Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-06-21 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 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: June 21, 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. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]: Recommendation for a Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Application for a Five-Level, 50' Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level, Providing 325 Public Parking Spaces and Approximately 2,000 Square Feet of Retail Space Fronting Waverley Street. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published May 18, 2018 and circulated for public comments. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00054]: Request for Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit for Shake Shack restaurant to allow for exterior facade improvements and to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages in an existing tenant space at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: _______________________ 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. CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3406 Hillview Avenue [17PLN-00438]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 62,500 Square Foot R&D Building and Construction of a new two-Story Approximately 82,030 Square Foot Office/R&D Building. This is a Designated Project Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Research Park (RP-5(D)). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 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 # 9345) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 6/21/2018 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: Jonathan Lait 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 are assigned by the ARB Chair. 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 Thompson/Lew 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 July 5  375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage  3223 Hanover Street: New Office/R&D Building (2nd Formal) July 19  AT&T: Prelim for Small Cell Nodes  250 Sherman Avenue: Public Safety Building (2nd Formal) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8918) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 375 Hamilton Downtown Parking Garage Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]: Recommendation for a Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Application for a Five-Level, 50' Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level, Providing 325 Public Parking Spaces and Approximately 2,000 Square Feet of Retail Space Fronting Waverley Street. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published May 18, 2018 and circulated for public comments. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) published May 18, 2018, and provide comments on the Draft EIR, and 2. Conduct public hearing and provide comments on the proposed project and continue the hearing to a date certain, July 5, 2018, to allow all five ARB members to consider and provide a recommendation on the project. 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/63384. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the ARB’s comments and detail the applicant’s response to those comments, as well as to provide discussion regarding the recently published Draft EIR to allow public comments during the public comment period ending July 2, 2018. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report, modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On February 15, 2018, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-75/. Excerpt meeting minutes are attached (Attachment C). The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response The extent of the Hamilton setback encroachment is too great (zero setback for columns, two feet to building wall) – provide a greater setback from Hamilton property line The building is now set back 3 feet (a 4 foot encroachment into 7 foot special setback) from the property line, and better aligned with the ATT building. This change contributed to the reduction in the overall number of parking spaces provided at each level. (1) Proportion and massing are a concern at the Hamilton side (too uniform); (2) Building has a base and middle but no top; (3) Greenery can soften brutalist architecture (but clarify how can ensure greenery will succeed - texture alone should succeed even without the plant material). The heavy two-story arcade base is now a narrow canopy at Hamilton and Waverley. There is still no ‘top’ – it is base and above base. Public art will now also be installed above the parking entrance on Hamilton Avenue. Vines trained to grow on cable grid will visually soften the board-formed concrete wall that has a pattern of square penetrations or indentations. Corner stair concern: the relationship between the edges and the floor and the stair are “sort of out of sync” The material of the perforated metal shroud at the corner stair was refined into a more open, transparent structure and the mass/apparent mass of the stair covering was reduced. The public art installation will be incorporated into and onto the perforated metal panel screens around the stair. Alley service area issues, difficult to resolve Concrete paving will ensure durable access to the common refuse storage room at Lane 21 Provide as high as a ceiling on the ground floor as feasible, to make it more open (safe and inviting) for a better pedestrian experience travelling from Hamilton to CVS – increase the perception of height for the pedestrian path inside the garage and bring more attention to where the bike parking is First floor ceiling height was raised to 12’6” and the fourth floor ceiling height was reduced to keep the same overall building height. Small entry plaza near 50-bike, 585 sf storage room near the main vehicle Leads to a pedestrian pathway through the structure to Lane 21 near CVS. Landscaping concerns were: (1) plants on the dark side of the building are unlikely to flourish, and (2) the section of the alley where the trees were shown would be more utilitarian - The project landscape architect is preparing a letter describing the viability of plant material. The columnar Gingko trees in the alley were deleted from the plans and the number of street trees was increased by four trees (two Gingko trees added to 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 trees might inhibit access. existing trees on Waverley, two Gingko trees added on Hamilton) The 3 Oaks on Hamilton would compensate for the removal of the one protected oak tree. Pedestrian Circulation The above left image shows the proposed, dedicated pedestrian circulation path from Hamilton, intended to minimize conflicts with vehicles. The middle image shows the Hamilton Avenue pedestrian plaza next to the AT&T building, leading to the bicycle storage area - and including a wood bench attached to the board formed concrete planter, near the vehicle entrance. Several of these wood benches are also proposed to be attached to planters along Hamilton, where a wider sidewalk (given the increased building setback) and seven street trees are proposed. The above right image shows the pedestrian experience exiting the garage into the alley and walking down the alley toward the Waverley Street retail stores. Stairwells will be illuminated by linear downlights hidden in the canopy framework (Aion WT402 series) and by delta-lights (recessed in concrete lights). The daytime experiences at the corner plaza and Waverley entrance to the alley are illustrated in images below left and right, respectively. Design Changes Contributing to Reduction in Parking Spaces The design modifications that contributed to a 13-parking space reduction (to 325 spaces) included:  Reduction in plan depth on Hamilton to move the building away from the property line.  Increase in the height of the first story to improve pedestrian routes and retail area.  Provision of safer pedestrian route from Hamilton Ave to the pedestrian alley. To move the building away from Hamilton, the drive aisle was reduced by one foot and the parking stall widths in this area were increased to meet City stall width standard. The increase 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 in stall width necessitated a reduction in the number of stalls that could be accommodated in this area on all floors. The reduction of the height of level 4 removed the ability to provide ADA stalls at levels 4 and 5 and stall layouts at ground floor and floors 1 and 2 were adjusted to meet ADA code requirements, but this also impacted the stall count. The dedicated pedestrian route from Hamilton to the pedestrian alley way crosses a previously parked area and therefore, additional parking stalls were lost to make a safer crossing. Elevations The images below show a post and wire system (left photo), excerpt of the Hamilton elevation (middle image) wired vines attached to board-formed concrete), and 2017 elevation excerpt. Images of the Hamilton and Waverley elevations below allow visual comparison of December 2017 and May 2018 designs. The first elevation shows the revised Hamilton Ave. elevation. The below image from the December 2017 plans, shows the earlier Hamilton Ave. elevation: 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Images of the Waverley Street elevations are above (May 2018) and below (December 2017). Street Tree Additions The revised landscape plan (sheet ARB 4.1) shows two new Gingkos (to supplement the two existing Gingkos) on Waverley, and four Ginkgos and three oaks on Hamilton following the February ARB meeting, and deletion of the alley’s columnar Gingkos. Corner Plaza and Alley Treatment: Hardscaping, Storm-water Treatment, Landscaping Clarifications are as follows:  The rendered images on plan sheets ARB 3.3 and 3.9 still reflect alley Gingkos, which are no longer proposed and would be modified in plans for City Council review.  Plan sheet ARB 3.9 renderings indicate a gray paving pattern for the corner plaza and alley, whereas plan sheets ARB 4.1 and ARB 4.2 show warm brick colored pavers mixed with gray pavers in the corner plaza, alley and a small plaza near the bike locker area. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The pedestrian access alley is intended to be a quiet, human-scaled alternative route through the project site with inviting, decorative pervious pavement, benches, landscaped storm water treatment planters, and pedestrian scaled lighting. The bench options shown in the plans included Timber form ‘Colossus’ and Landscape Forms ‘Parallel’. The storm water planters are at grade level (even with the walkway), and will feature a combination of low growing knee high foliage, flowering plants that provide year round interest and function to cleanse storm water directed from the parking structure roof. Planting species have been carefully selected to be successful in the alley environment and to enhance the pedestrian experience. Deep shade plants (sword fern, red current) are among the plants selected for alley landscaping; images of these species are provided on sheet ARB 4.2. Parking Space Composition The 325 automobile stalls on all levels include eight accessible spaces, 82 Stalls enabled for electric vehicle charging capacity (with 17 to be installed initially). A total of six stalls are proposed to serve the new retail area, with one stall provided to serve 550 Waverley. None of the spaces are proposed to utilize mechanical parking systems. Approximately 46 bike parking spaces appear to be possible on the first floor of the garage in double vertical racks; the remaining space is adjacent to the shear wall and will not allow the depth required for the stackers. The applicant is considering using a different rack system that would allow at least an additional 10 bikes and still allow bike and trailer storage – so the total bike parking count is anticipated to increase to 55-60 bikes (including 3 trailers). Photo-Voltaic Panels and Building Height The building will be designed with infrastructure to allow for the future installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels mounted above the top parking deck. The PV structure will reach a height of 56 feet above grade. The elevator penthouse would reach a height of 63 feet above grade. The primary stair and elevator circulation features are prominently positioned at the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue where the building edge erodes to create a pedestrian court. Setbacks and Floor Area As noted in the above chart and attached zoning compliance table, the building is now proposed to be set back three feet from the property line at Hamilton Avenue (extending four feet into the special setback). The building extends to the property line at Waverley Street. The structure would still be two feet from the interior lot line at the AT&T building, ten feet from the southerly wall of 560 Waverley Street property, and 16’7” from the rear wall of the Waverley Street properties. The building separation/setback compliance in this location is important to allow for openings for natural ventilation into the parking garage, and for light to reach the existing windows at 560 Waverley. This necessary setback also creates the opportunity for the pedestrian walkway. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Analysis1 The proposed changes address the ARB’s and staff comments as noted in the previous report section. The February 15, 2018 report provided analysis of the project with respect to the Downtown Urban Design Guide, Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning compliance. To the extent the modifications warrant further conversation, that discussion is provided below. The project will be scheduled for approval by Council following (1) conclusion of the DEIR comment period on July 2, 2018, (2) the preparation of a Final EIR responding to any comments. Downtown Urban Design Guide The revised project now better supports the Guide’s district goal to promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed use district and meet the goal for complimentary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity, by provision of:  Reduction in the automobile parking space supply (now 325 spaces, a 13-space reduction) is balanced by the number bicycle parking spaces (50 spaces) and improved pedestrian circulation within the garage,  Retention of 1,955 sf of retail space (slightly reduced area from the prior plans),  Four additional street trees,  Additional bench seating with planters along Hamilton Avenue.  The parking guidance system will make parking in the upper and lower garage levels more convenient.  The improved pedestrian route from Hamilton Avenue through the building will assist wayfinding.  The corner building and plaza treatment is still strong but the mass of the stair covering was reduced to respond to the ARB’s comments.  Direct access to the retail space is still provided from the corner plaza as well as from the Waverley frontage.  Public art, low plant material along Hamilton Avenue, supplemented by the additional street trees, will contribute to pedestrian friendliness on this frontage. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Compliance Relevant Comprehensive Plan policies, and project features related thereto, are cited in DEIR and the RLUA (Attachment A). The Zoning compliance table has been modified (Attachment B) to reflect project plan changes such as the increased setback along Hamilton Avenue. The PF zone minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines shared with the existing Waverley Street buildings will be met with the project. 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. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Additional plan modifications to ensure consistency between plan sheet pages, and further address recent City staff comments regarding soil volume and storm water treatment, will be undertaken prior to Council review in the fall. Key Issues PF Zone Ordinance, Hamilton Setback and Parking Spaces: On June 11, 2018, Council approved the PF zone and parking regulations ordinance amendment. The second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for June 25, 2018. The code modifications will allow Council to approve the Downtown Garage with the exceptions to development standards including setbacks. The architect/project team responded to the ARB’s request to reduce the encroachment into the Hamilton setback, and for safe pedestrian access from Hamilton through the garage to the pedestrian alley. As noted, the provision of a three foot setback from Hamilton, and other plan modifications to address pedestrian safety inside the garage, resulted in a reduction in the overall number of parking spaces. The Council will have the opportunity to consider and act on the application, including the number of automobile and bike parking spaces to be provided. Transformer: The existing above -grade transformer will be placed below grade as part of this project, to clean up the alley. The new transformer for the garage will also be put below grade, as shown on plan sheet ARB 2.1 Bird Friendly Glass: The retail storefront windows and the elevator tower storefront system will be facing new trees, so bird-friendly glass is needed. An approval condition to require bird- friendly glass is included in the RLUA. Signage: While the plans indicate wall signage for the retail space(s) facing the Waverley and Hamilton frontages, the tenant(s) and sign program is unknown at this time. The plans show signs would hang above the vehicle entrances, stating “exit only” and “public parking”. Address signage, and vehicular and pedestrian wayfinding signage would be needed. The retail space signage would be part of a separate architectural review application. Street Trees: The Urban Forester has noted that the soil volume and distance between the street trees and new building are inadequate, with the following specific comments: 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9  Gingko biloba, a medium-sized tree at maturity, needs 800 cubic feet of soil per tree and Quercus agrifolia, a large-sized tree, needs 1200 cubic feet per tree.  The nine proposed trees require 8400 cubic feet of soil volume at 3 feet deep.  If tree wells are combined into a connected soil area, 75% of the combined volume, 6300 cubic feet, would be adequate to allow trees to grow to full mature size.  Combined soil volume can be provided with a suspended pavement system using soil cells, pier and grade beam, or other methods to provide non-compacted healthy soil under pavement. Relevant conditions of approval are included in the Draft Record of Land Use Action to address these concerns. Loading and Access to Existing Waverley Street Properties: At the February 15, 2018 ARB meeting, a representative of the owners of property on Waverley spoke regarding access, parking and deliveries to the Waverley businesses. The discussion about the issues raised is under the Public Comments section of this report. 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, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published on May 18, 2018 and circulated for public comments. The comment period ends July 2, 2018. The Draft EIR is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65110. Draft EIR Summary and Mitigation Measures The Draft EIR page 1 Executive Summary provides a project overview, project objectives and approach, four alternatives to the proposed project, and a summary of impacts with level of significance described in a table. The topics with mitigation measures required are: 1. Biology: Mitigation measures are proposed to address potential impacts related to nesting birds, tree preservation and protection, tree replacement. The tree measures require the arborist report of May 2017 to be implemented, with no net loss of canopy, and the planting of Gingkos and Oaks along Hamilton and Waverley are part of the mitigation. 2. Cultural Resources: Mitigation measures are proposed regarding resource and human remains recovery procedures, and unanticipated discover of tribal cultural resources. 3. Geology and Soil: Mitigation measures are proposed related to geotechnical investigation for basement structures, and temporary basement shoring, slopes and cut, and require implementation of the geotechnical report recommendations and best management practices. 4. Hazardous Waste and Material: One mitigation measure is proposed to require preparation and implementation of a health and safety plan, and implementation of standard measures for 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 collection, transport and disposal of material if hazardous material is exposed during construction. 5. Transportation: Three mitigation measures are proposed to require a construction traffic control plan, a vehicle queuing analysis (in the event a paid parking component with gates is implemented) and a parking structure access and exit safety improvement (a stop sign at the intersection of Lane 21 and Bryant Street. In 2017, a Draft Initial Study and Notice of Preparation had been circulated to the State Clearinghouse and notice was provided under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR has also been circulated to the State Clearinghouse for comments. 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 June 8, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 8, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments The City has responded to comments made by the property owner of 558-560 Waverley Street via letters attached to this report (Attachment G). The topics addressed therein included garage access for on-site parking, dedicated parking spaces in the garage, access to clean out servicing, and aesthetics of the garage. The City’s response noted:  Any request for access easements would be revisited if and when applications for redevelopment of the properties are submitted, and the formal parking space allocated to 550 Waverley per the City’s Assessment Roll is replaced in the garage plan. The City has offered to create a loading zone on Waverley Street for deliveries.  The grease trap service vendor for 560 Waverley utilizes the public parking lot and improperly blocks the drive aisle to service the clean outs, and the garage design allows a typical large pump truck with a 100’ hose to park adjacent to the trash enclosure to perform servicing operations.  Unchanged are the 10 foot pedestrian alley width (required to allow openings for natural ventilation into the garage) and the eight feet long canopy lighting.  The elevator hoist way is designed to have clear tempered glazing to provide patrons a better view of the historic Post Office and Hamilton Avenue streetscape. As of the writing of this report, staff had not received any public comments on the Draft EIR. Public comments submitted in writing prior to the comment period end date, July 2, 2018, will be addressed in the Final EIR prior to Council consideration of the project. Alternative Actions Alternatives to the recommended action include: 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 1. ARB recommends approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval contained in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). 2. ARB recommends approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; or 3. ARB recommends project denial based on revised findings. Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOC)  Attachment B: Downtown Parking Garage Updated Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: February 15 2018 ARB Excerpt minutes (DOCX)  Attachment E: February 15, 2018 ARB Report Without Attachments (PDF)  Attachment F: Project plans and Draft EIR (directions to project webpage) (DOCX)  Attachment G PART 1: 2018-02-12 Letter to Brian McSweeney (2) (PDF)  Attachment G PART 2: Wong letter February 14 (PDF)  Attachment G PART 3: Most Recent Letter to Brian McSweeney (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 18 1 DRAFT ACTION NO. 2018-0X RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 375 HAMILTON AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17PLN-00360 On ______, 2018, the Council approved the proposed Public Parking Garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On _____, 2018, Council conducted a public hearing to consider: (1) The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), published on _________, 2018, in response to comments made during the initial public comment period on the Draft EIR published May 18, 2018, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (2) The Architectural Review application and approval recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, for the Public Parking Garage at 375 Sherman Avenue. B. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted two formal public hearings on the Public Parking Garage project; the first hearing was on February 15, 2018; the second hearing was held June 21, 2018, and provided a public hearing opportunity for the public comments on the Draft EIR; the ARB continued the hearing to July 5, 2018, recommending _______ of the project on that date; C. City Council, on June 11, 2018, approved the ordinance recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission to modify the PF zone development standards and parking requirements in the Downtown and California Avenue business districts for essential services facilities and public parking garages; SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City of Palo Alto prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project in accordance with CEQA, which was circulated for public review and comment from May 18, 2018 through July 2, 1028; a Final EIR was prepared to respond to comments and published on _______, 2018; the City Council certified and made related findings by Resolution No. ________ on ______, 2018, prior to approval of the decision that is the subject of this RLUA. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. The design and architecture of the proposed public parking garage complies with the Six Findings for Architectural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.020. (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 Attachment A 2.a Packet Pg. 19 2 design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:  With Council’s recent (June 11th) adoption of an ordinance amending the Public Facilities development standards for city parking garages, the project will comply with the land use and development standards of the PF zone.  The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the project: o Policy T-5.6, Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. The project includes below grade and structure parking; mechanized parking is not proposed. o Policy T-5.7, Require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and bicycle safety. The project includes bicycle storage with special entry plaza at Hamilton, and a dedicated, striped pedestrian pathway on the ground floor leading to the enhanced, pedestrian alley between the garage and existing buildings. o Policy T-5.8, Promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce storm water runoff, increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the Urban Forest Master Plan. The project includes storm water features, street trees, and photovoltaic structures to accommodate solar panels on top of the parking structure. o Policy T-5.9, Promote safety for pedestrians in City-owned parking lots by adopting standards for landscaping, signage, walkways and lighting that reduce crime and ensure a safe and orderly flow of traffic. The project will include pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist oriented wayfinding signage and adequate lighting to promote orderly and safe passage. o Policy T-5.10, Encourage the use of adaptive design strategies in new parking facilities in order to facilitate reuse in the future if and when conditions warrant . The project includes a taller ceiling on the first floor retail space and garage than on the upper floors; this may assist adaptive ground floor reuse, if desired in the future. o Policy N-2.3, Enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same and discouraging the planting of invasive species. The project includes planting of two varieties of trees and multiple varieties of low-growing plant species. o Policy N-2.10, Preserve and protect Regulated Trees on public and private property…and related program N2.10.1, continue to require replacement of trees including street trees lost to new development. The project includes protection of several trees and replacement of the regulated parking lot trees to meet the City’s ‘no net loss of canopy’ requirement. 2.a Packet Pg. 20 3 o Policy N-4.12, Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban storm water runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where practical. The project incorporates permeable pavers and landscape planters designed to meet storm water run-off treatment best practices. o Policy L-1.10, Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The project increases the supply of parking spaces Downtown, provides new ground floor retail space, public art, and amenities supporting pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and includes high quality materials. o Policy L-4.2, Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. The project features a small street corner plaza highlighting the staircase and retail space, new trees, and pedestrian level landscaping. o Policy L-4.3, Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. The project includes benches, street trees and public art; however, the existing public restroom on the property will not be replaced in the new construction. o Policy L-5.2, Provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts. The project includes new street trees in replaced and wider sidewalks, a new pedestrian alley, parking for 50 bicycles, and pedestrian circulation through the garage ground floor. o Policy L-5.3, Design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the character of the area where they are located. The project includes enhanced sidewalks along the two frontages, special paving and landscaping in the pedestrian alleyway. o Policy L-6.1, Promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The site design considers surrounding development, creates public and retail spaces, and includes components and features intended to create a contextually compatible garage structure. o Policy L-6.3, Encourage bird-friendly design. The project includes retail storefront glass that would face new street trees and storefront glass at the elevator hoist way; a condition of approval requires bird-friendly glass on these windows. o Policy L-6.6, Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety. The project design includes transparent materials, lighting, and pavement markings to promote/enhance a sense of pedestrian safety. 2.a Packet Pg. 21 4 o Policy L-6.10, Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. Retail signage, indicated for placement on retail space(s) elevations facing Waverley and Hamilton, and parking lot wayfinding signage will be developed and submitted in a separate architectural application. o Policy L-8.2, Provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art. The project includes stained cedar wood benches adjacent to board formed concrete planters in the alley and along Hamilton Avenue. o Policy L-70, Enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street trees. The project includes new street trees on Hamilton and Waverley. o Policy L-8.5, Recognize public art … as a community benefit; encourage the development of new public and private art and ensure such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the neighborhood; and Policy L-8.6, seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open space and community gardens The project includes public art integrated into entrances. o Policy L-9.2, Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The project provides underground parking and parking behind first floor retail, and improves the street safety and street tree count at this site. o Policy L-9.8 (Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan by reference, in order to) assure that new land uses recognize the many benefits of trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust tree canopy throughout the city; Related Program L-9.8.1, establish incentives to encourage native trees and low water use plantings in new development throughout the city; and Policy L-9.9, involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development review. The project includes planting of three new, native oaks and additional street trees to address the removal of existing parking lot trees; the Urban Forester has worked to ensure project conformance with policies. o Policy L-9.11, design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots, to meet high-quality urban design standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in design of public infrastructure. The project includes public art and will incorporate parking guidance system. o Related Program L9.11.2, Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. The existing transformer and the proposed additional transformer for the project will be located below grade in the proposed pedestrian alley. 2.a Packet Pg. 22 5 (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (2a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community; The project is consistent with Finding 2(a), given:  The reduction in driveway curb cuts and right-of-way improvements and provision of parking wayfinding system(s) will improve pedestrian circulation,  The improvements including the location of bicycle parking and pedestrian plaza near the AT&T building on Hamilton Avenue, will be convenient and compatible with the design concept and functions and will improve pedestrian safety along the wider street sidewalks and inside the garage; (2b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant; The project is consistent with Finding 2(b), given:  Although existing on-site trees will be removed to allow for construction of the garage, replacement trees are proposed along the frontages of Hamilton and Waverley.  While the setbacks of the building are less than those on the other three corner properties at the intersection, two of which utilize lawn in the front yard setbacks, the design respects the historic context of: o The National Register and Category 1 Local resource at 380 Hamilton (US Post Office) and 526 Waverley St. Category 3 Local resource designed by Birge Clark, with incorporation of terra cotta material that is reminiscent of clay roof tiles on these and other Downtown buildings in the area, and o The potentially eligible, mid-century modern ‘brutalist’ style All Saints Church, with incorporation of board-formed concrete planters, walls and columns at the base section of the building, below painted concrete structure on the upper floors; (2c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district; Finding 2c is not applicable since the PF zone does not impose context based design criteria. (2d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations; The project is consistent with Finding 2(d), given:  The garage is integrated into the context of the downtown rather than being self-conscious and aggressive, defining itself though program, connections with the site and context as well as streetscape character, drawing from architectural styles but not replicating them.  The massing of the façade is scaled to the street with a new canopy at Hamilton and Waverley that is higher at Waverley Street to relate to the adjacent retail and nearby Post Office arcade.  The height of the AT&T building at seventy-five (75) feet serves as a backdrop to our building that is 50% shorter.  The retail storefront assists in the transition to retail buildings along Waverley Street.  The materials and architectural forms that establish the character are intended to be compatible with the architecture of the area including use of: 2.a Packet Pg. 23 6 o Terra cotta vertical louvers and warm color pavers in interesting patterns at the corner plaza, bike parking plaza and pedestrian alley, as a nod to the character of the brick pavers and walls of the Wells Fargo building on the opposite corner, o Square penetrations/indentations in the Hamilton board-formed concrete wall to echo the Hamilton Avenue windowed-wall of the AT&T building, o Use of custom, perforated metal panel in burnished bronze as a nod to the mesh screen on the building at 560 Waverley. (2e) enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas;  There are no living units proposed on the site; the project is consistent with Finding 2(e), wherever feasible, with pedestrian friendly landscaping, lighting and sidewalks to enhance residents’ experience walking along Waverley and Hamilton. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area; the project is consistent with Finding 3, given:  The materials were selected for durability and construction techniques are appropriate for the use. The primary construction material is poured in place concrete columns, slabs and walls. Along the street edges, the building base columns and shear wall are board-formed concrete in a natural color, similar to All Saints Church.  Metal flat bars painted a dark bronze color are proposed to infill the first floor openings to create screening for pedestrians. The metalwork is continued on the runs and landings of the stair celebrating the metalwork found in the post office and other Spanish revival buildings.  An illuminated perforated metal scrim wraps the main corner stair creating a lantern element that serves as a wayfinding device. This element is also the focus of the public art program for the building.  Vertical metal louvers, capped by a horizontal metal channels, wrap the upper stories and define the cornice of the building. The vertical louvers serve to create a body to the building while allowing for the required garage ventilation.  Colors and textures will be compatible with nearby buildings as noted above and with additional use of quality materials for the pedestrian-amenities, such as stained cedar benches; dark bronze aluminum canopies; dark bronze painted steel posts, trim, guardrail, and pickets. (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.); the project is consistent with Finding 4, given:  Ease of wayfinding is one of the garage’s key features. For automobiles, the proposal includes a parking guidance system, with the main vehicle entry / exit on Hamilton Avenue 2.a Packet Pg. 24 7 near the south corner of the lot since Hamilton is a more travelled way, and a secondary vehicular exit shall be at Lane 21.  The mini-plaza on Hamilton, bike plaza and pedestrian alley accommodate seating and shade for individual passive activities.  Lighting is provided to enliven the architecture and provide for operations at nighttime: o Cantilevered light fixtures and festooned string lights at alley o Uplighting in alley to highlight living walls o Downlighting in canopies (zaniboni luna 2) o Linear downlighting hidden in canopy framework (aion T402) o Full cutoff security downlight in alley o Downlights (delta-lights) recessed in concrete ceilings at pedestrian entries at Hamilton, Lane 21, and elevator/stair plaza o Linear downlight grazing living wall on Hamilton avenue (lumen-pulse lumen- facade series) o Point source down-lighting for art mounted to top of wall (eco-sense rise) (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained; the project is consistent with Finding 5, given  the use of shade-tolerant plant materials for the shaded pedestrian plaza,  provision of street tree species compatible with and replacing existing tree species found at the site,  use of vegetated planters to handle storm water runoff. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning; the project is consistent with Finding #6 given:  Photovoltaic panels are proposed to (eventually) provide shading of vehicles at the top deck of the garage for energy efficiency as a key sustainable feature of the project.  Suitable street tree planting environments and storm water design features are key features of the project.  The building (above grade) will be naturally ventilated and meet California Building Code requirements to achieve the prescribed open area and length. The basement will be mechanically ventilated. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Public Parking Garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans for the Downtown Parking Garage submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Watry Design, Inc. consisting of 34 pages, received May 2.a Packet Pg. 25 8 7, 2018, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. The Mitigation Measures Described in the Draft EIR are incorporated into these conditions. The mitigation measures are provided in an Exhibit with the Council Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. 1. MM BIO-1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and any other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 to August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. MM BIO-2 Tree Preservation and Protection Plan. To avoid disturbance and injury to onsite trees, the recommendations for tree preservation in the Arborist Report dated May 2017 shall be implemented. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, tree protection fencing to enclose as much of the TPZ as feasible around City trees on the sidewalks, no grading encroachments closer than 6 inches to the tree trunk diameter, and periodic inspections by the Site Arborist during construction activities. A total of nine trees would be planted on the project site as part of the landscaping plan. Two Gingko Biloba trees would be planted on Waverley Street and four Gingko Biloba trees and three Quercus Agrifolia tree would be planted along Hamilton Avenue. There would be no net loss of trees, and Palo Alto’s Urban Forest Master Plan policy for “no net loss of canopy” would be met with the project via standard conditions of approval requiring replacement of lost canopy within 15 years of planting with the provision of adequate soil volume at the planting sites. Replacement ratios can be adjusted due to the condition of the existing tree as long as the minimum replacement for any live tree is 2:1. To ensure “no net loss of canopy” new trees replacing the site’s non-protected trees to be removed will be addressed through the City’s implementation of standard approval conditions. MM BIO-3 Tree Replacement. The removal of protected Coast Live Oak tree (Tree #8 in the Arborist Report prepared for the project) is subject to the City of Palo Alto’s tree removal ordinance in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10. Trees removed will be replaced according to replacement tree mitigation measures using the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00 (see table below). The replacement standards outlined in the Tree Technical Manual will be utilized to achieve no net loss of canopy per Policy 1.G of the Urban Forest Master Plan. Site preparation and soil volume requirements apply so that newly planted trees have the potential to mature to desired size and thrive. As determined by the City’s Urban Forester, the planting of three native oaks in the Hamilton Avenue right of way at the project site is appropriate as mitigation to replace the loss of the one Coast Live Oak on site, subject to the standard requirement to provide adequate soil conditions to ensure the replacement trees will thrive. MM CTR-1 Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist or paleontologist has evaluated the nature andsignificance of the 2.a Packet Pg. 26 9 find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. MM CTR-2 Human Remains Recovery Procedures. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. Additional surveys will be required if the project changes to include unsurveyed areas. MM CTR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative MM GEO-1 Geotechnical Investigation for Basement Structure. Building foundations shall be designed to tolerate total and differential settlements due to static loads and liquefaction-induced settlement in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The current geotechnical report includes recommendation for a no- basement building only. The project sponsor shall retain the service of a qualified state licensed engineering and geology specialist to include site-specific recommendation to mitigate the potential for risks associated with seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction for the foundation of a building with basement. The updated report would include design requirements for the construction of the foundation for the basement option. MM GEO-2 Temporary Shoring, Slopes and Cut. The contractor is responsible for maintaining all temporary slopes and providing temporary shoring where required. Temporary shoring, bracing and cuts/fills would be performed in accordance with the strictest government safety standards. Excavation during site demolition and fill removal should be sloped at 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) within the upper 5 feet. For excavation extending more than 5 feet below building subgrade, excavations should be sloped in accordance with the OSHA soil classification. The contractor is responsible for selecting the shoring method according to their judgment and experience considering adjacent improvements such as foundation loads, utilities and pavement. The qualified state licensed engineering and geology specialist in charge of the geotechnical report shall review the shoring design prior to implementation. Recommendations of the geotechnical report for temporary shoring are soldier beams and tie-backs, braced excavation, or other potential methods. The contractor is responsible or using best management practices to maintain all temporary slopes and providing temporary shoring where required. MM HAZ-1 Health and Safety Plan. The project sponsor will implement the following standard measures to avoid and minimize impacts from hazardous material to construction workers and the general public during construction. 1) In the event of exposing hazardous material during construction, the City will implement standard measures required by the federal, state, and local regulations for the collection, transport, and disposal of the material to prevent the exposure of workers and the public to such material. 2) The City will require the contractor to prepare and implement Health and Safety Plan that include a Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan prior to commencement of construction. The plan will include the project-specific related hazardous materials and waste operations. MM TR-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the excavation, the construction contractor shall develop the traffic control plan in accordance with City’s policies, coordinate with VTA and submit for City approval. The plan 2.a Packet Pg. 27 10 shall be implemented throughout the course of the project construction and may include, but not limited to, the following elements: • Limit truck access to the project site during peak commute times (7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.). • Restrict construction truck routes to truck routes designated by the City. • Contractor will provide adequate parking or carpool strategy for construction employees near the construction site, as approved by the City. • Require traffic control in the project entrance driveway, including flag persons wearing bright orange or red vests and using “Stop/Slow” Paddle to control oncoming traffic. • Coordinate with VTA to temporarily relocate the bus stop to ensure minimal impacts during sidewalk closure, if needed. • Maintain bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation during project construction. If construction encroaches on a sidewalk, a safe detour will be provided for pedestrian at the nearest crosswalk. • Repair or restore the road right-of-way to its original condition or better upon completion of the work. • Provide access for emergency vehicles at all time. MM TR-2 Vehicle Queuing Analysis. In the event the project includes a paid parking component; and, therefore, includes a parking gate, the project must prepare and submit a queuing study that shows, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division, that queuing into Hamilton Avenue would be avoided. Queuing includes a line of two or more vehicles waiting to enter the structure, which could block traffic on Hamilton. The study will consider the configuration and the anticipated volume of vehicles accessing the parking garage during the peak hour. The provisional gates must process vehicles efficiently such that vehicles do not have to wait to turn into the parking facility. MM TR-3 Parking Structure Access and Exit Safety Improvement: The following improvement shall be implemented to improve safety in accessing and exiting the proposed parking structure: • The City will install a stop sign at the intersection of Lane 21 and Bryant Street Planning 1. