Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-05 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: July 5, 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. 3223 Hanover Street [17PLN-00225]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new two-Story 67,200 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From June 28, 2018 to July 30, 2018. Zoning District: RP (Research Park) and RP(L) (Research Park with Landscape Combining District). 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 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2018. _______________________ 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. 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 # 9405) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 7/5/2018 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 19  375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage  180 El Camino Real: Shake Shack  3401 Hillview : New two story office/R&D Building 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9390) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/5/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3223 Hanover Street: New Office/R&D Building (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3223 Hanover Street [17PLN-00225]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new two-Story 67,200 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From June 28, 2018 to July 30, 2018. Zoning District: RP (Research Park) and RP(L) (Research Park with Landscape Combining District). 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. Conduct the public hearing to allow public testimony and provide comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 2. Recommend continuance of the Architectural Review application to a date uncertain and provide recommendations to the applicant for how to better meet the findings for 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/63881 . A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment F. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the 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 March 15, 2018. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2/ . The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Consider alternative site plan arrangements that provide enhanced space between the two buildings Comment not addressed. The buildings remain in the same location as the previous iterations of the plans. Enhance the landscaping in the surface parking lot in order to reduce heat island effect and increase the aesthetic and habitat value of the space Comment partially addressed. The revised site plan replaces one of the parking modules with a landscaped area containing seating and additional trees and shrubs. Reduce the number of parking spaces proposed on the site to the minimum required Comment not addressed. The site plan contains 20 parking spaces in a landscape reserve on the southern side of the main drive aisle that would put the site above the minimum required at the will of the applicant. Provide enhanced pedestrian connectivity between the lower parking lot and the upper building terrace. Comment partially addressed. Project now includes a garden stair connection on Sheet L0.02D, but the feature is not incorporated into any of the other plan sheets. Details are not provided that would indicate the path’s surface type or whether railings and lighting would be incorporated. In addition to the Board’s comments, staff had requested changes to the surface parking lot that would reduce the number of intersecting drive aisles in order to prevent pedestrian- vehicle conflicts and provide for a more continuous pedestrian and bicycle path down the main drive aisle. While the number of drive aisles has been reduced from seven to six, with the addition of the new parking lot seating/landscaping area (discussed below), staff does not believe that the comment has been addressed in a responsive manner. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Parking Lot Landscaping The largest substantive change between the current plans and those provided at the March 15, 2018 hearing is the replacement of one of the parking modules with a new landscaped area with seating, shade trees, and other landscaping. This feature would serve as a terminus to the staircase leading from the lower platform to the upper platform. This feature also reduces the number of parking spaces in the lower lot by 26 spaces, which brings the number of parking spaces planned for the initial buildout to the minimum number required for the site. However, the proposed plans still include 20 additional parking spaces above the minimum in a landscape reserve along the southern edge of the main drive aisle, all of which could be converted to parking at any time after project approval with minimal discretionary review. It is also unclear what these areas would be covered with at the onset, as the updated L_1.0 sheet in the project plans indicates a surface type “PA” which is not included in the materials schedule (for reference, pavement surfaces have been noted “PV-#”), while Sheet L_2.0 indicates that the landscape reserve areas will be planted with Coyote Brush. Staff believes that the number of parking spaces, inclusive of those shown as landscape reserve areas, should be reduced to the minimum required in order to provide latitude for alternative surface parking