid material. The glass would be above that. Vice Chair Baltay: And it's clear glass on both side? Mr. Murphy: Yes, on the Page Mill side and the neighboring lot line side, it should be clear glass. Vice Chair Baltay: Perfect, thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else have questions of the architect? Now we get to my obsession. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Thompson: Sorry, I have a question. Chair Furth: Oh, sorry, Osma. Go ahead. Board Member Thompson: Are the windows, the windows, they have a small panel that's operable, is that right? Or are the windows not operable? Mr. Murphy: All windows into a living space or bedroom will have an operable panel. Board Member Thompson: And it's the small one in the, the sort of three panels that you have? Mr. Murphy: Yes, it's the vertical small panel for the larger window sets. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Chair Furth: Did I see exterior seating near the entrance? I'm always concerned where - I believe so - people are going to sit while they stop to chat with somebody or wait for a ride, or just need to take a break. I think it's by the entry? Mr. Murphy: Yeah, near the main entry we have a number of planters that would act as seat walls and potential seating, that create kind of an internal U. Chair Furth: It's not just potential seating, it's actual seating? Ms. Hodgkins: I believe there's also a bench, or at least I saw it on one of the sheets, it does show a bench next to the planter opposite the bike racks. Right next to the bike room... Board Member Lew: Yes. Ms. Hodgkins: ...there was a bench. Chair Furth: Thank you. But that's exterior, right? Ms. Hodgkins: On the exterior, yeah. Chair Furth: All right. Just wanted to be sure I was reading that right. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? If not, to us. Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Well, I think it's improved greatly from the last time I saw it. The only real problem I have with it at this point is still the whole concept of a top, especially on the two street elevations, to me are a little weak. I haven't really decided whether that deserves an up or a down vote on my part, so I'd like to see what the rest of my group has to say. Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you for the revisions on the project. I think they're actually very well done. I'm very happy with the building. I can support the project. I did want to comment on the zoning overlay. Chair Furth: Should we do that after we do this project? Have a comment session on that? Board Member Lew: I'm going to be very brief on this. Chair Furth: Okay, fine. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Lew: I just have one issue. Many people in Palo Alto think that our 50-foot height limit is sacrosanct, but the reality is the height limit varies from 25 feet to, I think 75 feet in the hospital zone. It really stair-steps depending on the location. Knowing that the Council is thinking about housing projects downtown, and the Council also wants retail, my recommendation would be to consider a higher height limit, say maybe 55 feet, for projects that have four floors of residential and retail. The thing that I think San Francisco learned is that if you have a 50-foot height limit and the developer is trying to squeeze in a retail floor and four floors of residential, that you get undesirable retail space. They don't give the height limit. It's not everywhere. It's only particular sites. They don't give you the extra height if you're building office. It's really only that configuration of housing and retail. So, I think that they should consider that since they're thinking about it in the downtown district. On the roof terrace on the building, I think it's in the right location because it breaks up the long façade on Page Mill. I have to say, though, I think the better view opportunity is facing El Camino, facing the hills to the west. But I think where you have it is the best location, considering your neighbors and the long façade. I think we got some revised landscaping comments by email at, like, 4:30 in the morning. I didn't look at them. My comment before that, though, were that you have too many native plants. I just want to give you an example. I don't want to go in circles, but I want to give you an example. I went to where the new Children's Hospital, at Stanford, and they have a big podium garden. Right in the middle there is a huge mound of hummingbird plants, and there's only, like three species. There's the native, like a salvia clevelandii, which is native to California, there is a salvia leucantha, which is really more of a Mexican plant, and rosemary, which is a Mediterranean plant. Those are all three plants that hummingbirds love and they provide nectar at different times of the year. The danger is when they're 100 percent native plants is that, really, you're going to get a very narrow bloom period in, like, right now, April, and then it's not going to look so great all summer long. For me, the finding that we have is to use as many indigenous plants as possible, and I think the finding, the actual word the native plant people use is "endemic." And the definition of a native plant is pre-European contact in California. We're talking about going back to Indians. I think reasonable people, you know, we don't think that, that's going to be very difficult to achieve. And then, as Paul mentioned, the planters are difficult, especially rooftop planters. My take on it is on the, as you have it now, I think it's definitely approvable. I would be interested in seeing more, a wider mix of plants on the Page Mill planters, at grade. You basically have a lot of Lulenbergia [phonetic], a lot of it, on two levels, both at-grade and on the raised planter, and some mimulus, and I would like to encourage you to try to add a little bit more color. And they can be non-native, and they can be plants that are long-blooming. There are some hybrid salvias now that basically bloom almost all year long. Like, nine months of the year. And they're wildlife-desirable, as well. I have a couple comments for staff. I think on page 21, there's a word that says "time" and I think you mean "type." On page 25 of, I think it's on the comp plan findings - let's see - 25, on Finding 4, I would add that there's a bicycle lane being added on Page Mill. Right? It's not a whole lane, but between the traffic lanes and the right-turn lane, I think the County wanted that. Ms. Hodgkins: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Okay, great. Ms. Hodgkins: The last sentence of the first paragraph under Finding 4, I added that. Board Member Lew: Okay. Okay, excellent. And then, on finding number 5 on landscape, I would add that all of the native grasses in there provide a design linkage to the grasses at the Mayfield playing fields across the street. And then, Finding 3, also on page 25, I would add that the brick provides a design linkage to the Sunrise housing next door. Thank you. Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: Hi there. Well, so, I apologize for not being here last time to review this project. Looking at it this time, I looked through the meeting minutes and understood the concern about the base, middle and top. Truthfully, I can't say that what you've provided feels adequate in terms of the top. It looks like a shading structure but it doesn't seem to be shading very much, save the top. And even City of Palo Alto Page 8 then, the structure has all these holes in it, so it's not really shading anything, and in all the elevations that you provided, we were supposed to argue for a context, you know, base design, and the elevation showing the context, it just doesn't seem... there's some things that work, but in particular, the upper half of the project does not. In that sense, also going back to shading, you have a southeast and a southwest façade that basically has no shading, and glass. I think adding that element would not only help your project thermally, it would add to your sustainability initiatives. I think it would also add aesthetically to the project, and I think it also might actually inform your top a little bit more. I think it could develop what currently doesn't seem to aesthetically convey to me that this is an adequate top to the building. That's kind of my thoughts on that. Another item in the findings is to have a lively corner. This is a really important corner for El Camino. In the renderings, it seems like it could also use more work, so that's another point that seems to be lacking in your design. Perhaps it's something different on the ground floor, but the corner is very important. You have these intermediary bands that you're sort of using in between the floors, and those also don't have a relationship to your top, so that could also be something that you might consider to integrate the aesthetic of what you're developing, to actually make a more cohesive and coherent project for the site. Those are my comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you very much for all the improvements you've made. I do think the building has gotten better as it's gone through this process. I find Osma's comments insightful, and generally I agree with her comments about the top of the building, the detailing, the sustainability issues of shading. I find myself in agreement with Alex's comment about the landscaping. It seems to me to be well advised to, I know the staff pushes you hard sometimes for native landscaping, but sometimes it would work better to make sure that the roof deck works first, even if that means perhaps plants that are post-European colonization. Mostly I find myself in agreement with Robert. I'm just really on the fence on this. The building's coming there, but unfortunately for me, too many pieces just don't quite come together to make the necessary findings, as well as a ground-breaking building for higher-density housing. The bar is invariably higher, requiring an exemplary design. I just don't see this as that kind of great design. We're asking for a lot here. The parts are here, they're moving in the right direction, but this is just not a finished design, in my opinion. I'm going to leave it at that for now and see what Wynn has to say. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I support the project as it's presented. I actually like the way it engages the corner. I think about it a lot in terms of pedestrians and other people going by. I think about, is the street just to the north Grant? It's one of the Civil War streets. Is it Sherman? Grant? Ms. Hodgkins: Say that one more time? Chair Furth: The street just up El Camino. Ms. Hodgkins: It's Sherman. Chair Furth: It's Sherman. That provides a good pedestrian connection to a very lively area. You could walk that way if you're willing to, I don't know if anybody shops at grocery stores anymore, but you could walk that way and do it, or ride your bike. I think this is a very good location. For me, it's not so much that it's transit-oriented as it's near California avenue and a lot of employment centers. I think this is a really good location for this use, and I'm very happy to see the project. I like the way you addressed the challenge of first-floor units on a very busy street. I went out with a tape measure and measured two and a half feet up from the sidewalk in front of my house, and nine feet back, and I think this works. Went and looked at some...My street is not as busy, but I think you've solved that, you've addressed that problem in a way that I think works, and that's a problem we've seen in a lot of proposed development along these major streets with ground residential. I like what we did there. I appreciate that you've thought through how this building works, how people get in and out, how their visitors get in and out, how deliveries get in and out. I think that's a lot better. On the plant selection, we're dealing with a relatively new standard and it says feasible, and it says local, and it says habitat. As somebody who firmly City of Palo Alto Page 9 hates baccharis pilularis, after many unhappy experiences with it my garden, and very happy experiences with other plants, I'm sympathetic to the nothing that, first of all, you have to have a plant that's going to work where you're going to put it. The second thing I want to know is that, you know, butterflies, and bees, and birds, and probably even squirrels are going to find this adding to the livable habitat in this area, so those are probably the things I look at most. And even before you made your changes, you had a high percentage of indigenous plants in your plan, and I made a note that I thought that was commendable. I think when staff pushes you, they are reflecting comments we've made, and we stand by. But thoughtful use of plants that will advance the agenda of using plants that are suited to this area, that have historically been in this area, or a modern variance on those, lots of cultivars out there, and that provide a sense that you're in California, you're on a peninsula, and it's not just humans who live here, are admirable. I agree that if you need a big more flexibility to have things that actually work, you should have it. There is that feasibility project in there. I've been working with people trying to build housing for 50 years, or studying, preparatory to doing that. There's always something wrong with every housing project. It's in the wrong place, or it's in the wrong - There's always something wrong. They're never perfect. And you're not required to make me happy. You're required to give me a project good enough to let me make the findings that we're required to make, and I can make those findings. I do have some comments for staff about the hundred-plus condition record of land use approval. Some of them are clerical, and I'll just give you those in the form of a marked-up document. Old habits die slowly. I would say that it's really helpful for me and the public to spell out. Not everybody know what Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance means, let alone MWELO. If you would spell those things out, it would be more readable and understandable to the general public, which includes me. I would also ask that you not talk about targeting young tech workers. We have enough problems with age discrimination in this valley without that. I think we're targeting workforce housing, but we don't assume that people stop working at 35. On condition number 7, package page 27, I don’t quite understand. This is about the enforcement of workforce housing restrictions and local preference - which, by the way, thank you for proposing that. I think it's very helpful to us. Often we build housing that simply becomes a commodity somebody purchases and doesn't occupy, or becomes short-term corporate housing. It says "Applicant shall monitor and report on the requirements as agreed upon annually for no less than five years." And then it says, "After three (5) years of successful monitoring...." I would like to know, you can clarify that. I presume you mean five. On condition number 8, you talked about reducing motor vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 35 percent, but you don't specify the baseline. That doesn't have any meaning unless you give us a baseline. What is the baseline? ITE estimates? Ms. Hodgkins: The baseline is from the... Chair Furth: It's in the Hexagon report. Ms. Hodgkins: ...Transportation Impact Analysis, and it's...let me think. We'll... Chair Furth: Just put that in, please. Ms. Hodgkins: ...provide clarification on that. Chair Furth: Condition number 13 on the next page. This is about guest parking. It says, "Parking shall be unbundled" -- I'm not sure how that relates to this -- "as outlined in the TDM program. Lift parking shall be designed to accommodate at least two guest spaces." That's not really about guest parking, which I think is addressed somewhere else. I hope. My question was, with the unbundled parking, what can the project proponent owner do with parking that isn't rented by tenants? What are the permitted uses of that excess parking? Ms. Hodgkins: We haven't talked about that too much, to be honest, the access parking. As of right now, it's understood that it would not be rented out in any way to other uses. The whole purpose of unbundled parking is just to discourage people from having -- Chair Furth: To put a price on parking. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Ms. Hodgkins: Exactly. To hopefully discourage people from owning a car at all. Chair Furth: If the applicant could comment. I realize it's an extremely high-class problem, to have too much parking there. Mr. Spieker: It's the idea for someone who wants to rent the unit and doesn't want to pay for a parking spot. We're encouraging people to not have a car. But then there are, as has been mentioned, when we were originally at 45 parking stalls and now we're significantly higher, if someone were to rent a unit -- a husband and wife, a couple, two roommates -- that they could buy two parking spaces. Chair Furth: You could float it around with in the project. Mr. Spieker: You could float it around, but only within the project. It's not like the neighbors could start renting spots. Chair Furth: Thank you. I think that's all of my bright red ink. I used to be notorious for bleeding across other people's memos. If you could throughout it, spell things out when you need to. Let's see what my notes are here. Anyway, though I don't think you're required to make us happy, this project does make me happy. It is quite lovely. After we spend a great deal of time approving additional office space or residential project that people are valiantly trying to shoehorn into much more difficult spaces, I think you have a good project now. Would anybody want to make a motion? Board Member Lew: It's up to the three of you, right? It's at 3-2 at the moment. Chair Furth: You don't know what we have until you make a motion. Ms. Hodgkins: Board members, if I may, just to remind you that this is the third hearing. This project has come before us twice before. MOTION Chair Furth: Right. Okay. I move that we approve the project on the basis of the finding and conditions submitted in the staff report, as modified by our comments here. Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Would anybody care to speak to the motion? Hearing nothing, all those in favor? All those opposed? MOTION PASSES 3-2, WITH THOMPSON AND GOOYER VOTING IN OPPOSITION Chair Furth: Thank you. We have a recommendation, and this project moves on. Would the dissenters care to comment? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to speak to it. Obviously, I changed the thing here. I think Wynne's comment about you can't expect every project to make you completely happy is spot on here. I'm not happy with the architecture. It's right on the edge for me. It really could be a lot better. But this is a project our community needs. This is a project that's made every effort to come together. They've been at this for a couple of years now and I really want to see it move forward. Board Member Gooyer: Okay, I'll respond to it. The other way to look at it is that if we keep allowing projects that we're not really, think is the top quality that's available to pass through, that's going to become the norm. Because it's going to be one of these, well, hey, you passed that one last time, so what's wrong with this one? And I think we have to put our foot down somewhere and either say we want high-quality architecture...And it's not like we pulled this out of our you-know-what this time around City of Palo Alto Page 11 and said we don't like the top. We were very clear the last time as to, that's what we don't like about the building. They put a sunscreen on there, especially on the two sides. To me, that's not answering the question. Board Member Thompson: I think there's just a lot more. It's true that the architecture is not high quality. This is such an important project, and I really want this project to go through. I think I'm with you. It's almost there. There's a little bit that just needs to be worked on a little bit more. And I think even in terms of the sustainability initiatives, shading, getting those things to be the norm, because so often these projects don't have those considerations. And then, all this extra energy used in funnel cooling and things like that, but even aesthetically it doesn't convey what the City I think is trying to strive for. I don't know. I think there's...It's so close. I think if we could have tried to come to something where, I don't know, we could see it again. I don't know. Board Member Gooyer: Just one other item. Also, the whole thing about the top. This new building is in between two other buildings that have a top, so it is doable. So, this is going to become sort of the, oh, that's how not to do it, and that's the one that we've... I mean, I can remember coming on the Board here for the first time and the big discussion was the building at, what was it? 400 Alma? Whatever the number is...? Chair Furth: Eight hundred? Board Member Gooyer: Is it 800? I'm not sure. And let's face it. There were not a whole lot of cheers about how magnificent the architecture of that one was, either. I don't want this to be another one going, the first project of this type that we're doing really should be the cream of the crop, that you could say this is what we're looking for as a quality level. Chair Furth: Okay. Well, you have heard... You want to speak? I got a comment from the member of the public about, why did I vote for something. And I said our tradition is that you speak if you are in the short end of the stick. I think you've heard our comments. You know we want tops on buildings. You know we're concerned about building frontages that reflect the fact that they're in different orientation to the sun, and that we want them to work well. But, by a 3 to 2 vote, we think this one meets our standards. Thank you. We will take a...Yes? Anything else you want from us? Ms. Hodgkins: No. Just thank you. Chair Furth: We'll take a five-minute break before we start the next one. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: All right, we'll reconvene the Architectural Review Board. We are on our second public hearing. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Exterior Remodel of an Existing Two-Story Hotel Building at 3945 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: RM-30/CS. For more information, contact the project planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: This is a request for approval of a major architectural review to allow an exterior remodel of an existing two-story hotel building known as the Comfort Inn at 3945 El Camino Real. It is exempt from the California CEQA guidelines as a renovation of an existing facility. The project planner is Phillip Brennan. Could we have the staff report? First of all, does anybody have any conversations to report? Has everybody visited the site? Okay, we've all visited the site. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Vice Chair Baltay: I had staff email me a larger-scale plan of the second floor. Chair Furth: Right. Vice Chair Baltay: For what it's worth. Chair Furth: Thank you. Philip Brennan, Project Planner: Good morning to members of the Board, and good morning to Board Member Thompson. I think this is the first time we've met. This application, again, is for a comprehensive exterior remodel of an existing two-story hotel. There's no increase to the floor area. In fact, there's actually a minor deduction in square footage to accommodate a jogged front entry. The lot coverage is increased slightly due to the new trash enclosure, but the project is not in danger of exceeding any thresholds. The project includes removal of two guest rooms to accommodate a larger lobby. This site is dual zoned Service Commercial towards the front and RM-30 Zoning District in the rear half. A little project overview just to add some context to the subject site. If we start clockwise from the bottom left, the Glass Slipper abuts the property on the left-hand side. Merrilee Terrace apartments are located in the rear half on the left-hand side. We have the Palo Alto Children's Community Center and Ventura Community Center abutting the rear portion of the lot, and Keys Middle School campus on the right-hand side. A little more visual perspective. We have the subject site in the middle with the Glass Slipper to its left, another hotel, and Keys Middle School to the right of the subject site on the right. Again, this is primarily an exterior remodel that includes a redesigned shed-style roof replacing hipped roof forms on the lobby and stairwell towers. There is a proposed new outdoor patio seating area to serve as a guest amenity. A new covered trash enclosure that meets the current level of service at the hotel. A complete repaving and re-striping of the parking lot. And, new interior and perimeter landscaping. This overview provides the layout of the stairwells and roof forms. The x'd out stair tower is to be removed and replaced by an uncovered stairwell identified in the green circle. The highlighted roof forms on the lower picture call out the shed-style roofs and the arrows identifying the direction of the slope of the roof downward. On the left, this highlighted portion is an expanded portion of sidewalk to meet the ECR guidelines of providing an expanding public right-of-way. This connects to a 12-foot expanded portion of sidewalk provided along the frontage of Keys Middle School. The purple highlighted area is the proposed roughly 1,000 square foot outdoor patio seating area, and the red highlighted area is the larger covered and enclosed trash enclosure. One of the primary aspects of this project is re-striping the parking lot. Currently, the required parking ratio is one parking space for every guest room. Currently, there are 69 guest rooms and only 60 parking spaces. Part of this project scope as it relates to remodeling the interior is the removal of two guest rooms, again, to accommodate that larger lobby. The applicant is requesting a 15 percent parking reduction, effectively 67 guest rooms and 57 spaces. The applicant, as required, has submitted a Transportation Demand Management Plan. Part of informing that plan was hiring a contractor to perform a parking analysis. This planning contractor did an analysis on 13 comparable hotels along the peninsula, and over the course of two to three nights, peak parking demand -- which is effectively midnight -- and determined that the occupancy was at .66 occupied spaces per occupied room. The Comfort Inn was actually at 0.62. So, the projected demand was 45 spaces assuming 100 percent occupancy at the Comfort Inn. Their conclusion was the proposed 57 spaces was more than adequate to serve 67 guest rooms at peak demand. All of that notwithstanding, the applicant has agreed to supplemental TDM strategies, including