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this project. 2. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review. 3. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 4. As noted in the Civil Site Plan, the drive-by mailboxes and median, signage and striping shall be removed on Hamilton Avenue across from the project and restriped for four on-street parking spaces. Public Art The project will have a public art element commissioned through the Municipal Percent for Art Ordinance No. 5301. After a competitive process, Amy Landesberg was selected as the project artist and approved by the Public Art Commission in November 2017. Landesberg came to Palo Alto in December and met with the design team and key stakeholders, toured the site, and held a community meeting to gather input. She is currently working on a conceptual design for artwork that will likely be mounted on the perforated metal screens above the main entrance to the garage and at the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. Once her design is approved by the Public Art Commission, then she will be issued a contract for the fabrication and installation of the artwork. That contract will require City Council approval. Transportation 2.a Packet Pg. 28 11 The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 1. BIKESTATION DESIGN: As plans are refined, ensure the following features are incorporated into the design of the proposed bike station: a. The bike station shall have a two-tier bicycle parking system with the second level equipped with a lift-assist system to allow users to lift the bicycle storage tray to the second level with little physical effort. An example of this product is the Dero Decker, manufactured by Dero. b. The bicycle parking enclosure shall be accessible only to owners or operators of bicycles within it and doors of the enclosure equipped with key or electronic locking mechanisms that admit only users and managers of the facility. The enclosure doors must close and lock automatically if released. c. Adequate horizontal and vertical clearances shall be provided between the bicycle parking fixtures and walls or other vertical obstructions. A two-tier bicycle parking fixture requires additional clearance to facilitate bicycle loading and unloading of the second-level tray. d. Adequate lighting within the bicycle parking enclosure shall be provided. e. Conduit or similar features shall be provided for future CCTV systems within the bicycle parking enclosure. 2. TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS: As part of this project, traffic signal modifications are necessary at two intersections: Hamilton Avenue and Gilman Street and Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. Traffic signal engineering design plans shall be prepared and developed in coordination with the Transportation Division. 3. PARKING WAYFINDING SIGANGE: Parking wayfinding signage shall be provided which is consistent with the appearance and messaging system developed as part of the city’s downtown parking wayfinding signage program. A freestanding pylon or façade-mounted marquee sign shall be provided adjacent to the Hamilton Avenue entrance. Sign design details and specifications are available in the city’s parking wayfinding sign construction plan set. Public Works Urban Forestry 1. Tree replacements for removals must result in no net loss of canopy within 15 years of planting. 2. The number and species of trees is appropriate to accomplish this except that soil volume and distance between the trees and building is inadequate. 3. Gingko biloba, a medium-sized tree at maturity, needs 800 cubic feet of soil per tree and Quercus agrifolia, a large-sized tree, needs 1200 cubic feet per tree. 4. The 9 proposed trees require 8400 cubic feet of soil volume at 3 feet deep. 5. If tree wells are combined into a connected soil area, 75% of the combined volume, 6300 cubic feet, would be adequate to allow trees to grow to full mature size. 6. Combined soil volume can be provided with a suspended pavement system using soil cells, pier and grade beam, or other methods to provide non-compacted healthy soil under pavement. Building The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment 2.a Packet Pg. 29 12 Permit, etc.: 1. Buildings with two or more stories above grade plane are required to be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with CBC Section 903.3.1.1. 2. For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements are required per PAMC 16.14.080. A completed Green Building Checklist “GB-1 Non-Residential Mandatory Plus Tier 2” sheet is required for the building permit submittal package. 3. City of Palo Alto has adopted CALGreen Mandatory +Tier 2 for new construction and requires that 12% to the total parking spaces shall be low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. (CALGreen A5.106.1.2) 4. The Palo Alto Municipal Code, PAMC section 16.14.130 requires new non-residential structures to provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. In addition, where EV spaces have been provided, the EV charging spaces shall comply with CBC 11B-228.3.2 and Table 11B-228.3.2.1 for the minimum number of accessible EV spaces. The accessible EV charging spaces shall comply with the technical requirements of CBC 11B-812. 5. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. Public Works Engineering 1. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bio-swales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the planning review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to planning approval by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings.  Provision C3 Form  Storm Water Treatment Design Certification  3rd Party review response letter (stamped/signed)  http://www.scvurpppw2k.com/pdfs/1112/SCVURPPP_C.3_Data_Form_final_2012.pdf 2. City records indicate there is a small easement running along the Hamilton Ave frontage. Please verify with title report and update plans in these locations. 2.a Packet Pg. 30 13 The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and/or Encroachment Permit. 1. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 2. 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 3. EXCAVATION: Plans shall clearly identify the deepest point of excavation including below grade basement slab with note and appropriate dimensions. 4. 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 splashblocks 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. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 5. GRADING: Project proposal includes an underground structure. A rough grading plan will need to be present in submittal. 6. ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE: Garage drains shall have sand/oil separator indicated. Proposed trash enclosure shall be required to drain to sanitary sewer only. 7. RETAIL SPACE: If any proposed food service is planned a grease trap will be required. 8. 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. 9. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line and 3-feet from side an rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. The device must 2.a Packet Pg. 31 14 not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 10. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 11. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide the following note on the Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.” 12. DEWATERING: Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Grading Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a Grading Permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website.  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64867 13. 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. 14. 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.” 15. 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 2.a Packet Pg. 32 15 coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 16. 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. Include a scan copy of the Site Inspection Directive obtained from Inspector in plan set. 17. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Along with full sidewalk, curb & gutter replacement, street resurfacing is also required for the property frontage along Hamilton Ave and Waverley St. 18. 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. 19. PUBLIC RESTROOM: Please clarify the proposed plan for the existing JCDecaux public restroom. The plan indicates a proposed removal. The relocation of the facility or proposed outcome shall be identified on the plan set. 20. 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. 21. 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 22. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Include a copy in resubmittal. Guidelines are attached below: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2719 23. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is a C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. Fire Department None Utilities WGW PLACEHOLDER: CONDITIONS SPECIFIC TO DOWNTOWN GARAGE MAY 2018 PLANS TO BE PROVIDED WEEK OF JUNE 18 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.: 2.a Packet Pg. 33 16 1. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application – load sheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads 2. 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. 3. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the duct bank 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. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 5. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 6. 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. 7. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 2.a Packet Pg. 34 17 11. 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. 12. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Utilities Electrical A. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to Planning entitlement (Council) approval: 1. Project specific comments: This project is in conflict with existing electric and fiber optic utilities which will have to be relocated in order for the project to proceed. Applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of the primary electric utility line which runs through the project. Relocation work includes, but is not limited to, all trenching and substructure construction and the installation of conduits, cables and equipment. Applicant shall coordinate work with CPAU – Electric. Applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of the City’s dark fiber optic system backbone which runs through the project. Relocation work includes, but is not limited to, all trenching and substructure construction and the installation of conduits. Applicant shall coordinate work with CPAU – Electric. All relocation work shall be completed prior to disturbance and/or demolition of existing electric and fiber facilities. Applicant shall submit a formal request and application for the relocation of facilities to CPAU – Electric Engineering. CPAU – Electric shall provide specifications for the design for the relocation of the electric primary lines and fiber optic cables. Applicant shall be responsible for engineering design and shall submit the design for approval by CPAU Electric Engineering. Applicant shall show the proposed locations of the relocated electric primary line and dark fiber optic line on the site plan. Locations of the new electric primary line and dark fiber optic line shall be submitted to CPAU Electric Engineering for review and approval. Applicant shall provide space for a minimum of four (4) new electric vaults. The vault dimensions are provided on the engineer’s mark-up. Applicant shall provide space for a fiber optic communication box. The box dimension is provided on the engineer’s mark-up. Applicant shall be responsible for the installation of an electric/city fiber joint trench. Applicant shall show the location of the joint trench, vaults and boxes on a resubmitted site-plan. Vaults 1820 and 1821, located in the triangle area of the premise, shall not be removed. Applicant shall be responsible to keep these vaults at grade. The electric room shall be above grade level. Location of electric room on basement level is not approved. All service equipment must be located above grade unless otherwise approved by Electric Engineering. If applying for an exception, please state the reason why you cannot meet the standard requirement. Meter equipment must be accessible to CPAU personnel at all times. Applicant shall adhere to the requirements stated in CPAU Electric Engineering Standard Drawings DT-SS-U-1002 (Underground Junction Boxes) and DT-SS-U-1003 (Underground Duct Lines). Applicant shall maintain the required minimum clearances between electric and fiber lines and other utilities as noted in DT-SS-U-1003. 2. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 4. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18 5. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 6. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and 2.a Packet Pg. 35 18 interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 7. The location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 8. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 9. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards. 10. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 11. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 12. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 13. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 14. Transfer of fiber customers will require a minimum of six months to complete from completion of infrastructure. Existing fiber conduit shall not be disturbed until all fiber customers have been transferred to the new fiber facilities. B. 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: B 1. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. B 2. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. B 3. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. B 4. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. B 5. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. B 6. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. B 7. The customer is responsible for installing all substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All 2.a Packet Pg. 36 19 off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. B 8. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. B 9. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. B 10. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. B 11. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. B 12. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. B 13. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. B 14. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 B 15. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. B 16. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. B 17. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. B 18. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service:  All fees must be paid.  All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.  All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant.  Easement documents must be completed. 2.a Packet Pg. 37 20 Public Works Water Quality (Stormwater Management) 1. Submit and follow the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” construction BMP sheet during life of project. 2. Highly consider using rain chains or similar along vines and other walls/building corners. 3. Stormwater treatment measures o Consider using low-maintenance permeable pavers for a small demonstration area. Appropriate specs must be followed. Vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks Maintenance Staff before installation. o Installation vendor specs should be followed, though vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks Maintenance Staff before installation. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. o A clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent Departments (Public Works, Parks) before occupancy approval. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 to facilitate this agreement. o Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. o Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details o Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329- 2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. o Install an interpretive sign regarding stormwater treatment and pollution prevention. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this text. 4. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) o Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape- professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note in the building plans. o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note in the building plans. 5. Stormwater quality protection o Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. o Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). o Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. o Establish a street sweeping maintenance plan in open parking lots. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this plan. 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: 1. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. 2. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are 2.a Packet Pg. 38 21 exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 3. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 4. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 5. 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. 6. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and equipment. SECTION 7. Indemnity. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 8. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090. PASSED: AYES: 2.a Packet Pg. 39 22 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Downtown Parking Garage Those plans prepared by Watry Design, Inc., entitled Downtown Parking Garage and consisting of 34 pages, and received May 7, 2018. 2.a Packet Pg. 40 May 7th, 2018 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 375 Hamilton Ave., Downtown Parking Garage, ARB Formal Review Project Description To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is the formal ARB submittal package for 375 Hamilton Avenue, the proposed Downtown Parking Garage. The project applicant is Watry Design Inc., with Hayes Group Architects, on behalf of our client, the City of Palo Alto. This package includes 14 sets of half size drawings and two sets of full size drawings, including the vicinity map, neighborhood context, site plan, landscape plan, proposed floor plans, elevations, sections, and perspectives. SCOPE OF WORK Due to an increased parking demand and a shortage of available parking spaces in the downtown area, the City of Palo Alto has begun the process for the design of a new parking structure at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. The project maximizes the amount of structured parking while integrating the structure within the downtown context with retail storefronts are the primary goals of the project. EXISTING SITE USE The site is located at the east corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. The rear of the site adjoins Lane 21. The surrounding vicinity is a mix of downtown retail and office uses. Southwest of the property, at 345 Hamilton is the four-story AT&T central office. Northwest along Waverley are several one and two-story retail buildings, including historic buildings at 526 Waverley, a category 3 historic building and 510 Waverley, a category 2 historic building. Across Hamilton, to the Southeast, is the historic, two-story Post Office, a category 1 historic building. Across Waverley to the Northeast is the All Saints Episcopal Church. The site is more than 150 feet from any residentially zoned properties so increased zoning restrictions do not apply. The zone district is PF: Public Facility. The district has a 50 foot height limit. There is a special setback of seven feet along the Hamilton Avenue property line. The PF zone amendment is being presented to Council to allow amendment of the setback requirement. Easements are not known at this time. The site area is 29,164 SF, accommodating a surface-level parking lot for 86 vehicles. There is a public restroom at the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. The Arborist Report identifies eight trees on the property, including one protected Coast Live Oak. The protected Coastal Oak is in fair condition with good grow but is not suitable for transplanting. The occupants of 526, 550 and 560 Waverley utilize a portion of the site to access the backs of their buildings and pick up trash and recycling. 2.b Packet Pg. 41 PROPOSED USE A parking structure with five levels above ground and one basement level with a ground floor retail area of 1955 SF is proposed for the site. The main entry to the building will be from Hamilton Avenue. Access is also provided from Lane 21, however, this access will generally be for exit only with entry only in the event that the Hamilton Avenue access may be restricted. This project shall provide 325 total parking stalls. Of these, there will be provision for accessible spaces (8); electric vehicle charging (82, 17 to be installed initially) stalls serving the new retail area (6) and a stall serving 550 Waverley. A long-term bike storage room shall be provided at Hamilton Avenue near the main vehicle entry/exit. This room shall be approximately 438 square feet and have space for approximately 50 bicycles with additional space for child carriers etc. Short-term bicycle storage can be provided at the sidewalk near the retail space. A common refuse storage room shall be at Lane 21 near the secondary vehicle entry / exit. This room shall be approximately 450 square feet. It will serve the Waverley businesses and the proposed new retail space. The parking structure will be 50’-0” to the top of rail on the fifth deck with an elevator penthouse continuing to 63’-0”. The building will be designed with infrastructure to allow for the future installation of photovoltaic panels mounted above the top parking deck. SITE AND BUILDING CONCEPT The proposed building sits three feet away from the property line at Hamilton Avenue; it extends four feet into the special setback. The building extends to the property line at Waverley Street. A continuous 12 foot sidewalk wraps both frontages. The structure is two feet from the interior lot line at the AT&T building. At the north property line, shared with 560 Waverley, the edge of the garage sets back 10 feet from the property line. This allows openings for natural ventilation into the parking garage, as well as light to reach the existing windows at 560 Waverley. This necessary setback also creates an opportunity for a pedestrian walkway, focused on and leading to the secondary stair vertical circulation element. Additionally, a visual connection to All Saints Episcopal Church is created between the garage and the church by way of the new alley connection. The alley is visually enhanced with architectural paving, plantings, benches and decorative lighting features that will provide the infrastructure for a useable space. The primary stair and elevator circulation features are prominently positioned at the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue since pedestrian way finding is an important aspect of garage navigation. At this street corner, the building edge erodes, creating a pedestrian court with access to the stair and elevator, as well as an entrance to the ground floor retail space that extends down Waverley Street. In order to maintain access for utilities, services and secondary means of egress for the existing buildings fronting Waverley Street, the garage sets back 16 feet from the shared property line at this location. Vehicle access will 2.b Packet Pg. 42 be restricted in this alley to those vehicles needed for service. The alley will be enhanced with architectural paving, new planting, benches and lighting so that it can be a useable space. To satisfy the car count goal, the garage is four stories, with parking at the roof level, plus one level of basement parking. The main vehicle entry / exit shall be on Hamilton Avenue near the south corner of the lot since Hamilton is a more travelled way. A secondary vehicular exit shall be at Lane 21. The building will be naturally ventilated and as such must meet California Building Code requirements for openness. This requirement requires that the design must have a sustainably open façade to achieve the prescribed open area and open length. The basement will be mechanically ventilated. The building concept is one of transition and compatibility. The garage is integrated into the context of the downtown rather than being self-conscious and aggressive. An integrated building defines itself though program, connections with the site and context as well as streetscape character without replicating architectural styles but drawing from them. The general massing of the façade is scaled to the street with a new canopy at Hamilton and Waverley. This canopy, higher at Waverley Street, relates to the adjacent retail and nearby Post Office arcade. The height of the AT&T building at seventy-five (75) feet serves as a backdrop to our building that is 50% shorter. The retail storefront assists in the transition to mercantile buildings along Waverley Street. MATERIALS, COLORS, AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS The primary construction material is poured in place concrete columns, slabs and walls. Along the street edges, the building base columns and shear wall are board-formed concrete in a natural color, similar to All Saints Church. Metal flat bars painted a dark bronze color are used to infill the first floor openings to create screening for pedestrians. The metalwork is continued on the runs and landings of the stair celebrating the metalwork found in the post office and other Spanish revival buildings. An illuminated perforated metal scrim wraps the main corner stair creating a lantern element that serves as a wayfinding device. This element is also the focus of the public art program for the building. Vertical metal louvers, capped by a horizontal metal channels, wrap the upper stories and define the cornice of the building. The vertical louvers serve to create a body to the building while allowing for the required garage ventilation. Their color is reminiscent of the terracotta colors found in the downtown. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL In response to board member comments, we have made several changes to the design. The building has moved three feet back from the Hamilton Avenue property line, better aligning with the existing AT&T building. A pedestrian pathway through the structure leads from the bike parking entry near Gilman Street to Lane 21 near CVS as recommended by the Transportation Department. Responding to comments on proportion and massing, the heavy two-story arcade base is now a narrow canopy at Hamilton and Waverley. The material of the perforated metal shroud at the corner stair has been refined into a more open, transparent structure. LANDSCAPE CONCEPT The landscape of the proposed parking structure is designed to enhance the pedestrian environment of downtown Palo Alto and encourages positive social interaction through providing an inviting streetscape and creating a unique and convenient pedestrian alleyway between the existing surrounding buildings and the proposed structure. 2.b Packet Pg. 43 The streetscape walkways are replaced and widened to provide more room for circulation along the proposed retail space on Waverley Street and for enjoying the built-in benches and landscaped raised planters on Hamilton Avenue. New street trees are proposed along Hamilton in enlarged, 4’x7’ tree wells to help ensure healthy growth of the new Ginkgo trees which reflect the existing species of the preserved street trees on Waverley Street. Three native Oak trees have been added on Hamilton to compensate for the removal of the one protected oak tree. The corner of the parking structure features a small plaza area that introduces decorative pavers which are also used in the pedestrian access alleys. The pedestrian access alleys offer a quiet and human scaled alternative route through the project site. To invite people explore and use the alley, decorative pervious pavement, generous benches, landscaped storm water treatment planters, and pedestrian scaled lighting is used. The storm water planters are at grade level even with the walkway, and will feature a combination of low growing knee high foliage and flowering plants that provide year round interest and function to cleanse storm water directed from the parking structure roof. Planting species have been carefully selected to be successful in the alley environment and to enhance the pedestrian experience creating a pleasant atmosphere for what is expected to be a well-used passageway. Maintenance access for surrounding Waverley Street businesses is provided in the pedestrian access alley. Concrete paving is used at the north end for durable access to the refuse storage room. Vines trained to grow on the façade visually soften the appearance of the parking structure. PUBLIC ART The public art installation will form an integral part of the building’s fabric. Public art shall incorporate into and onto the perforated metal panel screens around the stair at the corner of Hamilton and Waverley and above the parking entrance on Hamilton Avenue. GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM The building will comply with the mandatory requirements of the 2016 Non Residential California Green Building Code (CALGREEN + TIER 2). We look forward to our presentation and discussion with the Architectural Review Board. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal cc: Watry Design Group enclosed: Arborist Report, June 2017 2.b Packet Pg. 44 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 375 Hamilton Avenue May 7, 2018 Revised Plans Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 29,164 sf 29,164 sf PF Setbacks - Minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF zone shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards of the most restrictive abutting district, provided no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet, and no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet – *Council modified this provision for public parking structures in the Downtown and California Avenue Business District Front Yard (Waverley) 20 feet* NA 0 feet Rear Yard (next to ATT bldg) 10 feet* NA 2 feet Interior Side Yard (at CVS and backing Waverley addressed lots) 10 feet NA 10 feet – CVS and side of Tai Pan, 16 feet- from rear lines of Waverley buildings Street Side Yard (Hamilton, special setback) *20’ (special setback 7’)NA 3 feet to wall Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) NA (not abutting) NA Build-to-lines NA NA NA Max. Site Coverage For parking facilities: = site coverage in most restrictive adjacent district (CD allows 100% site coverage; PF allows 30% site coverage) NA 22,980 s.f. (80.54%) Max. Building Height 50 feet NA 63’ to elevator penthouse 58’6” to top of PV structure 49’10” to top of rail 5th floor deck elsewhere – PF code to be revised Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) For parking facilities: equal to FAR established by most restrictive adjacent district (1:1 for non-residential use in CDC zone with increase allowed with TDR not to exceed 3:1 in CDC) NA 136,595 sf - Including below grade parking area Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM- 40 or PC Zone None NA NA 2.c Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Board Member Alexander Lew, Robert Gooyer, Osma Thompson Absent: Vice Chair Baltay Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]: Consideration of an Architectural Review Application for a Five-Level, Nearly 50-Foot Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level Providing 338 Public Parking Spaces. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared for Publication in Late February 2018 for a 45-Day Public Comment Period. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Alright, then I think we’re onto item two, a public hearing, its quasi-judicial, the site is 375 Hamilton Avenue, it’s a consideration of an Architectural Review Application for a five-level, nearly 50- foot tall parking structure, with one below grade parking level providing 338 public parking spaces. It also has retail space. It would eliminate one existing public restroom and is designed to comply not with the current Public Facilities Ordinance zoning standards but with proposed new standards which were considered by the Planning and Transportation Commission recently. The draft environmental report is still in preparation. This agenda says late February but I believe that Staff will tell us that date has been moved back. Could we have the Staff report, please? Ms. French: Thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official overseeing the process on this project. Excuse my voice today; I’ve had Laryngitis since Sunday. The project is indeed a garage that would provide parking spaces for the public, as well as retail space; a small amount. I will note that on the future notice for this project we will include the words retail space in the notice. Today the purpose is to learn about the project and the status and the timeline to understand that, to receive the architect’s presentation, ask questions of Staff and the applicant and the architect, and provide guidance for the next plan set that would come to you. We’re targeting April 19th as the next agenda date for this. Board Member Baltay did provide written comments that were distributed to the Architectural Review Board yesterday. Again, we want to continue the public hearing for several reasons. One is that we have not yet published the draft Environmental Impact Report and the target date is now – timeline is now the end of March. So, we want to have some comments – public comments in the public record at the Architectural Review Board hearing in April. This gives an overview that is contained in the Staff report. You saw this project last year, you – a different constitution of the ARB – in September. Those minutes were excerpt minutes, and were forward by email to the Board and there was a link in the Staff report as well. As noted, the Planning and Transportation Commission on January 19th – January 31st recommended the proposed zone changes that were requested with the Sherman Avenue garage and Public Safety Building ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: February 15, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 2.d Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Page 2 project. Those are to modify -- to allow Council to approve case by case each project modified zoning standards for Public Safety or essential Public facilities and public parking garages within downtown and California Avenue in the PF zone. Those included height, lot coverage, setbacks and including the special setback. I’m going to kind of skip through because I’m getting a tired voice here. As you can see I’m handling both projects so I don’t want to walk you through this but this is what I’m faced with personally. It is to get both – there really are three projects - the public parking garage on Sherman, the Public Safety Building and this project through the process to the Council for them to approve the final EIRs and the two projects and the zone code change. We have some flexibility for the number of parking spaces actually in the garage, though the Council said how many to put into the garage. We do have some flexibility because we are proposing to remove the mailbox that’s in the public right of way – City right of way - that people drive by to put their mail across the street. That would introduce more parking spaces on the street. In addition, the Council – some Council Members - noted their interest in having lift parking in this downtown garage, and so that’s being explored, and that’s the reason for the delay in the draft EIR. This drawing on this slide shows a concept that our Transportation Division Staff has put forward as to improve the pedestrian experience through the garage from Hamilton towards the proposed pedestrian alley. Our discussion today is, of course, to provide guidance on this project. Some questions have been raised, particularly about the pedestrian experience at the back of the building near CVS and that interface and the questions about landscaping and seating. In the Staff report we recommended some additional attention there, with taller landscaping along that façade. Another question was raised about when the parking system goes in with those gates preventing cars from going through without paying in the future. Where would the pedestrians go who are parked at the back of that garage when they want to go to CVS? So, that was a question that was raised and it’s a good one; so exploring that now. The special setback, again this is dating back to the 1950s. We think it was about the cars – giving more space to the cars and that we would widen the street at some point. Well, our thinking has changed and we prefer narrower streets to calm traffic so, in any case, it’s been recommended. The contextual setback in this area is of interest and certainly the AT&T building next door is a 7-foot setback, but this proposed project does have a building separation essentially providing a 20-foot setback for the first 15 feet of the building next to the AT&T building. So, there’s – there is a 20-foot setback for some distance but the remainder would be on the lot line. Now to compensate for that, the project has a wider sidewalk proposed. And so the other consideration was – as Chair Furth mentioned - the removal of the public restroom. There are nearby retailers including CVS that have restrooms for their customers. I’m going to move forward. I do have a slide for the Downtown Urban Design Guide -- Hamilton Avenue District. If you want to see it later, let me know. I’m going to switch over to the applicant now. Thank you. Ms. Holly Boyd: Good morning Board Members. My name is Holly Boyd, I’m a Senior Engineer in Public Works, and I’m the project manager for this garage. I just wanted to introduce some members of our design team who are here. We have Michelle Wendler from Watry Design and Genaro Morales from Watry Design and we also have Ken Hayes who is our lead architect on the project and he will be giving the presentation so I’ll ask him to come up now. Chair Furth: Good morning Mr. Hayes, the rules give you ten minutes. Mr. Ken Hayes: Alright, thank you. Good morning Chair Furth and Members of the Board. Welcome Board Member Thompson. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects and I’ll be making the presentation on behalf of the team. We’re actually working for Watry Design Group, the experts in parking garage design on this project and thank your introducing everybody Holly. So, Council’s direction for the redevelopment of Lot D, the existing parking lot, was five levels above ground, one level below ground, 338 parking stalls, bikes spaces, a retail space on Waverley – excuse me – as well as future photovoltaic panels on the roof. The project site, I think we’re all very familiar with it. It’s a 29,000- square foot project site, and a little more context here shows the project in the center. It’s currently zoned PF, it’s surrounded mostly by CDC, GF with a P; pedestrian overlay zoning district. Although the AT&T building is a PF, the post office is a PF and the post office is also a historic Category I. We have a historic Category III at the Palo Alto Toy World on Waverley. As well as a Victorian house next to that and the Décor Oaks building on the corner of University and Waverly as well, it’s also a historic building. 2.d Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Page 3 You can see here the 7-foot setback across the front. We will be widening the sidewalk on Hamilton and reconfiguring the drop off for the mail. This sidewalk will be 12-feet, the sidewalk along Waverly at this location will be about 18-feet so we’re going to extend those out and create a little bit more generous area. Lane 21 enters here and exits onto Bryant Street. It is one way in that direction from Waverley to Bryant Street. Just some images of the surrounding buildings I showed you back in September. The AT&T building is about 25-feet taller than our building. The All Saints Episcopal Church, 400 Hamilton, is all clad in brick and then we have the historic post office image there with its arcade across the front. When we were here in September we showed you three options and there was some focus essentially on Options One and Three. Option One and Three had a strong arcade at the ground floor level both on Waverly and on Hamilton. They had one or the other perforated metal panels above or metal fins that add interest to the garage but also allowed for the ventilation that’s required. This is an unventilated garage at the upper levels. They all had a corner plaza as well as a larger welcoming stair than this option here. So, we focused our – what you see today on kind of a combination of Options One and of Options Three. Some of the changes that were expressly made based on feedback from you, this is a detail of the corner. Originally, we had a 28-foot deep retail space and I think everyone thought that was a little bit shallow. So, we’ve now made that 35 feet, so we’ve increased the depth. We’ve also increased the area by about 450-square feet. There was some concern about how you see into the garage from the street frontages and so before it was just a single path from Hamilton. You really couldn’t see through in this direction so the idea was to reconfigure this corner plaza. Make it a little bit more generous, push the elevator back so that we can actually create a clean pathway here and one coming in from Waverly Street so that no matter where you’re coming, you can see into the garage. That helps I think in terms of wayfinding and also safety. Walking down Waverly, this was one of the comments and this really applied to Option Three but is there a way to make sure that the post office is afforded as much view opportunity as possible. So, the option we have today basically has pulled everything back that went into the corner plaza so as you approach the corner on that ground floor, you do see the post office as soon as possible; the main entrance there. Then we wanted to create a walkway to CVS and we really like transportations suggestion at the expense of some parking so now we’re at 334 spaces instead of Council’s directions for 338 but it does create a great way to come into the garage. You’d be walking along were all the bike racks would be. I think we can expand that bike rack area to include areas for people with strollers or bike trailers so we’ve increased the potential for parking. It’s not on your plan but it’s on the slide that you see here. Then having right angle crossing that would send you right to the stairways that then comes from four levels above and feeds into this pedestrian connection that we have here, as well as the alley connection that is behind the building that faces onto Waverley Street. So, we get a little synergy here which I think would be really great and it reinforces people coming down, it’s a circulation point. It will probably be used more frequently than the one over here on the corner. Then future underground parking and adjacent lots, there was concern about – Elizabeth Wong and Brad Ehikian parcels. So, the thinking is that from the basement level, we could actually plan into the structural walls of that basement ways for block out panels to take place to allow connections here. At grade level, the proposal with the alley in the back actually is wider than what they have now on those parcels because what they have now is just a drive aisle of the parking lot. That drive isle now is going to become an alley and so we’re about 2-feet wider than the free space that they have right now for garbage collection and pumping of the grease interceptor and that sort of thing. Can we reduce the 10-foot pedestrian alley to provide greater setback along Hamilton? We can if we want to get rid of about seventy cars, alright. Our advice is to not do that, to really put some attention into the detail and the amenities of this pedestrian alley. So, the garage is down at the bottom of the screen, this is Elizabeth Wong’s building, and this is Brad Ehikian’s building. This is what we’re proposing as that connection – that linkage. We need it for ventilation for the garage. We need 10-feet, anything less doesn’t work and so if it’s less than that, we’re going to have to go to a mechanically ventilated garage and in my opinion that would be a waste of energy. This actually terminates with a view corridor towards the All Saints sort of open area of their front yard. Then in this direction here it becomes the alley, we have a combined trash enclosure here and we have provisions for them to be able to get to those trash encloses. To get behind their buildings and to do any kind of servicing that they need to do at the grease interceptors and that sort of thing and like I said, more room than they have today if there’s cars parked in the parking lot that is. This is the street façade. Here you can see the At&t building is quite a bit taller than our building. Our building is at about 49-foot 10 to the top of the railing. This is a larger view of the front of the building. You see the arcade 2.d Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 4 or the rhythm of columns and openings that are along Hamilton. Each of those openings is filled with a bench for seating, an integral planter into the building and a ray of vine wires to give some plant material to – excuse me – plant material to fill those openings; as well as some decorative metal and the idea of the decorative metal throughout the garage is to celebrate some of the decorative metal you see in the historic buildings in the vicinity. We have a combination of the metal fins above to provide some interest. They’re controlled by a metal frame that wraps around them and then erode the corner at the end to highlight the elevator core. The stair becomes an enclosed stair now with perforated metal around it, before it was an open stair and one of the suggestions was to make that an enclosed stair. However, the stair sort of descends out of that volume so that you see people moving up and down quite easily to the plaza here. The perforated metal denotes the entrance there, it also denotes the entrance here and it denotes the stair at the back when you walk down the alley. This is the façade for Waverley and again we’re trying to pick up on the two-story rhythm and heights of the buildings of that block. This is the historic building here – I’m sorry, one more building down is the historic building but we’re trying to relate to the cornice line essentially of that building there. Then the retail space below that you see there, with the glass, and then above that would be again a decorative metal screen that would conceal the cars but bring that color, that texture of the metal into the project. The view from Hamilton looking I guess west and you see the corner façade here. The materials are a sandblasted concrete for the arcade and we’re really trying to bring in the color that you find in the Sienna or Terracotta Tile Roofs, the brick on the corner building so I think one of the strongest ways to relate to context is through color. You can see the perforated metal here and again, we’re thinking that all the metal is some kind of a bronze color so it's dark. It’s not anodized aluminum in any kind of an aluminum color. This is if we add the solar panels on top and what that could look like. Then a view from above and across; you can see the perforated metal again back here and that’s there that you see when you look through. We have the solar panels above and then some detail of the plaza itself and (30-seconds and I’m there). Chair Furth: Take what time you need, you’re the only agenda item. Mr. Hayes: We want to bring that decorative metal quality into the stair work and so you see it coming down to the plaza and that would wrap up and through this perforated metal screen. This would a detail of the benches and the back slopes so that you can be comfortable there. The integral planters here and this is where the vines would infill those areas. Then we have the metal – decorative metal screen behind that as well. Just some detail of the fins with the metal work around them and then what that could look like on the right-hand side when the PV structure is added. Then lastly this is the alley, you see beyond the destination, the stair, the metal screen again because it isn’t an entrance identity. Then if you walk down that stair and look back, you can see how we could start to animate that alley with plant material. We have been opportunities and then some kind of interesting lighting. So, I think it could be a really interesting space and if you want to see a space that’s similar scale, go to Chop’s new building on the corner of Hamilton and High. Look at the alley between the Palantir cafeteria building and his new building, it’s almost identical. I think we could really enhance that space and it could be a nice space. That’s my presentation, we all look forward to your comments. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a number of public comment cards and if or members of the public wishing to speak, if you haven’t submitted a card, would you please. Brad Ehikian to be followed by Elizabeth Wong. Mr. Brad Ehikian: Thank you. We have Jaime Rodriguez here who would like to combine Elizabeth’s and my card for the full time for the presentation that we have. Chair Furth: Untangle me a little bit more. What – who – what – I’m fine to have you speak in whatever order you would like. I have four cards here, Elizabeth Wong, Jamie Wong, Jamie Rodriquez and Brad Ehikian and Andrew Wong. What would you like? Mr. Ehikian: We would like to combine them for one presentation. Chair Furth: That’s fine with me. Sure, feel free, that… 2.d Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Ehikian: Thank you. Chair Furth: …gives you… Mr. Jamie Rodriquez: I’m going to go ahead and get started. My name is Jamie Rodriquez, I’m with Traffic Patterns and I’m a traffic engineering firm providing services to a couple of the property owners adjacent to this particular project. Our peer review of the places for the garage really focuses on the operations of the existing buildings, the businesses that operate within those buildings and the long-term impacts both during construction and after. So, here’s a quick site plan, again your architect already showed this to you. This is Waverley and Hamilton, the garage – the existing surface lot on Hamilton, Lot D showing down towards the bottom right. We’re here working with two of the property owns, Manhattan Associates who’s represented by Brad Ehikian behind me and they’re basically the building that is owned where Prolific Oven is. Elizabeth Wong with Waverley Post, also behind me, is the building right next to that where the Thai Pan Restaurant is. So, those are the two buildings that are most immediately impacted by the construction of the garage itself. For the people that are home that haven’t had a chance to read the letter that was provided to you just yesterday, I’m going to walk through the presentation so that people later can view this at home on their own to get a high overview of what some of the design issues are that we’re requesting additional accommodations on (inaudible) part of this project. Most important and specifically is the issue of grease clean outs. For people at home and for you who don’t understand that grease clean outs include two elements. There’s basically an underground storage tank that stores grease and other debris that gets generated in kitchens and they also include what is called clean outs. Cleanouts are where vehicles or vacuums are accessing that debris to basically vacuum it out of the ground to take it away for recycling or for cleaning. This is an example of what it takes to clean out these grease traps. Basically, they (inaudible) what they call a vacuum truck and the City Staff uses these around the City to clean out storm drains. They are used all over Palo Alto and other restaurants to pull out that debris and they are cleaned on a weekly basis at the restaurant at Thai Pan. What we’re seeing right now is that the only feasible way for both these buildings to access grease pits that exists and others that are being planned right now in construction in Brad’s building. You guess have a new application for a restaurant that will be building a second grease trap so you have to have a much higher ground floor. There’s no way that these vacuum trucks can connect the additional hoses and vacuums to vacuum out all this debris from these two kitchens from the alleyway. You have to have access from where it takes place today, the equivalent of the lot on the ground floor. That would require a much higher ground floor, I think right now you’re at about 11 ½-feet. You probably need closer to a 16-foot ground floor ceiling height to accommodate any of these services vehicles that came in and clean the grease trucks and potentially trash removal vehicles. Regarding parking, 550 and 552 is Prolific Oven and currently has two parking spaces. One is kind of dedicated to the space formally and they operate a second parking space that they use regularly informally. Informal versus formal, that’s still parking that’s used by these buildings that will get lost both during construction and post-construction. 558 and 560 Waverley where Thai Pan is doesn’t have any formal spaces but they use one space regularly every day for different operations. So, we talking about immediately three spaces that are going to get lost and what we’re seeing in the plans that were provided by the City is that only one parking space is being provided back to the Prolific Oven building. There’s an inequity in the parking distribution back to the Thai Pan Restaurant building with no parking and so that’s definitely been a concern for the team. What we’re suggesting that the City consider is to dedicate additional spaces within the ground floor of the garage immediately behind the buildings. There are six spaces that are shown on what is the northeast corner of the building. We would request that two spaces get provided per building, as well as a dedicated commercial loading zone with that higher 16-foot ground floor. Service vehicles can get in there, remove trash bins from the garage if you add second double doors sets on the inside of the garage to pull the trash out; as well as the vacuum trucks to clean out the grease pits from the Thai Pan Restaurant and the Restaurant that’s going to built at 558 or 552. Preferably, if that’s not something that the City is open to doing then we would just request that you provide a 24-foot alleyway around both sides of the building that maintains a two-way access to get vehicles in and out. That’s those buildings preserved their existing parking but that would have some significant impacts to the project and so we think that a really good kind of halfway point is dedicate those spaces back to the building owners. 2.d Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Regarding future development of the buildings, the architects mentioned that there were going to be accommodations to be able to punch through at the basement level of the garages future underground parking for the buildings if they were ever to get redeveloped. That’s a great idea but what’s really missing in the plans we have now is how that’s going to happen. If this was a development project, this – you guys at the City would want to see details about how that future construction is going to happen but that lacks today. So, there’s just a big concern from our clients that it’s great that the note is there but there’s no accommodation or design details. It may be found later on that (inaudible) feasible because the design doesn’t actually accommodate for it. We really think that this need to really get taken care of at this design phase so there’s not an issue later in construction. In addition, in order for that to happen, any developer would have to have agreements that are handed to the City that say that we’re going to work with another entity to give access to somebody else to move through our site. That actually hasn’t happened for these projects so as great as it is that we’re getting kind of notes on the plans that show future access connection points. What’s most important is that you have the dedicated access agreements agreed upon between the City and the project property owners, as well as the temporary construction easements or TCEs that allow them later to kind of punch through that wall. In addition, the long-term parking lost impacts from those walls punching through to provide the underground access, needs to be documented and accounted for in the parking stall count for the project because you’re going to start out with a certain project space now. Then you’re going to lose that later on when you provide that access so the public really needs to understand what that long-term effect is going to be. Regarding trash operations, it’s really good that the garage has a combined trash bin kind of to the north but that provides some significant impacts to the two buildings. It’s great for the building behind Prolific Oven because the trash bins (inaudible) their location but for the Thai Pan Restaurant, it introduces almost a 100-foot walk to actually take trash and other debris into the trash enclosure. That’s a little bit of a concern for the property owner and the businesses because that introduces an opportunity for there to be injuries taking debris that far. It introduces blockages to the pedestrian alleyway that the City is trying to create while that trash (inaudible) relocated. It introduces the opportunity for a spillage and other kind of impacts to whatever decorative pavers you’re trying to create by that trash being hauled away. So, the more you minimize the distance from the buildings to those trash bins, the better in the long term for the community. What we would recommend is that you consider creating two dedicated trash enclosures, one that’s dedicated to the Prolific Oven building and a second that’s dedicated to the Thai Pan building. Both located immediately adjacent or behind each building to reduce that walking distance. Those though would need to be preferably remove the bins from the inside of the garage so that you’re not worrying about then taking debris and spilling other trash and liquids in the alleyway and staining that long-term and creating a long-term impact. What we think would work best is if you dedicate those spaces -- create those dedicated bins and you might have a one parking space impact but in the long run you’re going to end up with a much cleaner operating pedestrian alleyway and a much clearer operating garage. Regarding the shade study for the project, our clients are still evaluating that. We’re not going to provide too much specifics on the engineering side but we did want to make some specific notes that did bounce out to us. One is that both clients where already in the process of looking at the installation of solar panels to help reduce the operation cost of those buildings. We think that with those buildings coming in with their solar panels, that’s going to block the ability of sun to hit the panels that gets installed on these buildings. So, that’s a long-term impact that we’re still trying to figure out but we wanted to make that note to you. If the buildings were just to get pushed back 24-feet on either side to allow two-way alleyways, that would protect the ability of both of these buildings for our clients to get good sun exposure for their solar panel systems. Regarding the alleyway, we’ve already expressed concerns to the City that as great of an idea as the alleyway is, you’re basically creating an alleyway behind up to three kitchens now and those kitchens do generate noise, they generate trash and order that we don’t think are going to be really amenable towards pedestrians wanting to dwell in that space. The other issue is the issue how dark it is and just from this example in the architect’s rendering, you can see the alleyways are already dark, kind of (inaudible) at almost all times of the day. What really bounced out to us is that the average foot candle lightening of the alleyway is only one-foot candle. That’s the same footcandle design the City uses for its public streets that all the residents complain that are too dark at night. So, you can tell from here if it’s dark in the evenings, it’s going to be worse in the – if it’s dark in the dust period, it’s going to be worse in the evening for residents. The architect’s presentation showed a really nice examples of lighting kind of stretching between two buildings but that’s actually not 2.d Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Page 7 what is proposed on the plans. All that’s proposed is string lights kind of on the garage side of the building and so with that you’re not going to get the type of lighting that both buildings feel is going to require or improve the safety of their employees in the buildings, as well as the public traveling on the back side. The other things is that we would request the removal of anything that would encourage people to dwell and sleep and kind of congregate in that back area for vandalism issues. Regarding the issues of the grease traps, again we showed you how those grease traps need to be accessed. You got to think that vacuum truck and those big vacuum hoses need to push them from the garage on the first floor through openings on the ground floor through the back doors of the buildings and into the kitchens. The trees that are shown, the planters that are shown, those all conflict with those long-term operations. This building as shown will kill the operations of both businesses and any planned businesses at both of these buildings. The only way to do that is to remove the trees that are shown which is highlighted in green and remove the planter wall and provide more access space for service vehicles to be able to get in there and maintain those buildings. A couple other issues regarding construction, you’re basically going to be building a pit when you construct the garage and that’s just part of construction. The applicant or the developer just don’t understand how grease trap operations need to get maintained but there’s an impact in cost, they are requesting that the City project take on the burden of removing that grease trap during the construction phase. Also because of the fact that all the loading happens from the back of the buildings today, they are also requesting that during the construction phase that all of the parking or the majority of the parking along the frontage of Waverley Street be converted to loading zones so that service vehicles can continue to maintain those buildings. If possible, create some type of a parkette or some type of enclosure that let’s all the trash bins be stored there. So, that services vehicles can come in and grab that trash before -- then take it out after the project is done and move towards the hopefully preferably two storage bins on the ground floor if the garage. We’re also looking to hopefully request weekly cleanings of the buildings. You’re going to be generating a lot of dust and debris and any private developer would be required to do that. They do it on their own outside of the City but in this case the City has to take on that responsibility. The other issue that we didn’t see addressed in the plans is the issue of drainage from both buildings. Both buildings have rooftop drains that either spill into underground storm drain systems or spill into the alleyway and with the dark and loss of light to dry up that water that generates from the rooftops in the day and in the winter. We’re seeing an issue of potential rodents and kind of moss generated in the pedestrian alleyway. So, again, if you push the building back 24-feet, then that allows the sun exposure to come in and dry all that out during the day. In regards to these issues all that we’re asking is that you let us sit down with the City Staff more, Seth has met with the developers – with the clients in the past but they haven’t responded to the issues. So, these issues aren’t new to the City, it’s just issues that haven’t been addressed. That’s the end of our presentation. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Alright -- Roxy? Mr. Rapp. Mr. Roxy Rapp: Thank you. Good morning. Two ideas, one is across the street you have the post office and one of the problems with the development of the post office is they want to stay while you develop it and bring it up to seismic, clean out all the asbestos, etc. etc. which is impossible to do a good job. Especially in a historical building and my suggestion is for this Board to encourage the City to work with the US Postal Service and have them move across the street to the retail. It fits beautifully because it’s a very narrow retail spot so you can have all of the post office boxes and we really don’t need as big of the post office as we have now because that use to be the main post office. It no longer is so I think that would be terrific to move the post office across the street and that would find them a new home for where you can redo the existing post office. That’s number one and number two is as most of you know, I developed with Jim Bear 250 University, where we have the alleyway which didn’t come out as nice as I pictured it but someday maybe it will get changed. We do have a trash room in the alleyway and it’s a tough situation to do. Looking at the plans that Ken just shared with me, my first suggestion would be to move the doors -- that you move out the trash and move those doors to open up early in the morning to the alley itself for the – they can pull the containers into the alley. Right there the dumpster can pick it up and dump it and then you can move it back in. What I’m worried about is you move them out those existing doors and then you hit into Brad’s new building there. Then also you have that electrical box 2.d Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Page 8 underground and I don’t care how careful you are, those dumpsters leak. So, then you would have all the smells of the different garbage etc. going down into the electrical boxes under the ground that has a grade on top of it so that would stop two things there. In regards to dumping the trash for the retailer, I would go ahead and keep a side door so the retailer doesn’t have to go down into the alley to dump their existing trash. So, you would actually have a set of doors or one door, a wide door, that they would open up to dump their trash from the retail operation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Would the applicant that is the City like to respond? It’s your turn. Ms. Boyd: I would just like to say that we received the letter from Brad Ehikian and Elizabeth Wong for the neighboring property owners yesterday and I believe it was sent to you as well. There are some existing issues that we have met with these neighbors in the past, a couple times and we’re working out some of the issues. There are some new issues that were brought up in this letter that we have not heard before. I do want to say that I think you also received a letter that was sent from our Attorney’s Office… Chair Furth: From Albert Yang? Ms. Boyd: …from Albert Yang on Monday. So, our attorney, the City’s Attorney’s Office, and the neighbor’s attorneys are in communications and ask that City Staff continue meeting with these neighbors to work out these issues but we would still like to hear comments about the building. We’re not asking for recommendations of approval today but we’d like to hear comments from the Board regarding this project. Chair Furth: Thank you so just to go over it, we have the correspondence in the packet, we have the Valentine’s Day letter from Ms. Wong and Mr. Ehikian and we have a pretty long memo from our colleague Peter Baltay about his comments on the first round and his subsequent response. I think those are all available to the public. Ok, it’s over to us, any questions of Staff before we go on? Board Member Lew: I just – I have one question; so there’s an existing bus stop on Hamilton near the mailboxes and - is that proposed to stay in the various scenarios where the bulb out gets wider, or do we retain street parking and whatnot? Ms. Boyd: Yes, the bus station or the bus stop will stay in the same location. Board Member Lew: Ok but if there’s – if you widen the sidewalks in that – on Hamilton, is the – does that mean the bus stop is going to block traffic? Ms. Boyd: It will temporarily block traffic. That was the recommendation by our – the Transportation Division to leave it there. Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions before we start? Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I just have one question. The comment was brought up about an informal parking space. What exactly is that? Is that sort of a ‘hey, we’re here first thing in the morning so it’s ours’? I mean I can understand – from what I understand or what I heard was there was one, I guess, parking space that was sort of dedicated to the adjacent property owner and the second one was an informal dedication. Chair Furth: It’s parallel. I think (inaudible) (crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Ms. French: A formal… 2.d Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: Substandard standard space. Ms. French: I would try to answer that to say a formal parking space would be one that meets the City’s codes and as far as… Board Member Gooyer: I mean the idea being that it’s – I don’t want to say owned by them but they can – they park it there and nobody else can park there? The formal one. Ms. French: I’m not clear on it but I imagine it’s on their property, not on the City’s property where they are parking… Board Member Gooyer: Ok, obviously if it’s on their property (inaudible)(crosstalk) Ms. French: … in a way that doesn’t comply with a standard parking space size or access. Chair Furth: Perhaps we could ask Mr. Rodriguez to elaborate because I was looking at it this morning and I was thinking of it. Just identify which property and which spaces you are talking about maybe looking at the site plan. Board Member Gooyer: Also, if you could, could you show where your grease inceptor is located? Mr. Rodriquez: I’ll try and do my best here so I’ll walk you through what we mean by formal and informal spaces. Let me get this going real quick. Even with glasses, I can barely see that. The way the site works today, this is your typical scenario every morning is we see all the service vehicles that are coming in and parking in the spaces of the lot. Those vehicles also park adjacent to the building so it’s very common at both buildings for delivery trucks to park right up to the sides of the buildings here. So, they do temporary blockage of the alleyways or the isles but that’s how the informal parking spaces work and they are used mostly as commercial loading zones for pulling food out of them or dropping materials within the buildings. Here another view, here you see the formal parking spaces at 90-degree head in space kind of adjacent to this wall for the Prolific Oven building and here’s that informal, second, kind of parallel parking space that’s used regularly by the building. So, all in all, there’s about a three-parking space lose because there’s (inaudible) in those two buildings. Here are more service vehicles here out in the back-dropping things off during the day. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Gooyer: Then also if you could answer where exactly is your grease interceptor located? Ms. Elizabeth Wong: Good morning. My name is Elizabeth Wong and my family and I own 560 Waverley Street. The grease traps are inside the kitchen, they are two below the floor grease traps and they are in the middle and frontage of the restaurant. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, all I needed to know was just whether they were inside or outside. Ok, thank you. Ms. Wong: You’re welcome. Board Member Gooyer: That’s it right now. Chair Furth: Thank you all for your informative presentations. We appreciate them. Complicated project. Complicated site. Do you want to just start with an additional round of comments or do you want to sort out the issues first? Start with comments first – general comments first? Board Member Lew: Can we do two rounds (inaudible)? (inaudible) 2.d Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Furth: Let’s do two rounds. Yeah, let’s talk about site issues first. Robert. Site plan issues. Board Member Gooyer: I like the idea, but I guess this has been floated than lately other than what we’ve seen, is more of an access or an alley, whatever you want to call it, between the At&t building and the project. I think having been down there quite a bit, you’ll see there’s a lot of traffic that moves back and forth from Gilman across to Lane 21 so I think that’s a good idea. I can see the point that I think one of the Board Member’s mentioned we should set the building back a little bit further but you get to a point where based – I mean parking spaces have a certain set requirement so you can’t just say well, we’ll shrink the building by 8-feet because that, as was mentioned, could emulate a whole row of parking. I’m ok with it the way it is. In the other direction, like I said if we do a – one away from At&t that would only lose a couple of parking spaces so I’m ok with that. I think other than that, the fact that we’re providing a trash enclosure for them or to assist the adjacent property owners, I think is a great idea. I mean that’s a very generous way to do it. I mean I’ve been in situations where just because a property has had a convenience situation in respect to either a vacant lot next door or whatever the case is for 20-30-years. Doesn’t mean that’s a god given right. It just means that you happen to have been lucky for 20 or 30-years so with this building being placed right next to those existing buildings is going to cause some hardships. I’m well aware of that but I don’t really see changing the whole design based on that. In fact, the – to give them what they requested basically makes the building almost -- I don’t want to say useless but I mean it really doesn’t allow it to do the function it needs to do. So, as far as the layout like this, I’m fairly happy with it. There were some questions I noticed on Board Member Baltay’s comment about going two floors down and cutting the height of it a little bit. (Inaudible) that’s not really layout but I think that would be a great idea but obviously, any layer that you go down, increased the cost tremendously so I can understand why – that’s it for me at the moment. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Great so I do want to thank Staff and the architects. I think the set and the Staff report where very – where all very clear and every – it was very thorough and it was very easy to understand what you were trying to do. The – with regard to just with the site issues, the – my main struggle is with the – with encroaching into the 7-foot special setback. I looked at it again this morning to try to see if I – just to help try to make my mind about it. At the moment I’m thinking it’s a mistake and we’ve done it before on their projects like 278 University, Chop’s building, your building here and I supported all of those at that time. I think those were – that was the right decision or decisions. I feel very differently about this one because it’s a different block. It’s a superblock, it’s that block of – goes from Waverly to Bryant, it’s twice as long, the façade length is fairly long and all the other buildings are complying with the 7-foot special setback. So, this is going to be the only one for three or four blocks that are going to – I think it’s going to stick out. I think it’s going to look like a mistake and that’s my take on it. Earlier this morning I was trying to – I was wondering if the lower floors could stick in if the upper two floors where setback. I was trying to figure out a way to minimizing the parking reduction. Mr. Hayes: It’s all about – right, it’s all about the parking (inaudible). Board Member Lew: I’ve been going – I’ve trying to rack my brain about this. Mr. Hayes: Well, that’s what we did at 240, if I may? So, at 240 the building at the upper levels actually encroach into the 7-foot special or the 6-foot special setback there but on the ground floor, we pushed it back so that you do have – it does acknowledge the 7-foot or 6-foot setback at 240. You’d lose this parking along Hamilton. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I know. I guess at the end of the day I’m trying -- I’m wondering is the site too small for what we’re trying to put -- what the City is asking you to put on there and maybe it is. Mr. Hayes: I had – may I just, through the Chair… 2.d Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Lew: Please. Mr. Hayes: … just ask a question? I did not understand Board Member Gooyer’s comment about the walkway along AT&T. We’re you proposing a 10-foot walkway along the AT&T building? Board Member Gooyer: That’s what I was thinking is… Mr. Hayes: Because that has the same effect on the parking then, right? Board Member Gooyer: Well yeah but it shrinks it this way so you only lose a couple space as compared to a whole row. Mr. Hayes: No, I think we’d lose the whole row. I mean unless you went closer to the Tai Pan building and got rid… Board Member Gooyer: Well, what’s…. Mr. Hayes: We’d lose that whole row, Board Member. You could just lose it on the ground floor if we kept the upper floor but that would be a very dark and I don’t think that would be a very good space though. Chair Furth: What were you thinking (inaudible)? Mr. Hayes: (crosstalk) So, part of the concern… Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Mr. Hayes: …. was that when we – looking at Board Member Baltay’s comment on the 10-foot alley we have along Thai Pan, he was saying that would be a very unwelcoming and perhaps dangerous space. It’s got a two-story building on one side and a five-story building on the other. This would have a 75-foot story building on one side and a five-story – I’m sorry, 75-foot and a 50-foot building on the other side. So, I don’t know how that could be a good amenity if the alternative walkway is not a good amenity. Chair Furth: Ok. Mr. Hayes: Right so… Chair Furth: We’ll continue our… Mr. Hayes: Just trying too… Chair Furth: No, (crosstalk) I think it’s useful to do this in a slight study session format because this is a complicated project. We’ve got a little time, we should be thinking about this. It’s a big deal and appreciates that and we’ll keep going with the comments. I’m sure we’ll have you up here answering questions again. Osma, please. Board Member Thompson: Regarding site, I find that many parking garages suffer from not advertising bicycle parking adequately. So, the concept of bringing more attention to where the bike station is, pedestrian attention, the diagram that we saw today in the presentation that brings circulation through there I think is a good choice. Mainly because I think it will bring more attention to bike parking because otherwise in parking garages it tends to get very lost. I also – I hope that’s also like as the project progresses that that’s considered in terms of wayfinding and all that. The loading issue behind Lot 84 and 85 is certainly something needs to be addressed. Mainly in that, it would be – these areas are sort of meant to have these retail spaces thrive and if we’re siphoning off something that’s essential for their operation then I think that’s a mistake. I’m not sure, it seems that the pedestrian access to Lane 21 is being reconsidered and potentially as that is being reconsidered these concerns also ought to be 2.d Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 integrated. Perhaps reconfigured a little bit so that these spaces can stay operational and we can still have a pedestrian pathway that works. I mean as it is looking at the plans, having the trash enclosure on one side and the back of house of these restaurants on the other side, that in itself isn’t an ideal alley in terms of program. Potentially there’s a way to shift things so that the back of house is on one side and the pedestrian amenity access is on the other side. I’m not sure what the solution is but I do think it needs a further look and potential reconfiguration on that side. Not just for what they need but loading and stuff. This is a commercial area and loading is an important part of that and I don’t really see any solutions there. Those are my comments for site. Chair Furth: Thank you. Well, I share Osma’s view that I don’t know what the solution is but I do see a problem. The problem attends to go about what is gained and what is lost because there are all these unofficial, practical uses of these spaces. I know that this isn’t a dedicated alley and that historically these buildings probably didn’t have any kind of official access down there. Could you explain to me Staff, what’s the situation with Lot 84 with what we call the Prolific Oven? Are there dedicated spaces behind that building that are entitled to some kind of access or not? I’m confused. Ms. Boyd: There is one dedicated space for their entitlement which is why we included the Lot 84 space (inaudible). Chair Furth: That dedicated space essentially had an easement and necessity over the City parking lot? I mean how where you suppose to access it? We have no idea, you just could. Ms. Boyd: I’m not sure. Chair Furth: Ok, it’s like a lot of sewer easements actually. So, let me tell you what I don’t consider to be a problem and what I do consider to be a problem. I mean anything that makes it more difficult for a business to thrive is, of course, a real problem but things that are historic hangovers that would not be allowed and haven’t been allowed for 20 or 30-years I’m less inclined to try to solve. These buildings should all have, as Mr. Rapp’s building does, interior trash places. I mean we don’t – these alleys are not intended to be used to store trash bins, though most of them are and it’s a long-term project to get that changed and get that storage off the alley and into other places. I think that using some of this space to solve that alley problem is a great idea. I realize that it takes more time and energy to go to a slightly removed – to go to somewhat removed central place. If those buildings come down and get rebuilt, perhaps they’re going to have to do interior storage so we need to think about how that would access the alley for collection. I think we need some more thought about the whole – it might be useful to think some more about the whole trash problem in both parts of that alley because it’s a mess with the exception of one property. See if we can come up with a more comprehensive solution which would be a benefit to the City but it would also be a considerable benefit to the private property owners. I’d like to see some more thinking about that. I mean maybe more dedicated trash space so that we could really clean up that area. We’re not going to get them all in there but make that a much more attractive block because we do have this problem of the superblock that has had this informal access because of the parking lot but isn’t going to anymore. I’m not in favor of 24-foot alleys around this project or on either side. I’m not in favor of curb cuts on Waverly so I think we need to be looking for other kinds of solutions as you have been. I think pedestrian access is a big deal. I’m really pleased with your bicycle provisions. As you know I’m really pleased to see benches with handrails so I can stand up when I’m even more frail and elderly or just on the weeks that I’m carrying a heavy child or something around. I don’t know what the solution is for good pedestrian access. I’m sure lighting has a lot to do with it. I’m sure design has a lot to do with it. I’m not convinced with that long alley. I ran into Alex this morning as we were both checking out the sight one more time and that is a long way along the Thai Pan frontage. That is a deep building and I would rather this building where closer. I don’t like violating the 7-foot setback because I think it’s a real built setback. It’s not just some historic artifact. You know Stanford got itself a really good campus architect after it put the Business School in the wrong place and realized they’d messed up the line of sight down towards the Quad. Well, this is not at that level but this is a problem. I know when we talked about this before you said with a 5-foot alley would need a different kind of ventilation design but you weren’t positive. You would – I did not understand that to mean you needed mechanical ventilation 2.d Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Page 13 but I don’t think that’s going to be a very good space and I don’t think – I think that intrusion is a problem for the findings we have to make. On low lighting level, I’m sure you can handle that. Drainage, I’m sure you can handle that. The fat, oil and grease FOG service, I don’t know what the solution is but I think there are a lot of restaurants that don’t have big backstage access for big backstage trucks so I’d like to know more about what’s possible. I do know that it’s a big issue for the City and we own our sewers and we want it to work as much as the property owners do. I don’t think solar access is something I expect this project to not interfere with. We don’t have a law in this town that protects ancient lights and there’s a proposal to put substantial solar on the top of this building. So, I would consider that a legitimate trade-off. I don’t know if my colleagues would agree. Dust management, construction adverse impacts management, I think that’s always our obligation and it’s going to be difficult. These things always are. Those are my comments at the moment. Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask you then, what you’re saying is push the whole building towards Lot 85? Ok, that’s what I thought. Chair Furth: I do like the better retail. I do like the better earlier chance to look at the post office. I did go on about that entryway a lot last time, I apologize. Shall we talk about design? Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Well, I wasn’t here for the last or the first presentation of this and when I started reading over this and the thing is basically or the – what I’m reading is it says that you wanted to relate to the Church across the street. To me, I don’t know, I’m not a big fan of sort of 70’s, brutalist architecture which I think that comes into. Now whether that’s right or wrong or whatever, I don’t know if that’s the appropriate thing to emulate. I – although there is a -- the Wells Fargo building across the street which is brick, the AT&T building has brick in it. I don’t know, to me that would be something a little bit better to emulate than the – not that I’m a big fan of the AT&T building, especially that elevation but I’m talking about just the materials involved; also, the fact that the Wells Fargo buildings steps back at the corner. I know we talk about you should highlight a corner but in this particular case, I’d rather do the opposite and have it step back at that corner to open up that intersection. It allows better view of – actually of the Church, also of the post office and I just think it works better that way. Because of that, I’m not a big fan of the stair tower right at the corner. I don’t think that’s doing anything and the reality of it is when I first looked at – which is it? Basically, elevation or your sheet or your page – I guess Hamilton Elevation One. Man, I swear that thing looks like a prison. I mean it – because it is all just too uniform. I mean all the metal framing is going vertical like – I mean is the – there’s – I mean I’ve seen metal mesh used and I – and you have too I’m sure. It looks a little bit more creative. There’s some design in it. The mesh is basically intended to create a form and yet still keep an open space and that sort of thing but it doesn’t have to be done in this. I mean the only thing I can say in this is you copied the brutalism of the building across the street which I don’t think is a good thing on this particular case. It creates a massive volume that I don’t think needs to be there. It – so, I like the way you opened up the corner so you did it on a horizontal plane but you didn’t do it on a vertical plane. I’d prefer to see that corner opened up like you did and then also step back. Actually, the -- on this, like I said I wasn’t (inaudible) there last time but Option Three or even One where that stairway is open, I think works better than enclosing it. I don’t think you’re doing – I mean it’s not like you’re doing weather protection. To me it’s not really doing anything. Right now, stairways that are glass enclosed are very popular but that’s make it work in this particular case. Let’s see, what else? Like I said I agree that I think the building ought to be pushed back and it should line up at least with the At&t building which will – which would make everybody happier here as far as obtaining the full 7-feet. I agree, like I said earlier, I don’t – you know the alleyway would be nice or the pedestrian access but it’s not critical as long as we come up with something that does it from the Hamilton to Alley 21, whatever it’s called – Lane 21. I think there needs to be some access there that needs to be developed and I understand just taking – it doesn’t even need to be adjacent to the building. (Inaudible) through the building or something that is highly accented. I mean it – for example, Mountain View has on Castro Street has these sorts of walkways in between the buildings that have been very nicely done. I’m not saying you need to emulate that but they’ve given it some – where it actually shows some thought was given to get from Point A to Point B. Not we’re sneaking through the parking garage to get to the alley. I think that’s it for right now. 2.d Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex. Board Member Lew: On the design, I think you’ve done a very good job. I like – yeah, like a second-floor cornice element to align with the smaller scale buildings. I like the -- I think the fins work well. I like the revisions you’ve made around the corner stair access. I like the – I think the retail – the deeper retail space makes a lot of sense and I like the – I guess (inaudible) like the setback and awnings that you’ve done near the At&t building. You tried to break the mass and changed the materials and I think that’s all working. I think the integral planters and benches I think are working really well. So, I can support – I think I can support all of those elements design wise. The – I have a question and I don’t think I need an answer today but is the garage going to be painted? So, on some of the other garage that has come to the Board from Stanford, they said that they weren’t going to paint them. Mostly based on a sustainable design criterion, it’s just less paint, less – you know less off-gassing but then when I went to see them, low and behold they were all painted. I don’t know exactly what happens with those but I do know on other projects at Stanford they’ve had problems with the concrete. So, they are pathing the concrete because of the popcorn texture and I don’t know if that’s the – exactly what happened but I guess I would like some sort of thought about that because I think it does make a difference; yep, great. On the landscape design, I think I am concerned about the Ginkgo’s and the pedestrian walkway. I mean I think there’s typically require full sun and I don’t think you’re going to get it in the shade of a – on the north side of a tall building; same thing with the vines on the north side. I mean most vines require full sun or at least part sun. I think there’s like creeping fig that doesn’t require – doesn’t need – doesn’t like full sun but then it doesn’t need a green screen, either right? It just needs – it would prefer to grow on a wall so I’m not sure that all of that – the landscaping is working in the pedestrian walkway area. If the walkway area is only 10-feet wide, I think my – my hunch is that the best thing to do is try to keep everything as open as possible and not try to hide the building. Yeah so… Mr. Hayes: So, the building -- you’ll be able to see into the building as you walk along the alley so it’s – there’s an elevation I think in your packet. Board Member Lew: I guess I’m concerned about the green – mostly the tall greenscreen panels - if that’s really going to work. Mr. Hayes: Oh, I see. Board Member Lew: Even if the plants don’t do well there, I mean I think the green screen is a nice enough material. I think you had also proposed maybe stainless-steel wires… Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Lew: …as an alternative as well. Mr. Hayes: You mean you’re saying that as a texture alone without the plant material? Board Member Lew: Yeah so even – well, so – maybe the best thing to do is plant it but even if it fails, I think it’s still ok. I’ve – so I’ve had that – I’ve had that problem… Mr. Hayes: The garage is painted except where the concrete is on the two street frontages. That’s a sandblasted concrete and that will just have a clear sealer, like a Siloxane sealer or something on it. Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you for that. I think that’s all that I have on the building design. I think you’ve done a really good job. Mr. Hayes: Great, thank you. Board Member Lew: I don’t necessarily agree with the programming and setbacks and all of that. I would also just disclose that I did watch the Council meeting on January 22nd about the California Avenue 2.d Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Page 15 garage but they referenced this one as well. So, I’m kind of curious to see where this – where the Council ends up on this particular project. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Board Member Lew: Ok. Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: I would say that my views on this probably more closely align with Board Member Gooyer’s views. It is – the idea that it looks like a prison is not inaccurate. It does seem quite overbearing. Unlike my fellow Board Member, I am actually very much a big fan of brutalist architecture but it needs to be done well. Brutalist architecture does well when there is a lot of green like a lot of planting. Also, when there are more interesting forms than just the orthogonal and materialities is also a big part of it. I’m unconvinced, in at least in the renders, how the sandblasted concrete and the metal fins pertain to the historic – I saw a note that the metal fins pertain to the historic context and it’s very unconvincing right now how that is the case. I do appreciate the concept to include a lot of greenery in it. I think greenery definitely softens the brutalist architecture but like Board Member Lew says, it does have to succeed. I disagree or at least I’m unsure if it does fail, what that screen is? Is it just kind of a cage? I feel like there is a green screen product but I’m not sure if that’s what you’re specking here and I’m also unconvinced if that is what you’re specking if that will actually look good. I think some more thought to the overall appearance does need to be considered. I am also not a fan of the stair tower as it stands. It seems under designed in that the relationship between the edges and the floor and the stair are sort of out of sync. I think those datums and planes that you’re creating don’t mesh well and create a really awkward space as you’re exiting from the stair. I am concerned about the façade behind the existing lots. Currently, in render, they look blank, so I’m looking at the aerial view at Waverley on ARB sheet 3.6. On the elevation – like the façade is very much present on Hamilton but given that this building is so tall, its likely that we’ll see some it from behind and so it seems like that back of the back-alley area is ignored. The building as it stands as its designed will – if we’re trying to make that alley nice, it’s definitely being ignored right now. I do like the PV panels. I think they actually add something architecturally that the building doesn’t have right now. So, what that says, I don’t know, that maybe that sort of break down of mass or texture is something to consider. Those are my comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. I still like the idea that you have a two-story element along most of it. I agree with Osma that it looks better with a lid on. It looks better with the PV panels in place, at least in this drawing. I don’t know what the street experience would be but it becomes a better-looking building I think. It also keeps the stair enclosure from sort of appearing detached in an unpleasant way. I’m really perplexed by the staircase. I know that in September I was complaining that we have other unsuccessful open staircases on parking garages which are wet when it rains and too hot when it’s sunny and look like their (inaudible) as you walk down the sidewalk. I don’t know what the answer is but smaller, lighter, less obtrusive I would be supportive of. I think that open is better. I don’t know how you design the staircase to get that. I suspect you don’t do a spiral the way we did over on what, Alma and… Board Member Lew: The Joe Bellomo (inaudible). Chair Furth: Yeah, Joe Bellomo’s, but at least it was compact and the poetry is good. I think this has become too big and that there’s a better solution that a skilled architect can figure out. I don’t know what it is. I don’t know how these vertical fins are going to look. I don’t know if it’s going to look like a City of quarts jail or if it’s going to look differently. It is very vertical and just – you took a comb and you went like this and as we were talking I was thinking well what if it didn’t just go like this? Maybe it becomes impossibly complex to design and execute and maintain but as it stands it looks oppressively linear, not at all playful. Garages are a problem, we all know this, we’re a little embarrassed by them but they can be beautiful because they are big spaces. How high is the ceiling on the ground floor? 2.d Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Ms. Michelle Wendler: The ceiling height underneath the beams is 8 ½-feet and then the beam pocket is about 2 ½-feet so in between beams it's taller. So, the story (inaudible)… Chair Furth: If I’m walking through it, what do I experience? Ms. Wendler: You’ll experience every 18-feet there’s a beam so in between it’s about 11-feet and then it’s 8 ½-feet where the beams occur. Chair Furth: Ok. Board Member Lew: Can I ask a question? Chair Furth: Sure. Board Member Lew: Can I ask a follow-up question about that? About the ceiling heights? There are – I’m thinking like Santa Row, the first-floor height of the garage, I think my recollection is that it’s taller. Ms. Wendler: The one that’s up against Winchester? Board Member Lew: Yes, or something like – I’m just thinking that that – I’m thinking that there are other garages where they’ve done a taller first floor to make it more open. Am I… Ms. Wendler: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: No, no, no. Ms. Wendler: There’s different – 11 ½ is the most normal… Board Member Lew: Normal. Ms. Wendler: …height we do. It’s really about the ramp to get… Board Member Lew: Right, the longer… Ms. Wendler: When you raise it up you need a longer ramp to get to… Board Member Lew: Do you have a – if you had a 16-foot ceiling, is it like a 1 to 20 ramp? Ms. Wendler: The ramp we have now is about – is 18% on the main slope with blends top and bottom to get up the 11 ½-feet that we have now. So, it’s (inaudible)(crosstalk). Board Member Lew: Right so you’d have to increase – right but to go up to a 16-foot ceiling, you’re going to have to increase the ramp somewhere like 40%... Ms. Wendler: We need more length. Board Member Lew: … a lot and probably like – probably doesn’t work I would think. Ms. Wendler: We would lose parking space to somehow do that to make a circulation. I’m not sure exactly how we would do it right now. Or the – yeah because it’s going to cut into the retail space. There’s so little floor plate left. Board Member Thompson: So, what’s the – is that bottomless structure, does that continue to the retail so that the retail height would be – if there was a drop ceiling, it would be about 8-feet? 2.d Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. Wendler: In the retail space we’ve been able to remove those beams so it goes all the way to the bottom of the slab which is about 11-feet. Board Member Thompson: Ok, thanks. Chair Furth: I guess I was thinking that I hope it’s as high as we can make it because it has a big impact on the experience of walking through that space. I’m trying to think of garages I enjoy walking through and there are some. By the way, do you have a materials board that we could see? Mr. Hayes: I thought – (inaudible) indicated you had it. Board Member Gooyer: I’ve just got a couple more questions. Can I jump in or are you… Chair Furth: Absolutely. Board Member Gooyer: A couple of things and I – it’s funny because I thought the same thing with the panels and I think the reality of it is it’s the old adage about a building should have a base, a middle and top. This building seems to have a base and a middle and there’s no top. It just sort of dies at the top and the panels I think create that. The other thing that I was thinking is I still think there needs to be some sort of a link, like I said, across there but I understand what you’re talking about with the parking. So, my thought was the alley that is or the walkway, alley, whatever you want to call it, in between the existing neighbors like 48 or 84 and 85 and the At&t building. That alleyway basically -- what if that just continues straight down towards Hamilton? You know so basically, you’re losing four parking spaces. Mr. Hayes: Right, we were talk – but… Ms. Boyd: It also (inaudible)(crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: I mean whatever but I mean that’s still a whole lot less than – and you could do that on one floor, just that one. Mr. Hayes: It’s just the conflict with the ramp. Ms. Boyd: Yeah, the ramp starts to go up… Board Member Gooyer: Yeah but the… Mr. Hayes: Everybody coming up and down the ramp. Ms. Boyd: Yeah, there would be a conflict in elevation between the pedestrian, alley, and the ramp going up to the floors. Board Member Gooyer: No – well, ok, I mean maybe it needs to jog – whatever, all I’m saying is if you do it in the middle of the building like that, you can get that and still not lose a whole row of parking. Mr. Hayes: Correct. If we didn’t have the ramp, it would be a lot easier. So, I do have… Chair Furth: I don’t know, those mechanical lifts are sounding better and better. Mr. Hayes: There is a way through the building, right? Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask one other question seeing though this is somewhat of a – we have 130,000-square foot building here and we’ve got 2,000-square feet of retail space. How – I mean I don’t know, retail space in parking structures to me have always been sort of used to hide as you’re walking 2.d Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Page 18 past. I mean seeing as though do we really need the extra 2,000-square feet or would we be better having another ten parking spaces? Ms. French: That’s per the Council. Ms. Boyd: Yeah so Council directed us to include the retail on the Waverley frontage. Board Member Gooyer: What, supposedly like gosh, we’re hiding the parking structure behind this 2,000- square foot of retail space? Come on. You know you've got a four-story building with… Mr. Hayes: I actually think it’s about just the retail continuity for the experience along Waverley, the sidewalk. Chair Furth: We actually have quite successful retail in a parking garage over on Lytton. Board Member Gooyer: I don’t know for that 2,000 to 130,000 ratio it seems kind of -- ok. Chair Furth: Well, let’s see if we get some coherent direction or at least clues. Yes, go ahead Commissioner… Board Member Thompson: Sorry, I just had some follow up comments after look at the material board… Chair Furth: Oh, yes, please, from everybody. Board Member Thompson: …and I have one question. For the perforated metal panel, in the material board there’s a pressed in image from the De Young Museum and then there’s that metal sample. So, they are quite different so which one – is it going to be the metal – the silver with the different circles? Mr. Hayes: No, actually the drawings indicate that it’s a bronze colored perforated metal. However, there’s been a discussion with the Art Commission and the artist that’s Amy Landsburg, she would like to be able to use this mesh as her backdrop for the public art. Chair Furth: Which mesh? Mr. Hayes: So, we wanted to come before you today without the public art, we don’t know what it is yet exactly, but if this notion of the perforated metal on that stair tower is not something that you think is supportable because it’s too overbearing, then we’re going to need to rethink that. I was not proposing the clean anodized finish. We are proposing a finish that is more consistent I think with the historical context in terms of color. I also think the metal fins in terms of color is where I was relating to the historical context. Not in terms of the material or the shape of the metal fin, it’s the color. Board Member Thompson: So, in light of that, the – I mean I did also note here that the N1 channel color as you have it on there appears to me far too dark but perhaps there’s a way that it can be reintegrated. That might be more convincing. I find that what the De Young president where they had an image that they water jet cut over a bunch of metal panels. That’s very successful and that’s not communicated in your drawings. In your drawings, it looks like a big wall but when it has that level of complexity it becomes really exciting. I would almost say like that level of – depending on how you work with your artist, instead of using the metal fins, that would be really exciting to have across the whole garage depending on how you do it. Mr. Hayes: That was one of the options that we had in September… Board Member Thompson: Ok. Mr. Hayes: … but thank you. 2.d Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: Our thinking is evolving. Board Member Thompson: I think it’s a matter of representation because I didn’t read that off of this but once I looked at your material board, that’s instantly already way more exciting in terms of a prospect for down here. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Furth: Let’s see if we can get some clarity. So, on the site plan, we have three people who would support an increased setback on Hamilton. Everybody but Osma, is that right? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah. Board Member Thompson: I can support that as well. Chair Furth: Ok which is a very difficult design issue but we think it’s important. In terms of any direction, we want to give on pedestrian access through the building? Just figure it out. We think it’s important. Board Member Gooyer: I still think there needs to be some link from Hamilton to across, yeah. Chair Furth: From – essentially from Gilman back to CVS. That it is a good one, looks good, safe, inviting, people want to do it. We would like as high as a ceiling on the ground floor as possible – as feasible to make it a better pedestrian experience. Board Member Gooyer: The other possibility is instead of the actual slab being different is the framing being different so you don’t end up with a 3 ½-inch deep beam but you have either more beams or a space closer together. That way the – the biggest thing is when you’re looking down you perceive the 8 ½-foot level, not the ceiling. So, if we could change that 8 ½ to 10-feet and have the framing much more tighter increment it would make it visually look a whole lot taller. Even if it’s just for a certain portion or a certain bay… Chair Furth: Even just to highlight the pedestrian way. Board Member Gooyer: …which would be the one where you walk through. You can keep the other framing the way it is. Chair Furth: I’m sure that made sense to the technically skilled. We want the perception of height. Mr. Hayes: So, going through the garage is an option in your mind for this pedestrian pathway? It doesn’t have to be something that opens to the sky? Board Member Gooyer: Right. No, no, no, I agree. Right… Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Gooyer: … it just has to be something and that’s why I was thinking in between that one set of bays that I mentioned. If you change the framing just for that first floor, it’s not going to be radically different but then it will – the perception – if you get that up to 10-feet, I don’t think anyone would have a problem -- and it’s well lite -- walking through that garage area. Obviously, it’s not the full length, it’s only the (crosstalk) – right. Chair Furth: I think – we all think it could be on the first floor of the garage, is that correct? A pedestrian through way and I think the point that we’re trying to make is that it should be attractive, it should feel 2.d Packet Pg. 64 City of Palo Alto Page 20 safe and it shouldn’t feel like an afterthought. It should feel like something you designed in from the beginning so you don’t (crosstalk) just think you’re… Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) not dodging… Chair Furth: … doing something you shouldn’t be doing. Mr. Hayes: So, straight. Chair Furth: Ok what else can we agree on? What do we think about the staircase? Opened? Closed? Covered? Somewhere else entirely? Board Member Gooyer: I don’t really care if it’s opened or closed. I just think its to dominate right on the corner. Chair Furth: What would you do with it? Board Member Gooyer: I don’t know I’m not the architect. Chair Furth: I understand that. You mean it shouldn’t be on – you’re saying you don’t like the corner as a location for the staircase? Board Member Gooyer: No, no, no the location is fine. All I’m saying is I don’t like the massive bulk of it. Chair Furth: It’s too big. Board Member Gooyer: That’s why if you get rid of the screen around it, it automatically reduces the volumetric bulk of it. Board Member Lew: Can I ask a question for Ken? The volume of the perforated screen is larger than the staircase. Mr. Hayes: That’s correct. Board Member Lew: So, you have extra space in there. Mr. Hayes: (inaudible), there’s extra space there. Board Member Lew: You’ve obviously done that for a reason so I was wondering if you could explain the rationale? Mr. Hayes: We wanted it to feel like you were actually in a space when you duck under that volume and you sort of – I’m not going to say it’s a celebration but you’ve got this larger space that you’re looking up into which could be quite interesting. As opposed to it just enclosing what’s required for the stair (inaudible). Board Member Gooyer: Would it be worth any – even in something like that having the first floor at the same footprint that you have now and then it tapers inward or something? Then it has a perception of reduction of volume? Mr. Hayes: Yeah, I would have to – we’d have to study it. Board Member Gooyer: I’m just saying if the (crosstalk) – then still it gives what I’m more interested in as a step back effect. 2.d Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Gooyer: Even if it’s the screen that does the stepping back, it still has that… Mr. Hayes: Right because right now it’s about 20-something feet back from the façade on Waverley but it’s not nearly that far back from the other side. Yeah so if we turn it… Chair Furth: What’s the top? Is it open to the sky? Mr. Hayes: No, no, it’s enclosed. We had a skylight up there originally but I think from a cost standpoint that’s been illuminated. Chair Furth: So, what is it? Mr. Hayes: It’s just a solid roof. Chair Furth: So, it’s going to be dark? Mr. Hayes: Well, no so this perforated – it’s going to have this perforated membrane around it so it’s going to feel light and at night will glow. Oh, that may not be a good thing. Chair Furth: Ok. Mr. Hayes: If there was this wonderful way to create a design in the perforated panel, it could be really exciting. Chair Furth: If you make it fabulously beautiful we’ll probably say yes. We have been talking about the fact that seeing the art – public art as something that comes late in the process is really unfortunate and of course, it’s impossible to make everything happen at once. I think that in this case particularly it may be really important. Do we have any consensus on the stairway and its treatment or stairwell and the treatment, Alex? Board Member Lew: I would just – I think Ken is very talented and I think he hears that we think it may be too big so I would just think – yeah, show us some options and we’ll see. If there are any conceptual sketches from the artist by the next meeting, I think that – usually the Board here can make the leap. We did that for the Junior Museum and I think we asked for – at the very end of the project we sort of asked for it to come back to the Board just because they weren’t sure where the art was exactly going to be placed. Then they came up with a sketch and I think everybody was happy with it. Mr. Hayes: Ok. Board Member Lew: I think I’m fine with the staircase conceptually. Board Member Thompson: I think if you’re going to use the material in the way that we’ve discussed and make it fabulously beautiful with the perforation and with the artist. I think the next time you show this to us it might be worst considering the representation so that… Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. Board Member Thompson: … we actually see what you’re designing instead of a big old block. Mr. Hayes: Well, this was just massing. We weren’t asking for approval today. Thank you for the comment. Board Member Thompson: Sure. 2.d Packet Pg. 66 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Furth: Do we have comments on the trash enclosure issue? We have requests from the neighbors, we have proposals from the City so do we have any guidance we want to give? Board Member Lew: I know this is a tricky one. I’ve done some historical analysis of the site and so it seemed like the parking was added later. There’s never been an official alley behind Prolific Oven or Thai Pan so it’s sort of like a defector alley. I would say we would normally require the trash enclosures to be inside on their own property and it’s not – why are we giving them a freebie garbage space inside the garage because then everybody is going to want one? So, it seems to me difficult because the – because we don’t really have necessarily a trigger until they start to do a project. Once they start doing a project – and I’ve seen this – I think they’ve seen the sign out there from the Toy and Sports World but then we can require it inside. It seems to me if the buildings are staying as is then I think it kind of makes sense for the City to have space in the garage. I don’t think we need to have two. I think we do have other restaurants that do transport their garbage elsewhere. I think Ken, you had mentioned that the Mills Florist site and that the garage is not on the property so it happens. It’s not ideal, it’s not desirable but it happens. So, I’m thinking long term and what is the right decision for a long period of time? It seems to me short term I could live with any – I could probably live with any solution so yeah, Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, no, I was going to say the same thing. I think this is the City being a nice guy and providing that. I agree that they could just say you’ve had a real – you’ve been real lucky for the last whatever umpteen years and now you’re going to have to do what everybody else has to do. So, I agree that anything that fits within the criteria of the project is ok. Board Member Thompson: I think – I mean I agree that may be providing the trash enclosure isn’t the solution but I do think that loading is important and giving them the access that they need in order to function is important. Maybe that is a closer analysis on how they currently – what their current inner workings are in terms of trash and it’s just a matter – I do think that corner needs reconfiguration in general. I do think it works as it stands. Chair Furth: I would say that essentially, it’s good for the City to accommodate this need. I’m sure that they’ll listen to the potential future users and thinking about how and where it should be designed. This is valuable space and how the City wants to use it is essentially its choice. I look forward to seeing what came be done and I look forward to hearing about what – how these – when this is construction, how the FOG removal can be handled in a reasonable way. Yes? Board Member Lew: Can Staff provide a – maybe transportation can provide a – what do you call that? A truck turning diagram for getting – for the Apple Store because I’ve seen trucks behind there. Oh, maybe it’s already in the packet. Ok, I missed it. Ms. Boyd: Its included in the packet on the last page. Mr. Hayes: The last page. Board Member Lew: Awe, that’s why I didn’t see it. Ms. Boyd: This is the green waste garbage truck. Chair Furth: (Inaudible) before you got there. Board Member Lew: Ok so you’re saying it works. Chair Furth: Where is it? Board Member Gooyer: Where is it? Ms. Boyd: Very last page. 2.d Packet Pg. 67 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Lew: Last page. Chair Furth: The last page I have is a bunch of cuts. Oh, there it is. Board Member Lew: Thank you for that and that’s taking into account all the trash enclosures? Ms. Boyd: That’s modeled for green waste – the garbage collector – the hauler the City uses. Their garbage trucks. Board Member Lew: Awe, ok. Board Member Gooyer: I think that’s fine. Board Member Lew: I was actually thinking of the – I’ve seen delivery trucks bringing stuff to the Apple Store and then they double park in the alley so I was just trying to figure out… Chair Furth: There’s a lot of double parking in that alley. Board Member Lew: Yeah so, I was just trying (crosstalk)(inaudible) Chair Furth: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Ok but a truck can actually get through there. Although it’s… Chair Furth: It’s very tight. Board Member Lew: Yeah, ok, thank you. Chair Furth: Any comments on landscaping before we go? Board Member Lew: I don’t think it works in the pedestrian walkway area on the north side. Board Member Gooyer: It’s too dark. Board Member Thompson: It could just be a different landscape that’s required there. Chair Furth: Ok so we’re unconvinced but – excuse me – would you like to respond? Mr. Hayes: No, I missed Alex’s comment. You don’t favor the trash opening? Board Member Lew: How do you – on the pedestrian walkway area for all the plants that are in the shade of the building on the north side, have you had discussions about how… Chair Furth: Are we going to have grow lights? Board Member Lew: …viable they are? Then… Mr. Hayes: The landscape architect with Merrill and Morris, John Potis, who couldn’t make it today. I’d like him to address that (crosstalk) (inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Chair Furth: We’re talking about rethinking that whole thing. 2.d Packet Pg. 68 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Gooyer: To accommodate that extra seven feet? Chair Furth: Yep, we are. Board Member Gooyer: So, that means that area – that alley is going to get a lot narrower… Chair Furth: I think our point is… Board Member Lew: Well, not necessarily. Board Member Gooyer: … (inaudible) a lot. Board Member Lew: Well, no, I think there are two issues. I mean there’s the (inaudible) walkway and the other issue is the setback. You could make a garage smaller and lose spaces. You could make the garage smaller and add motorcycle parking. There are other… Board Member Gooyer: Yeah but I mean making – shrinking the width of that garage by 7-feet. Chair Furth: We’ve given them a project. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Board Member Lew: I’m not – this – there’s a 7-foot special setback and they’re encroaching 5-feet into it and that’s not to say that they couldn’t… Mr. Hayes: We’re actually going all the way. Ms. French: The columns go all the way to the property line. Board Member Lew: Ah, so I think I read the 5-feet somewhere in the… Mr. Hayes: You did. Board Member Lew: I would say we have other buildings Downtown, you’ve done some of them, that have encroached a little bit; like 278 encroaches… Mr. Hayes: 278 is the only building on that entire block of Bryant that encroaches and we have a display window as you’re walking down the sidewalk towards (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Furth: For the benefit for those of us who can’t remember all the addresses, which is 278? Mr. Hayes: That’s Keen Shoes. Chair Furth: Got it. Board Member Lew: So, Bryant and University and so sometimes it can work. My take on it… Mr. Hayes: At 240 we actually set the first floor back… Board Member Lew: Back, yes. Mr. Hayes: …so that you have the wide sidewalk but the upper floors did not respect the setback and we got a variance for that. Chair Furth: If this were not being coupled with a rezoning, this would be a variance full application and instead the City is proposing to change the Public Facilities District Standards. I think you’ve heard the 2.d Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Page 25 aesthetic comments. Public art may save us all. We do not like this extent of encroachment into a built setback on a big street and we don’t think that the landscaping as proposed on the dark side of the building is likely to flourish. We think that the -- well, the staircase may or may not be terrific but I think you’ve heard all our thoughts on that. You’ve got Board Member Baltay’s thoughts in his letter which I’m sure will be shaped also by the hearing today; anything else before we quit? Thank you all for indulging us in a rather freeform discussion. I think we want this project – it’s a big project. The City is sitting here in three different – at least three different aspects, it’s the client, it’s the Staff, and it’s the reviewing Board. We have had good participation from the public which we appreciate. We look forward to seeing you again. Board Member Lew: We need to make a motion. Chair Furth: So, you want us to continue this to a date certain or to a date uncertain? Ms. French: It can be to a date uncertain. That’s fine because we have – we’re going to re-advertise anyways. Chair Furth: Would somebody make a motion? MOTION Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we continue this item to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: Second. Chair Furth: Robert seconds. All in favor? Opposed? None. MOTION PASSES WITH A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH VICE CHAIR BALTAY ABSENT 2.d Packet Pg. 70 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8776) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/15/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 375 Hamilton Downtown Parking Garage (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]: Consideration of an Architectural Review Application for a Five-Level, Nearly 50-Foot Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level Providing 338 Public Parking Spaces. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared for Publication in Late February 2018 for a 45-Day Public Comment Period. Zone District: PF; Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action: 1. Provide comments on the project plans, hear public testimony regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report, provide comments on the design, and continue the hearing to April 19, 2018. Report Summary This report is to support the first ARB review of the formal application for the proposed Palo Alto Downtown Parking Garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue, currently in use as a public parking lot. Environmental review of the project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is underway. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is scheduled to be published in late February for a 45-day public comment period. In 2017:  City Council determined the number of parking spaces for the public garage, and established the direction for a Public Facilities (PF) zoning code text amendment, and 2.e Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2  The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) held an EIR scoping session. More recently, on January 22, 2018, Council briefly discussed the potential for the use of mechanical lifts for the Downtown Parking Garage; mechanical lifts are now under consideration in response to Council’s request to study their use in public parking garages. On January 31, 2018, the PTC reviewed the proposed modifications to the Public Facilities (PF) Development Standards and recommended approval. The PTC did not provide comments specific to the Public Safety Building Project Draft EIR, which includes analysis of the proposed PF zoning code text amendment. The report for the second ARB meeting will provide a recommendation and complete Architectural Review (AR) findings and approval conditions in a draft Record of Land Use Action for ARB consideration. Comprehensive Plan Policies relevant to the project are cited in Attachment D, and code-required Architectural Review Findings are provided in Attachment E. Project approval by the City Council would be based upon AR findings following Council action on a Final EIR, as well as Council action on an ordinance containing the proposed PF zoning changes. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Watry Design, Inc. Representative: Holly Boyd, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager Legal Counsel: City Attorney’s Office Property Information Address: 375 Hamilton Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: L-shaped lot; 29,200 square feet (sq.ft.) of surface parking lot area (concept plans note 29,164 sq.ft. site) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Subject property (parking lot) is non-historic; (1) Across Hamilton Av. is 380 Hamilton, the US Post Office, a Category 1 and National Registered resource. Register Form, Inventory Form, and a photo are provided as Attachment B; (2) Adjacent site 526 Waverley St. is a Category 3 Local resource that was modified following HRB/ARB review in February 1998 (new second story fenestration, new rear exit door, and elevator penthouse); a restoration and category upgrade is proposed; and (3) 510 Waverley is a Category 2 Local resource. 2.e Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Existing Improvement(s): The site is surfaced with asphalt and trees (some protected oak trees) in planters striped for use a public parking lot Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lot Special Setbacks: 7 feet Along Hamilton Avenue Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design Guide: The project is within the Hamilton Avenue District as described in the Downtown Urban Design Guide. Adjacent properties establishing the context include:  345 Hamilton Avenue, a building constructed in 1958 and occupied by AT&T and Excel Aviation;  526 Waverley Street, a building constructed in 1928, and Category 3 historic resource most recently occupied by retail use (Palo Alto Sport Shop and Toy World) which is now proposed to be restored to 1928 conditions with a request to upgrade to Category 2;  550‐552 Waverley Street, a building occupied by the Prolific Oven 2.e Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 retail bakery and Day One retail store; and  558‐560 Waverley Street, a two-story building constructed in 1938, housing the Tai Pan Restaurant on the ground floor and office space on the second floor. SOFA II CAP: NA Baylands Master Plan: NA ECR Guidelines (‘76/’02): NA Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not within 150 feet of residential uses or district Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: December 2016: Council directed cost and impacts analysis and directed staff to proceed with design and environmental review. The Council staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55028 April 11, 2017: Council provided direction on legislative approach. The Council staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56784 The video of the Council meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-123/ Council meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57557 PTC: May 31, 2017: Scoping Meeting The staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57978 The video of the Council meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-49/ Council meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58628 January 31, 2018: PF Zoning Review The staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp PTC minutes will be provided to the ARB prior to the hearing HRB: August 24, 2017: Preliminary Review. The staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/59211 The video of the HRB meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-42/ HRB meeting minutes are viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62562 2.e Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 ARB: September 7, 2017: Study Session. The staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61802 The video of the ARB meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-69/ ARB meeting minutes are viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61857 Project Description The project is the construction of a new parking garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue (indicated on site context map, Attachment A) to provide 338 automobile spaces (337 spaces plus 1 space serving 550 Waverley Street) and a 2,188 square foot retail space at 375 Hamilton Avenue. The garage would maximize the number of standard parking spaces per Council direction, while providing limited ground floor retail space fronting Waverley Street. The structure would contain five parking levels above ground and one parking level below ground. The project objectives, as described in the DEIR, are as follows: 1. To increase the number of parking spaces within the downtown to maximize the accessibility and convenience to downtown visitors and workers 2. To provide a parking structure that includes neighborhood-serving retail and street frontage to contribute to the economic vitality of the downtown and the City 3. To provide a parking structure that incorporates a pedestrian- and bike-friendly layout 4. To provide a parking structure that is visually appealing and compatible with the Downtown character and nearby historic buildings. The architect’s project description (Attachment B) provides an overview, concept statements, and descriptions of materials, site development and landscape design intent for the project site. The DEIR provides a project description as well, and application information is available online at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning (instructions are provided in report Attachment F). For easily accessible project information, including the DEIR, please see the Public Works Department webpage, entitled ‘Downtown Parking Garage’: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/downtowngarage. Hardcopy plans are provided to the ARB and the designs are viewable on the City’s webpages as indicated in Attachment F. 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 Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action or may be forwarded to City Council for action, which is the case for this project. 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 as set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.76 are provided in Attachment E. 2.e Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  Zoning Amendment: The Council is requested to amend the development standards for the Public Facilities (PF) Zone District for parking garages and Essential Facilities in Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts, to allow the parking garage above and below grade to encroach into the 20 foot street yard setbacks and 10-foot interior setback, and to allow greater height and floor area than otherwise allowed by PF zone development standards. Because the PF development standards include reference to special setbacks, amendments to the PF zone will also allow for Council approval of the requested encroachment into special setback along Hamilton Avenue. Special setbacks described in PAMC Chapter 20.08 are reflected on the associated special setback map, and encroachments into special setbacks are allowable by Variance approval, as set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.76. The PTC held a public hearing and recommended the proposed amendment on January 31, 2018. Zoning Issues The zoning compliance table (Attachment C) provides a summary of requested exceptions to the PF Zone development standards and special setback on Hamilton Avenue. The proposed legislative changes to the PF Zone development standards are intended to address these exceptions, as described later in this report. Analysis1 Preliminary ARB Review Feedback ARB meeting minutes from the September 7, 2017 Preliminary Review of the project are provided via this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61857. The ARB’s comments during the Preliminary Review are not binding. The minutes reflect that staff transmitted a verbal summary of the HRB’s review of the preliminary designs on August 24, 2017. The ARB meeting minutes reflect that questions about the adjacent AT&T building and Episcopal Church were answered during the preliminary review. Additionally, a board member asked about how owners of the Waverley address properties would access Lane 21 for service and use trash bins. The project manager from Public Works noted that the garage will have a parking way finding system to help guide people to open spaces so they will be able to tell on each floor which spaces are available. The plan set sheet ARB 6.1 provides images of the parking guidance system, as well as refuse and delivery vehicle turning arcs. An ARB member asked if the 10-foot pedestrian alley could be reduced to five feet in order to increase the setback along Hamilton, to consider creating a ‘micro plaza’, noting a missed opportunity to connect pedestrians to Hamilton Avenue. The ARB member also stated that the Church across 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2.e Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Waverly doesn’t seem to have been considered and noted that the stair tower on the corner is an opportunity for an enclosed vertical space. The applicant has taken the comments into consideration. Replacement Trees and Landscape Plan The Landscape Plan shown on plan sheet ARB 4.1, Landscape Schematic Plan, reflects the tree and shrub sizes, quantity and species. Plan sheet ARB 4.2, Materials and Plant Selections, provides images of the selected trees, vines shrubs and perennials. The project includes removal of one protected tree, a mature Coast Live Oak, and six other ‘non-protected’ trees on the property at 375 Hamilton Avenue. The Draft EIR contains a mitigation measure requiring the planting of three native oaks “on site” – in the Hamilton Avenue right of way – to compensate for the removal of the one protected oak tree. The CEQA mitigation measure for the loss of the one protected oak has been reviewed by the City’s Urban Forester. Though not a CEQA impact, the removal of six other “regulated” trees from the site also requires replacement on site or within a defined radius of one-half mile to ensure “no net loss” of tree canopy, in accordance with the Urban Forest Master Plan (policy 1G, page 142). Compliance with this policy can be achieved via planting several additional trees on Waverley Street. In addition to the three oaks on Hamilton, the existing Gingko street trees on Waverley will be protected (while the Gingko on Hamilton will be removed), another street tree is proposed near the ATT building, and three columnar Gingko trees are proposed in the pedestrian alley behind the Waverley Street-facing buildings. It appears there is room for a few additional street trees on Waverley Street; the trees would need to be companionable to the existing Gingko trees. Discussion of additional right of way plantings, and the potential for tree plantings (in addition to the low growing (2’ tall) Yarrow) on the Lane 21 side will be included in the second staff report for formal ARB review. Staff notes that the image on sheet ARB 3.8 entitled “Eye Height View of Alley from Lane 21” reflects an absence of tall greenery; whether trees can be accommodated to enliven the alley or installation of vines with the post and stainless steel wire system with green screen will be explored in the coming weeks prior to the ARB’s second formal hearing of the project. Standard approval conditions will be included in the draft RLUA regarding replacement of the non-protected trees. The table 3-1 Tree Canopy Replacement Standard is provided on the following page, for reference. 2.e Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Design, Height, Shadow Studies and Lighting The garage design includes substantially open sides to provide natural ventilation for all levels except the basement level, which is mechanically ventilated. The façade features a two-story base supporting the upper floors of the garage. The base’s rhythm relates to the arcade of the adjacent post office and creates areas for bench seating along Hamilton, and entries into the retail space along Waverley. The base of the building also assists in the transition to the two- story, commercial buildings along Waverley Street. The height of the parking structure is proposed to be 49’-10” to the top of rail on the fifth level parking deck, 58’6” to the top of the PV structure, and 67 feet to the top of the elevator penthouse. The height of the AT&T building at 75 feet serves as a backdrop to the proposed building. The height of the corner staircase enclosure appears to be slightly lower than 58 feet. The plan set includes shadow studies, photometric plans, exterior nighttime lighting perspectives and luminaire cut sheets. The architect’s design statement regarding the building’s integration into the Downtown context is provided as Attachment B. Parking, EV and PV The plans provide a ‘parking stall summation chart’. A total of 338 spaces provided for automobile parking would include eight accessible spaces, 86 electric (EV) vehicle charging stalls (19 of which will be installed initially), nine stalls serving the proposed retail space, and 2.e Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 one stall serving 550 Waverley. A long-term bike storage room is proposed at Hamilton Avenue near the driveway. Short term bicycle storage is proposed at the sidewalk near the retail space. The building will be designed with infrastructure to allow for the future installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels mounted on a structure above the top parking deck. Setbacks and Service to Waverley Street Buildings The proposed building would extend to the property line at the Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street edges as well as the interior side lot line shared with the AT&T building. The line of the building’s structure encroaches five feet into the street setbacks. However, the architectural cladding/finishes, benches and planters will encroach to the property lines along these streets. A ground floor retail space is proposed to front Waverley Street. The building would be set back 10 feet from the north property line, shared with 560 Waverley, with openings to allow natural ventilation into the parking garage, and light to reach the existing windows at 560 Waverley. The existing parking lot serves restaurant and retail uses along Waverley Street and provides rear‐entry parking to the CVS Pharmacy to the west (352 University Avenue) via Lane 21. In order to maintain access for utilities, services and secondary means of egress for the existing buildings fronting on Waverley Street, the garage would be set back sixteen feet from the shared property line at this location. Automobile Circulation The primary site ingress/egress is proposed on Hamilton Avenue near the south corner of the lot. A secondary vehicular exit is proposed at Lane 21. Ingress to the garage from Lane 21 would only be permitted in the event that the Hamilton Avenue access is restricted. Vehicle access will be restricted in the new alley to service vehicles. The alley will be enhanced with architectural paving, new planting, benches and lighting. Vehicle access will be restricted in the new alley to service vehicles. Pedestrian Wayfinding The proposed separation between the new garage and building at 560 Waverley would create an opportunity for a pedestrian walkway, focused on and leading to the secondary stair and vertical circulation elements. The pedestrian alley would provide a visual connection to All Saints Episcopal Church, and would be visually enhanced with architectural paving, plantings, benches and decorative lighting features. Plan sheet ARB 2.1 reflects a ‘potential pedestrian route from Hamilton Avenue to Lane 21’ as a green dashed line. Further development of this route may be described at the ARB hearing. Sidewalks would be widened on Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street to create a safer and more inviting pedestrian route and experience. The increased sidewalks would work in conjunction with road improvements on Hamilton Avenue with the removal of the current mailbox island, and improvement of the pedestrian crossing point at the junction with Waverley Street. 2.e Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 The primary stair and elevator circulation features are located at the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue. Pedestrian way finding is an important aspect of garage navigation. At this street corner, a pedestrian court will provide access to the stair and elevator, as well as an entrance to the proposed Waverley Street ground floor retail space. A pedestrian entrance route is proposed from Hamilton Avenue to the bike storage area; this route is intended to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from using the entrance drive aisle. There is the opportunity to further extend this pedestrian route for those wishing to pass through the building from Hamilton Avenue on route to the alley way and Lane 21. 2.e Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Trash/Recycling Facility A common refuse storage room is proposed at Lane 21 to serve the new retail space on the project site and the Waverley-fronting businesses and the proposed new retail space. Materials, Colors, and Construction Method The primary construction material is poured in place concrete columns, slabs and walls. The two-story base on street-facing elevations would be formed of sandblasted concrete in a natural color, similar to All Saints Church, with subtle details used to define the corners and architrave of the building. Metal flat bars painted a dark bronze color are proposed to infill the first floor openings and create screening for pedestrians. Metalwork would continue on the runs and landings of the stair, which is intended to celebrate the metalwork found in the post office and other Spanish revival buildings. A perforated metal scrim designed to allow the transmission of interior light as a “lantern”, would wrap the main corner stair and assist wayfinding. This element could also be the focus of the public art program for the building. Metal fins would wrap the upper stories in panels outlined by metal channels that would define the cornice of the building at the upper story. The fins would serve to create a body to the building while providing the required garage ventilation. The fin color is intended to be reminiscent of the terracotta colors found in the downtown. Public Art The Public Art Commission recently approved Amy Landesberg as the project artist. Potential locations for the integration of public art have been identified on the building. These locations are the shear wall element facing Hamilton Avenue and the stair cladding at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. PF Zoning Text Amendments As noted, the PTC recommended Council approval of the proposed PF zone text amendment on January 31, 2018. Approval of the PF text changes allow for Council approval of this project. In the PF district, the minimum front, side, and rear yards: “shall be equal to the respective front, side, and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet”. Encroachments, both above and below grade are as indicated on Attachment C. The PF zoning development standards set forth a 20 foot street setback requirement and a reference special setback; in this case, the seven foot special setback along Hamilton Avenue established on the special setbacks map per PAMC Chapter 20.08 is less than the 20-foot street setback identified on the PF development standards table. With the anticipated Council approval of the PF zoning code modification, the proposed project would comply with all applicable codes. 