arrangements and to reduce the amount of asphalt to the degree necessary. The code-prescribed use of the ‘landscape reserve’ provision cited in PAMC 18.52.050(b) is associated with ‘deferral of meeting full requirement’ of parking spaces for the use, and not for a potential future parking expansion area that would result in an over-parked project. Parking Lot Orientation The applicant showed an alternative surface parking lot arrangement to the Board at the March 15, 2018 hearing (image below), and indicated that such an arrangement, which contained only two intersecting drive aisles and a rotation of the parking modules, resulted in a site plan that was 10 parking spaces short of the minimum required. Staff is supportive of the alternative arrangement in concept and believes that an alternative site arrangement merits additional study by the applicant. To the question of parking noncompliance, staff believes that, on a 10 acre site, the 10 missing parking spaces could be located in a number of possible locations, including in a slightly modified parking garage or on either interior side of the central median shown in the alternative arrangement. If no alternative location for the 10 spots is viable, it is worth noting that the project includes a TDM plan to reduce peak hour trips by 30% over standard rates, and that a parking adjustment of 10 spaces (constituting 1.7% of the total number of spaces) could potentially be considered. Staff believes that the alternative arrangement also more sufficiently responds to the Board’s comments regarding enhanced landscaping in the parking lot, and could provide heat island, aesthetic, and habitat improvements. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Source: Applicant’s March 15, 2018 Presentation to the ARB. Proposed Garden Pathway Staff found the initial iterations of the site plan to be inadequate to meet Finding #4 due to the removal of an existing stairway near the drive aisle entrance to Hanover Street that connected the lower and upper platforms of the site without a replacement. The updated plans now include a garden stair and pathway in a detail on Sheet L0.02D in this area that meanders between two live oaks. However, the site plan, landscape plan, and civil plans do not show this feature. While this garden stairway would connect the upper platform to the sidewalk on Hanover Street, it is unclear if it would provide a direct connection to the lower parking lot. Moreover, materials for the pathway have not been indicated, as has been done with the Bol Park trailhead features and new landscape area in the parking lot. Staff supports the connection in concept but believes that further details and study are needed to meet Finding #4 and to ensure that the path will provide an all-weather surface that would support a permanent, usable connection between the buildings, street, and lower parking lot, while not impacting the adjacent 28” live oak. Additional details on railings and lighting would also help demonstrate the efficacy of this pathway from an access and safety standpoint. Bol Park Bicycle Path Improvements Staff is certainly supportive of the Bol Park Bicycle Path improvements proffered by the applicant, however approximately half of the bicycle path is located on the adjacent lease area which is controlled by a separate lessee. Staff does not have a mechanism by which to enforce off-site improvements without the controlling lessee’s written authorization and agreement to the improvements as a part of the application. Most significantly, the concrete wall that stretches the length of the path adjacent to the site is located on the adjacent lease area, and contains aging, wall-mounted sodium light fixtures that may conflict with and duplicate the new bollard and pole lighting proffered by the applicant along this section of the path. Should the applicant wish to pursue these improvements, staff suggests that the wall and its associated 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 lighting be removed in order to fully implement the design intent as depicted in Sheet L_0.02A through L-0.02C of the project plans with the written authorization and approval of the adjacent lessee. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and are being circulated for public comment from June 28th to July 30th. The study identifies potentially significant impacts to air quality, hazards, noise, and biological and cultural resources associated with the project. With incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, all potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level (Attachment 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 22, 2018 which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 25, 2018, which is 10 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend approval of the project following the close of the CEQA public comment period, with modified findings or conditions; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOC) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: March 15, 2018 Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans and Initial Study (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 13 17 321.7' 186.3' 268.5' 91.7' 498.5' 340.8' 47.9' 145.0' 53.0' 69.7' 44.0' 167.2' 335.6' 321.2' 165.0' 194.6' 208.7' 120.0' 85.0' 120.0' 64.0' 41.9' 69.4' 141.6' 101.5' 494.7' 459.7' 91.9' 209.0' .3' 183.7' 17.8' 50.8' 17.8' 