offering transit subsidies in the form of monthly VTA bus passes to employees, a taxi/share-ride subsidy offering hotel guests, I believe it's a $20 subsidy to help encourage these services to the hotel versus taking a rental car, as well as providing on-site bicycle parking in the form of nine Class II bike racks in the rear of the property. In addition to the Board's standard considerations related to consistency with the applicable design guidelines and design criteria, we are asking that the Board consider the landscape selection as it relates to the newly-proposed landscape plan. That should include native species of tree and plant species, as well as the dedicated off- street passenger loading zone and the feasibility of that. Within the past 30 minutes, I was notified by the applicant that there is actually a dedicated passenger loading zone located right in front of the lobby. This serves the Keys Middle School, but it's always a vacant space to provide that loading area for passengers, and I imagine taxis and share-rides that are dropping off guests. Overall, staff believes this City of Palo Alto Page 13 project is consistent with all the applicable guidelines and Comprehensive Plan. We believe it's a welcome update along the El Camino corridor. We're recommending the ARB approve the project for the proposed exterior remodel, based on findings and subject to the conditions of the approval. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I do. Just a quick question. To me, it looks like three rooms have been removed, not two. Mr. Brennan: Can you tell me what page you're looking at? Board Member Gooyer: I'm looking at the difference between page A-01.01. If you look at the demo plan, it says rooms 102 and 103 are being removed, but they're keeping 104. That leaves a remainder of eight, or that's a total of eight, then. But, if you go to the 2.0, the way I see it, what was room 104 is now the public bathrooms. It's not that big a deal. I just want to make sure that we're accurate. Are you agreeing with me, there are three rooms being removed? Male: Well, technically... Chair Furth: Excuse me, we're not, we'll hear from the applicant... Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Chair Furth: ...when they're at the podium and they can be on the record. Board Member Gooyer: Okay, but that's my comment, so... Chair Furth: That's a good question. Board Member Gooyer: Sure. Chair Furth: How many units. Anybody else? Anybody else? If we could hear from the applicant. And somebody remind me to ask to hear from the public this time. There was no public requesting to comment at the last hearing. Shawn Alexander: Good morning, members of the Board. My name is Shawn Alexander. I'm with AXIS/GFA Architects. Chair Furth: Mr. Alexander... Mr. Alexander: [Spells first name.] Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Alexander: And "Alexander," much like Alexander Lew spells his name. I have a presentation to show you. We've worked very closely with staff. Not quite sure. How do I...? Just click on it? [Setting up presentation, navigating system.] You're all familiar with the site. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, you need to speak — great. (crosstalk) Mr. Alexander: You're familiar with the site. You've all said you've gone by to see it. It's an existing structure. A little sad and dated. Needs a refresh. It's the owner's goal here to, one, be a responsible community member, and to try to have a hotel that's competitive in today's current marketplace. Some of City of Palo Alto Page 14 the goals here are to not only refresh the look of the project, but also to create some amenity spaces for their guests. That's the outdoor patio space that we're creating, and an enlarged lobby space, so you can actually accommodate some of the needs that guests have that they're not able to provide currently. This is a rendering of what we believe the project will look like when completed. Basically, our approach was not only to create a more, we think, contemporary and appropriate look to the building, but also to use the trash enclosure as a way of helping to hide the parking. The project doesn't have great visibility from the street, and combining both the wall of the trash enclosure and the re-do of the two-story building creates kind of a harmonious composition between the two elements, of setting up a gateway to the parking area. The other challenge that we had to deal with, when you go to the site, you'll see that the entry to the lobby actually is off of the parking drive aisle, which is pretty unsafe. People walk out the door and you have to be pretty aware of whether or not a car is coming in or out of the project. What we did was we created the new entrance that comes in off the sidewalk. That allows people to have a real entry experience from the sidewalk into the lobby. This just gives you some general perspectives of what the courtyard experience is like, trying to create a gateway for people to come into the courtyard. This shows the building in relationship to the adjacent properties, the hotel to the north and the school to the south. The site plan shows you the existing parking or the re-stripe parking in relationship to the existing hotel and the landscape areas around. We've replanted the entire site around the parking area. We put in new trees in the existing tree islands, plus added some trees to the property. We understand that there was a last-minute request to change from the plant material that had been originally in the package, to more native species. I believe you were given that information a short while ago. We seem to be stuck. Oh, there we go. Roof plan. Elevations. Street elevation on top. Side elevation as you drive into the project. And then, a section elevation looking, from the patio looking back at the lobby. And, the section to the existing two-story piece. I'm here to answer any questions that you have. Chair Furth: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Osma. Board Member Thompson: The white material in the front, which material is that? (crosstalk) Mr. Alexander: The white material and the brown material that's on the two-story building is stucco. A cement plaster. Okay? There's also the use of corrugated metal that happens. If you look at the rendering, the brown stucco that's towards the patio, up above that has some integrated corrugated metal that wraps around, and then around the back side at the higher roof peak. There's also some corrugated metal used on the existing balcony that fronts El Camino. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so the side that has the slanted roof, the white part is stucco that's painted white? Mr. Alexander: Cement plaster. Board Member Thompson: It's not on here, on the material board? Mr. Alexander: I believe it is. Mr. Brennan: If I could interject, it's on sheet A09.01. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I read it, but I'm wondering if... Chair Furth: It's not on the materials board? Mr. Alexander: Oh, on the material board. Board Member Thompson: It's just white stucco. And then, below it, the brown stuff, is that any of this wood material, or is it a brown stucco? City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Alexander: No, the wood material is on the trash enclosure and the fence surrounding the patio and the wall that separates the patio from the adjacent parking. And that wood material has texture to it. The boards are placed on the wall in such a way that you get a little bit of depth and shadow. I think the rendering reflects how it would look realistically. Board Member Thompson: Right. And then, on the other side that has the slanted roof, the brown stuff at the bottom, is that wood or is that a painted brown stucco? Mr. Alexander: On the building, it's cement plaster in a brown color. Board Member Thompson: It's this stuff? Mr. Alexander: Correct. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And there's two woods here. Sorry, I'm just a little confused at what the materials are. Mr. Alexander: The lighter-color wood is the wood of the fence and the cladding on the trash enclosure. The darker-color material is actually Prodema. It's a synthetic product. Kind of looks like wood. That's intended to be used on the railings. The existing guardrails are pretty unattractive. You'll notice in the elevation drawing -- let me go back to it -- along the guardrail, we're alternating with open railings and closed-off, more solid railings. There's a rhythm of going down along the walkway. The solid panel on those railings is the Prodema material, which is that darker-brown color. Board Member Thompson: Okay. I'm sorry, what was the alternative material? The one that's not Prodema? The one that it's alternating with? Mr. Alexander: The other wood material? Board Member Thompson: In your drawing, you have the Prodema railing, and then you have another railing that's a different material. Mr. Alexander: It's just a painted metal railing. Board Member Thompson: A painted metal railing. Okay. That's like, that's the face, too. It's just like a metal? Mr. Alexander: It's not solid. Board Member Thompson: Oh, it's just a railing. Okay. Chair Furth: Any other questions? The window grids, how are those created? Mr. Alexander: The window grids, those are just windows. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...cannot touch them? Mr. Alexander: I believe they're embedded in the insulated glass currently. We're not changing the windows on the guest rooms. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions? Any member of the public who wishes to speak? All right. Anything else you'd like to say? All right. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Mr. Alexander: Thank you for your time. Chair Furth: We'll bring it back here. Staff, did you have a question? Ms. Gerhardt: No, I just want to thank Board Member Thompson because I think she's picking up on the front elevation, that the building itself has sort of a painted stucco on the bottom of the building, whereas the trash enclosure has wood siding. That may be something that we want to think about. Chair Furth: Thank you. I guess we should start talking about this then, if that's where we are. Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you. I'm generally in support of the project. I think it looks attractive. My minor concerns are that you may have too many materials on the building. I was a little bit hesitant on the corrugated metal railing on the front of the building. I don't mind it on the back so much, between the brown stucco Prodema and the stained wood. I think maybe there was painted wood, as well. It seemed like there was a lot, but I’m not really strongly opposed to what you're proposing now. Thank you for the revised landscape plan. I think the Bouteloua grass and stuff is a nice addition. I've been going to some lectures by John Greenlee and that's one of his favorite grasses. I was looking at it recently at a nursery and it's actually fairly attractive and not used very much in Palo Alto. On the tree substitution, I think you're proposing to change the London planes to our native oak. I might push back on that. Maybe if there's a way to split the difference on that. I think at your new patio area, I think I would not want to do an oak tree there. I think a London plane might be better in that location because, one, you get more sunlight. Two, you can prune those, whereas the native oak really doesn't want to be pruned and has a very low tree canopy. It seems to me that that would be more flexible, a London plane would be more flexible in that location. Also, too, I think at the stair tower near the back of the building, that one may be better as a more vertical tree than a native oak tree, which has a fairly broad canopy. I think that's all of the comments that I have. I think generally I'm in support of the project, and I'm curious to see what the other Board members have to say about this one. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, good morning. Generally, I'm in support of the project, as well, although I have a number of comments, ideas, suggestions. Let me start with the site planning. I'm concerned that as a vehicle pulls in, either somebody driving a car, a rental car, or an Uber, or a taxi, there doesn't seem to be an easy place to stop to quickly check in or to drop somebody off. There's a drive aisle 20 or 25 feet wide as you turn to the right coming up El Camino, but the front door really is right by the front corner of the building there. I know every time I go to this kind of hotel I want to stop, check in, then go take my car and park it near my room, as close as possible. I don't want to go guess where my room is, then walk all the way through the parking lot, check in, go back, and move my car. I don't know. You're under tight conditions here, but if there's some way to just make provision for a temporary spot and still be able to get the drive aisle to go through. It seems to me it's worth some effort to think about the realistic traffic flow coming into this. And now is a chance to do it, when you're remaking the front of the building. Then, on the building massing, I think it's your trash enclosure that really makes the positive change to the whole appearance of the building. I think you're spot-on, the way you're doing it, and the fact that you're putting something there. I say this mostly because it's the kind of thing that also gets cut out of a project later as a minor item, and I want it to be on the record that this is not a minor part of this. This is a major part of what shades the parking from the street, which is part of the design guidelines we have to follow. On the building itself, however, I'm concerned that you have a two-story lobby, and a two-story lobby generally is something that you can make a glass wall with a light fixture; it signals entrance, front door, this is where you go, this is the visual part of the building. Except, in this case, you've just continued the second story well of tight wall with little punched openings that are bathroom windows over the lobby. It seems to me it's a lost opportunity to create something stronger on the corner. A piece of corner glass, two-story element something like that. It also begs for, what is the detailing where you have a recessed entry? What is that ceiling like, both from the outside as you walk in, that corner of the stucco coming down and some sort of flat soffit? It's critically important to get that right. That's the first impression of people coming into the hotel. Then, inside that lobby, looking up at this sort of shelf, a City of Palo Alto Page 17 dust-collecting spot inside, especially when you've got these little punched bathroom-style windows on the El Camino façade. Really, I guess I'm saying you've lost an opportunity, or you haven't fully explored a design opportunity to really make this thing glow. That corner is your front door. That's what everybody sees. Put some glass there, put a light fixture there, do something that screams Ascend Hotel. I think, as well, that corner can then also help signal some more pedestrian activity. We're trying to make El Camino a more pedestrian-friendly street. Believe it or not, there's so much activity and developing going on in this area, it actually is becoming a pedestrian street. Put a bench there, put a recess there, make it again so, I'm waiting for my Uber as I check out of the hotel; give me a place to sit before they come. I don't want to sit in the back because they don't see the car coming. Don't make me stand all the way out on the corner. Give me a spot. And you have the recess, you're doing the right things, but follow it through a little bit more. I think your creation of what I see as an outdoor breakfast area in the back there is wonderful, and the way you've closed it off from the parking is really quite nice. I think that will be a very successful spot. Again, it's important to be cognizant that it's not a main entrance to the hotel, and yet, you've set it up so when I drive in, that's what I'm going to weave through to get to the lobby because I've already parked my car, because there's no other place to do it. So, just a little bit more revisions there would help. I share Alex's concern that you have too many materials here, and I think it's the corrugated metal, especially on the El Camino façade. Corrugated metal is one thing that architects really like. It's kind of neat, it's industrial, it's attractive-looking, and it also looks terrible when it's installed poorly and not maintained. The screws at the edge, it bends in the corners. Don't put that on the railing on the façade. Be more consistent with the rest of the building. I would also encourage you to find a way to make that brown material on the front a better material than this painted stucco. It's not a whole lot. Use one of these nicer panels you have, or wood, and be consistent with the rest of the trash enclosure. Get a consistent piece of the façade. That is the right place to spend the money on the materials, and it's not that big an area. It's not that much to do that. Lastly, I'll speak to the trees. I share Alex's concern. The oak trees are messy. I have them at my house, and my wife is very unhappy constantly because the leaves fall down, and the leaves are nasty. They have these thorns on them. It's really unpleasant. Your guests aren't going to like it. I don't think London planes are a great choice for a patio area, as well, because they get tall, and they're deciduous. Maybe a large lemon tree, a fruit tree, something that screams California. Just an idea. And then, in the parking area, as well. I don't think oak trees are a great parking lot tree. Maybe there's some other choices there. That's what I have to say. Thank you. Chair Furth: I forget. Who hasn't spoken? Osma. Board Member Lew: And Robert. Board Member Thompson: Both me and Robert haven't spoken. I think my fellow Board members have made some really great