2.e Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Downtown Urban Design Guide and Comprehensive Plan Policies2 Council adopted the new Comprehensive Plan (Plan) in late 2017. The Plan can be viewed here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915 The Plan policies relevant to the project (and relevance thereto) will be cited in a Draft Record of Land Use Action for the second ARB report. The Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide) is a Council-approved tool to accomplish Plan goals. The Plan mentions the Guide: “Downtown Urban Design Guide: 1994 City Council approved document intended to provide a framework for the design of buildings and public spaces in Downtown Palo Alto; provisions are advisory”. The Guide policies are noted in the draft EIR for the project, and were referenced in the Preliminary Review report to the ARB, and below. The Guide was intended to serve as a master plan to guide public improvements and art in public spaces. The Guide recognizes that parking is a crucial element to the success of a downtown commercial area. The Guide includes a guideline to develop a master sign program to improve directional signage to public parking to increase the ease of locating and using the parking lots. The Guide identifies the project site as within the Hamilton Avenue District. The Hamilton Avenue District Goals are as follows:  ‘Promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed use district which comfortably accommodates larger scale commercial office, civic and institutional buildings.’  ‘Maintain Hamilton Avenue as a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian environment with complimentary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity which naturally results from the provision of transit service and convenient surface parking.’ The most relevant guidelines within the Hamilton Avenue District section are these:  “Provide pedestrian links from Hamilton Avenue to University Avenue in conjunction with development of the alleys and parking lots.”  Regarding the westerly intersection corner (project site on map): ‘strong building volume recommended’, and ‘opportunity for pedestrian friendly use’. The proposed project supports the Guide’s district goal to promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed use district, by providing parking and retail space. The project includes replacement of street trees and additional street trees to ensure a tree-lined pedestrian environment. Benches will meet the goal for complimentary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity. The parking guidance system will make parking in the upper and lower garage levels more convenient. The dashed line pedestrian route from Hamilton Avenue diverts pedestrians to the proposed pedestrian access way rather than straight back from Hamilton to Lane 21. It may be that pedestrians would still walk the straight line to the rear entry of the CVS store. The corner building treatment is strong. The pedestrian plaza at the corner is focused on the staircase and would facilitate direct access to the retail space and the building’s elevator. Some plant material in this plaza would improve the pedestrian friendliness. The ARB may wish 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/long_range_planning.asp 2.e Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 to note how the plans meet Hamilton Avenue District goals, to support the preparation of draft AR findings. The below Table 6 was included in the Draft EIR prepared by the CEQA consultant. Table 1: Downtown Urban Design Guide Guiding Principles Principle Guidance An Active Place Downtown Palo Alto will be an exciting, active and friendly place both during the day and night. A Place to Live And Work Downtown will be an inviting, clean and safe place for people to live, shop, work and recreate. A Good Neighbor The residential character of neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown will be protected from encroachment by commercial downtown uses. A Sense of Local History Preservation of historical structures and places will be emphasized. Future projects can draw from historic buildings and social characteristics of Palo Alto for inspiration. The Pedestrian Environment The existing building pattern of storefronts or structural bays creates the human scale of Downtown. Attractive and easily recognizable pedestrian and auto entries welcome people. Creatively designed, clean and functional alleys, sidewalks and streets further enhance the pedestrian scale and experience. An Outdoor Place Advantage will be taken of the temperate climate by providing outdoor amenities, such as attractive street furniture, newsracks, benches, lighting, restrooms, for beautiful, useful open spaces, preferably designed by artists, architects, and landscape architects. These design elements encourage a stronger sense of community. Abundant and well maintained landscaping will provide Downtown with rich, urban greenscape and outdoor spaces. Easy Access and Orientation A clearly defined and developed “city center,” downtown “edges” and landmarks will provide a sense of orientation for the Downtown. Varied transportation methods including automobiles, bicycles, buses and trains will increase ease of access. Adequate and useable parking will be available where it is most needed. Cultural Amenities Downtown will celebrate and emphasize cultural amenities which contribute to the richness and diversity of Palo Alto. We will also recognize and nurture the cultural relationship and influence of Stanford University by reestablishing and promoting the historic physical connection of Downtown to 2.e Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 Principle Guidance the University. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project has two vehicle driveways; one located at the south side of the site on Hamilton Avenue and another located at the northwest side of the project connecting to Bryant Street and Waverley Street. Pedestrian access points are included at several locations along the perimeter of the parking facility via the open space between the columns at ground level. The parking facility is accessible for pedestrians from Hamilton Avenue sidewalks, as well as sidewalks that run along the parking facility connecting to Waverley Street and the Waverley Street/Bryant Street driveway. The project also includes a pedestrian access point for the retail land use on Waverley Street, as well as a pedestrian access point to the bike station near the vehicle driveway off Hamilton Avenue. In addition, there are two pedestrian access points to the trash enclosure at the northwest end of the parking facility. The project is not located on a Safe Route to School path. Bicycle parking is proposed in the project to meet the demand. Consistency with AR Application Findings Attachment E is provided for the ARB to consider the code required AR findings that will be customized for the project in a Draft Record of Land Use Action prepared for the second ARB staff report. Findings will note that the project is subject to Council approval of zoning code text amendments. City Department Comments City staff comments have been forwarded to the applicant for consideration. Several comments from Transportation, Public Works Watershed Protection, and Utilities Engineering, specifically related to design, are noted below. The applicant will be working to address these comments prior to the second ARB public hearing. Transportation Division The applicant has recently received comments from the City’s Transportation Division staff, who expressed concerns about the following design features: 1. Pedestrian pathway: The angle of the pedestrian path of travel between Hamilton Avenue and Lane 21 as depicted on page ARB2.1 on the 12/20 plans isn’t suitable and:  the crossing needs to be perpendicular to the drive aisle, and  the plans should be revised to show the work necessary on the ground floor to enable this walkway (curb ramps, truncated domes, markings, etc.). 2. Curb corner radius: The designer should verify the curb corner radius at Waverley and Hamilton to ensure it is as tight as possible to allow vehicles to turn right at “crawl” speeds without encroaching into opposing lanes. 3. Driveway grade: the parking garage driveway needs to be at sidewalk grade, not street grade. The curb ramps will need to be removed and replaced with a city standard driveway and the architectural site plan and grading and drainage plan will need to be updated to show the ground floor slab at the correct elevation. 2.e Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 4. Waverley Street bulb-out: A shorter bulb-out will allow for additional on-street auto parking. Extending the bulb-out 20-feet north of the curb corner radius return would allow for amenities (bike parking, trash cans, etc.); after which the bulb-out could return to the original curb-line (and the length adjusted as needed so as not to result in fractional car parking spaces). 5. Waverley Street frontage: One additional street tree could probably be added. 6. Hamilton Avenue: The extent of the work along the post office frontage with the mailbox drop-off removal, and new on-street parking stalls, should be shown in the next set. 7. Bike station: An enlarged detailed floorplan view of the bicycle storage room is need to show the footprint of the bicycle parking fixture and dimensions between walls and other vertical obstructions. The designer should verify the clearances meet the minimum requirements for the chosen bike parking product. The specific product to be used (since clearances very depending on product) should be shown on plans and indicate a two-tier fixture with a lift assist system for the upper tier. 8. Parking wayfinding signage: Clearly show the locations of all façade-mounted parking wayfinding signage, including the parking guidance sign shown on page ARB6.1. 9. Garage name: The garage shall be known as “Garage 3” 10. Traffic Signal Plans: Not necessary for the entitlement but will ultimately need to be prepared for both the Waverley/Hamilton intersection and Waverley/Gilman intersection. 11. Alleyway: The alley appears to accommodate a garbage truck and a small delivery van but it might be beneficial to check the actual clearances in the alley for an SU-30 since the width is constrained by dumpsters, bollards (protecting gas meters), and possibly awnings. Public Works Watershed Protection The applicant has received comments which include strong suggestions for: 1. Rain chains: Use rain chains or similar along vines and other walls/building corners. 2. Pavers: Low-maintenance permeable pavers for a small demonstration area. 3. Interpretive Sign: Installation of an interpretive sign regarding storm water treatment and pollution prevention; the project is required to meet Bay Regional Municipal Regional Storm- water Permit requirements. Utilities Electrical Division The applicant has received these comments, which focus on the project’s conflict with existing electric and fiber optic utilities. The issues are: 1. Relocation of existing lines: The project requires relocation of primary lines and dark fiber optic system backbone running through the project site (requiring trenching and substructure construction and the installation of conduits, cables and equipment - this work needs to be completed prior to disturbance and/or demolition of existing electric and fiber facilities and requires a formal application to CPAU – Electric Engineering). The applicant will need to show the proposal for relocation on the site plan in the next plan set. 2. Provision of space for two vaults: Two vaults each 6 feet wide x 12 feet long x 7 feet deep are needed to house (a) the transformer which will feed the parking garage and (b) the transformer which will replace the existing pad-mounted transformer on-site (with a note vaults 1820 and 2.e Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 1821, located in the triangle area of the premise, are to remain at grade (since location of an electric room on the basement level is not approved). 3. Pad-mount equipment and electric panel/switchboard: These will need to be shown on the next plan set for the entitlement process. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The Draft EIR is proposed to be published for circulation in late February, 2018, for a 45-day public comment period. The DEIR will be viewable on the City’s webpages. The DEIR references a traffic study for the project prepared by Fehr and Peers. The DEIR also refers to the Downtown Parking Master Plan and City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. An excerpt of the DEIR regarding these two plans is provided below: Downtown Parking Master Plan The parking master plan provides parking for visitors and customers in the downtown area. It covers both on-street parking and off-street parking in parking lots and garages. The plan restricts on-street parking to two hours and off-street parking to three hours during weekdays between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Short-term parking spaces, commercial loading zones, passenger loading zones, and disability-designated spaces are exempt from the color zone parking requirements. The master plan provides long-term parking for employees of businesses in the downtown area. Similarly, the Downtown Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking program provides residents with a permit to park on the street for longer durations[3]. City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan The 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan guides public and private investments in non-motorized transportation facilities and related programs. The plan includes policy vision, design guidance, and specific recommendations to increase walking and biking rates. The plan is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. It reinforces the Municipal Code requirement that all bicycle parking areas shall be located at street floor level, or equivalent in a parking garage[4]. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on January 26, 2018, which is 20 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 2, 2018, 13 days in advance of the meeting. [3] City of Palo Alto, Parking Guide, http://paloalto.parkingguide.com/ (accessed on October 30, 2017) [4] City of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, July 2012, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928 (Accessed on October 30, 2017) 2.e Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17 Public Comments and Outreach Any public comments received during the scoping period for the EIR were forwarded to the consultant. Public comments on the DEIR received before close of the comment period will be addressed in the Final EIR. In November 2017, a community meeting was held to review the proposed design for this project prior to review by the ARB. Staff received written comments from two adjacent property owners (provided as Attachments G and H to this report). Next Steps The next time the ARB will review the project will be after the close of the public comment period on the Draft EIR. Timely comments on the Draft EIR would be addressed in a Final EIR for Council adoption. The Final EIR and project are tentatively scheduled for City Council review in late June 2018. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Site Context Map (DOCX)  Attachment B: Downtown Parking Garage Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan November 2017 Relevant Policies for First Formal AR 375 Hamilton (DOCX)  Attachment E: Draft ARB findings (In Progress) (DOC)  Attachment F: Project plans to building eye (DOCX)  Attachment G: Ehikian Letter October 2017 (PDF)  Attachment H: Wong Letter September 2017 (PDF) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2.e Packet Pg. 87 Attachment F Project Plans and Draft EIR Hardcopies of project plans and Draft EIR are provided to ARB Members. The project plans and Draft EIR are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 4th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Plans, the Draft EIR and technical appendices are also viewable on the project webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure_plan/new_downtown_garage.a sp Draft EIR Link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65110 May 7, 2018 Plans Link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63081 The City maintains a webpage reflecting the status of planning and building applications and relevant documents at this URL: https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/Cap/CapDetail.aspx?Module=Planning&TabName=Planning&c apID1=17PLN&capID2=00000&capID3=00361&agencyCode=PALOALTO&IsToShowInspection=n o 2.f Packet Pg. 88 February 12, 2018 Sent via Electronic Mail Brian J. McSweeney (bmcsweeney@amlawoffice.com) Anderlini & McSweeney, LLP 66 Bovet Road, Suite 255 San Mateo, CA 94402-3520 RE: “Legal Notice of Objection to Design” – Proposed Lot D Parking Garage Dear Mr. McSweeney, I write, briefly, in response to your letter of October 26, 2017 to encourage you and your clients to engage in good faith with City staff to address their concerns with the design for the proposed Lot D Garage (the “Garage”), rather than resorting to threats of litigation. In your letter, you assert that the proposed Garage would impair your clients’ right of ingress and egress under the judicial doctrine enunciated in Rose v. State, 19 Cal.2d 713 (1942). This doctrine protects the right “an abutting property owner has to the use of the street fronting upon his lot [which] is defined to be an easement therein for the purposes of ingress and egress. (Id. at 727, emphasis added). At most, the doctrine creates an easement in favor of your clients in the abutting public street (Waverley Street) for the purposes of ingress and egress from that street; it does not create any rights to ingress or egress over an adjacent parcel. Notably, the cases cited in your letter all stem from changes to the public street abutting the property. Here, the proposed Garage has no meaningful impact on your clients’ access to Waverley Street and thus does not implicate their rights of ingress and egress. The fact that an adjacent parcel is used for a surface parking lot does not convert it into a public street. Notwithstanding the absence of any cognizable legal right, City staff have offered a number of practical accommodations based your clients’ concerns. These include: 1) creation of a loading zone on Waverley Street; 2) provision of a parking space in the newly constructed Garage; and 3) shared use of a trash enclosure in the newly constructed Garage. Staff have even entertained the suggestion that future modifications may allow below-grade access to the Garage to in the event your clients redevelop their property, despite the clear absence of property rights based on inchoate plans for redevelopment. In summary, the proposed Garage does not impair your clients’ right to ingress and egress and though your clients may find it less convenient to accept deliveries or arrange maintenance from the front of the property or Lane 21, this does not give rise to a legally cognizable injury. 2.g Packet Pg. 89 City staff have been extremely receptive to your clients concerns and I suggest that your clients reconsider the many accommodations that have already been offered. Sincerely, Albert S. Yang Deputy City Attorney AY/jb 2.g Packet Pg. 90 2.h Packet Pg. 91 2.h Packet Pg. 92 2.h Packet Pg. 93 2.h Packet Pg. 94 2.h Packet Pg. 95 2.h Packet Pg. 96 February 12, 2018 Sent via Electronic Mail Brian J. McSweeney (bmcsweeney@amlawoffice.com) Anderlini & McSweeney, LLP 66 Bovet Road, Suite 255 San Mateo, CA 94402-3520 RE: “Legal Notice of Objection to Design” – Proposed Lot D Parking Garage Dear Mr. McSweeney, I write, briefly, in response to your letter of October 26, 2017 to encourage you and your clients to engage in good faith with City staff to address their concerns with the design for the proposed Lot D Garage (the “Garage”), rather than resorting to threats of litigation. In your letter, you assert that the proposed Garage would impair your clients’ right of ingress and egress under the judicial doctrine enunciated in Rose v. State, 19 Cal.2d 713 (1942). This doctrine protects the right “an abutting property owner has to the use of the street fronting upon his lot [which] is defined to be an easement therein for the purposes of ingress and egress. (Id. at 727, emphasis added). At most, the doctrine creates an easement in favor of your clients in the abutting public street (Waverley Street) for the purposes of ingress and egress from that street; it does not create any rights to ingress or egress over an adjacent parcel. Notably, the cases cited in your letter all stem from changes to the public street abutting the property. Here, the proposed Garage has no meaningful impact on your clients’ access to Waverley Street and thus does not implicate their rights of ingress and egress. The fact that an adjacent parcel is used for a surface parking lot does not convert it into a public street. Notwithstanding the absence of any cognizable legal right, City staff have offered a number of practical accommodations based your clients’ concerns. These include: 1) creation of a loading zone on Waverley Street; 2) provision of a parking space in the newly constructed Garage; and 3) shared use of a trash enclosure in the newly constructed Garage. Staff have even entertained the suggestion that future modifications may allow below-grade access to the Garage to in the event your clients redevelop their property, despite the clear absence of property rights based on inchoate plans for redevelopment. In summary, the proposed Garage does not impair your clients’ right to ingress and egress and though your clients may find it less convenient to accept deliveries or arrange maintenance from the front of the property or Lane 21, this does not give rise to a legally cognizable injury. 2.i Packet Pg. 97 City staff have been extremely receptive to your clients concerns and I suggest that your clients reconsider the many accommodations that have already been offered. Sincerely, Albert S. Yang Deputy City Attorney AY/jb 2.i Packet Pg. 98 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9204) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Shake Shack Storefront in Building W Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00054]: Request for Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit for Shake Shack restaurant to allow for exterior facade improvements and to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages in an existing tenant space at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The Applicant is proposing renovation of an existing tenant space within the Stanford Shopping Center for a new restaurant named Shake Shack. The tenant space within Building W has a triangular shape and is located near the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real. The project involves changes to the existing façade, new covered outdoor seating areas, new landscaping, and new signage. The project is subject to architectural review findings, context- based design criteria, and zoning compliance review. The El Camino Real Design Guidelines from 1976 are also applicable to this site. Draft findings and conditions contained in this report include conditions related to the request for a conditional use permit for alcoholic beverage service. 3 Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Architect: Darren Machulsky Architects Representative: Jason Smith – Land Shark Development Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 180 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area: Various & 2,300,402 square feet Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: N/A Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site Historic Resource(s): N/A Existing Improvement(s): 1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s): Retail, Personal Service, Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PF (Caltrain and parkland) West: CC(L)/PF(D) (Multi-Family Housing) East: HD (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) South: CC (Retail) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial 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): El Camino Real Design Guidelines 1976 only Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description 3 Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Request for Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review by Ty Jackson on behalf of Shake Shack restaurant to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages tied to a restaurant use, and for exterior facade improvements to an existing tenant space at the Stanford Shopping Center. The project is located at the north eastern portion of the Stanford Shopping Center with the store front facing El Camino Real. The project involves replacing the existing façade of the tenant space which was previously occupied by Wells Fargo Bank within Building “W” near the Quarry Road El Camino Real intersection. The project includes outdoor seating areas under covered patios painted white, with cedar bark finished exterior panels and Grizzle Gray painted exterior walls. The project also includes new signage consisting of two new signs reading “Shake Shack” with an associate green burger logo made of internally illuminated individual letters mounted directly to the covered patios above the outdoor seating areas of the project. . 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.  Conditional Use Permit: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.010 and 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by Planning staff and forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action. This aspect of the project is outside the purview of the ARB. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the south western portion of the Shopping Center near the El Camino Real and Quarry Road intersection. The Stanford Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The proposed design fits within the character of the Shopping Center with its’ varied store front designs throughout. The project with the proposed landscaping and covered outdoor dining areas, compliment the active outdoor shopping environment of the Shopping Center. The adjacent tenant façades consists of range of colored stone, stucco, metal and wood. The project would 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 not need to increase the height of the existing buildings parapet to properly install and screen the required roof top equipment associate with the change of use from banking and financial services to an eating and drinking use. This will preserve the compatibility with the other tenant space within Building W, maintaining a consistent height of the building overall this area of the Shopping Center. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation for the project site is Community Commercial. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. Specifically, the Palo Alto Municipal Code states that the Stanford Shopping Center is limited to a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362 per section 18.16.060(e)(3). This project does not result in any changes in regards to floor area or building height. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes within the Zoning Ordinance. Façade Changes The guidelines for the Stanford Shopping require an entitlement for proposed changes to all standalone buildings or tenant spaces that face a public right of way. The requirement for Board Level review involves tenant spaces with outward facing façades greater than 35’ long, while tenant spaces with façades under 35’ long are subject to staff level Architectural Review. The proposed project is located within a standalone building with two tenant spaces, one is currently occupied by P.F. Chang restaurant, and the other subject tenant space with a triangular shape was previously occupied by Wells Fargo Bank. The subject tenant space is 2,878 sf with exterior facing façades that are 105 feet and 67 feet respectively. The height of the building varies from 25 feet to 21 feet. The existing façade consists of a tan colored brick façade with two canopy covers above each of the entrances, and rectangular windows with white trim. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Existing Exterior Façade Facing the Parking Lot Proposed Exterior Façade Facing the Parking Lot The Quarry Road side facing façade is not readily visible from the public right of way due to the density of the planted trees within the adjacent plaza area. The trees screen the façade throughout the year, though it is slightly more visible through the deciduous trees during the fall and winter months. 3 Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Proposed Façade Facing the Quarry Road side of the Shopping Center The proposed tenant will be a restaurant named “Shake Shack” and is consistent with the other business within the Shopping Center, as well as a permitted land use within the CC zone. The proposed design for the new façade will include new paint, along with the installation of exterior wood panels with matching mullions. The new store front will increase the number of windows within the existing tenant space as the ATM machines from the previous tenant will be removed, providing more window area. The proposed use will require a fully functioning trash room to meet the increased demands of the proposed restaurant. The trash room is proposed to be located adjacent to the P.F. Changs trash room. The applicant is proposing two options to blend the trash room with the proposed façade changes. One option is to have the trash room doors incorporate the Shake Shack burger logo, which would be considered signage, while the second option is to have the trash room doors incorporate the proposed wood panels and preserved green moss. Staff would appreciate the Architectural Review Boards comments and recommendation on these options. 3 Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Signage The project includes new signage with the exterior changes. The two proposed signs are located above the covered patios on each side of the tenant space. The signs read “Shake Shack” and will be internally illuminated individual channel letters that are directly mounted to the top of the covered patios. The signs will include the green Shake Shack burger logo which is also internally illuminated. The sign located on the Quarry Road facing façade will be 14’ 10 1/2” long and 1’ 6” tall, while the other sign facing the parking lot El Camino Real measures 20’ 2” inches long and 2’ tall. Both signs have three (3) inch thick letters. The design and materials of the new signs are compatible with the signage found at the mall. The burger logo option for the trash room door would measures to 4’ 4” long by 4’ 8” tall on the 6’ wide doors. The signage is not over powering and is scaled correctly for each façade with the longer sign being placed on the longer facade. The Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Sign and Façade Program (MTSFP; 15PLN-00040) does not apply to this building, per the conditions of approval for the MTSFP that excludes standalone buildings (COA #22). The signage regulations found within the Palo Alto Municipal Code apply in this situation, along with the El Camino Real Guidelines from 1976. Proposed signage is compliant with these code regulations as shown in Attachment D. Landscaping The project includes new landscaping along both facades. The proposed landscaping falls within the approved landscape palate for the Shopping Center and includes species that are medium to low water usage, with two of the plants specifically suited for our climate zone 9 (carex tumulicola and lavandula intermedia). The landscape plan as proposed is compatible with the Shopping Center landscaping. Staff would appreciate the Architectural Review Boards comments and recommendations on the landscape plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has expensive multi-modal access and parking, and can be accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface level parking lots with two multi-level parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. Throughout the site there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. The proposed project includes the addition of covered outdoor seating areas that count towards the gross floor area for parking, resulting in the need for three (3) additional parking spaces. Further, the new trash room will require unobstructed access via the parking lot area for regular trash pickup. This results in restriping of the parking lot area and the removal of two (2) parking spaces to allow access to the trash area. The overall impact is a need for five (5) additional parking spaces. The Shopping Center currently has 103 parking spaces in excess of the required parking standard and can therefore accommodate the minor increase in required parking generated by this project. Consistency with Application Findings 3 Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The project is consistent with the required findings as shown in Attachment B. For example, the project will renovate and vacant tenant space for a new exclusive retailer that will strengthen the Stanford Shopping Center position as a premiere regional shopping center with distinctive businesses. 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 categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 1 or an “Existing Facilities” exemption (Categorical Exemption 15301). This project meets this exemption due to the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade. 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 June 8, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 8, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 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 Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Applicant's CUP Request Letter (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10  Attachment F: Applicant Project Description Letter (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 108 3.a Packet Pg. 109 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 18PLN-00054 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 would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. The proposal seeks to renovate the existing tenant space via a new façade design, adding outdoor seating under the covered patios, and new landscaping to support a new restaurant use that is compatible with the Stanford Shopping Center pedestrian friendly environment. The restaurant will be located along an existing pedestrian spine that connects the site with Caltrain, VTA, El Camino Real, and has bikes racks and lockers located on the adjacent plaza. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high quality regional shopping center. The projects new façade will add to the mixture of tenant façade design. The incoming tenant is a new restaurant establishment that is expanding to Northern California. This business features a high end design for casual eating consistent with other restaurant within the Shopping Center. This project will add to the exclusive mixture of tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center making it a distinctive regional shopping center. 3.b Packet Pg. 110 GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The façade and exterior seating areas are well designed and enhances the Stanford Shopping Centers pedestrian friendly environment. These changes complement the adjacent plaza (along the Quarry Road side) which is open to the public and functions as a bicycle and pedestrian gateway to the Shopping Center. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The project involves a change in use but does not involve a change in the building massing. The project maintains the existing scale of the area and the proposed land use is consistent with the surrounding land uses within the site. The project would remain consistent with the zoning requirements and Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. The project will not increase the development area of the site in regards to height, floor area ratio, setbacks, and parking as the project involves only exterior cosmetic changes to the existing tenant space and landscaping around Building W of the Stanford Shopping Center. 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 proposing façade improvements that will enhance the pedestrian and tenant environment within the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposal will maintain the existing footprint of the building and will not increase the massing or encroach on any setbacks, preserving the pedestrian scale of the Stanford Shopping Center area. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 3.b Packet Pg. 111 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project will improve the conditions along the pedestrian walk way by adding new landscaping, creating a more pleasant pedestrian environment for pedestrians and cyclists who visit the Shopping Center. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The projects proposed façade includes new larger storefront windows where there previously was solid walls and an ATM machine, allowing for additional views to and from the interior of the building encouraging pedestrian activity at this location of the Stanford Shopping Center while supporting a connection between the interior of the tenant with pedestrian and patrons on the outside. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will not change the existing buildings setbacks or massing. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding does not apply. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding does not apply. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The proposed project will change the existing parking total on site as it will remove two parking spaces to provide a new trash loading area and add three new parking spaces to the total required parking spaces for the site. The site is over parked and can easily accommodate the change in parking demand generated by the project. None of these changes modify the overall size and shape of the existing parking facilities (parking lots and garages), resulting in no impacts to the character of site or the pedestrian environment. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply. 3.b Packet Pg. 112 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting and will include new plants that are moderate to low water usage. The project will also conform to Green Building Energy codes for commercial businesses. 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 involves materials which are durable and of high quality finishes and materials consisting of metal (anodized aluminum and painted steel), and red cedar siding. The new façade will consist of façade with dark and light colors, with the façade mainly painted dark grey scale color (noted as iron ore), with contrasting of white, green, medium grey, and cedar bark trim pieces and mullions. The design will enhance the character of the site and update the existing tenant to better fit with the proposed eating & drinking use and the overall tenant façade found along the El Camino Real facing portion of the Stanford Shopping Center. 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 will not impede circulation and access for any modes of transportation to the site. The project is located in an area with bicycle racks and lockers that are easily accessed by the public, supporting bicycle traffic to the site. The modifications to the façade will expand the usable open space by providing new covered outdoor seating areas for visitors to the site. The proposed signage allows for the proposed business to be readily located while being consistent with the signage found at the Shopping Center and conforming to the regulations found within the Palo Alto Municipal Code for signage. 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 will not remove any of the existing trees located around the tenant space. However, the project includes new landscaping within the existing planting areas around the tenant space that are not occupied by trees. The landscape plan includes two plant species of the five proposed which are plants that are compatible with the climate index of the area (climate index 9). 3.b Packet Pg. 113 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 will utilize energy efficient LED lighting, and will comply with green building energy code requirements for energy usage under title 24 of the building code for nonresidential occupancies by upgrading the existing building envelope and mechanical features. In addition, the construction debris generated by the project will comply with City construction debris diversion rates, minimizing the debris sent to landfills. Lastly, the project also includes new landscaping that has plants which are moderate to low water usage plants. 3.b Packet Pg. 114 Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00054 _______________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1.CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Except as modified by these conditions of approval, construction and development, and operation of “Shake Shack” shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Shake Shack” received by the City of Palo Alto on June 12th, 2018. The approved plans are on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94301. 2.USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT: A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for the Shake Shack. 3.BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 4.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. 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 two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 7.FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT: This conditional use permit allows the sale of alcoholic beverages, in conjunction with a restaurant use, to be located within an existing building. A full service food menu shall be provided during all business hours. 8.KITCHEN FACILITIES: Suitable kitchen facilities shall be maintained for the eating and drinking establishment. 9.SERVICE HOURS: Alcoholic beverage services (beer & wine) shall not be served beyond the hours of operation. The use is allowed to operate from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. per Zoning Code Section 18.16.040(b). All clean up or set up activities shall be conducted between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 3.c Packet Pg. 115 Page 2 of 4 10. INTENSIFICATION: This CUP allows alcoholic beverage service (beer and wine) within the interior and exterior public service areas of the restaurant as indicated in the approved plans. Any intensification/expansion of the public service areas will require amendment to this CUP for said intensification/expansion shall be secured prior to commencement of the expanded service. Formal approval from the County ABC department is also required. 11. 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) is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 12. GENERAL OPERATION: This conditional use permit allows indoor and outdoor sales and service of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant use and an ABC License Type 47. The consumption of beer, wine and liquor shall be consistent with the established hours of operation and permitted functions of the restaurant. A full service menu selection shall be available during all operating hours. 13. ENTERTAINMENT: This permit does not allow any operations associated with a nightclub-type use and live entertainment shall not be permitted. There shall be no live entertainment, live music, dancing, amplified sound, or other amusement facilities or devises. An amendment to this use permit shall be required to permit these uses at the restaurant. 14. CODE COMPLIANCE: The current and proposed uses shall be comply with all applicable City codes, including Titles 9 (Public Peace, Moral and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Titles 4 (Alcoholic Beverage Business regulations) and 19 (Public Safety) of the State of California Administrative Code. 15. FIRE SPRINKLER COVERAGE: Fire sprinkler protection is required under any covered outside seating areas. 16. AGREEMENT: The consumption of alcoholic beverages under this use permit shall be deemed an agreement on the part of the applicant, their heirs, successors, and assigns to comply with all terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit. 17. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS: Any exterior alteration would require a separate Architectural Review application, including new lighting fixture, changes to outdoor furniture, new seating barrier, and other outdoor improvements related to the food service area. 18. OCCUPANCY: The operator shall ensure the building’s permitted occupancy is not exceeded at any time. 19. RECYCLING & GARBAGE: The Businesses on site must ensure that all service areas have access to garbage, recycling, and compost as required in Municipal Code 5.20.108. 20. NUISANCES AND NOISE: The business shall be operated in a manner to protect any nearby residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources 3.c Packet Pg. 116 Page 3 of 4 during the business hours. Noise levels emanating from the restaurant use shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. 21. REVOCATION OR MODIFCATION OF APPROVALS: The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 22. 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. 23. 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, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 24. Public area restrooms must have color-coded labeled compost service for paper towels and garbage service for any diaper changing stations. BUILDING DIVISION 25. The proposed restaurant will require Santa Clara County Health Department approval to be submitted to the Building Division prior to the Building Permit issuance. 26. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. PUBLIC WORKS 27. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or 3.c Packet Pg. 117 Page 4 of 4 blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 28. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 29. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 30. 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. 31. C.3 SMALL PROJECTS: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 32. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 33. If applicant upgrades or changes electric switchgear and/or impacts CPAU electric facilities, applicant shall resubmit application for review. 3.c Packet Pg. 118 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00054 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 2,300,402 sf No Change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied No Change Rear Yard No Requirement N/A N/A Interior Side Yard (right) No Requirement N/A N/A Street Side Yard (left) (Park Boulevard) No Requirement Varied No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) N/A N/A Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on Park Boulevard; 33% of side street built to setback on Grant Avenue (7) N/A N/A Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps N/A N/A Max. Site Coverage No Requirement Max. Building Height 25’2” feet (4) Varied, Max 25’2” feet No Change Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1,412,362 sf 1,361,751 sf No Change Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) N/A N/A (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not 3.d Packet Pg. 119 intrude into the daylight plane. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property No Change Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.060 (h)) (A) Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted within a building, except for: Located within Shopping Center, N/A Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. A new trash room is proposed to support the eating & drinking use Employee Showers (18.16.060 (j)) 0-24,999 of new GFA for Retail Services, Personal Services, and Eating and Drinking Services N/A Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. N/A 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 3.d Packet Pg. 120 Table 2: PROPOSED SIGN CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS) Type Location Proposed Size Max Size Allowance Per Facade Awning Sign* (16.20.150) Sign A Fixed above covered patio facing the parking lot 20’ 2” long and 2’ tall Area=40.3 sf (41% of max) 96 sf (wall area of 2228.6 sf) Awning Sign* (16.20.150) Sign B Fixed above covered patio facing the Quarry Road 14’ 10 1/2” long and 1’ 6” tall. Area=22.3 sf (28% of max) 78 sf (wall area of 1428.1 sf) Wall Signs* (16.20.130) Trash room door Option for trash room doors to have burger logo 4’ 4” long and 4’ 8” tall. Area=20.1 sf If selected the total signage area (Sign A + Optional Sign) would need to be reduced to meet ECR Design Guidelines El Camino Design Guidelines: Limit the areas of signs along El Camino Real to ½ to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the Sign Ordinance. *16.20.150 Regulations for Awning Signs: (a) Type of Sign - Limitation. Awning signs shall be limited to those signs printed, painted, fixed, marked, stamped or otherwise impressed upon the surface of an awning covering. (b) Area. The maximum awning sign area on any awning shall be equal to the area allowed by Chapter 16.20 Table 3* (Wall Signs), on the wall from which the awning is supported. However, on any wall the aggregate of the wall sign area on said wall plus the awning sign area, on an awning or awnings supported from said wall, shall not exceed the maximum wall sign area allowed on said wall. (c) Height. No part of any awning sign shall extend above the top level of the wall from which it is supported. Table 4: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area (1,469,074 gross sf) for a total of 5,342 on-site parking spaces 5,446 spaces 5,441 spaces (after removal of 5 parking spaces associated with the proposed project) 3.d Packet Pg. 121 3.e Packet Pg. 122 3.e Packet Pg. 123 LandShark Development Services Group 714·235·8235 - 1641 W. Collins Avenue, Orange, CA 92867 - jsmith@landsharkdevelopment.com June 13th, 2018 (revised) City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Shake Shack – ARB 180 El Camino Real, Space 950, Building W Palo Alto, CA 94304 To whom it may concern: ARB Project Description: Shake Shack is passionate about securing vibrant sites and creating unique designs that give each restaurant a hand crafted look which are locally focused and appropriate for their respective communities. Great care is taken to build each Shack with custom architectural design, including forward thinking structural features and compelling eco-friendly touches. Each Shack is constructed thoughtfully and purposefully to fit its environment, using a creative design approach that creates places and experiences like nowhere else. Think walls made of reclaimed wood siding, one-of-a-kind murals commissioned from local artists, living green walls and lighting installations inspired by local surroundings. The Stanford location embraces the masonry structure of the existing building, leaving the majority of columns and walls exposed on both the exterior and interior. Several new storefront windows have been added in an effort open up the existing space to its surroundings as well as to unify the exterior patio seating with the interior dining. The existing planter areas surrounding the space have been expanded and green walls have been used as an exterior finish in an effort to bring in as greenery much as possible, a nod to the park setting from Shake Shack's roots as a hot dog cart in Madison Square Park in New York. Brand elements such as the ATAS metal, their signature angle and the use of wood have been carefully incorporated into the exterior design. The ATAS metal has been used above at the high wall areas, leaving the lower walls open for the green wall and custom wood finish. Green walls have been implemented in the areas where existing storefront has been taken out and a solid wall infill was required per the floor plan layout. The custom wood finish unites all the elements of the storefront by being applied over some of the existing brick, over the new storefront mullions and within the green wall area creating a cohesive design from one of the space to the other. The signature Shake Shack angle has been subtly incorporated into the fins of the wood finish. The removal of the vines will be required in order to clean up and touch up some of these exterior finishes. As required for new construction replace/replant all ivy removed to match existing. The exterior design concept has been carried through to the interior with the exposed brick and the custom wood finish mimicking the exterior. The wood fins have been modified at the kiosks area to become the supports for the counter. A multilayered, diamond shaped wood canopy with custom lighting incorporated adds interest above the dining area and camouflages the ductwork and structure above. 3.f Packet Pg. 124 Project Specifics: The project is located within an existing one story building located at the corner of El Camino Real and Quarry Road. The premisis consists of 3,318sf of usable space which includes 440 sf of outdoor patio area which has been divided to provide outdoor patio seating on both sides of the restaurant. There is a total of 52 interior seats and 28 outdoor patio seats of which 4 are on the North patio and 24 are located on the South patio. Signage: Wall signage is made up of two main wall signs which incorporates its burger logo: 1.Identified as BR.1 – 24” high by 20’-2” long by 3” deep 2.Identified as BR.2 – 18” high by 14’-10=1/2” long by 3” deep. Shake Shack looks forward to serving the community and providing a unique dining experience. Sincerely, Jason M. Smith LandShark Development Services Group 3.f Packet Pg. 125 Attachment G 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 4th 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 “180 El Camino Real” 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/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4283&TargetID=319 3.g Packet Pg. 126 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9343) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3406 Hillview Avenue: New R&D Building (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3406 Hillview Avenue [17PLN-00438]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 62,500 Square Foot R&D Building and Construction of a new two-Story Approximately 82,030 Square Foot Office/R&D Building. This is a Designated Project Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Research Park (RP-5(D)). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64836. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment H. 4 Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. Background The ARB reviewed the project on May 3, 2018. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table, as well as in a letter prepared by the applicant in Attachment B: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Enhance the landscape plan to more fully respond to the open space context. Comment partially addressed: Landscape plan changes are minor with the resubmittal; however the applicant has provided new and enhanced renderings to more fully illustrate the landscape design intent. Redesign the stairway along the Hillview Avenue frontage to provide a more inviting entrance to the site, and include all proposed trees in the perspective rendering. Comment addressed: See Sheets 1.14 and L1.0: The staircase now includes two landings with IPE wood benches with backs. Coast live oaks have been added to the rendering to better illustrate the landscape plan. Provide seating along Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue. Comment not addressed: Applicant has concerns about potential nuisance issues and grading. Reorient the staircase to lead directly to the Hillview Avenue-facing building entrance Comment not addressed: Applicant has a desire for the staircase to serve both the east and west elevation entrances. Enhance the building materials on the south elevation to match the quality of the other elevations, and show mature landscaping in the perspective rendering. Comment addressed: See Sheets 1.15 and 1.33 where a large band of wood composite rainscreen spandrel has been added to the mid-section of this elevation, and the mullion pattern altered to show two panes at each floor level. The perspective rendering has been modified to show mature landscaping. Reduce the height of the roof screen and relocate the roof equipment area way from the northeast corner. Comment partially addressed: See 1.41 and 1.42, the roof screen has been reduced in height by approximately 3’-2”, however the location remains the same. The applicant has indicated this is to provide optimal area for future solar panels. To 4 Packet Pg. 128 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 ensure consistency within the plan set, staff recommends adding a condition to limit the height of the screen to 8’-4” from the top of the parapet, and that the east-facing screen wall be pushed to the west in order for the screen to be concealed from pedestrians and vehicles along the Hillview Avenue frontage. Better screen the view of the parking lot from Coyote Hill Road, or clarify the landscape design intent for this area. Comment addressed: As shown on Sheets L4.6 and L4.7, the landscape plan for this area includes several shrubs that provide substantial screening which, in combination with the proposed Hungarian oaks, appear to adequately address this comment. Better integrate stormwater treatment areas with the landscape plan to provide visible and aesthetically-pleasing green infrastructure. Comment addressed: On Sheet L4.5, the applicant has provided a stormwater treatment diagram that more easily identifies the stormwater treatment areas on the site, and has added stone features and new appropriate plantings. Explore ways to make the parking lot landscape “finger” islands less formal given the open space context. Comment not addressed: However, renderings are provided to show the variety of plantings in the parking lot and how they respond to the open space context. Provide additional detail on the “bird-safe” aspects of the fenestration pattern and glazing. Comment addressed: See applicant’s Response to Comments in Attachment B. Bird-safe glass elements include site and architectural design, interior lighting standards, and the use of fritted and spandrel sections. Analysis1 The revised project plans address many, but not all of comments raised at the project’s first ARB meeting on May 3, 2018. Significant topics of discussion at the first hearing included the quality of the south building elevation and the landscape plan, and how both integrate with the hillside open space context. The applicant has made revisions to the south elevation that increase the amount of dark spandrel glass surface area, which provides enhanced contrast with the other building materials and stimulates visual interest. With the exception of the areas of the site dedicated for stormwater treatment basins, the landscape plan remains largely 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. 4 Packet Pg. 129 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 unchanged. However, new and revised renderings now provide more illustrative perspectives from Hillview Avenue, Coyote Hill Road, and the southern façade. Other changes requested by the ARB, including benches along the rights-of-way, the relocation of the Hillview Avenue staircase to align with the rear entrance, the relocation of the rooftop mechanical screen from the northeast corner of the building, and the exploration of more “organic” landscape island forms in the parking lot, were not incorporated into the resubmittal, and the applicant has prepared a written response to the comments in Attachment B that explains their rationale. Staff invites the ARB to consider in particular the comments that were raised previously and not incorporated, and whether on balance the project is ready for a formal recommendation. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is a designated project subject to the provisions of the Mayfield Development Agreement and the City Of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report (“Mayfield DA EIR”), which contains mitigation measures applicable for all designated projects, including the subject site. These measures include requirements for mitigating potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, traffic, air quality, biological resources, and public health concerns regarding hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and soil and groundwater contamination. This project was reviewed and determined to be consistent with the Mayfield DA EIR. An addendum referencing the project and a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Mayfield DA EIR has been included in Attachment F and G. 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 June 8, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 8, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. 4 Packet Pg. 130 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description and Response Letter (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB and Site & Design Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment F: EIR Addendum, no appendices (DOCX)  Attachment G: Mayfield Development Agreement EIR MMRP (PDF)  Attachment H: May 3, 2018 ARB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment I: Project Plans and Environmental Documents (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 131 54 2 A-4 Prom H 5 2 3 Foothill Club 4 University Club 1 HTG HTC A-2 HTE A-5 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 C Hillview Station Prom Garage Prom A Prom D Prom B Prom C Prom E CommonsBldg F HTB Landscape Overlay170'from 387.0' 492.6' 180.0' 160.0' 336.8' 31.4' 57.0' 787.4' 592.0' 544.2' 685.0' 410.3' 47.6' 101.5' 164.0' 81.7' 38.8' 78.0' 30.4' 194.5' 360.0' 47.6' 309.7' 685.0' 360.0' 194.5' 30.4' 78.0' 38.8' 81.7' 164.0' 101.5' 265.0' 291.0' 290.0' 216.0' 600.4' 524.8' 749.9' 393.3' 194.6' 1639.8' 55.0' 216.0' 290.0' 4' 552.3' 120.0' 545.4' 552.3' 584.2' 204.2' 255.8' 622 291.0' 950.0' 544.4' 43.2' 685.0' 360.4' 685.0' 360.4' 685.0' 325.0' 31.4'69.9' 80.9' 480.6' 78.8' 559.4' 255.9' 313.4' 584.2' 404.8' 749.9' 325.7' 2273.3' 176.2' 153.9' 678.7' 300.5' 696.9' 595.8' 373.7' 758.0' 544.2' 109.7' 313.4' 700.0' 17.3' 157.3' 88.3' 10.6' 196.6' 44.8' 8.3' 322.7' 433.3' 545.0' 1087.0' 492.6' 180.0' 160.0' 264.3' 216.7' 154.5' 1109.3' 322.6' 617.1' 619.2' 51.1'5.0'32.7' 55.7' 6.9' 133.8' 126.8' 358.4' 111.6' 607.6' 329.1' 30 276.2' 103.7' 63.5' 26.1' 260.6' 168.9' 45.4'103.1' 82.2'37.7' 48.3' 241.7' 358.4' 557.4' 03.1 82.2' 199.9' 280.3' 793.4' 259.3' 725.1' 758.0' 373.7' 595.8' 696.9' 300.5' 11.5' 599.3' 10.6' 132.5' 273.0'51.2' 34.0' 35.9' 85.4' 40.7'30.4'17.3' 8.2' 157.3' 88.3' 57.1'27.0'27.6' 334.6' 51.2' 69.9' 85.4' 40.7'37.7' .3' 241.7' 379.0' 381.4' 89.0' 89.0' 154.3'154.3' 232.4'232.4' 379.0' 330.3' 166.5' 166.5' 269.0'269.0' 51.0' 422.6' 422.6' 513.0' 513.0' 260.2' 260.2' HILLVIEW AVENUE MIRANDA AVENUE HILLVIEW AVENUE HILLVIEW AVENUE MIRANDA AVENUE C O Y OT E HIL L ROAD COYOT E H I L L ROA D F O O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y F O O T H I L L E X P R E S S WA Y F O O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y M I R A N D A A V E N U E M I R A N D A A V E N U E ) AC(D) RP-5 RP-5(D) RP-5 P P 5 (D ) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) 3406 Hillview Avenue Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0'425' 3406 Hillview Avenue CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2018-04-16 16:11:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 4.a Packet Pg. 132 4.b Packet Pg. 133 4.b Packet Pg. 134 ϭ  WZK:d^Z/Wd/KE ϯϰϬϲ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞ͕^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬ DĂũŽƌƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůZĞǀŝĞǁΘ^ŝƚĞĂŶĚĞƐŝŐŶ^ƵďŵŝƚƚĂů  ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϳ  dŚĞϯϰϬϲ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ;͞WƌŽũĞĐƚ͟ͿǁŝůůƌĞƉůĂĐĞĂŶŽďƐŽůĞƚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŚĂƐƌĞĂĐŚĞĚƚŚĞ ĞŶĚŽĨŝƚƐƵƐĞĨƵůůŝĨĞǁŝƚŚĂŵŽĚĞƌŶZΘͬŽĨĨŝĐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƚƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚŝŶ ƚŚĞ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬ͘  WZK:d'K>^ dŚĞŐŽĂůŽĨƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂƐƚĂƚĞͲŽĨͲƚŚĞͲĂƌƚ͕ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŝƐǁĞůůŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŽŝƚƐ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ WĂƌŬ ĂŶĚ WĂůŽ ůƚŽ ĐŽŶƚĞdžƚ͘  dŚƌŽƵŐŚ ƚŚŽƵŐŚƚĨƵů ƐŝƚĞ ƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ ǁĞůůͲƐĐĂůĞĚ ŵĂƐƐŝŶŐ͕ ŚĂƌŵŽŶŝŽƵƐ ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ĂŶĚƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚďĂůĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĞŶĞĞĚƐŽĨƚŚĞŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝǀĞZΘ ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞƐ ǁĞ ĚĞƐŝƌĞ ƚŽ ĂƚƚƌĂĐƚ ǁŝƚŚ ŽƵƌ ŐŽĂů ŽĨ ƐƵƐƚĂŝŶŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĞĐŽůŽŐLJ ĂŶĚ ďĞĂƵƚLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂĚũŽŝŶŝŶŐ ŶĂƚƵƌĂů ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘^ŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĨŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŽĨ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬ͕ŽƵƌŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶƚŽŶƵƌƚƵƌĞĂŶĚ ƉƌŽŵŽƚĞĂƚŚƌŝǀŝŶŐďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĞŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚƚŚĂƚŝƐĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚWĂůŽůƚŽŝŶĂůůƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƐʹƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞŽĨ ƚŚĞŝƚLJ͛ƐĨŝƐĐĂůŚĞĂůƚŚĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŝƚƐĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĂŶĚĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŚĞĂůƚŚ͘dŚŝƐWƌŽũĞĐƚƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĞƐŝƚƐĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďŝůŝƚLJ ǁŝƚŚŝƚƐƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚďLJƐĞƚƚŝŶŐĂĐŽŶƚĞŵƉŽƌĂƌLJďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂŵŽŶŐŽĂŬƐ͕ƌĞĚǁŽŽĚƐĂŶĚƉĞĂĐĞĨƵůĨŽŽƚŚŝůůƐ ƚŽĐƌĞĂƚĞĂƉůĂĐĞǁŚĞƌĞƉĞŽƉůĞĐŽŵĞƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƚŽĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚĞĂŶĚŵĂŬĞŶĞǁĚŝƐĐŽǀĞƌŝĞƐ͘  WZK:dDdZ/^ dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůƌĞƉůĂĐĞƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐϲϮ͕ϱϬϬŐƐĨďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶϯϰϬϲ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞ;͞^ŝƚĞ͟ͿǁŝƚŚĂŶĞǁϴϮ͕ϬϯϬƐĨ;&Z ŐƌŽƐƐĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂͿŽĨĨŝĐĞͬZΘďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ƌĞĨůĞĐƚŝŶŐĂĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƌĂƚŝŽŽĨϬ͘Ϯϴϵ͗ϭ;ƐůŝŐŚƚůLJůĞƐƐƚŚĂŶǁŚĂƚƚŚĞZWͲϱ;Ϳ njŽŶŝŶŐĂůůŽǁƐͿ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůĂůƐŽŝŶĐůƵĚĞϭ͕ϬϬϬŐƐĨŽĨ͞ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐͲŵŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŶŐĂŵĞŶŝƚLJƐƉĂĐĞ͟ĂůůŽǁĞĚ ƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞĐŽĚĞ͘dŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ;ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞďŽŶƵƐĂŵĞŶŝƚLJƐƉĂĐĞͿǁŝůůďĞϴϯ͕ϬϯϬŐƐĨĂŶĚĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĞĚĂƐƚǁŽƐƚŽƌŝĞƐ ĂďŽǀĞŐƌĂĚĞǁŝƚŚĂďĞůŽǁͲŐƌĂĚĞ͕ŽŶĞͲůĞǀĞůƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘  Dz&/>^/'Ed^/dEWZK:d tŚŝůĞƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĂůůŽǁĂďůĞ&ZĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞZWͲϱ;ͿnjŽŶŝŶŐ͕^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚŚĂƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚƚŽ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞƚŚĞƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƐĂDĂLJĨŝĞůĚ^ŝƚĞĂŶĚWƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ƵƚŝůŝnjŝŶŐϭϵ͕ϱϯϬƐĨŽĨǀĞƐƚĞĚDĂLJĨŝĞůĚZĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚ ^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ŽŽƚĂŐĞĂŶĚϲϮ͕ϱϬϬƐĨŽĨǀĞƐƚĞĚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚ^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ŽŽƚĂŐĞ͘  dŚĞϮϬϬϱDĂLJĨŝĞůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨWĂůŽůƚŽĂŶĚ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁƐ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ ƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƚŽƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞŽĨĨŝĐĞͬZΘŐƌŽƐƐĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂĨƌŽŵĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƐŝƚĞƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚĨŽƌĐŽŶǀĞƌƐŝŽŶƚŽŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĞůƐĞǁŚĞƌĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ WĂƌŬ͘hŶĚĞƌ ƚŚŝƐ ŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ͕ ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ ŝƐ ƉĞƌŵŝƚƚĞĚ ƚŽ ĞdžĐĞĞĚ ƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚ njŽŶŝŶŐ ůŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŽŶĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƌĂƚŝŽďLJϮϱй͘ƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚ͕^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚĐŽƵůĚƵƉƐŝnjĞϯϰϬϲ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞǁŝƚŚĂϭϬϲ͕ϭϭϮƐĨ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ;ƵƉƚŽĂŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƌĂƚŝŽŽĨϬ͘ϯϳϱ͗ϭͿ͘EŽƚǁĂŶƚŝŶŐƚŽŽǀĞƌůŽĂĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞǁŝƚŚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͕^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚŚĂƐĐŽŶĐůƵĚĞĚƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƐĐĂůĞĂŶĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŝnjĞŝƐϴϮ͕ϬϯϬƐĨ;Ϭ͘Ϯϴϵ͗ϭ&ZͿ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞƐĞƌǀĞƐ ŵŽƌĞƐŝƚĞĂƌĞĂĨŽƌĞĐŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŶĂƚŝǀĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐĞŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŽƵƚĚŽŽƌĂŵĞŶŝƚLJƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘  y/^d/E'KE/d/KE dŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϮϴϮ͕ϵϲϲƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ;ϲ͘ϰϵϲĂĐƌĞƐнͬͲͿǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞZWͲϱ;ͿnjŽŶĞĂŶĚĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐĂĚƌĂŵĂƚŝĐ ƐůŽƉŝŶŐƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚLJ͘dŚĞ^ŝƚĞƐůŽƉĞƐƵƉǁĂƌĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĐŽƌŶĞƌŽĨ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚ͕ǁŝƚŚĂĨůĂƚ ƉůĂƚĞĂƵŝŶƚŚĞŵŝĚĚůĞǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚ͘dŚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞƐůŽƉĞŽĨƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐĂďŽǀĞϭϬй͘  dŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďƵŝůƚŽƵƚǁŝƚŚĂϲϮ͕ϱϬϬŐƐĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŶŽƚĂĐĂŶĚŝĚĂƚĞĨŽƌĂĚĂƉƚŝǀĞƌĞƵƐĞ͘dŚĞ ĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌŝƐƉĂƌƚŝĂůůLJďƵƌŝĞĚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŚŝůůƐŝĚĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚůLJĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞƐƚŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨŶĂƚƵƌĂůůŝŐŚƚĂŶĚ ĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌĂƌĞĂ͘dŚĞƉƌŝŽƌŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐ͕yĞƌŽdžWZĂŶĚĚƉŝy͕ƵƚŝůŝnjĞĚƚŚĞĨŝƌƐƚĨůŽŽƌĨŽƌŽŶͲŐƌĂĚĞ ,s͕ĐŚĞŵŝĐĂůƐƚŽƌĂŐĞ͕ĂŶĂĐŝĚŶĞƵƚƌĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƐLJƐƚĞŵ͕ĂŶĚĂƵƚŝůŝƚLJƉůĂŶƚ͘  dŚĞϱϬͲLJĞĂƌͲŽůĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐĂƌŐƵĂďůLJƚŚĞŵŽƐƚŽďƐŽůĞƚĞ͕ŽƵƚĚĂƚĞĚĂŶĚƵŶĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝŶ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ WĂƌŬ͘&ŽƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚĨŝǀĞLJĞĂƌƐ͕yĞƌŽdžWZŚĂƐĞŶĚĞĂǀŽƌĞĚƚŽƐƵďůĞĂƐĞƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĨŽƌΨϭ͘ϬϬͬƐĨͬŵŽŶƚŚ͕ďƵƚ ǁĂƐƵŶƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵů;ĚĞƐƉŝƚĞƚŚŝƐƐƚƌŽŶŐƌĞĂůĞƐƚĂƚĞĐLJĐůĞͿďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞƌĞĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĞĚĨŽƌĨůĞdžŝďůĞ ZΘͬŽĨĨŝĐĞůĂLJŽƵƚƐ͘  4.b Packet Pg. 135 Ϯ  ^/dW>E dŚĞŐƵŝĚŝŶŐƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞĨŽƌƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶǁĂƐƚŚĂƚĐĂƌĞĨƵůƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĨŽƌĂ ƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶŝŶƐĐĂůĞ͕ŵĂƐƐŝŶŐĂŶĚǀŝƐƵĂůĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞŝŶƚŚĞĐŽŶƚĞdžƚŽĨƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂŶĚŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůů͘ LJ ƐŝƚƵĂƚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ŶĞǁ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ ƉůĂƚĞĂƵ ŽŶ ƚŚĞ ^ŝƚĞ͕ ĚŝƐƚƵƌďĂŶĐĞ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ƐůŽƉŝŶŐ ƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚLJ ŝƐ ŵŝŶŝŵŝnjĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂƌĞĂĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůŝƐŵĂdžŝŵĂůůLJƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚĨŽƌŶĂƚŝǀĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘ dŚĞƐĞƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝĞƐĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͛ƐĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďŝůŝƚLJǁŝƚŚŝƚƐďƵŝůƚĂŶĚŶĂƚƵƌĂůĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐĨŽƌĂŶ ĂŵŽƵŶƚĂŶĚĂƌƌĂŶŐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞůĂƚŝǀĞƚŽŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞƚŚĂƚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶ͕ ǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐŶĞǁůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂŶĚŚĂƌĚƐĐĂƉĞŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘  dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚĂůƐŽĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞƐǁĂLJĨŝŶĚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͛ƐŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐĂŶĚǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ ĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚǁŽĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ͘dŚĞŵĂŝŶĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞŝƐĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞĨƌŽŵĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐŽŶŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚĂŶĚ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁ ǀĞŶƵĞ͕ŝƐǁĞůůĚĞĨŝŶĞĚďLJĂǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌĚƌŽƉͲŽĨĨĐŽƵƌƚ͕ĂŶĚĂƚǁŽͲƐƚŽƌLJŐůĂƐƐůŽďďLJƚŚĂƚŝƐĨůĂŶŬĞĚďLJĂĨƵƌŶŝƐŚĞĚ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƉĂƚŝŽƐĞĂƚŝŶŐŽŶŽŶĞƐŝĚĞĂŶĚƐŚŽƌƚͲƚĞƌŵĂŶĚůŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵďŝŬĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞ͘dŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJ ĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞŝƐƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůLJĨŽƌƚƌĂŶƐŝƚƌŝĚĞƌƐĂƌƌŝǀŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞďƵƐƐƚŽƉ͘tŝƚŚŶĞǁĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJ ƉĂƚŚǁĂLJƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞďƵƐƐƚŽƉƚŽƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐĂƚ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁĂŶĚŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůů͕ƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ͛ƐƐŝƚĞ ƉůĂŶĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌĞĂƐĞĂŶĚƐĂĨĞƚLJŽĨƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐ͕ďŝĐLJĐůĞĂŶĚƚƌĂŶƐŝƚƌŝĚĞƌƐ͘  KŶĂůůƐŝĚĞƐ͕ƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐƐĞƚďĂĐŬǁĞůůďĞLJŽŶĚƚŚĞŵŝŶŝŵƵŵƐĞƚͲďĂĐŬƐĨŽƌƚŚĞZWͲϱĚŝƐƚƌŝĐƚ͗ϴϬĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵ ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞĂůŽŶŐŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚ;ϳϬ͛ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵͿĂŶĚϭϮϮĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞĂůŽŶŐ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞ ;ϭϬϬ͛ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵͿ͕ϱϵĨĞĞƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚ;ϰϬ͛ƐŝĚĞͬƌĞĂƌLJĂƌĚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵͿ͕ĂŶĚϮϴϴ͛ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJůŝŶĞƚŽƚŚĞǁĞƐƚ;ϰϬ͛ƐŝĚĞͬƌĞĂƌLJĂƌĚŵŝŶŝŵƵŵͿ͘  ^/d^^͕/Zh>d/KEEWZ</E' dŚĞ ŬĞLJ ŐŽĂůƐ ŽĨ ƐŝƚĞ ĂĐĐĞƐƐ ĂŶĚ ĐŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ŵĂdžŝŵŝnjŝŶŐ ƐĂĨĞƚLJ ĂŶĚ ĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞ ĨŽƌ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐ ĂŶĚ ďŝĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚƐĂĨĞĂĐĐĞƐƐĨŽƌǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ͕ĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĐůĞĂƌǁĂLJĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞŵĂŝŶůŽďďLJĂŶĚ ĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞ͘  ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĨŽƌŽƌĚĞƌůLJ͕ƐĂĨĞĂŶĚƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĚǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͘dŚĞŵĂŝŶ ůŽďďLJŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚĞƌŶƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐǀŝĂƚǁŽĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐ͕ŽŶĞĨƌŽŵ ŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJŽŶ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞ͘dŚĞŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJĞŶƚƌLJŝƐƐŚŝĨƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ĞĂƐƚĨƌŽŵŝƚƐĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚǁŽƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐ͖ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚƐĂĨĞƚLJĂŶĚůŝŶĞŽĨƐŝŐŚƚĨƌŽŵĚƌŝǀĞƌƐĂĐƌŽƐƐŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůĂƚ ƚŚĞ ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ yĞƌŽdž WZ ĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJ ĂŶĚ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚ ǁĂLJĨŝŶĚŝŶŐ Ăƚ Ă ŵŽƌĞ ůŽŐŝĐĂů ŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ ŽĨ ƚǁŽ ŽƉƉŽƐŝŶŐ ĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJƐ͘dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞƐ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚ͛ƐŝŶƚĞŶƚƚŽƌĞͲĂƐƐŝŐŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůZŽĂĚĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞ͘  dŽŵĂdžŝŵŝnjĞƐĂĨĞƚLJĂŶĚĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶĐĞ͕ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞŵĂŝŶůŽďďLJŝƐƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐ͘dŚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƌŽƵƚĞĨƌŽŵĂŶĞǁƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬŽŶŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůƚŽƚŚĞŵĂŝŶůŽďďLJĂŶĚĂŵĞŶŝƚLJĂƌĞĂŝƐǁĞůůůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚǁŝƚŚ ƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐ͘dŚĞƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĨĂĐŝŶŐ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚǀŝĂĂŶ ĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞƌĂŵƉƚŽƚŚĞĚŽŽƌĂŶĚƉĂƚŝŽ͕ŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞ͘ůůĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚǁŝƚŚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͕ƐƉĞĐŝĂůƚLJƉĂǀŝŶŐ͕ůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƐŝŐŶĂŐĞ͘  sŝƐŝƚŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝƐĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚůLJůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞĂƌƌŝǀĂůĐŽƵƌƚ͘ ŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝƐĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚůLJůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚǁŽƐŝĚĞƐ;ǁĞƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘ŵƉůŽLJĞĞĂĐĐĞƐƐ ƚŽƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞĂƐƚĞĚŐĞŽĨƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͕ŝƐĂĐĐĞƐƐŝďůĞĨƌŽŵďŽƚŚ ŽLJŽƚĞ ,ŝůů ZŽĂĚ ĂŶĚ ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁ ǀĞŶƵĞ ĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐ͕ ĂŶĚ ǁŝůů ŶŽƚ ŝŶƚĞƌĨĞƌĞǁŝƚŚǀĞŚŝĐƵůĂƌŵŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŽŶ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁ ǀĞŶƵĞ͘ĞůŝǀĞƌLJƚƌƵĐŬƐŚĂǀĞĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽĂůŽĂĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚŐĂƌĂŐĞƌĂŵƉ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐǁĞůůͲ ƐĐƌĞĞŶĞĚĨƌŽŵǀŝĞǁĨƌŽŵ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͘  ŝŬĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚďŽƚŚŽŶƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĞĂƌƌŝǀĂůĐŽƵƌƚ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐŝŶĂƐĞĐƵƌĞĚĞŶĐůŽƐĞĚďŝĐLJĐůĞ ƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐŚĞůƚĞƌĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘ƚŽƚĂůŽĨϮϴďŝĐLJĐůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐϲƐŚŽƌƚͲƚĞƌŵ ďŝŬĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐ;ůŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝŶďŝŬĞƌĂĐŬƐͿĂŶĚϮϮůŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵďŝŬĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƐƉĂĐĞƐ;ůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶϴůŽĐŬĞƌƐĂƚŐƌĂĚĞĂŶĚϭϰďŝŬĞƌĂĐŬƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶĂƐĞĐƵƌĞĚďŝŬĞĞŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞŝŶƚŚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞͿ͘  sĞŚŝĐůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞĂƚĂƌĂƚŝŽŽĨϭ͗ϯϬϬ͕ƚŽƚĂůŝŶŐϮϳϰƐƉĂĐĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ϭϭϯŽĨ ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞďĞůŽǁͲŐƌĂĚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĞƌĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐϭϲϭƐƉĂĐĞƐǁŝůůďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂƚŐƌĂĚĞ͘ƚŽƚĂůŽĨϭϰ 4.b Packet Pg. 136 ϯ  ĞůĞĐƚƌŝĐǀĞŚŝĐůĞĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐĂƌĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐϲsĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞ ĂŶĚϴŝŶƚŚĞǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƌĞĂĂƚŐƌĂĚĞ͘  h/>/E'^/'E dŚĞŬĞLJŐŽĂůƐŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞƉƌŽŵŽƚŝŶŐĂĐƵůƚƵƌĞŽĨĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĨůŽŽƌƉůĂƚĞƐƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁ ĨŽƌŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĨůĞdžŝďŝůŝƚLJŝŶůĂLJŽƵƚĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͕ĐĞůĞďƌĂƚŝŶŐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĚĂLJůŝŐŚƚĂŶĚĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐĨŽƌ ƚŚĞŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐ͕ĂŶĚŵŝŶŝŵŝnjŝŶŐĞŶĞƌŐLJƵƐĞ͕ĂŵŽŶŐŽƚŚĞƌŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJŐŽĂůƐ͘  tŝƚŚĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĂƐƚŚĞĚƌŝǀŝŶŐŐŽĂů͕ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽƐƚŝŵƵůĂƚĞĂĐƵůƚƵƌĞŽĨŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶĂƌŽƵŶĚĂ ͞ƐŽĐŝĂůŚĞĂƌƚ͘͟dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐĚŝǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŽƚǁŽϳϱͲĨŽŽƚͲǁŝĚĞǁŝŶŐƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĞĚĂƌŽƵŶĚĂĐĞŶƚƌĂů͕ĚŽƵďůĞͲ ŚĞŝŐŚƚƐƉĂĐĞƚŚĂƚĨŽƌŵƐƚŚĞƐŽĐŝĂůĐŽƌĞ͘dŚŝƐƐƉĂĐĞďƌŝŶŐƐŶĂƚƵƌĂůůŝŐŚƚƚŽƚŚĞĚĞƉƚŚŽĨƚŚĞĨůĞdžŝďůĞĨůŽŽƌƉůĂƚĞ͕ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐŽƉĞŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶƚŚĞĨůŽŽƌƐ͘ŝƌĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƌĞƐƚƌŽŽŵĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞĨƵůůLJƉƵůůĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌĨƌĞĞĂŶĚĨůĞdžŝďůĞƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚŝƐƐŽĐŝĂůĐŽƌĞ͘ϯϬͲĨŽŽƚŐƌŝĚ͕ĚŝǀŝƐŝďůĞďLJϭϬͲ ĨŽŽƚƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŽĨĨŝĐĞŵŽĚƵůĞƐ͕ĨŽƌŵƐĂĨůĞdžŝďůĞůĂLJŽƵƚĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌĂŶĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶƚŚĂƚ ŵĂdžŝŵŝnjĞƐƚŚĞĂǀĂŝůĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƵŶĚĞƌŐƌŽƵŶĚƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͘  dŚĞ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ƵƐĞƐ ƐĞǀĞƌĂů ĚĞƚĂŝůƐ ƚŚĂƚ ĞŶŚĂŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ ĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂ͘ƚƚǁŽĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌĐŽƌŶĞƌƐ;ŽŶĞĨĂĐŝŶŐŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚĂŶĚŽŶĞĨĂĐŝŶŐƐŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚ ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůůͿŽŶĞͲƐƚŽƌLJǀŽůƵŵĞƐĐůĂĚŝŶǁŽŽĚͲĐŽŵƉŽƐŝƚĞƉĂŶĞůƐŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƚĞŶƚƌLJ͕ƐƚĞƉǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŚŝůůƐŝĚĞĂŶĚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƉĂƚŝŽƐƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐĞŶƐĞŽĨŝŶǀŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚLJĂŶĚǀŝĞǁƐŽĨƚŚĞďƵĐŽůŝĐƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƐ͘dŚĞƐĞ ŽŶĞͲƐƚŽƌLJĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐƉƌŽŵŽƚĞŚĂƌŵŽŶŝŽƵƐƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶƐŝŶƐĐĂůĞĂŶĚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂƐƚŚĞƉĂƐƐĞƌďLJ͕ǀŝƐŝƚŽƌŽƌĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞ ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞŵĂƐƐŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͘  /ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶƚŽĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐ͕ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐĞůĞďƌĂƚĞƐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĚĂLJůŝŐŚƚ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͛ƐŶŽƌƚŚͲĨĂĐŝŶŐ ĨĂĐĂĚĞ ŽƉƚŝŵŝnjĞƐ ĚĂLJůŝŐŚƚ ǁŚŝůĞ ŵŝŶŝŵŝnjŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ ĚŝƌĞĐƚ ƐƵŶůŝŐŚƚŝŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƉĂĐĞ͘ĂƐƚĞƌŶĂŶĚǁĞƐƚĞƌŶǁŝŶĚŽǁ ŽƉĞŶŝŶŐƐĂƌĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚĚĞĞƉƌŽŽĨŽǀĞƌŚĂŶŐƐĂŶĚƚƌĞůůŝƐĞƐ͘^ŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŽƉĞŶŝŶŐƐĂƌĞƌĞĚƵĐĞĚŝŶƐĐĂůĞĂŶĚ ƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŚŽƌŝnjŽŶƚĂůƐƵŶƐŚĂĚĞƐ͘WůĂnjĂĂƌĞĂƐ͕ŐĞŶĞƌŽƵƐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĂŶĚƉůĂŶŶĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĞĂƐ͕ĂŶĚĞdžƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶǁĂůŬƐĂƌĞŵĂĚĞƉŽƐƐŝďůĞďLJƉůĂĐŝŶŐĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐŝŶĂďĞůŽǁͲŐƌĂĚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞ͘  dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞƐŚŝŐŚƋƵĂůŝƚLJŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ƌŝĐŚƚĞdžƚƵƌĞƐ͕ĂŶĚǁĂƌŵĞĂƌƚŚͲƚŽŶĞĐŽůŽƌƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂ͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůLJĐůĂĚŝŶƚĞƌƌĂĐŽƚƚĂĂŶĚŚŝŐŚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞŐůĂnjŝŶŐƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ͘dŚĞ ŐůĂnjŝŶŐƐLJƐƚĞŵƐĞƌǀĞƐƚŽŵĂdžŝŵŝnjĞŶĂƚƵƌĂůůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ͕ŵŝŶŝŵŝnjĞƐŽůĂƌŚĞĂƚŐĂŝŶĂŶĚĚŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚĞŐůĂƐƐĨŽƌŵĂdžŝŵƵŵ ƉƌŝǀĂĐLJĂƚƚŚĞƉĞƌŝŵĞƚĞƌĂŶĚŵĂdžŝŵƵŵŽƉĞŶŶĞƐƐƚŽǁĂƌĚƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƚLJĂƌĚ͕ǁŚŝůĞŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞϰϬйŐůĂnjŝŶŐ ƌĂƚŝŽŽǀĞƌĂůů͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ǁŽŽĚƉĂŶĞůƌĂŝŶƐĐƌĞĞŶǁĂůůƐĂŶĚǁŽŽĚͲĐŽůŽƌĞĚƚƌĞůůŝƐĂŶĚƐƵŶƐŚĂĚĞƐĂĚĚƉĂƚƚĞƌŶ͕ƐĐĂůĞ͕ ĂŶĚĂƐĞŶƐĞŽĨǁĂƌŵƚŚƚŽƚŚĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞ͘dŚĞŵĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂůĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐĐƌĞĞŶƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶĞĚƚŽ ƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŝƌǀŝƐƵĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞůĂƌŐĞĂƌĞĂƐŽŶƚŚĞƌŽŽĨĨŽƌƉŚŽƚŽǀŽůƚĂŝĐƉĂŶĞůƐ͕ĂƐŵĂLJďĞŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚďLJ ƚŚĞƚĞŶĂŶƚ͘  ^h^d/E/>/dz^dZd'z dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƐƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJŝŶĂƌĞĂƐƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽĞŶĞƌŐLJĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ͕ǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌĞĨůĞĐƚƐĂĚĞƐŝŐŶĨŽƌĂϱϬнLJĞĂƌůŝĨĞƐƉĂŶǁŝƚŚĂ ƚŝŵĞůĞƐƐ ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂů ĞdžƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ĨůĞdžŝďůĞ ĨůŽŽƌ ƉůĂŶ ƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁƐ ĨŽƌ Ă ŵƵůƚŝƚƵĚĞ ŽĨ ƚĞŶĂŶƚƐ ĂŶĚ ƵƐĞ ĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĚĞĐĂĚĞƐƚŽĐŽŵĞ͘  dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚŵĞĞƚƐŽƌĞdžĐĞĞĚƐWĂůŽůƚŽdŝĞƌϮƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ͘hŶůŝŬĞƚŚĞĨŽƌŵĞƌƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞ͕ƚŚĞŶĞǁďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ŝƐƌŽƚĂƚĞĚƐŽƚŚĂƚŝƚƐůŽŶŐĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŝƐŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚƚŽĨĂĐĞŶŽƌƚŚ͘ŶĞƌŐLJĂŶĚĚĂLJůŝŐŚƚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐǁĂƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚƚŽŝŶĨŽƌŵ ƚŚĞƐŚĂƉĞŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ĚĂLJůŝŐŚƚƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐĂŶĚŵĞƚŚŽĚƐŽĨƐƵŶĐŽŶƚƌŽů͘dŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐŬŝŶŚĂƐďĞĞŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽ ĞdžĐĞĞĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĞŶĞƌŐLJĐŽĚĞƐďLJĂůůŽǁŝŶŐĨŽƌƐŵĂƌƚĚĂLJůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐĂŶĚƉĂƐƐŝǀĞƐŽůĂƌƐŚĂĚŝŶŐƚŽƉƌĞǀĞŶƚƐŽůĂƌŚĞĂƚŐĂŝŶ͘ dŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚĞdžƚĞŶĚƐƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJďĞLJŽŶĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŶŐƐĞǀĞƌĂůƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞŵŽƚŽƌǀĞŚŝĐůĞ ƚƌĂĨĨŝĐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐĞĐƵƌĞďŝĐLJĐůĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ͕ƐŚŽǁĞƌƐĂŶĚĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐĨĂĐŝůŝƚŝĞƐ͕>sĂŶĚĐĂƌƉŽŽůƐƉĂĐĞƐ͕sĐŚĂƌŐŝŶŐ ƐƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚůĂƐƚͲŵŝůĞĂŶĚůŽŶŐͲĚŝƐƚĂŶĐĞƐŚƵƚƚůĞĚƌŽƉŽĨĨ͘    4.b Packet Pg. 137 ϰ  ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĂŶĚŐƌĞĞŶďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗ x&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚĂŐĂŝŶƐƚĚŝƌĞĐƚƐƵŶǁŝƚŚĚĞĞƉƌŽŽĨŽǀĞƌŚĂŶŐƐ͕ĞdžƚĞƌŝŽƌƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞůůŝƐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚŚŽƌŝnjŽŶƚĂů ƐƵŶƐŚĂĚĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĂůƵŵŝŶƵŵĐƵƌƚĂŝŶǁĂůůƐLJƐƚĞŵĂƚƐŽƵƚŚ͕ĞĂƐƚ͕ĂŶĚǁĞƐƚĨĂĐĂĚĞƐ͘ x,ŝŐŚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ͕ůŽǁͲĞŵŝƐƐŝǀŝƚLJŐůĂnjŝŶŐŝƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ͘dŚĞƌŵĂůůLJďƌŽŬĞŶĐƵƌƚĂŝŶǁĂůůĂŶĚǁŝŶĚŽǁ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐĂƌĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞƌŵĂůďƌŝĚŐŝŶŐ͘ x,ŝŐŚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĞŶǀĞůŽƉĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƌŝŐŝĚ͞ŽƵƚƐŽůĂƚŝŽŶ͕͟ĐŽŽůƌŽŽĨĂŶĚƌŽŽĨŝŶƐƵůĂƚŝŽŶďĞLJŽŶĚĐŽĚĞ ŵŝŶŝŵƵŵ;ZͲϯϲ͕ƚLJƉͿ͘ x,ŝŐŚĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJ>ůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐŝƐƵƐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĂŶĚƐŝƚĞůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ͘ x>ŽǁͲĨůŽǁƉůƵŵďŝŶŐĂŶĚƐŚŽǁĞƌĨŝdžƚƵƌĞƐĂƌĞƵƐĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ͘ x^ƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂůƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞĚ;ďĞůŽǁͲŐƌĂĚĞͿƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂůůŽǁƐĨŽƌŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌ ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĂƌĞĂƐ͘ xƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůĂƚƚƌĂĐƚŝǀĞďŝŽͲƌĞƚĞŶƚŝŽŶďĂƐŝŶƐ͘dŚĞƐĞďĂƐŝŶƐĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŚŝŐŚůLJǀŝƐŝďůĞƉƌĞƐĞŶĐĞ ǁŚŝůĞƉĞƌĨŽƌŵŝŶŐƚŚĞǀŝƚĂůĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĐĂƉƚƵƌŝŶŐ͕ƌĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐĂŶĚƚƌĞĂƚŝŶŐƐƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌƚŚĂƚĨĂůůƐŽŶƚŽŝŵƉĞƌǀŝŽƵƐ ƐƵƌĨĂĐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘ xƌŽƵŐŚƚ ƚŽůĞƌĂŶƚ ĂŶĚ ŶĂƚŝǀĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ ƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐ ŝƐ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞĚƵĐĞŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶǁĂƚĞƌƵƐĂŐĞŽŶƐŝƚĞǁŚŝůĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƐŚĂĚŝŶŐĂŶĚƵƐĂďůĞŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐƉĂĐĞƐ͘ x&ĞŶĞƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽŵĂdžŝŵŝnjĞǀŝĞǁƐĂŶĚĚĂLJůŝŐŚƚĨŽƌƚŚĞĐŽŵĨŽƌƚŽĨƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐ͘ xZŽŽĨƚŽƉWsŝƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĨŽƌϱйŽĨĞŶĞƌŐLJůŽĂĚ͕ĂŶĚŝŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŝƐĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĂŵƵĐŚůĂƌŐĞƌ ƐŽůĂƌƉŚŽƚŽǀŽůƚĂŝĐĂƌƌĂLJďLJĂĨƵƚƵƌĞƚĞŶĂŶƚ͘ x'ŝǀĞŶ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚŝƐƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͕ƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞƚĞŶĂŶƚǁŝůůƉĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞŝŶƚŚĞ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝƚƐƉůĞƚŚŽƌĂŽĨƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶĚĞŵĂŶĚŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͘ xŝƌĚͲ&ƌŝĞŶĚůLJĞƐŝŐŶ͗ƐŝŶĂůůƌĞĐĞŶƚ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚƌĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ^ƚĂŶĨŽƌĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWĂƌŬ͕ƚŚĞWƌŽũĞĐƚ ĚĞƐŝŐŶ ĂŶĚ ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ ŚĂǀĞ ďĞĞŶ ƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞĚƵĐĞ ƚŚĞ ůŝŬĞůŝŚŽŽĚ ŽĨ ďŝƌĚ ƐƚƌŝŬĞƐ͘ dŚĞ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͛Ɛ ĚĞĞƉĞƌ ĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚƐǁŝůůƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞǀŝƐŝďŝůŝƚLJƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŐůĂƐƐƚŽŽƚŚĞƌŽƵƚĚŽŽƌĂƌĞĂƐ͘/ŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽƌŶĞƌƐĂƌĞ ƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůLJĐůĂĚŝŶƐŽůŝĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐƚŽĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨ͞ƐŚŽƌƚĐƵƚ͟ƐŝŐŚƚůŝŶĞƐƚŚĂƚŵŝŐŚƚďĞŝŶǀŝƚŝŶŐƚŽ ďŝƌĚƐ͘dŚĞůĂƌŐĞƐƚĂƌĞĂƐŽĨŐůĂƐƐĂƌĞŚĞĂǀŝůLJŵŽĚƵůĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŵƵůůŝŽŶƐ͕ƐƉĂŶĚƌĞůƉĂŶĞůƐ͕ĂŶĚƐƵŶƐŚĂĚĞƐƚŽ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůĐƵĞƐƚŽĚŝƐĐŽƵƌĂŐĞďŝƌĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐ͘  >E^W^/'E dŚĞŬĞLJŐŽĂůƐĨŽƌƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŶŐĂŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĐŽŶƚĞdžƚĨŽƌƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐ ĂŶĚĞŶŚĂŶĐŝŶŐŶĂƚƵƌĂůĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐŽŶƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͕ƵƚŝůŝnjŝŶŐŶĂƚŝǀĞ͕ĚƌŽƵŐŚƚƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶƚƉůĂŶƚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƚŚĂƚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĚĞƐŝƌĂďůĞ ŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͕ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐŽƵƚĚŽŽƌŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶũŽLJŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞǁŽƌŬŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘  dŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚƐĐĂƉĞĞĚŐĞĂůŽŶŐ,ŝůůǀŝĞǁǀĞŶƵĞĂŶĚŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůů ZŽĂĚƚŽƚŚĞKĂŬŐƌĂƐƐůĂŶĚƐŽŶƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůů͘,ŝŐŚͲǀĂůƵĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƚƌĞĞƐĂƌĞƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞŽLJŽƚĞ ,ŝůůZŽĂĚĨƌŽŶƚĂŐĞĂŶĚŚŝůůƐŝĚĞĂƌĞĂƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞĐŽŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŶĞǁŶĂƚŝǀĞ͕ĚƌŽƵŐŚƚƚŽůĞƌĂŶƚƚƌĞĞƐĂŶĚƐŚƌƵď ƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ͕ĂƌƌĂŶŐĞĚŝŶŝŶĨŽƌŵĂůŵĂƐƐŝŶŐƐƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐĞĂƐŽŶĂůĐŽůŽƌĂŶĚƚĞdžƚƵƌĂůĐŽŵƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ͘EĞǁƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐƐĐĂŶďĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌůLJŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĞĚĂŶĚĂƌĞĚƌŽƵŐŚƚͲƌĞƐŝƐƚĂŶƚƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƐƵŵƉƚŝŽŶ͘  dŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂďŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůďĞŶĞĨŝƚƚŽƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞ͕ĂƐǁĞůůĂƐĨĂĐŝůŝƚĂƚĞĂŶĂƚƵƌĂůƚƌĂŶƐŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƚƵŶŶŝŶŐŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůů ůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ͕ƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞŝƐŶŽƚŽŶůLJƌĞƚĂŝŶĞĚ͕ďƵƚĞŶŚĂŶĐĞĚ͕ĂƐŶĂƚŝǀĞŚĂďŝƚĂƚ͕ĂƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽ ŝƚƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĚĞŐƌĂĚĞĚĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ͘EĞǁŶĂƚŝǀĞƉůĂŶƚƐ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĞĞƐ͕ƐŚƌƵďƐ͕ƉĞƌĞŶŶŝĂůƐĂŶĚŐƌĂƐƐĞƐ͕ǁŝůůĞŶŚĂŶĐĞ ƚŚĞĂƌĞĂ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐƚĞdžƚƵƌĞƐĂŶĚĐŽůŽƌƐĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂŶĚĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞŽŶŽLJŽƚĞ,ŝůů͘ EĂƚŝǀĞƉůĂŶƚƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽĨŚŝŐŚǀĂůƵĞƚŽǁŝůĚůŝĨĞĂƌĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐƉůĂŶƚŽĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĞŶŚĂŶĐĞƚŚĞƐƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ ŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĞĐŽƐLJƐƚĞŵ͘  ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďůĞ ĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ ĂŶĚ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌ ŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚŝĞƐ ĂƌĞ ŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚ ƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚ ƚŚĞ ƐŝƚĞ ƉůĂŶ͕ ŐŝǀŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ WƌŽũĞĐƚ ĂŵƉůĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJƚŽƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjĞǁĂƚĞƌĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚĞŶĞƌŐLJĞĨĨŝĐŝĞŶĐLJŝŶƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůĂŶĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ ƐLJƐƚĞŵƐ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘ dŚĞ ƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶͲŽƌŝĞŶƚĞĚ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌ ƐƉĂĐĞƐĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞ ǁĞůůŶĞƐƐ ĂŶĚ ĞŶũŽLJŵĞŶƚ ĨŽƌ ƚŚĞ ŽĐĐƵƉĂŶƚƐ͘,ĂƌĚƐĐĂƉĞƐƉĂĐĞƐĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĞŶƚƌLJƉůĂnjĂƐ͕ƐĞĐŽŶĚ ĨůŽŽƌƚĞƌƌĂĐĞƐ͕ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐĞĂƚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐĂŶĚǁŝŶĚŽǁŐĂƌĚĞŶƐǁŝƚŚǀŝĞǁƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ͘ZŝĐŚƉĂǀŝŶŐ ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ ĨůŽǁĞƌŝŶŐ ŐĂƌĚĞŶƐ͕ ƐŽĨƚ ůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ ĂŶĚ ƐĞĂƚŝŶŐ ĂƌĞĂƐ ĐŽŵďŝŶĞ ƚŽ ǁĞůĐŽŵĞ ƉĞŽƉůĞ ƚŽ ĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞ ƚŚĞ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐ͘dŚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐĂƌĞĂƐĂƌĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĂƐŵƵĐŚŽĨƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐǀĞŐĞƚĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚLJĂƐ ƉŽƐƐŝďůĞ͘ 4.b Packet Pg. 138 Stanford Real Estate Office 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 TRANSMITTAL  To: Graham Owen From: Jim Inglis / Lisa Lu City of Palo Alto Phone: 650-868-0150 / 650-206-3935 Planning & Community Environment Date: May 31, 2018 250 Hamilton Avenue 5th floor – City Hall Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: 3406 Hillview; Site and Design Review; 17PLN-00438 ARB Meeting on 5/3/18 – Board member comments Resubmittal of ARB package – Response Letter and Drawings Attached are the following documents: A. Response Letter from Studios Architecture dated 5/21/18 (one e-copy, 11 hard copies) B. Revised drawing set by Studios Architecture dated 5/31/18 (one e-copy, 11 half size copies) 4.b Packet Pg. 139               THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK       4.b Packet Pg. 140 1 Date: May 21, 2018 To: Graham Owen City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Fifth Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cc: Jim Inglis, Office of Stanford Real Estate Tiffany Griego, Office of Stanford Real Estate James Winstead, The Guzzardo Partnership Douglas Petersen, BKF Project: 3406 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto, CA Site and Design Review; 17PLN-00438 Re-submittal of ARB package - Response Letter Dear Graham, We appreciate the action notes you’ve shared following the ARB Hearing on May 3rd, 2018. We are pleased to present this package in response. We feel that the comments and feedback from the ARB have helped us to improve the project. Our responses to the action notes are highlighted in Red. 1. Street corner needs a more inviting entrance. a. Stairway from Hillview has been redesigned to include two large perpendicular landings, and to include amenities at the landings. The redesign includes pavers at landings, concrete at stairs, Ipe wood bench elements added to the top of the seat walls, and some portions of benches with backs and arms for comfort and ease of use. Coast Live Oaks are planted along the stairway, providing shade. The seating, shade and lighting will further encourage activity at the corner. Stair is shifted from the corner to improve the connection with the street. 