493.8' 120.0' 107.4' 94.0' 51.1' 39.0' 90.0' 85.0' 120.0' 85.0' 120.0' 94.0' 28.0' 45.4' 63.7' 31.4' 49.2' 106.3' 51.1' 106.3' 29.3' 13 90.0' 43.4' 52.3' 31.4' 85.9' 55.8' 113.0'55.0' 113.3' 391.8' 309.7' 55.0' 570.1' 221.4' 147.8' 30.1' 30.1' 30.2' 30.2' 30.3' 30.3' 30.4' 224.7' 408.8' 106.2 408.8' 106.2 155.4 119.8' 119.8' 136.5' 235.0' 35.8' 144.5' 185.3' 35.8' 185.3' 215.0' 14.3' 283.5' 129.9' 139.3' 35.8' 192.7' 286.3' 17.8' 25.4' 91.3' 90.0' 14.3' 220.2' 129.9' 207.4' 85.3' 29.9' 29.9' 29.8' 29.8' 29.7' 14.7' 14.9' 29.6' 1080.3' 101.5' 147.8' 30.1' 15.2' 15.0' 30.3' 30.3' 30.4' 29.6' 29.7' 29.7' 29.8' 29.8' 29.9' 29.9' 85.3' 308.1' 44.0' 69.7' 53.0' 145.0' 47.9' 269.7' 87.4' 357.0' 398.5' 357.0' 399.1' 590.3' 274.6' 628.9' 383.3' 329.5' 109.8' 273.6' 149.3' 138.4' 109.4'63.6' 217.8' 96.1' 308.1' 304.4' 590.3' 1804.8' 570.1' 1660.0' 200.0' 188.7' 200.0' 188.7' 300.6' 208.6' 160.0' 85.3' 61.4' 183.1' 172.1' 194.5' 231.2' 18.0' 403.2' 212.5' 231.2' 194.5' 231.2' 194.5' 165.0' 207.7' 164.9' 207.4' 25.4'17.8' 183.7' 210.7' 165.0' 320.3' 20.0' 200.0' 188.7' 208.6' 208.7' 408.7' 170.6' 246.2' 88.6' 91.3' 280.0' 164.9' 33.0' 150.0' 100.0' 180.4' 229.2' 165.0'96.8' 150.3'100.0' 150.0'100.0'409.2' 106.3 409.2' 106.3 160.0' 273.0' 160.0' 85.3' 61.4' 20.0' 61.4' 88.6' 246.2' 1479.9' 1194.4' 844.9' 396.6' 1479.9' 203.1' 30.0' 203.2' 30.0' 391.8' 80.0' 113.0' 112 .0' 55.0'55.0' 55.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0' 110.0' 110.0' 54.4'108.0' 38.6' 38.6' 60.7' 80.3'80.3' 53.2' 53.2' 118.6' 75.4' 80.0'80.0' 125.0' 93.2' 93.2' 101.4' 155.5' 55.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 55.0' 56.0' 74.4' 74.4' 50.0' 50.0' 104.0' 104.0' 50.0' 50.0'55.0' 55.0'55.0' 55.0' 84.4' 113.0'113.0' 56.0'117.0'117.0'45.4' 22.7' 22.2' 51.4' 113.5'113.5' 55.3' 88.6' 109.6'109.6' 109.7'109.7' 109.8' 109.8' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0'109.6' 109.6' 109.6'109.6' 60.0' 60.0' 118.8' 32.7' 139.7' 125.0' 187.6' 230.8' 96.1'167.2' 198.1' 212.6' 195.5' 226.8' 51.8'51.8' 51.8 330.8'277.4' 180.7'218.5' 185.0' 218.5' 217.8'155.0' 172.8' 172.8' 171.0' 208.4' 208.4' 200.0' 200.0' 175.0' 100.0' 188.1' 188.1' 218.5' 218.5' 403.2' 255.4' 3 3251 3200 31903180 3000 914 875 35203510 7 764 770 800 820 830 840 850 846 827 835 85 855 856 861 862 871878 860 876 890 8 8 0 8 82 88 4 8 86 910 906 9 0 4 979 995 3 5 0 7 3 5 0 5 3 5 0 3 954 975 973 912 918 922 935 945 969 959 970 980 999 960 950 940 957 951 928 930 940 955 953 941 852 3201 3251 3305 3175 3509 9 5 1 937 926 831 HANOVER STREET HANOVER STREET HILLVIEW AVENUE HANOVER STREET CHIMALUS DRIVE MATAD MATADERO AVENUE LA MATA W MATADERO AVENUE L A GU NA AVEN UE MATADER O CT COURT ROBLE RI DG E This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Legend abc Easement 3223 Hanover (Project Site - 10.17 ac) 0'300' 3223 Hanover Street Project Site Area Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2017 City of Palo Alto 2.a Packet Pg. 14 3 2 2 3 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2, P a l o A l t o June 14, 2017 Project Narrative - Formal ARB Review 2 revised May 12, 2018 To: City of Palo Alto Planning Division Architectural Review Board Members From: From4 Architecture - Applicant Robert Giannini, Architect Subject: 3223 Hanover, Palo Alto Formal Architectural Review Board Review This application is for the 2nd Phase of a project where the1st Phase was approved on March 2, 2017 (16PLN-00190). The approved existing project (now called Phase 1) includes Building 1, the below-grade garage, and stair & elevator pavilion in the courtyard, trash enclosure and the garage portals. Phase 2 includes Building 2, a second trash enclosure, and surface parking on the east lower tier of the property. Design Considerations for Phase 2: Phase 1 of the project was limited to replacement square footage. At 110,000 sf it was well below the 40% FAR allowed for this site in the Research Park. Proposed Phase 2 increases the FAR to the allowed 40%. The application provides the studies necessary to show there are no significant impacts when FAR is increased to what zoning allows. As was touched on during our Phase 1 hearings, the original project was designed to provide options for Phase 2. We learned that the ARB committee’s desire would be to avoid more surface parking in the upper tier. This proposed application follows that suggestion and locates the Phase 2 building on the upper tier on top of the existing underground parking garage, and locates the balance of parking needed on the lower level of the site. There are several advantages to this approach: a)Siting the building in this location creates a dramatic impression as you approach the site from Hanover. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 2.b Packet Pg. 15 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2 - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 2 Palo Alto, California May 12, 2017 b)The upper courtyard provides a campus environment. It continues to provide habitat, and the architectural centerpiece remains the existing Phase 1 light well, stair & elevator pavilion from the garage below. Both building lobbies are directly adjacent to that pavilion. •The distance between buildings at Hanover is 145’. •The central courtyard measures 1 acre. •There are several ways to arrive at this space; either from the sidewalk, through the large light well in the garage where one emerges into the central courtyard between buildings, or up the grand stair. c)Design of the Lower Surface Parking: The lower tier of the site has historically been a surface parking lot, however it was in bad repair, poorly laid out and will be demolished in Phase 1. Phase 2 provides a completely new surface parking needed to meet City requirements. The new parking field provides the proper geometry and shading required by current Palo Alto standards. Collector sidewalks parallel the entry drive and lead you to the grand stair that takes you to the courtyard above. Based on discussions at our March 15, 2018 initial hearing we revised the lower parking to include a mini park, diagrammed in the graphic below. Two rows of cars and the driveway between were replaced by landscaping. This “compartmentalized” the surface parking into two areas. More importantly it creates a small plaza with benches just before one crosses the drive and walks up the grand stair to the courtyard. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 145’ 1 Acre 2.b Packet Pg. 16 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2 - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 3 Palo Alto, California June 14, 2017 Landscape Events: To further enhance the lower parking area the project has agreed to voluntarily upgrade the adjacent City Bol Bike Path. The entire path that is contiguous with the property will be opened and upgraded with new lighting and landscaping. A “trailhead” on the project’s property will be constructed at both ends with a small clearing and benches. Those trailheads, together with the mini park, create a series of landscape events that make the lower parking area interesting and provide places to sit or meet with friends. Please refer to the landscape plans for additional detail of these spaces. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 2.b Packet Pg. 17 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2 - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 4 Palo Alto, California May 12, 2017 Parking Orientation: Per comments in the staff report the team studied rotating the parking orientation 90 degrees, however that would result in the need to walk over curbs and between cars to get to the sidewalks. The proposed parking has been oriented based on best practices to provide level and visible paths from parking spaces to collector sidewalks. The reason you orient parking the way we did is it allows people to walk in the aisles. This is the safest and most commonly used way to move through a parking lot because cars can see you as opposed to walking between cars where you pop out unexpectedly. Traffic engineers point out that this uncommon and unfamiliar exposure is where accidents happen. We respectfully request that the orientation remain as originally proposed. Neighbor Considerations: Phase 1 of the project addressed an effective buffer between the project and our Barron Park neighbors to the southeast. You may recall that there is a recorded 50’ landscape setback on that property line. We not only honored that, but moved the Phase 1 building back an additional 40’ for 90’ total buffer. The Phase 2 building goes much further by pushing the building back 228’ from that property line. As with Phase 1, the project will provide automatic blinds on that short end of Building 2 facing the residential district. Car lights on the entry driveway were also considered in Phase 1. Through the use of landscape walls, hedges, new infill landscape material and a concrete wall we demonstrated that car headlights will be blocked and sound minimized. That buffer of landscape elements was already extended in Phase 1 across the entire southeast end of the new lower parking lot as can be seen in the above diagram. Please also see the photometric study included in the package as sheet ED 1.2. It shows that not only is the project’s foot candle level Zero at the property line, along the rear of the property adjacent to residential we are a Zero all the way back to the 50’ building setback line. Taking the extra steps of increased setback, and the effective buffer to be installed in Phase 1, help achieve our goal of being a good, near invisible, neighbor. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 2.b Packet Pg. 18 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2 - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 5 Palo Alto, California June 14, 2017 Architecture: The Phase 2 building design vocabulary matches existing Building 1. All Materials match Building 1, and a materials page is included in our planning set. The design is meant to minimize aluminum, with wood and clear glass being the predominant skin materials. The topmost point of the “butterfly roofs” is at the code allowed height of 35’. Building sections are included in the planning set. DATA - Looking at both phases together: Changes Required in Phase 1 to Accommodate Phase 2: This application addresses changes to approved Phase 1 needed as Phase 2 was developed as follows: 1)Phase 1 Trash enclosure was relocated: Phase 2 required its own trash enclosure that was located in the new lower parking lot. To improve the entry drive experience, the Phase 1 trash enclosure is proposed to be moved adjacent to it, and out of the line of sight as one enters the property. 2)Surface “drop off” parking at upper level: The geometry has been adjusted to allow for Fire Department truck access for the Phase 2 building. 