points. Yes, you have too many materials. I will repeat that. I think what's really exciting about the image that's in our package is that the materials are really vague. I actually thought this was, like a swiss pearl on the white. And, yeah, this wood texture everywhere else. I was really excited by that (inaudible) of just having this wood and light play. I generally like what you've done with the remodel, the form, the architecture. It's actually really clever, and nice, and it kind of has an interesting relationship to the building next door. It also has a pitched roof. But, yeah, with the materials, it's kind of all over the place. There's two different types of wood with the Prodema and the other wood. I think I agree with Board Member Baltay. You want to put the really nice stuff in the front. I think stucco wouldn't do justice to your design here. I think you want a higher-quality material. Also, I agree with the entry of the lobby being -- Right now, it looks very schematic, but I think as you further the development, the idea of including some seating would enhance and bring more attention to the fact that that is the entrance. I think that's kind of lost initially to where the entrance was, in the drawings and such. Or just looking at the front elevation. Because while it's glassy, I just thought it was a window in the beginning. And that's, in part, due to the level of detail that's here in the drawing, but I think architecturally there's something you can do more to emphasize that a little bit more. Those are my two main comments, materials and the entrance. Chair Furth: Robert. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I have to agree with most of what Peter said, although he approached it as saying those were just minor items. To me, they aren't. I think you've missed a big opportunity because there's really no, at least to me, if I'm driving by, I would have a hard time figuring out where the front door is. I mean, I'm not saying that what's there now is a masterpiece of architecture, but at least it's pretty obvious where the front door is. And when you're driving down at 40 miles an hour, you want to know where that is. Here, you've enlarged the lobby by probably twice, if not more, and yet, you've dropped from a set of double doors to a single 3/0 door in the corner, and a little, looks to be four-and-a-half-foot-wide walkway. It just doesn't seem to work. I agree that the amenity of having the patio area in the back is great, but this is also the type of accommodation that I think is dealing more to the weary business traveler that wants to park, come in there, get service, go to his room, and then the next morning, leave, type of thing. I mean, a lot of it is going to be that way. I think there ought to be more concern to the whole process of -- as Peter was saying -- pulling your car up there, you can leave it there for a while and you're not blocking the entry to the entire facility. I wouldn't want to have to park somewhere in the back or find a parking place in the back, then walk up with my stuff to check in. I know we usually don't get into the function of it, but I think in this particular case, it has a lot to do with the exterior design based on what that function is. I also agree that you've just got way too many materials. I mean, you've got a standing seam roof pretty close to aluminum louvers, to corrugated metal siding, to stucco, to wood. That's just too much, I think it is. I don't have a problem with the corrugated siding, but I don't know if it even fits on this type of design. I like the standing seam roof, but I don't know if the two metals should fight each other. I also am not a big fan -- I thought of the same thing. In the current design, the small windows are sort of hidden, but those, as Peter calls them, those bathroom windows really aren't helping the -- I'm guessing the thought is you want to uplift the perceived quality of the whole facility. This almost looks like, if you walk from the back side of the average two-story motel, this is what the back side of it looks like, with the small little windows, not the first thing you see when you drive up. And you've got a two-story space there, and you're not taking advantage of it. It's one of these things that, I think the potential is there, but it needs to be fine-tuned. By far, I'm probably the least sophisticated landscape proponent here, but I definitely agree that oak is not your best solution for this, I think. It's the type of thing, maybe if they were three or four full-grown, mature oak trees that were already there and that sort of thing, then maybe. But at this point, there have got to be other selections that I think you'd be much happier with. I think that's it. Chair Furth: Thank you, and thank you for the presentation. You know, we have these concerns about context, and this has got to be one of the more eccentric contexts in Palo Alto, tucked between the storybook Glass Slipper, which I remember when... Board Member Gooyer: First, I thought it was the Glass Slipper that was... Chair Furth: Yes, that was coming in... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...historic building. It was here when I first came to Stanford, a long time ago. And the very functional Keys school on the other side. There are many things I like about your proposal. I like the widened sidewalk, which will be a big improvement. I like your idea of having this up-to-code, functional trash enclosure, which is a good screening device. I'm fine with retaining the Eugenia hedge and the Italian cypresses, and I'm glad you're adding trees, I'm glad you have good screening. I'm glad you have that outdoor space for the use of guests. I'm glad to have the unapproved units removed. I've read Hexagon's report with interest. I found it convincing. It's not that often that we get actual empirical research on what a traffic demand is, and people are very skeptical of national standards from the ITE, or whatever. I found it compelling, and certainly support the change in the parking. I think the wider parking spaces will lead to much happier people on site, which is good. I wonder if it would be possible to designate one of those spaces as the registration space, so that that would be the space you can pull into to register. It's clear, it's obvious, and you already have enough parking for overnight spaces, according to Hexagon's study. Okay. I am sorry that the need for -- to the extent practical -- regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat felt like something out of left field City of Palo Alto Page 19 to you, as it's one of the findings that we have to make on this Board. As you heard from our earlier proposal, and indeed, I went and looked up the plants that you had originally proposed, and even Berkeley sedge is properly gray European sedge and is not a California native. There are lots of native sedge's, and one of them would be appropriate. So, I'm glad you're proposing changes. I think that the principal problem I have with your design is that this is a fairly high-speed road, and by the nature of your business, many people are coming here for the first time. Now, it's true that people use GPS systems, and so on and so forth, but when you get down to which building am I stopping at, you need strong visual cues. I don't think that we have that here. I agree with my colleagues that having a two-story lobby at that corner there, which could be a strong design feature, and then hiding it, is not a good idea. It doesn't let the building work to announce itself. That's one of the things that's within our jurisdiction. Generally, if you prefer a particular thing, we like to be able to support you, but I don't think the building identifies its entrance appropriately here. I also tend to agree with the assessment that there's too much going on, and the result is not a strong presence. Too many materials, too many things happening. I think that you need a different tree for the patio. I think there are trees that will give you a pleasant place to be around. Birds, or whatever. I realize they have their problems, but we want birds living in this town. You have an opportunity for fairly tall trees around your two-story building and the parking lot, and something that creates a canopy, or whatever else it is you desire in your seating area; usually a canopy. I'm not as hostile. As somebody who had to rake up the oak leaves at my parents' house through my entire adolescence, I'm sympathetic to the idea that they're difficult to maintain. But, if you have a good one, I'd be totally saying go for it. It's worth it. They're very beautiful trees. You do need seating for somebody to wait for their Uber, or Lyft, or whatever. Ride-share. And, it also can be used by somebody who needs to sit briefly while walking up and down that sidewalk, which is going to have -- and does have -- a fair amount of pedestrian access. Would somebody like to propose a way to proceed? MOTION Board Member Thompson: I'd like to move that we continue the project to a date uncertain. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that motion. Chair Furth: Okay. Why don't I attempt to summarize what I've heard? Does staff have a comment? Ms. Gerhardt: I'm just wondering if we may want to continue to a date certain. Chair Furth: If you have one. Ms. Gerhardt: We could go to the June 7th hearing, if the applicant is able to turn around plans in a couple weeks. Board Member Gooyer: That's up to you. You know, usually it's a matter of, can you get the changes made. Mr. Alexander: Absolutely, we can get the changes made. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Chair Furth: Okay. I think if this is going to be useful, we need to be quite specific about what we're looking for. What I have in my notes is reduce the number of materials; improve the quality of materials on the front façade; show the two-story lobby from the street in some way that makes this a stronger, more eye-catching presence as one drives along, and a pleasure to pass by, as well. Add somewhere for people to sit while they're waiting for their ride-share. If it's possible, add a designated registering/loading space, passenger parking -- whatever -- space in the interior of the site. Did we ever specify how many units are proposed? That should be clarified. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Mr. Alexander: For clarity, there's 67 units. Chair Furth: Sixty-seven units. Mr. Alexander: Guest services. What will be there. Mr. Brennan: Just to clarify, the existing conditions are there are 69 guest rooms. There's an office space that's located next to the guest room, and it's identified on the site plan. Chair Furth: Thank you. And the landscaping, I appreciate your quick turnaround, but more suitable, functional landscaping that meets the City's findings, and declared findings in Finding #5 be included. Anything else? Board Member Gooyer: I'd like to see, as Peter and I talked about, was the whole idea of a place where someone who was registering could actually park... Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Gooyer: ...go in and register, and then... Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Alexander: Correct. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Mr. Alexander: My understanding is you want us to create a designated drop-off area on the site. Board Member Gooyer: Right. Okay. Mr. Alexander: Basically, take out some parking that would be available for guests. Chair Furth: Whatever works. Mr. Alexander: Overnight parking, but use that for a limited use. Board Member Gooyer: Right. (Inaudible) lobby a little bit so it becomes a little fatter and... Chair Furth: Yeah, when I was summarizing that earlier, what I was thinking about was that, according to Hexagon, they're still going to have too much parking, so they could afford to designate one of those spaces as a registration space. Mr. Alexander: Thank you. Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: But, to be clear, what Robert and I, at least, are talking about is not necessarily another parking spot with a sign that says, "Registration," but rather something right up near the front where you stop... Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I'm talking about pulling up right by the front door, getting out, and yet, you're not preventing, you know, you're not closing off the whole property by doing so. With the way it is right now, you're pretty much doing that. Mr. Alexander: We're happy to work with staff and other departments within... [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: I'm sure they'll all have input. I don't know if the accessible, spaces accessible to people with handicaps have to be right adjacent, if there can be a registration space closer, but I look forward to hearing. Vice Chair Baltay: If I could add one last thing, which was to please provide sufficient architectural detail, especially for the front entry corner, however you do it, that we can comfortably understand what you're up to. It's not provided here, and it's a constant sticking point. Just give us a good architectural section. It doesn't have to be technically detailed, the waterproofing and stuff, but show us what your intention is - soffits, eaves, how it all works together. Mr. Alexander: Happy to do that for you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Gooyer: The sketch here is better than what we had, or more detailed than what we had in the packet. We've sort of got this white area that is glass, and doors, and main entry, and it really didn't say anything. I had to sit there and sort of sketch in my assumption of what I thought it was supposed to look like. Mr. Alexander: It's intended to be all frameless glass. Chair Furth: Okay. Is that sufficient clarity... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: I think so. Chair Furth: Staff, applicant, any questions? Mr. Brennan: Could we clarify for the applicant, are we looking for a "designated space," modifying the existing design? Or are we looking just for something called out on the pavement? Board Member Gooyer: I'm looking for, the average place I stay at, you pull the car up under a porte-cochere, or somewhere right by the front door, you run in, you register, you jump back in the car, and you go to a parking spot. I don't want a place that happens to be down at the other end. Relatively close, but a normal parking spot that says, "Registration Parking." I'd like to see a place that is a 10-minute- parking type. Ms. Gerhardt: I think in this particular case, we're dealing with an existing building, so the constraints are a little bit more, but we'll certainly look into that. Board Member Lew: That was my question for staff. When I looked at the project, I was thinking it was a minor project. I think you're listing it as a major project. I guess the way I would see it, if it's a major project, it makes sense to push on this particular parking space. If you're considering this is mostly an existing building, it's a minor remodel, and I would not be inclined to make a major change in the parking. Chair Furth: I would be fine with a designated space somewhere near the office, rather than realigning the [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: Right, and I guess that's where I am, if we're thinking this is a minor project. Ms. Gerhardt: Understood. This is a minor board-level project. It was risen to board level because of the extensive changes with the roof forms and things of that nature. But, at the same time, we're dealing with an existing footprint, so we'll work out the details. We understand your direction. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Vice Chair Baltay: Could I chime in on that, please? Several projects have come to us recently as minor footprint retention, same thing, not changing the footprint of the building. After six months, it's under construction, the whole thing is torn down. That's what's going to happen here. This front building will not be there when they start new construction. That wall we're talking about could be moved a couple feet to accommodate what we're talking about. He doesn't need to preserve the existing footprint just because that's what was there. In order to build this, they're going to have to take it down to the ground and start over. They're going to have to put in a new foundation to meet earthquake codes. We're being naïve to think that they just need to keep the footprint because it's there now. This is the opportunity to improve the building, and that's what Robert and I have been saying to you, that you can do just a little bit better, with just a little bit of a tweak, by moving it by a little bit. You know that when you get into construction, a lot of things have to change. Chair Furth: Anything else? Board Member Thompson: I'd be open to seeing something like that, but in case that doesn't work with the architecture -- because I actually like what you have designed right now. I think it is just like, you know, the list that (inaudible) in terms of material. Yeah, some formal change in the entry, so not just a material change to define the entry, but something formal, architectural massing a little bit. I'm not sure. I don't know that I'm sold on the porte-cochere thing. Just something to define the entry. Chair Furth: I think you can probably figure out where we are, and we'll wish you well, and look forward to it. We need a motion. Do you accept? Do you have something more you want to say? We need to amend. Let's see, was the motion to continue to a date certain, which is...? Board Member Thompson: I had said uncertain, but I'm open to changing that to a date certain, if you'd like to change that. Chair Furth: And the date is June...? Ms. Gerhardt: June 7th. Chair Furth: June 7th. Board Member Thompson: June 7th. Chair Furth: A motion to continue to June 7th? Board Member Thompson: Motion to [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Seconder accepts that change? Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. Chair Furth: All those in favor say Aye. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Lew: You have to say "opposed." "Are there any opposed?" You do. Chair Furth: The ghost? No, you don't. Speaking as a long-term city attorney, you do not... Board Member Lew: I've been told that you do have to do this. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Gooyer: You have to say all those... Chair Furth: I'm doing it to make you happy. Board Member Gooyer: You have to say, "All those against." Chair Furth: All those opposed? Who told you? Board Member Lew: Robert. Chair Furth: Nobody. Yeah, you probably think an abstention is an "aye" vote, which is also not true. Okay. Any abstentions? All right. I should summarize it, though. The vote is 5-0, all in favor, no opposition, no abstentions. Thank you. We look forward to seeing you. Mr. Alexander. Thank you. Approval of Minutes 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. Chair Furth: Okay, on the approval of minutes, how are we doing on approval of minutes? Alex, you were unable to read one of them? Board Member Lew: I was going to abstain. I downloaded them, but somehow I wasn't able to actually open the files. I will try doing that again. If we're going to vote on it today, I'll abstain. Chair Furth: All three of them? Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: Unless staff has an urgent need for them, I would suggest we continue that. MOTION Chair Furth: Move to continue approval of minutes. Is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: Second. Chair Furth: All those in favor? All those opposed? It passes 5-0. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Subcommittee Item Chair Furth: Do we have any subcommittee items? All right. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Chair Furth: First of all, there is a Historic Preservation Conference. One of the sponsors is the HRB. It's going to be right here in Palo Alto, May 17th through 20th. If anybody has an opportunity to attend, I'm sure it will be great. Secondly, at the request of staff and the City Council, I have appointed Alex Lew to City of Palo Alto Page 24 the committee -- is it a committee? -- that will study the Ventura Area Plan. You tell us, Alex. What's it formally called? Board Member Lew: I think everybody knows it as the Fry's. Chair Furth: The Fry site. Board Member Lew: Some of old-timers remember it as Maxi-Mer [phonetic]. Chair Furth: Okay. It should be a very interesting community project, and we'll ask him to report to us regularly and put it on the agenda to do so. Alex and I attended the State of the City Address last night, in the upper floor of the JCC, on the fourth floor, with a spectacular view of Mt. Hamilton and the western hills, and a glass railing, what do you call it? Wall? That is a building that often gets a lot of criticism for the way it presents on the street, but from the interior looking out, works very well. It's a good community space. Staff has asked that we find a time to have a mini study session on what's the top of a building supposed to look like, dealing with our frustration with designs on El Camino, and what we would like to see. If we say things like a bit more work or a better design, staff doesn't really know what to be pushing for. As you point out, Robert, if we don't get some clear vision out there of what we think looks good, we're probably not going to be too happy with what comes before us. Board Member Gooyer: I agree, but the biggest things, as always, it's obvious, is because, you know, to squeeze four floors in, you... Chair Furth: Well, maybe our... Board Member Gooyer: ...it makes it tough. One of the things I would recommend -- and that other cities have done -- is that the designation as to where the 50-foot, or whatever the top... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: We talked about having a meeting... Chair Furth: Should we do it next time, or... Board Member Gooyer: Let me put it this way, then. Chair Furth: You'd be in favor of that session. Board Member Gooyer: I'd like to discuss at that meeting possibly changing where the reference point is for the height. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else anybody would like to add to that agenda? Okay. Can you find us...? Actually, we don't have a very heavy agenda next time. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, you had asked about future agendas, so I can go over that for a second. On May 3rd, the small cell nodes will not be heard. Those will likely be heard in July. We will have the two other items, which is the 565 Hamilton and the 3406 Hillview, projects will be heard. We also have a 620 Emerson, we would have a subcommittee item for that address, so we would need members for a subcommittee. Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Ms. Gerhardt: I don't know if they've been appointed for May 3rd. Chair Furth: (inaudible) City of Palo Alto Page 25 Ms. Gerhardt: Six-twenty Emerson. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Ms. Gerhardt: The annex to Nobu restaurant. Chair Furth: Right. (inaudible) Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Lew and Furth for that subcommittee. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Ms. Gerhardt: That's fine. And then, on May 17th, again, the small cells would not be heard. Again, those will likely be moved to July. We will have the 4115 El Camino project, but the 375 Hamilton, the parking garage, so far it looks like it's moving to June 7th. And then, you were asking about a date for a study session. Chair Furth: (inaudible) a time within one of our regular meetings. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. May 3rd, we have two items and a subcommittee. That's not too long of an agenda. But, we do have the subcommittee, so it might... Chair Furth: Three-four-oh-six Hillview is a return? Ms. Gerhardt: Three-four-oh-six Hillview, I want to say is the... Chair Furth: It's the second half, Phase 2. Ms. Gerhardt: ...Phase 2, yes. Chair Furth: Okay. What are your thoughts, board members? Board Member Thompson: It seems like May 17th looks pretty light. Should we do it then? Ms. Gerhardt: I would agree. Board Member Thompson: There's two items that are written here that are not going to happen, right? It's just going to be that one project. Chair Furth: I think if we're not having the parking garage, that would be a good day. If we're having... Ms. Gerhardt: The parking garage has been moved off to June 7th, at the earliest. Chair Furth: All right. That looks like a good time. Is there anything else that anybody would like to be able to address at that study session? Vice Chair Baltay: Is it possible to do a study session around a table instead of talking to nobody, like this? Chair Furth: As long as there's adequate sound recording. Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) one out there? The conference room? City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Lew: We've had retreats in the past that are not in this room. In a more informal setting. They are open to the public, but they are not recorded. We've done that in the past with regard to the height limit, El Camino design guidelines... Chair Furth: Fine. Why don't you take that into consideration, that we'd like to be able to talk around a table, that we don't think that this needs somebody to go to the expense of transcribing verbatim minutes. Board Member Gooyer: Can we do, like, start here, and then... Chair Furth: Sure. Board Member Gooyer: ...make it the last item, and then, move to... Chair Furth: A conference table. Whatever gives us a good end. I would urge us to be prepared to show or reference examples of what we think works, or doesn't. I think that's helpful to us and to staff. If you want to put together essays beforehand, or thought pieces, or bullet points, feel free. You will notice that in an appropriately comprehensive way. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, certainly. This would be, if we're going to do any sort of pre-work for this session, it would be a collaboration of the board members and staff to pull together some materials. Chair Furth: Do you want a subcommittee to work with on that? Ms. Gerhardt: That's up to you. Chair Furth: Anybody want to work with staff on preparing for this thing? Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Okay. We'll have another meeting before then, if people have other thoughts. Board Member Lew: Jodie, I will send you some photos of mixed-use housing projects in Berkeley that all have tops, different types and different sorts, and stuff. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Lew: Just as a starting point. Chair Furth: Great. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. That would be great. Chair Furth: By the time we come back for our next meeting, we'll have a proposed agenda item text, and you can tell us if it works. Okay. Many thanks. Anything else? We are adjourned. Adjournment