2. Stairway from street corner: a. Need a drawing that shows all proposed trees. Rendering updated to show all proposed trees. b. Midpoint of stairs needs a small gather space with benches with backs, also add seating along Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Ave. See item 1a regarding bench design improvements. Several seating areas are provided in key locations on the site for use by the tenants. With respect to the request for seating along the public right of way on Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue, Stanford is concerned that it could become a public nuisance and not an amenity for the occupants of the 405 Howard Street, Suite 488 San Francisco, CA 94105 415 398 7575 www.studios.com 4.b Packet Pg. 141 2 building. It would also have significant grade challenges and require substantial retaining walls. c. Stair should terminate at the middle of building to enhance entrance. The offset connection of this stair allows it to comfortably serve both the east employee entrance and the building’s main (west) entrance, both of which are important for pedestrian and public transportation access. Further, the stair in this orientation co-terminates with a ramp which is a required accessible approach to the site. The east entrance is enhanced with a small entry plaza area, seating/furniture amenities, accent lighting, and planter accents etc. to make it a very welcome approach and to help reinforce way-finding (similar to main entry at West façade). 3. South elevation (back side) a. Show mature landscaping in perspective. Landscaping is more representative in revised rendering. b. Enhance use of materials to match quality of other elevations. Added areas of Prodema (wood wall) paneling to increase the warmth of this façade as well as to provide better scale to the facade. Horizontal sunshades are now the wood color (made more consistent with other elevations) and additional horizontal sunshades are also added for additional texture, color, and reduced heat gain. 4. More integration of green infrastructure for visible storm water treatment (need diagram of stormwater features). Stormwater treatment areas are now treated as a recurring design feature adjacent to circulation entry points and high-lighted with a distinctive palette of unique planting materials and natural stone boulders. A new diagram is provided to illustrate this proposed design. 5. Reduce height of the roof screen. Roof screen height is approximately 8’-4” above the roof coping at the north side (allowed up to 15’-0”) and has been reduced in height by 3’-2” from what was previously shown. This lower height and the relatively small footprint of roofscreen area are made possible by use of an ultra-high efficiency HVAC unit and efficient building envelope. The roof screen is located toward the north east corner of the building for several critical reasons: a. To reserve optimal roof area for future PV array capacity. b. To more efficiently connect to infrastructure and utility services which are entering the site in the Southeast corner of the project. c. Interior shaft and toilet core areas need to be located immediately beneath the roofscreen area (for ventilation shaft, for hot water service, and to conceal exhaust vents), and our interior planning concept includes a very open expression near the main entrance at the west. If we moved these core elements further east, they would disrupt the open expression at the entrance and limit floor plan flexibility required for highly collaborative R&D / technology tenants. d. Sectional studies have been provided to illustrate the sight lines of the roof screen from key adjacent points. 6. Screen view of parking lot from Coyote Hill Road (need detail section and/or perspective) a. An enlarged view of the planting plan and imagery have been provided to clarify the design intent in this area. Perspective sketches for views from Coyote Hill Rd. towards the site have been included to represent the planting and grading 4.b Packet Pg. 142 3 relationships in this area. 7. Finger islands - would be nice to make these a less formal shape a. A diagram is provided highlighting variety in tree planting through parking areas. Making the parking lot finger islands a less regular shape while also meeting the City’s parking lot design guidelines would require more paved surface and require the overall footprint of the parking lot to expand. The islands are per City standard, however, the organic form of the parking lot offsets the potential impact from this requirement. Furthermore, the variety in height, texture, and species of the plant palette enhance the plan and make these feel less formal. Renderings are updated to better reflect this design. 8. Bird safe glass - explain how this compares to Audubon and San Francisco standards. Based upon a review of these standards and others, bird-friendly design measures may include: a substantial reduction in the amount of glassy material used in the building’s design; use of low-reflectance glazing; avoidance of glazing that reflects the sky and surrounding vegetation; incorporation of visual cues and visual texture to glass facades to alert birds of the structure (such as roof overhangs, trellises, sunshades, extended mullions); avoidance of see-through situations such as transparent skyways and free standing walls; and avoidance or reduction of light emissions. a. Siting of building / Architectural Design i. Building is positioned further east on site than the existing building (further away from Coyote Hill open space). ii. Building designed with a deep floor plate and more solid wall at corners to minimize “shortcut” attempts iii. The proposed building has a diverse mix of solid walls and textured facades. Façade is designed with a variety of materials and variation in plane of materials, including widened and extended mullion caps and extensive areas of horizontal sunshades which help alert birds to the building’s presence and slow them down as they approach. b. Lighting i. Site (exterior) lighting is designed with full cut-off fixtures that only direct light downwards. ii. Non-emergency site lighting is on motion & daylight sensors to reduce energy consumption and attracting birds in the evening hours. iii. Site lighting is specified as a warmer spectrum 3500K light temperature which is less attractive to birds than the cooler “daylight” spectrum light. Exterior lighting is focused on providing appropriate lighting for primary entries and for egress only. iv. Tenant Guidelines will require that interior lights are motion controlled and will shut off outside of normal hours of business use. c. Glazing i. We have increased areas of fritted glass design, solid/spandrel areas, and areas of glass treated with sunshades. ii. The specified glazing VNE 1-63 has only 10% Exterior Reflectance, while still providing excellent energy efficiency plus a high bandwidth of visual light into the building. (Typical low-reflectance glazing ranges from 10 to 20%, with mirror glass typically being 30% and higher.) 4.b Packet Pg. 143 4 iii. Glazing areas are mitigated with a variety of treatments: areas of ceramic frit pattern, widened and extended mullion caps, trellis and horizontal sunshade elements, parapet walls, and deep roof overhangs all add to the texture of the façade and will tend to slow birds down as they approach. Additional mullions have been added to design to reduce largest areas of unbroken glass. Graham, we would welcome any suggestions and would be happy to provide any further information you feel might be helpful to the Architectural Review Board. A substantial amount of work has been invested into this project and into taking these comments very seriously. Again we feel that this process has improved the project design and appreciate the insights that have been offered to date. Looking forward to working with you again towards the upcoming hearing on June 21st. Warm regards, Jason McCarthy, AIA Principal 4.b Packet Pg. 144 ATTACHMENT C.1 ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3406 Hillview Avenue 17PLN-00438 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Research / Office Park. The project proposes an office / research and development (R&D) building in an area surrounded by other office / R&D uses. The designation allows for research and manufacturing uses, and an R&D building is therefore consistent with the designation and would be compatible with the surrounding development. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces. The project is a contemporary R&D building at the southern end of the Stanford Research Park, which is a major employment center in the City. The project would replace a functionally obsolete building on the site, and would provide several landscaped open space and traffic-mitigating amenity spaces. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, The project proposes a two story building in an area surrounded by other two-story office / R&D buildings. The project would be compatible with the surrounding uses and 4.c Packet Pg. 145 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan efficient development pattern. overall scale of the neighborhood. Policy L-1.10: Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet of office/R&D development, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis. Require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and determine whether the cap and the development requirements should be adjusted. Continue to exempt medical, governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development. The project includes 18,030 net new square feet of office/R&D use on the site. This increase is designated Replacement Square Footage subject to the Mayfield Development Agreement, and does not count towards the citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The project complies with all development standards for the zoning district and presents a high quality design that constructs a new pedestrian walkway along the Coyote Hill Road frontage. All potential impacts to adjacent development and the environment are mitigated through compatible site design and with the adherence to the Mayfield Development Agreement MMRP as detailed in the Environmental Analysis for the project. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. The project would demolish the existing building on the site and construct a new R&D building. The applicant has indicated that the existing building is difficult to lease due to its inflexible floor plan and that a new building is more desirable. Policy L2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project includes large street setbacks that would be filled with trees, shrubs, and other greenery to enhance the appearance of the site. Several outdoor plazas, both on the ground level and second story, would provide amenities for future building occupants. Stormwater infiltration facilities are placed 4.c Packet Pg. 146 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan around the site to capture runoff from the building an parking lot, and have been incorporated into the landscape plan. Additionally, a large portion of the rear of the site will remain in a semi-natural state and allowed to revert to a native landscape. Safety Element Program S3.1.1-1: Continue City permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials and regulate the commercial use of hazardous materials that may present a risk of off-site health or safety effects. Program S3.1.3: Strengthen development review requirements and construction standards for projects on sites with groundwater contamination. The existing facility has undergone formal facility closure procedures with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and the Palo Alto Fire Department. Soil testing indicates the project is located on a site with suspected soil and soil gas contamination due to the detection of Volatile Organic Compounds. In accordance with the Mayfield Development Agreement EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the applicant has provided a Site Management Plan that details steps that will be taken to protect human health from potential risks associated with soil and soil gas contamination during demolition and redevelopment. Further soil testing will be conducted post-demolition in order to further evaluate site conditions underneath the existing concrete slab. If contaminated soils are discovered, the applicant will be required per the conditions of approval to ensure construction workers, future occupants, and surrounding occupants would not be impacted by current or future soil vapor intrusion, as further documented in the associated MMRP. Transportation Element Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. The site is located in the southern portion of the Stanford Research Park, and is located relatively far from the Caltrain stations at University Avenue and California Avenue. However, site planning has prioritized a 4.c Packet Pg. 147 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan connection to the adjacent bus stop to make transit a more attractive and viable option for future building occupants. Moreover, the sidewalk addition along Coyote Hill Road will allow for better site connectivity. Staff has included a condition of approval to ensure that all future tenants that future tenants join the SRP Transportation Management Association, which will provide access to a variety of TDM resources. Policy T-5.6: Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. The project includes a below-grade parking structure beneath the building that contains slightly less than half of the project’s required vehicle parking. Mechanized parking is not proposed with the redevelopment. The surface parking is relegated to the site rear and is broken up into two terraces, with landscaping proposed throughout to shade the impervious surfaces. Runoff would be treated in a series of stormwater infiltration areas. The project is consistent with the development standards for the Research Park zone, including height, floor area ratio, setbacks, daylight planes and lot coverage. The project provides a unified architectural style with a number of high-quality materials, and is consistent with the surrounding development patterns. In addition, the design of the project as conditioned is internally consistent. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed project is located in the Stanford Research Park and is surrounded by several corporate office/R&D campuses. Buildings in the vicinity are generally two stories in height. The project would 4.c Packet Pg. 148 mirror this existing land use pattern, while providing the required setbacks and enhanced landscaping along the public rights-of-way adjacent to the site. The project proposes to keep the southwest corner of the site undeveloped, which provides a transition from the adjacent open space use. Internally, the project provides an intuitive sense of order, with surface parking relegated to the rear and stairs and paths providing pedestrian access throughout the site. The building includes a unified, contemporary style with a hillside-appropriate palette. All four sides of the building provide appropriate visual attention. The project’s design is consistent with the Performance Criteria for the Research Park zone, and responds appropriately the surrounding uses and structures. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The surrounding area includes a variety of architectural styles that range from mid-century modern tilt-up construction to more recent contemporary themes. The project includes a palette of high quality materials, including terra cotta and wood paneling, as well as glass curtain walls and aluminum mullions and edges. The design fits within the hillside context, and appropriately balances heavier and lighter elements. The architecture would be consistent with the Research Park context and would represent a significant betterment of the site over the existing building. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design includes two points of access for vehicles entering and leaving the site on Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue, which is desirable given the size of the site and its location near the intersection of Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue. The project eliminates an existing curb cut and drive aisle located near the intersection, which will improve vehicle circulation and access management. The project enhances site connectivity by constructing a new sidewalk along the Coyote Hill Road frontage and reconstructing the sidewalk along Hillview with a new planter strip. A variety of pedestrian staircases and ramps provide universal access throughout the site, and work with the semi-natural topography. The project provides adequate short term and long term bicycle parking near the building entrances and in the parking garage respectively, which are appropriate and functional locations that will encourage cycling. Open space is provided along the street frontages as required by the City setback requirements, as well as in the upper terrace area adjacent to the Coyote Hill open space area. 4.c Packet Pg. 149 Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project includes substantial frontage, patio, and parking lot landscaping that are both aesthetically pleasing and functional. The design includes multiple stormwater infiltration facilities that capture and treat runoff on-site and allow for groundwater recharge. The project’s landscaping includes primarily native and drought-tolerant trees, shrubs, and perennials suitable to the area and the hillside open space context. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures including storm water drainage, topsoil protection, electric vehicle charging outlets, other water efficiency and conservation measures and the use of low odor and off-gassing materials in construction and finishes. 4.c Packet Pg. 150 ATTACHMENT C.2 SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES 3406 Hillview Avenue, 17PLN-00438 The ARB shall review the site plan and drawings, and shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following Site and Design objectives, as required in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC and as modified by Section 6.3.9 of the Mayfield Development Agreement. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project is consistent with Objective (a) as it redevelops a site used historically for research and development with a new building in an area surrounded by similar developments. The site is ordered intuitively, with the building located at the street setback lines and functional areas, such as parking and loading spaces, relegated to the rear of the site. The site plan provides for substantial open space in the rear southwest corner of the property in order to protect the semi-natural state of this area, and while also providing appropriate setback and transition to the open space/agricultural use on the Coyote Hill property. Lighting, tree preservation, and new landscaping in this open space area would work to enhance the environmental value of this area, and would be compatible with the adjacent uses. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project is consistent with Objective (b) as it proposes a new office/R&D building that would replace an obsolete building that the applicant has found difficult to market to prospective tenants. The project would provide future tenants with a range of floor plan options and a number of natural and occupational amenities, which will support the office/R&D function and enhance the desirability of the site for future occupants. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The project is consistent with Objective (c) as it utilizes a compatible palette consistent with the hillside setting, provides “solar ready” areas on the roof, and uses high performance and energy efficient materials that would exceed code requirements. The site planning retains a semi-natural open space area at the site rear that provides habitat value and is reverting to the native ecology of the hillside setting. The project would include the use of drought-tolerant, native plants throughout the site that would complement the existing plants and further enhance the habitat value across the site. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As detailed in the ARB findings for approval in Attachment C, the project is consistent with Objective (d) as the use is in accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which allows for research and manufacturing uses in the Research/Office Park designation. 4.c Packet Pg. 151 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3406 Hillview Avenue 17PLN-00438 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1.CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, 3406 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on February 5, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2.BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3.BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4.TRAFFIC MITIGATING AMENITY SPACE. The approved 83,030 sf building shall include a minimum of 1,000 sf of amenity space to ensure conformance with the allowed FAR for the property. The plans submitted for tenant improvement building permit shall include a floor plan describing the use of the 1,000 square feet of traffic mitigating amenity space. The space may include, but is not limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias, day care centers, automated teller machines, convenience stores, and onsite laundry facilities, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 5.MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project is associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A. The MMRP is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document and as further detailed in site-specific technical reports provided with the application. 6.BIRD FRIENDLY BUILDING DESIGN. The project shall incorporate bird-safe glazing treatment that may include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. In some cases, bird-friendly treatment is invisible to humans. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. The applicant should reference the San Francisco Guidelines for Bird-Safe Buildings: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2506. 7.VAPOR INTRUSION PREVENTION. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for City of Palo Alto review the design of engineering controls, and sufficient information about construction and operation parameters as are determined by City and/or County of Santa Clara 4.d Packet Pg. 152 Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control to be needed to assure that the future occupants would not be impacted by current or future soil vapor intrusion. Common engineering controls that could be installed beneath the proposed structures and within the underground parking garage to prevent soil vapor intrusion into the structures include soil vapor barriers placed beneath the proposed structure and installation of an exhaust ventilation system in the parking garage, engineered to ventilate VOCs in addition to vehicle exhaust. The engineering controls shall be routinely inspected per equipment specifications to ensure proper functioning and that the system components have not degraded. The system shall include a monitoring device or alarm to alert the facility manager if the system fails. 8. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION. Employers at 3406 Hillview Avenue shall participate in the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association or any successor Transportation Management Association that is designed to reduce employee commute trips to and from the Stanford Research Park. The property owner shall ensure this condition is included in all lease agreements in order to streamline implementation. 9. 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. 10. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 11. 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. 12. MAYFIELD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The project includes 19,500 square feet of the total Mayfield 300,000 square feet that can be relocated (replacement square footage). No impact fees are due for this square footage. A total of 19,262 replacement square feet currently remains which may be relocated throughout the Stanford Research Park. 13. 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 4.d Packet Pg. 153 revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 14. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 15. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). 16. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 17. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 18. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 4.d Packet Pg. 154 19. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 20. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 21. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 22. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 23. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 24. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to grading or building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 25. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, 4.d Packet Pg. 155 concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. 26. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: As applicant is proposing to connect the site’s discharge directly into the City Storm Drain system, please provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 27. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 28. PAVEMENT: Hillview Ave was resurfaced in 2011 & Coyote Hill Road was resurfaced in 2015. These streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Hillview Avenue and Coyote Hill Road based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 29. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION 30. On sheet L4.1 add a column to show the number of each species to be planted. 4.d Packet Pg. 156 31. On sheet L5.0 the total trees removed in the table should be 82, not 80. Other entries in the table appear to be consistent with numbers in the tree protection report. 32. On sheet L5.2 in the executive summary of the tree protection report, correct the number of protected trees to show 28, not 27. 33. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree. d. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 34. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” 4.d Packet Pg. 157 d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 35. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 36. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 37. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. UTILITIES – ELECTRICAL 38. The existing transformer on site is a 2500KVA unit, vintage 2003, and as a relatively new unit, can likely be reused for the new building, pending submittal of loading requirements. The newly proposed vault locations are satisfactory. UTILITILES - WATER,GAS,WASTEWATER 39. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads. 4.d Packet Pg. 158 40. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 41. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 42. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 43. 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. 44. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 45. 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. 46. 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. 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 4.d Packet Pg. 159 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. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. GREEN BUILDING 50. CALGreen Checklist: The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant must indicate the requirements on the Planning Application. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 51. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. 52. Energy Efficiency: If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. Performance Approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building includes a 5kW or greater photovoltaic system. Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) 53. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet, then the must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 54. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a non-residential building alteration with a permit value of $200,000 or more, then the project must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. (2016 CGBC Section 301.3, Chapter 5). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The requirements are subject to inspection. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 55. Commissioning: If the project is a new building over 10,000 square feet, then the project must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code section 5.410.2 for 4.d Packet Pg. 160 Planning Approval. The project team shall re-submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) in accordance with section 5.410.2.1 with an updated Basis of Design (BOD) in accordance with 5.410.2.2 that reflects the design elements finalized between Planning Approval and Permit Submittal. The project shall also submit a Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 56. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 57. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 58. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 59. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the rehabilitated non-residential project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area of greater than or equal to 2,500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). See MWELO Submittal Guidelines. 60. Construction & Demolition: If the project is a nonresidential new construction or renovation project and has a value exceeding $25,000, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 61. Construction & Demolition: If the project includes non-residential demolition, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction- Tier 2 Mandatory for all nonresidential construction include new construction, additions, and alteration, as long as the construction has a valuation exceeding $25,000. PAMC 16.14.370 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 62. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: If the project is a new non-residential structure, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5324. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5324 for EVSE definitions, 4.d Packet Pg. 161 minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.430 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54976 for additional details. 63. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 4.d Packet Pg. 162 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLES 3406 Hillview Avenue, 17PLN-00438 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (RP-5 DISTRICT) Regulation Provided Required Minimum Site Area, Width, and Depth 6.5 acres, 325 feet width, and 707 feet depth 5 acres, 250 feet width, and 250 feet depth Minimum Front Yard 150 feet 100 feet Minimum Rear Yard 345 feet 40 feet Interior Side Yard 60 feet 40 feet Street Side Yard 80 feet 70 feet Max. Site Coverage 16% (45,110 sf) Mayfield Agreement allows for 25% coverage, or 70,742 sf Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.28:1 (82,030 sf + 1,000 sf amenity space Mayfield Agreement allows for 0.375:1 (106,112 sf) Max. Building Height 34.75 feet 35 feet (with additional 15 feet for mechanical and screen) Daylight Plane N/A N/A Employee Showers 16 showers R&D: 50,000 sf and up requires 4 showers Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Administrative Office and Research & Development uses* Type Provided Required Vehicle Parking 274 spaces 1 per 300 sf of gross floor area (274 spaces) Bicycle Parking 49 bike spaces (43 long term and 6 short term) 1 per 3,000 sf (80% long term, 20% short term = 28 spaces (22 long term, 6 short term) Loading Space 1 space 1 loading space for 50,000-99,999 sf * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 4.e Packet Pg. 163 Page 1 of 4 ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 CITY OF PALO ALTO/STANFORD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND LEASE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Date: June 4, 2018 Project Name: City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project; 3406 Hillview Avenue SCH #: 2003082103 Project Location: 3406 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California Applicant/Owner: Stanford University This document is an Addendum to the approved City Of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report (“Mayfield DA EIR”) and has been prepared to address a changed circumstance. The applicant and the City have prepared technical reports to analyze the potential for environmental impacts on the site. The change has been determined not to create any additional impacts compared to those identified in the Mayfield DA EIR. ANALYSIS: Cultural Resources: The building proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new building under the Mayfield Development Agreement has reached 51 years of age, and must be analyzed for potential impacts to historic resources. According to CEQA, properties identified in an historical resource survey are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a property is not historically or culturally significant. Also according to CEQA, a project that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would not have a significant adverse impact on a resource. Demolition of this building was analyzed in a Historic Resource Analysis analyzed and determined not to constitute a new significant environmental impact compared to those analyzed in the Mayfield DA EIR. The City has concluded that the building does not constitute a historical resource. As described in the attached Historic Resource Evaluation for 3406 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California, the building is associated with significant events and persons in the advent and development of personal computing. However, the building does 4.f Packet Pg. 164 Page 2 of 4 not exemplify the midcentury modern architecture style, and the building has lost many important aspects of its integrity due to the later additions and renovations that significantly altered the building’s appearance. Therefore, the building is not eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources. Hazardous Materials: The Mayfield DA EIR identified a number of potential public health concerns related to the 200,000 square feet of R&D/office uses permitted during Phase Two of the Development Agreement. These concerns were analyzed and categorized as hazardous materials, hazardous waste, contaminated soil and groundwater, and hazardous building components. The Mayfield DA EIR proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts related to these concerns to a less-than-significant level. As the project is a “designated project” subject to the Mayfield Development Agreement, the mitigation measures contained in the Mayfield DA EIR are applicable to the project. In accordance with the Mayfield Development Agreement MMRP, the applicant has provided environmental management plan documents, including a soil and soil vapor sampling report (Attachment C) that describes the subsurface conditions and associated considerations for the redevelopment of the site. The project site is not located within the nearby Hillview Porter Regional Groundwater Plume, and is therefore not subject to Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) orders for oversight and remediation. However, the site has undergone a hazardous materials facility closure process with Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and the Palo Alto Fire Department due to the prior hazardous materials storage. In accordance with the Mayfield MMRP, the applicant has provided Phase II soil and soil gas testing results, which detected the presence of Volatile Organic Compounds in one soil gas sample that exceeded environmental screening levels for commercial sites without engineered fill. However, with the incorporation of engineered fill, the project would not exceed the applicable screening levels, and would not pose a significant health risk. Further testing is recommended in the Phase II documents and will be conducted after the existing concrete slab has been removed during demolition. Additionally, the applicant has provided a Site Management Plan that details steps to be taken during demolition and redevelopment to avoid health risks associated with soil and soil gas. The soil and soil vapor sampling report and site management plan implement Mitigation Measures HM1.1 Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), HM1.3 Implement Site Management Plan, and HM1.2 Prepare a Work Plan and Corrective Action. A Health and Safety Plan will be required to be prepared to protect construction contractors during construction from potential exposure to existing contaminated soil and/or groundwater. This Health and Safety Plan must be provided to DTSC or other appropriate oversight agency, who may conduct inspections to ensure adherence to health and safety protocols. This will implement HM3.1 Prepare and Implement a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan. Biological Resources: An arborist and tree preservation report was prepared to catalog existing trees on the site and propose site-specific protection measures. This report implements Mitigation Measure BR2.1 Require Arborist Tree Survey and Tree Protection and Preservation Plan, which is applicable for both demolition and construction. Adherence to the recommendations in the report, which identifies Regulated Trees, will further implement this measure during demolition and construction. Two protected trees (1 coast live oak, 1 redwood) 4.f Packet Pg. 165 Page 3 of 4 are proposed for removal due to their poor health and proximity to the construction zone. The Urban Forester has recommended their removal and replacement in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Forest Master Plan. Additionally, a biological review was prepared to describe the extent to which sensitive wildlife species occupy the site. The site is located adjacent to an undeveloped area of the Stanford Campus, and is located approximately ¼ mile from locations where California red-legged frogs have been recently observed. The southwest corner of the site is relatively undeveloped and contains a number of native wildflower species, as well as suitable foraging ground for dusky- footed woodrats which were obverted nesting immediately off-site. The project plans avoid development in this area, which will limit the impact of the project on this habitat area. Additionally, prior to construction, measures BR-1.1 Implement Procedures to Protect Sensitive Plant Species, BR1.2 Implement Procedures to Protect Sensitive Wildlife Species, and BR3.1 Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Measures if Identified will be implemented to avoid any potential impacts to any sensitive plant or wildlife species or nesting birds on the site. Transportation: While on-site circulation/ingress/egress for Phase Two projects was identified as a less-than-significant impact in the Mayfield DA EIR, a trip generation and circulation analysis was prepared for the 3406 Hillview Avenue redevelopment to ensure no new significant impacts would be created. The report concluded that the additional trips generated by the project would not cause a significant impact due to sufficient service capacity on Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue. Construction-related traffic impacts are mitigated through TR-1.1 Prepare and Implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan, which will be implemented with the requirement of City approval of a logistics plan prior to the issuance a grading permit. This plan will describe any construction-related changes to local traffic patterns, construction working parking, equipment storage, and truck traffic to and from the site. The Public Works Department has required a construction logistics plan condition of approval for the project. Noise: The project plans include mechanical equipment on the roof of the structure, as well as a screen to shield the equipment. This design feature implements NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose Roof- Mounted Mechanical Equipment. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that the new building is in compliance with the Noise Standards in the Municipal Code, with any recommendations in the analysis to be incorporated into the construction documents of the project. Air Quality: AQ-1.1: Implement Construction Dust Control Measures. As a requirement of the construction documents, the applicant will be required to adhere to control measures as developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. These measures include watering all construction areas daily, covering all trucks hauling soil, and sweeping public streets in the vicinity if visible soil material is carried onto the streets. The implementation of this mitigation measure will help mitigate the short term increases in PM10 emissions that could violate air quality standards. Additional potentially significant impacts identified in the Mayfield Development Agreement, 4.f Packet Pg. 166 Page 4 of 4 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15164(c), “an Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted Negative Declaration.” This Addendum shall become public record as an attachment to the adopted City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR or supplement to the Mayfield DA EIR may be prepared, because changed circumstances do not create new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Prepared by: Date APPENDICES A. Mayfield DA EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan B. Historic Resource Evaluations for 3406 Hillview Avenue C. Environmental Management Plan Cover Letter From Stanford University D. Palo Alto Fire Department Closure Letters E. Site Management Plan, 3406 Hillview Avenue F. Results of Subsurface Investigation 3406 Hillview Avenue G. Ingress/Egress and Circulation Analysis for Office at 3406 Hillview Avenue H. Biological Review, 3406 Hillview Avenue I. Arborist Report, 3406 Hillview Avenue 4.f Packet Pg. 167 4.g Packet Pg. 168 4.g Packet Pg. 169 4.g Packet Pg. 170 4.g Packet Pg. 171 4.g Packet Pg. 172 4.g Packet Pg. 173 4.g Packet Pg. 174 4.g Packet Pg. 175 4.g Packet Pg. 176 4.g Packet Pg. 177 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. Welcome to the May 17th meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Could we have the roll call, please? Oral Communications Chair Furth: Are there any oral communications? This is the time on the agenda for people to speak on matters not on the agenda but within our jurisdiction. I have no comment cards and no volunteers from the audience. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Staff? Anything? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: I was just confirming our future agenda and it looks like it has stayed the same, so far. We don't have this on the agenda, so I'll just put it out there as information. There are co-changes that went into effect May 10th, some of it around noticing. There's some gross floor area changes, things of that nature. I'll make sure that we send you a copy of those changes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: (inaudible) of course, went to public hearing, as well. Chair Furth: All right. You'll get those out to us this week. How are you doing with your moving? Ms. Gerhardt: We are all in a temporary location. I think we're called the "newsroom." There's about 10 of us in one room. Chair Furth: And you're on the first floor now? Male: Right next door. Chair Furth: Yes, our reception is still on the fourth floor, so that's where we would ask people to go first. But, yes, we're physically on the first floor. Chair Furth: For those of us who went looking for you on the fifth floor and saw the hazard notices. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 17, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: And saw the construction, yes. Chair Furth: Good to know that you're somewhere. All right. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: And our upcoming agendas are as submitted? You don't expect any changes in those? Ms. Gerhardt: (inaudible) Chair Furth: All right. Anything else? Board Member Lew: On June 20th, there's going to be the first meeting of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. On Wednesday, June 20th, at 5:30. Chair Furth: That's here at City Hall, Alex? Is that at City Hall? Board Member Lew: I don't know -- Chair Furth: People can find it on the city website. Board Member Lew: Yes, I don't know the location. It's not final. I think it's a hold-the-date time and not an actual meeting announcement. Board Member Lew: Well, we look forward to hearing about your progress. All right. Action Items 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 MultiFamily Residential Development and Construction of a new 4,561 Square Foot, MultiFamily 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 MultipleFamily Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: Public hearing. It's quasi-judicial. It concerns 356 Hawthorne Avenue. We are asked for our recommendation and request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of an existing four-unit, 4,000 square foot multifamily residential development, and construction of a new 4,500 square foot multifamily residential development comprised of three detached residential units, each with an attached single-car garage. This is exempt from CEQA. The zoning is RM-15, Low Density MultipleFamily Residential. Project planner is Phillip Brennan. Phillip? Phillip Brennan, Project Planner: Good morning to the members of the Board. Just want to provide a brief reminder of this project. It's proposing three new condominium units, detached, a one-story bungalow unit and two two-story units along Hawthorne Avenue and Bryant Court. The max residential density for this is three units, which is being provided. This item was previously heard during its first formal before the Board on March 15th. At that meeting, the Board provided the applicant with specific guidance to guide the applicant in helping make the Board's findings to approve this project. Those comments were City of Palo Alto Page 3 related to further distinguish the units from one another through materials, colors and architectural style. Comments were provided to revise the color scheme of the exterior, color scheme of the units. Again, see how to further distinguish them, and also provide more warmer tones and blend into the surrounding neighborhood a little bit better. And, to incorporate more appropriate native species into the landscape plan. The applicant received that feedback and has responded by further distinguishing the units by making the street-facing units, modeling them after Craftsman-style type architecture. As you can see on the left of the centerline was the proposal that was presented at the March 15 hearing. On the right of the centerline are the new proposed units. As you can see, added detail has been incorporated into the design, including sunburst pediments, gables and corbels. The color scheme has changed, as well. The applicant has provided a material board with color swatches, and they've also responded by incorporating more native species into the landscape plan, replacing six of the originally-proposed species with western redbud trees, Sonoma sage, bush anemones, and other native grass and shrub species. The project is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and all applicable design guidelines. The one issue that still remains is the consistency with the performance criteria outlined in the code regarding trash disposal enclosures being located as far away from abutting properties as possible. As you can see in the highlighted portions of the schematic here, the trash enclosures are abutting the shared property lines on the left and right of Unit 3 and number 2. We've written in a condition of approval to have these enclosures moved closer to the units to comply with the performance criteria. That is a consideration we would like the Board to discuss. Otherwise, staff is recommending that the Board approve the three-unit multifamily condominium project based on findings and conditions. I know the applicant has a presentation. I'd like to welcome Michael up to the Board. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Vice Chair Baltay: I have a question, please. Good morning, Phillip. Mr. Brennan: Good morning. Vice Chair Baltay: Could you address for me, please, what the code requirements actually are regarding trash enclosures and bicycle lockers for projects of this nature? Mr. Brennan: Sure. Our wastewater/stormwater division requires trash enclosures for multifamily developments. A separated area and covered enclosures. Vice Chair Baltay: I guess I want to get into it a little bit more deeply. Do they define what they mean by "trash enclosure?" The plastic buckets that they supply us... Chair Furth: They call those "carts." Vice Chair Baltay: Carts. Are those considered enclosures, or are they required to build some separate structure? Mr. Brennan: A designated area and structure to house the rubber containers. Vice Chair Baltay: And is there anything in the codes specifically saying what they mean by "structure?" It's not common on residential stuff to build a garbage enclosure. Mr. Brennan: Well, this is specifically for multifamily development. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. And for bicycle lockers? The same? Mr. Brennan: I'm sorry? Vice Chair Baltay: For bicycle lockers. What's the standard on that? What is the actual wording of the code? City of Palo Alto Page 4 Mr. Brennan: The standard for this type of development is one long-term bicycle storage unit for each unit. Vice Chair Baltay: What does the code say? The actual words in the code are "storage unit?" Or is it just a storage area? How is it phrased? Mr. Brennan: I don't have enough memory, but I can provide that. Board Member Lew: There are projects that have closets inside the building where a bike could be located. We also have projects where there's enough space inside the garage, beyond the footprint of a car, where you could put a bicycle, so there's no locker or anything else. We've done it different ways in the past. Chair Furth: While we're hearing from the applicant, perhaps you could find us the code sections that are relevant. Or maybe you have them already? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, we can find the code sections, but just to be clear, the same as Board Member Lew was saying, is that if there was a larger garage space, then these carts and these long-term bicycle spaces could possibly be accommodated in a garage space. But, that would need to be a slightly larger garage. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: I forgot to ask, have we all -- Alex, did you have something you wanted to add? Board Member Lew: A question. Chair Furth: Certainly. Board Member Lew: Hi, Phillip. I have a question. On the drawings for unit, it's the first unit on sheet A-3, 0301.3. It's showing a front daylight plane on Hawthorne Street. Am I understanding, we don't have front daylight planes. I'm wondering if you could clarify that for me, please. Mr. Brennan: Sure. Just give me one moment. [Short pause.] Board Member Lew: Okay. Sheet A-301.3. I guess it's showing on the east elevation, which is drawing...Well, they're all named Drawing No. 1. There's a 45-degree daylight plane from the property line shown. Mr. Brennan: And is your question --? Board Member Lew: Is that correct? My understanding is that we don't have a front daylight plane. I know we used to have them on, even on just some houses, but we removed a lot of the front daylight planes because they weren't very useful. Board Member Lew: This is the front of Unit 1. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, and that's also the unit that's on Hawthorne. I was wondering if it was the middle unit, but it's not. Mr. Brennan: Unit 1 serves as the front unit, where if there was a front yard setback, it would be. Board Member Lew: Okay. And then, is there... City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Furth: Excuse me. Unit 1 is Hawthorne? Mr. Brennan: Hawthorne Avenue. Chair Furth: And Unit 3 is Bryant Court. Mr. Brennan: Right, yes. Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. Board Member Thompson: Sorry. What was the answer to that? There shouldn't be a daylight plane? Chair Furth: There is none. Mr. Brennan: There is no front yard daylight plane. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so it shouldn't be... Chair Furth: It's Section 18.13.040-A, and there's a big chart, daylight planes, and it only prescribes them for the side and rear lots. The side and rear lot lines. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct, so on the east elevation -- this is still on 301.3 -- that east elevation on the right side, that's the daylight plane that's not necessary. The one on the left side is necessary because that's the rear. Chair Furth: This means the notch that's currently being taken out of the gable wouldn't have to be notched anymore? Ms. Gerhardt: The Dutch hip that's happening on the front of the house is not required, but it is an aesthetic feature. Chair Furth: It's an option. There's a certain amount of confusion up here because this neighborhood is developed 45 degrees off the cardinal points, and so, we sometimes call north what's being referred to as east here. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I'm just reading from the plans. Chair Furth: Yes. Okay, are we ready for the applicant? Board Member Thompson: Wait, one last question. Chair Furth: Gentleman. Board Member Thompson: That part of the roof -- Chair Furth: Can we all be included in this conversation? Board Member Thompson: -- is included in the daylight plane. Right? Ms. Gerhardt: Can I have you ask again? Board Member Thompson: Oh, sorry. [crosstalk, inaudible] City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: Just to clarify, the side of the daylight plane that does count is also the side that that roof gutter drain is slightly encroaching into right now? Mr. Brennan: On the west elevation? Board Member Thompson: It's shown on the east and the west elevation. Ms. Gerhardt: No, on the east, that rear slight protrusion of the eve, eve protrusions are allowed. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: Any other questions before we hear...? Okay, I have some questions. Have we all visited the site? Yes? And does anybody have any conversations they need to report? No. All right. Nobody has had any extramural conversations, and we've all seen the site. If we could hear from the applicant. You have 10 minutes. And if you could spell your name for the record, our transcriber appreciates it. Michael Chacon: Good morning. Thank you, Phillip. Thank you, Board. I am the architect of record. I'm here to represent the property owner. First of all, I'd like to apologize for missing the last meeting. I had a medical emergency, which I'm working through, still. It was just unavoidable. At the same time, I want to thank you for going through my presentation that I had prepared for that meeting. It seems like you did accomplish a lot without my presence. Hopefully we can wrap this up. That's my goal today. First and foremost, I'm going to respond to, basically, I did listen and review the video for the last meeting, and I'm going to respond to the primary three comments that came out of that meeting. That's my intent today. I do want to clarify for you right quick, though, the confusion that you're having about the elevations. Project north is up on the sheet, it's not to the left. You're looking at side elevations, so those daylight planes are appropriately labeled for the sides of the house, of all units. Okay? That should clarify what you're looking at. Okay. We don't need to go through all these. Phillip was kind of enough to go through this for me, where we substituted six of the species previously specified with native plants that Board Member Lew commented on the last time. I'm just going to move forward on that. Secondly, I'm not sure, I think Phillip may actually have an outdated image for what was, and what is, with regard to the street elevation for Hawthorne. Anyway, I provided you with that comparison right there. Is it fair for me to say that you're seeing what I put up there on your screen? Are you seeing...? Okay, great. Thank you. To the left was the previously-proposed design, and I didn't change the footprint whatsoever. I merely changed the exterior to try and accomplish the idea of addressing the differentiation that you required or requested between units. This has more Craftsman-type features on it. This is the elevation that faces the street, which is why I show this elevation. I don't need to go through that bullet list. You can see it for yourself, and basically it's covered in the elevation. The visual aesthetic, I think is what we're after here. And then I have the 3D rendering of it from Hawthorne without landscaping. And then, this is an approximation. Please note, that's probably a three to five year landscaped, developed, approximation. This isn't the first day that construction is complete with all the landscaping plan. But, ultimately, it would end up looking like this. Next is the center unit, Unit 2. Unit 2, I didn't change much, and I didn't change much because I was hoping the Board would allow the property owner to at least have one unit as they originally requested, as opposed to no units as they originally requested. I did add, however, a gable over the entry, realizing that it would help to identify the front of the house, even though it's in the center of the site, as the place where you enter. And when you think about it with where those sliding doors are and this imagine to the right, that's where a courtyard would be, and there would be a three to four foot high fence around that, to help identify that plush landscaping. But, it felt like since I was going through this exercise, and maybe I missed it previously, that this made a lot of sense, to add this gable here. I considered it, but didn't do it because of the daylight view that we were talking about in previous meetings, that the homeowner on Waverly was commenting upon. I considered adding a gable over the second floor, a larger window to the right. I thought that would add some visual interest, add a little more style to the house, because it is somewhat simple, I would admit. But, I really tried to maintain that valley of openness so that the neighbor would not see one more added-on feature City of Palo Alto Page 7 to the roof. I elected not to do that. Here is what it would look like without the landscaping. You can see where that gable really does help identify where the front entry is. I think it's a really positive change. This is what the landscaping might look like in three to five years after it's developed. You can see a split fence for the courtyard. That fence helps differentiate between the sliders and the front entry. The next unit, Unit 3, again, didn't change the footprint, but changed the color -- and you have that on the material board that I provided for you -- and added a trellis over the garage, an eve over the sliding glass door, which has a chain downspout from it. Little things like that to help soften it up. And then, the sunburst at the eve, at the peak of the gables. After the second post on the porch, as well, to really drive it home there's a porch there. And the color on the material board helps, again, I think, to address what you would ask for as a Board, to give you more warm colors, more earth tone colors, I should say. And then, here it is without the landscaping, and there it is with landscaping that's developed over three to five years. This is just a, as you see, north side. As I said, the north is considered, I think I said "up" when I stated "down" on the paper. Board Member Lew is shaking his head yes, I was confused, still. North is down, so the upper elevation is what the neighbors on Waverly would see, and the lower elevation of the site is what the neighbors from the Bryant side, the south side, would see. I just wanted to give you guys a sense of how that would look. That's a comparison. Sorry, excuse me. This is a comparison of north. Upper is what it was; the bottom is what it is proposed to be. I got ahead of myself. This is the same thing for the south side. Upper is what was proposed; lower is what is, what was previously proposed, and the lower elevation, side elevation, is what's currently proposed. You can see the changes from that perspective, as well, or from that elevation, as well. Those are the three questions. I didn't go ahead and prepare, but I will speak to the idea of the trash enclosures. In my previous presentation, I had a very long slide with many bullet points about why I felt like, first of all, consolidating the refuse for these three units didn't make sense. An enclosure didn't make sense, either. Phillip actually talked with the appropriate party about the enclosure and I believe they waived that part of it, consolidating it, but did not waive the part about locating the enclosures as far away from adjacent properties as possible. My argument is that this is developed, although it's RM-15, I do understand that, developed as three single-family homes. I've said that from the beginning. Now, that doesn't mean that they are three single-family homes. They are still a multifamily project. But, the intent for the occupants when they live there is that they will feel like they have their own home, their own yards, courtyards, entries. Unfortunately, it can't have its own drive for Units 1 and 2. It's a shared drive. But, Unit 3 has its own drive. We had the luxury here of having a through lot. We go from Hawthorne, to Bryant Court, so I was able to take advantage of that and have a driveway on the Bryant Court side. And because of that, I didn't have to have a 16-foot-wide clearance on the side of the lot for the shared driveway, which if you have three units in place, you have to have it 16 feet wide, which would have been quite an imposing width to try and develop the properties on. My argument really is that all the adjacent properties to this property, even though they are zoned RM-15, they are developed as R-1. And if anybody wanted to do some work on it, they would have the R-1 ordinance imposed upon them. They would follow R-1. And their trash enclosures -- they're not enclosures, but they might have an enclosure that's, not an actual overhead canopy, but it might have a little bit of a short fence with a gate in front of it, which is not uncommon to see in residential. Just identify where you keep your containers. It can be up against the property line. So, I'm basically asking that the occupants of these three units have that same sort of luxury because I placed these where it made sense, where you would use them, where you would go from the kitchen, where most of your refuse is collected, through the garage to this enclosure. That's for Unit 3, for example. And Unit 2, as well. These enclosures, when I say "enclosures," I'm talking about trash enclosures, trash receptacles. These receptacles would then be taken to the curb side easily, quickly, and not have to be traipsed through from the middle of your back yard to the street. Consistent with that is that the neighbor to the south on Bryant Court is here today. He commented on where those trash receptacles were located, and we responded. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Osma? Board Member Thompson: I could not locate where all the bike lockers were. Mr. Chacon: In Unit 1, the bike lockers are at, what I would call the back of the house, away from Hawthorne. There's a bike locker back there, if you look at the site plan. And then, at Unit 2, it's next to City of Palo Alto Page 8 the courtyard. And then, at Unit 3, it's on the side of the house, what I call the south side of the property, next to the trash receptacles. Chair Furth: You may sit down. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? All right. Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, I have one more question. Chair Furth: You have another question of the applicant? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Chair Furth: The applicant's architect. Board Member Thompson: For the trash, how does it work? Do they have to wheel the trash out to Hawthorne for pickup every week? Mr. Chacon: That is the standard of an occupant. I live in Palo Alto. That is the standard practice in Palo Alto, is that you wheel your enclosure to the curb. If, however, you would like for GreenWaste to go to your back yard or wherever to pick it up, you can pay them for an extra service. Or, if you're unable to. Board Member Thompson: And that service is on Bryant, as well, even though it's a really tiny street? Mr. Chacon: Yes, it is. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right. Any further questions before we deliberate? Or, any further answers before we deliberate? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. I did want to clarify that we do have a general exception for storage structures that are not over six feet in height, that those could go two feet into a side setback and four feet into a front or rear. That may help accomplish some of the trash enclosures and bike lockers. Chair Furth: Can you refer to the code section that we're dealing with here. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. This is 18.40.070(c), as in "cat." Chair Furth: (inaudible) Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Furth: Oh, that's projections into yards. I was looking for the code section that requires bicycle storage and trash enclosures. Mr. Brennan: In terms of trash enclosures, it's 16.09.180. Chair Furth: Which I don't have a copy of. Why don't you read it to us? First of all, tell me which...? This is in our sanitation code, or something? Mr. Brennan: It's in the building code. Chair Furth: Oh, it's the building code. I should know that. What does it say? Mr. Brennan: It says dumpsters for new and remodeled facilities, new buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, City of Palo Alto Page 9 shall be provided a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading and berm system to prevent water run-off and run-off from the area. That's referenced. And then, further guidance is provided through stormwater treatment and Bay-friendly guidelines and stormwater quality protection, which speaks to trash and recycling containers, must be covered to prohibit flyaway trash and having rainwater enter containers. Chair Furth: Sure. Do they define "dumpster?" Because this kind of unit is not going to have a dumpster. They're going to have carts. Mr. Brennan: Correct, and as Michael referenced, I spoke with staff from that division. They originally wanted a centralized dumpster area for this development, and obviously that wouldn't be appropriate. So, the middle ground was for them to provide covered trash enclosures for each unit. Chair Furth: But that could be in a garage if there's space in the garage. I don't read that to say anything else. Once you decide that you're not going to do centralized dumpsters. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. The main issue with trash is that it needs to have a roof over it so that it's protected from the rain, so that we're not adding to any stormwater quality issues. Chair Furth: As you know, I live in an infill project in this neighborhood, not within 500 feet, and we have alley collection. And we have small lots -- not this small, but small -- and everybody keeps their containers in the garage. The garages are designed with wide enough spaces on the edge so we have room for both bicycles and containers. I'm having a hard time understanding the functionality of going from my kitchen, outdoors to a collection spot. Are these garages big enough so that you can get those carts in and out? They're not. Okay. What about bicycles? Are there room for bicycles in the garage? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, so, for bicycles, we're looking at the parking section, which is 18.52.040, and Table 1 is all of our standard parking regulations, which includes bicycles, as well. For multifamily, that's one bicycle space per unit, and that's to be a long-term space. I can find further down, 18.54.060 discusses the details of what a long-term space is. Chair Furth: Let's take a look. We don't have very many projects with unattached multiple units, do we? Ms. Gerhardt: We've got a few as of late. Chair Furth: Yeah? Well, we may need to think about these things. Okay, long-term bicycle facilities. [Reading] Long-term bicycle facilities are intended for bicyclists who need to park a bicycle and its components and accessories for extended periods during the day, overnight or for a longer duration... typically for employees, students, residents and commuters. The facility frequently protects the bicycle from inclement weather. Four design alternatives are available. Bicycle lockers accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle; a fully-enclosed space. I would argue that that includes a garage. Restricted access bicycle enclosures. A locked area. Maximum capacity of 20 bicycles. Ms. Gerhardt: That's something, maybe like at the schools, where they have a bike cage. Chair Furth: Right, or it says it can be within a garage. We've seen those. In multiple-family, a common locked garage is okay, or a multiple family dwelling unit storage locker. A locked area separate from the dwelling unit, secured by a lock that can be opened only by the occupant. Or a school bicycle enclosure, which I think we don't need to think about. Okay. It can't be inside occupied buildings? What? Board Member Lew: I think in the past, people were worried that they would be converted to other uses. Commissioner Gooyer: (inaudible) City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Furth: Because we do it all the time. I mean, if (inaudible) this building, we allow them...I mean, we just finished approving a big project with bicycles. How are we going to put them in a separate structure? Okay. Street level? Ms. Gerhardt: I think the idea, too, is that there would be easy access to leave... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: We keep telling people to make them convenient, yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, you're not having to drag your bike up to your unit, which would be normally the case in a larger multifamily complex. Chair Furth: Should we separate it from vehicle parking and circulation areas by a physical barrier? Have a four-foot aisle? This is really difficult. Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Are we going to hear from the neighbor? Chair Furth: Nobody else chose to speak. All right. Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Okay. First of all, a far as those two items, I think that's real overkill. I mean, every other single residence just has the three bins standing on the side of the house, or in the garage, or whatever. Doesn't have a whole structure built over it. But it is what it is. And the same thing. In my garage, I've got four hooks hanging there, I have two bicycles hanging from those four hooks, and my car is parked underneath the bicycles. It's very easy to get to. So, to me, that seems overkill. As far as the project, I think the revised presentation does a lot to improve how it blends with the adjacent neighborhood. The biggest concern on any of these types of projects is how the actual detailing is executed as far as trim and that sort of thing. I can only go on the assumption that it will be done properly, and if that's the case, I can accept the project as it is. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you for the revisions. I can recommend approval of the project today. With regard to the trash, I think I agree with staff, which is no enclosure, but try to get them as far from the property line as possible...? My recollection is that's what staff has been doing on other comparable projects. I think there's been like a dozen of these three-unit projects around downtown and I don't recall any centralized trash location at all. These are all 50-foot sites. Maybe on some of them, some of the trash containers were in the garage, possibly, but it seems like they are very constrained sites. And I think I do recall one of the neighbors on Bryant Court said there was concern that the trash was next to the bedroom window, so I would support moving them, particularly on that particular unit, farther away, if possible. And then, on the bike lockers, we've done it different ways on different projects, and I think what's being shown here is fine. I think the only other comment I have is I think the previous set that you had, I actually think I preferred that design to this current design. But, I think the current design is approvable. I think it was cleaner lines, cleaner colors. There's something about, on small units, just to keep it simple, and to my eye, they're starting to get a little cluttered. Okay. That's all that I have. Thank you. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. I find myself in agreement with what Robert offered regarding the building design. I can recommend approval for that part of it. I'm only chagrined that the bike lockers take up precious outdoor space, and I'd love to see some alternative, given that the code is obviously complex, and I defer to staff and whatever the applicant comes up with. I can recommend approval. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: Hi. Regarding the front elevation, I'll start there. I do like the changes that you made. I did notice one item, which I'm not sure if it was a design choice, but on page 301.3, the west elevation, the top right part of that elevation has part of the building sticking out, and the roof, you can see the roof line behind a roof line. In some of the other buildings on the street, those roof lines are aligned. I wondered if that was a choice, or if that may have been an oversight, that maybe you might have wanted to align them so that you do get those cleaner lines...? That's one thing I noted I'm sort of willing to hear more on. I actually like the sunburst choice on Bryant street. I think it makes that elevation look a lot nicer instead of another building on that road that kind of (inaudible). Regarding the trash enclosures, it's true. A lot of single-family residences don't have really good infrastructure for their trash. Everybody just keeps the bins either in their garage, and it's kind of too bad, in some ways. I kind of appreciate that maybe there's something that's pushing this project to think of a better solution than just to have your bins out. It's kind of ugly. I think more could be done. And I think, in some sense, you do have some cush in you design that you could somehow include a trash enclosure that's close. I mean, speaking from someone who hates to take out the trash, the idea of going outside of my house and across the street to take out the trash sounds even worse. So, I think having a solution that keeps it as close to the house, to the kitchen, garage -- whatever -- as possible, I think that's really important to the project. I would support changing what's on here to get there more. I actually did have a question on other kind of passive systems. I wasn't sure if you looked at a gray water system. You have laundry on site, you have irrigation on site. I know a lot of homeowners have been re-tricking their houses backwards so that they can kind of do that. But, given that this is a new construction, I was wondering if that's something that you guys considered, to use gray water. Or might consider. ??: (inaudible) Board Member Thompson: Oh, okay. Board Member Lew: I think the laundry to gray water was in the notes somewhere that I read. Board Member Thompson: It is? I didn't see that. Vice Chair Baltay: That's a current green building requirement, that the house be re-fitted for potential gray water use of laundry equipment in the future. They have to have a diverter valve. But there's no requirement beyond that at present. Board Member Thompson: Okay. I didn't see that anywhere, but I think it's... Chair Furth: It's a building code requirement, right? Vice Chair Baltay: California Green Building Code, yeah. Chair Furth: So, that will be done. Mr. Chacon: (inaudible) Chair Furth: I beg your pardon? Mr. Chacon: It's not in the drawings because it doesn't... Chair Furth: Right, because it's not something that' subject... Mr. Chacon: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Could you come to the microphone, please? Since we asked you a question. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mr. Chacon: First of all, it's a California Green Building Code requirement. It doesn't show up in design drawings. The appropriate time to put that information in the drawings is for building permit application. That's when CalGreen...However, it's also in this set because the green building checklist is in there, in the set, and it calls for that. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thanks. Chair Furth: That's a very satisfactory answer. Mr. Chacon: Can I clarify two things? Chair Furth: Of course. Mr. Chacon: Each one of the enclosures has fences around them for the receptacles. They're not just thrown up against the fence, first of all. It doesn't seem like you all are reading that properly. And, there are bike lockers for all three of these. There's no contention about bike lockers. Each one of these units has a bike locker. Chair Furth: I think we understand it has a bike locker. We're just questioning our own codes requirements. We don't need to torture you with our dissatisfaction with the code. Mr. Chacon: Right. That's my point, really. I met the code, and it's there, so I'm not sure why it's being discussed. Chair Furth: Partly because we are not familiar with every in-and-out of our code. Each application that comes before us presents issues. Sometimes they're novel for some of us. You've got the floor. Board Member Thompson: I think I said most of my comments. Chair Furth: All right. I guess it's my turn. I like the modifications to Unit 3. I think on that very small scale, extremely eclectic street, should work well. I regret that there may not be enough space in the garage for them to substitute as bike lockers, and I do have a feeling if it were my unit, I would want a bike locker that could be easily converted to a different use. But, this is within the applicant's choices, I think. I do think that the trash enclosure on Unit 2 should be as far as possible from the adjacent property and as close as possible to the people who are going to be using it. I think you dealt with that in your proposed framings, but you might want to confirm that for me. The proposed conditions, rather. Mr. Brennan: Yes, that's included in the conditions. Chair Furth: Condition number four, right? Mr. Brennan: Yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Sorry. MOTION Chair Furth: Does anybody want to make a motion, or does anybody want further discussion? Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we recommend approval of the project as presented, with the conditions of approval in the staff report. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that motion. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye? City of Palo Alto Page 13 Furth, Baltay, Lew, Gooyer: Aye. Chair Furth: Opposed? Board Member Thompson: Wait. I had a question. Sorry. In the conditions of approval, that's talking about moving the trash away from... Chair Furth: Condition number four says: As required by the multiple family performance criteria outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.23020 (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 of side yard lot lines shared with abutting lots to a location as far from neighboring residents as reasonably possible. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: I think they got it. That passes unanimously. Thank you for your submittals and resubmittals. We look forward to seeing the project built. Board Member Gooyer: As I was saying, it seems like the bin storage, or whatever, is going to become the storage unit, and the bins will probably be standing outside. Just like every other garage is. Chair Furth: I want to say, in my neighborhood, we have an alley, and we all keep our trash cans in our garages. But, we may not keep our cars in the garages. At least not the second one. Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: Okay. I want to propose that we do the minutes before we do our study session, while we're sitting up here. So, if we could go to items 4 and 5. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 5, 2018. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 19, 2018. Chair Furth: Those are the minutes for the meetings of April 5th and April 19th of this year. Any comments? Let's start with April 5th. Oh, gosh. When did we discuss Raphiolepsis? I have a bunch of clerical errors. I notice that the transcriber has asked for help on plant names and... Board Member Lew: That's the next, the April 19th. Chair Furth: That's the next set. I didn't put the notes on it. Okay. Any comments, additions or corrections on April 5th? Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Under item number 8, which is the subcommittee item, the transcript there is actually the board talking about the subcommittee item. The Board was discussing the subcommittee item. But the actual subcommittee did meet and approved the revisions that were required of the subcommittee. Chair Furth: In other words, there's no transcribed minutes for the subcommittee. Board Member Lew: We don't normally do minutes. We usually just put one little line item, saying that the subcommittee approved... City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. I can check those. There is supposed to be a couple sentences or two, a summary of the subcommittee decision. Chair Furth: But what they did was put the header in the wrong place, so it looks like the Board discussion is subcommittee discussion. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Furth: Anything else? Board Member Lew: Yeah. And then, the second subcommittee item was number 9, which was the 180 Hamilton, and the subcommittee approved the landscaping revisions. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, the subcommittee approved the landscape changes and we'll get that summary in there. Chair Furth: Thank you. Motion Chair Furth: May I have a motion? Board Member Lew: I'll move that we approve the minutes for April 5th, 2018. Board Member Gooyer: I'll second. Chair Furth: With the amendments suggested by Board Member Lew. All those in favor? Opposed? They are approved unanimously. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Chair Furth: Draft Architectural Review Board meeting minutes for April 19th, 2018. Any changes or corrections? Ms. Gerhardt: On this one, there were some plant names that even I didn't know, so I purposely left that in there. Chair Furth: I certainly know how to spell arctostaphylos. I don't even know what lyonothamnus is, but I think we could get that. Board Member Lew: It was muhlenbergia (spells name) and arctostaphylos (spells name). Manzanita for everybody else. Chair Furth: Yeah, manzanita would be fine. Vice Chair Baltay: And I'm right in thinking, Alex, that you looked that up in advance, right? Chair Furth: No. I know how to spell arctostaphylos. Board Member Lew: I grow native plants as a side hobby from... Chair Furth: And he labels them. Board Member Lew: It's from all the stress of architecture...The plants don't talk back to you like architecture plans. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Furth: What about lyonothamnus? What do you think that was? I'm looking at page 4. It's on the plans. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I don't remember what that is. It was a tree. Right? Chair Furth: Well, either we'll send it to you, or you'll let it stand, right? Board Member Lew: There aren't that many native trees. Chair Furth: We're trying to balance between, you know, unwise use of scarce public resources, and our feeling is it really ought to be correct. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I would welcome an email with some of the plant names. Chair Furth: All right. Well, Alex, I think you've got the expertise. MOTION Chair Furth: Subject to any clerical error correction, can I have a motion to approve these? I'll move approval. Board Member Thompson: I'll second. Chair Furth: Motion by Furth, second by Thompson. All those in favor? Opposed? All right. MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: We have a study session, and again, let's take our last regular agenda item before we go do our study session. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Chair Furth: Board member questions, comments or announcements? Anything? I have one. Board Member Lew: You said you could update us on the appeal for the Verizon project...? Is there a date for that? (long pause) Board Member Lew: Okay, I don't need the... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Well, while you're looking that up...Is it something that's likely to need a board member in attendance? Ms. Gerhardt: I can confirm that and let you know by email. Maybe I'll just email you the date and let you know if someone needs to attend. Chair Furth: I have a report or comment. I went and toured University Terrace, which is the housing that was constructed pursuant to the Mayfield Agreement, at the top of...? Is it California, or is it Stanford? Board Member Lew: California. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Furth: California. And the University is happy to have any of us tour it. Now is a good time to do it because the condominium buildings aren't fully occupied and there's still unoccupied single-family residences. It's fascinating to see a project that I thought I was not going to live long enough to see built out. I was really impressed by many aspects of it. We don't see a lot of development at that density, we don't see a lot of development with that many common amenities. I mean, there are common rooms, there's a swimming pool, there are a number of parks. A lot of the things that the neighborhood in College Terrace worked hard to get, like continuation of the street grid, fairly compatible detached dwellings facing them, no driveways. It's interesting to see how it's worked out. It's really interesting to see the landscaping and the stormwater control. Everything is in full bloom. I'm sure if you talked to staff, they can arrange it, or you could talk to Stanford directly. I was impressed. Board Member Lew: And the Board had minimal involvement in that project. Chair Furth: The reason the Board...We did still have ARB approval, and I don't know that the applicant considers it minimal, but... Board Member Lew: For the size of that project, it was minimal. Chair Furth: This is 158 units. About 70 acres. It's interesting to see something at that density in this area that's built more recently than 1970. Ms. Gerhardt: You're speaking of the houses on Cal Ave.? Yeah, 180 units. Chair Furth: One hundred and eighty units. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. About 68, I want to say, single-family, and the rest in the two multifamily buildings. Chair Furth: The other thing that's interesting about it is that these are neither studio nor one bedroom. These are all either family, or we both need offices, units. They have a lot of room. These are not small units. Go take a look. Ms. Gerhardt: And back to your original question about the appeal on wireless, it looks like it's on the Council agenda for May 21st. I will confirm very quickly if we need the ARB attendance. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Is there a cut-off for that tour in terms of, like, how late we could...? Ms. Gerhardt: There is no tour at the moment. Actually, staff was wanting to have a tour and we're still working out the details with Stanford. There isn't a date or anything at this moment. Chair Furth: This was sort of a tour for the battle-hardened veterans. Because we negotiated this, the City and Stanford, and left a lot of things open. They had performance standards, but not a whole lot of other things. It's interesting to see what they did. They did have a very long consultative process with their future customers, who they knew because it's faculty. I think that had some interesting impact. And Guzzardo did the landscaping. When I was there yesterday, they said to extend the invitation to everybody, so, there you go. I recommend you take them up on it. Study Session 3. Study Session to discuss the South El Camino Design Guidelines. Chair Furth: All right. I think there's nothing left but our study session. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. Gerhardt: I don't think we need the recording. We were going to do this more round-table style. Did you want to stay where you are? Chair Furth: Do we have a table we can sit around? Ms. Gerhardt: Or, we can sit around the table here. There is the table in the back, as well. Chair Furth: I think the table in the back would be great. Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Okay. Chair Furth: All right. Well, this meeting is not adjourned, but the study session part of it will take place over there. And because it's a study session, we will be taking no decisions, we'll only be making recommendations. Study Session Summary: In a roundtable setting, the ARB briefly discussed all 10 Guiding Principles, such as the 12-foot sidewalk requirement. From there, the discussion focused on how to create an “outdoor room” along the El Camino Real (ECR) corridor. The Board suggested the use of 2-4 story “background” buildings, with entrances facing ECR, and having a proper base, middle and top. Several photos were shown of the base, middle and top concept. Color changes and window size changes are some techniques to accomplish this goal. The ARB appreciated the time to discuss these issues. Adjournment 11:41 a.m.