3)Stair connecting lower parking lot and upper courtyard: The geometry of the stair is proposed to be enhanced to support the new importance of this stair. Combined Floor Area Ratio & Coverage: 1)The FAR of both Phase 1 & 2 together is 40% as allowed in the RP zoning. Please see sheet A 2.2 for a diagram of the elements included in the FAR calculation. Besides the gross area of the buildings themselves, it includes the stair and elevator in the Courtyard Pavilion, and the trash enclosures. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 View of project from Hanover at Central Courtyard 2.b Packet Pg. 19 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2 - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 6 Palo Alto, California May 12, 2017 2)Coverage is at +/- 20%, well below the 30% allowed, achieved in part due to the extensive use of underground parking. Thanks very much for your attention and review of the various design aspects of this project! Form4 Architecture Robert Giannini Architect, President Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 2.b Packet Pg. 20 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3223 Hanover Street 17PLN-00225 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 2.c Packet Pg. 21 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLES 3223 Hanover Street 17PLN-00255 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (RP DISTRICT) Regulation Previously Approved (16PLN-00190) Current Proposal (17PLN-00255) Combined Development Standard Minimum Site Area, Width, and Depth 10.170 acres, 781 feet width, and 570 feet depth No change No change 1 acre, 100 feet width, and 150 feet depth Minimum Front Yard 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet special setback along Hanover Street Minimum Rear Yard 90 feet 228 feet 90 feet (minimum) 20 feet (50 foot Landscape Combining District along the rear establishes de-facto setback on the site) Interior Side Yard 447 feet to northeast; 73 feet to southwest 285 feet to northeast; 350 feet to southwest 285 feet to northeast; 73 feet to southwest 20 feet Street Side Yard N/A N/A N/A 20 feet Max. Site Coverage 12% (55,000 sf) 7% (32,555 sf) 20% (87,555 sf) 30% (132,901 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.25:1 (110,000 sf + 5,500 sf amenity space) 0.15:1 (67,202 sf +3,783 sf amenity space) 0.4:1 (177,202 sf + 9,283 sf amenity space 0.4:1 (177,202 sf) Max. Building Height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet (with additional 15 feet for mechanical and screen) Daylight Plane N/A N/A N/A N/A Employee Showers 8 showers 8 showers 16 showers R&D: 50,000 sf and up requires 4 showers 2.d Packet Pg. 22 Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Administrative Office and Research & Development uses* Type Previously Approved (16PLN-00290) Current Proposal (17PLN-00255) Combined Required Vehicle Parking 381 spaces 226 spaces (new surface lot, includes 20 in landscape reserve) 611 spaces 1 per 300 sf of gross floor area (591 spaces) Bicycle Parking 37 bike spaces (30 long term and 7 short term) 22 bike spaces (17 long term and 5 short term) 59 bike spaces (47 long term and 12 short term) 1 per 3,000 sf (80% long term, 20% short term = 59 spaces (47 long term, 12 short term) Loading Space 1 space 1 space 2 spaces 2 loading spaces for 100,000-199,999 sf * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 2.d Packet Pg. 23 Attachment E Performance Criteria 18.23 3223 Hanover Street 17PLN-00225 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the downtown, multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Consistency will be finalized prior to recommendation on this formal application. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 2.e Packet Pg. 24 The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 2.e Packet Pg. 25 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8875) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/15/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3223 Hanover Street: New Office/R&D Building (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3223 Hanover Street [17PLN-00225]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new two-Story 67,200 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP (Research Park) and RP(L) (Research Park with Landscape Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend continuance of the Architectural Review application to a date uncertain and provide recommendations to the applicant for how to better meet the findings for approval. Report Summary The application is a request for major architectural review of a new 67,202 square foot (sf), two-story office/R&D building and associated site improvements. The Board previously reviewed a project on March 2, 2017 for a new 115,500 sf two story office/R&D building on the site, which is currently going through the Building permitting process. The subject proposal is considered a second phase to the previously approved project, and would add to, rather than replace, the previous proposal. The site is located on Hanover Street in the Stanford Research Park and shares a rear lot line with several single family residences along Matadero Avenue. The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Research / Office Park, and is zoned Research Park (RP) with a 50 foot Landscape Combining District (L) along the rear lot line. 4 Packet Pg. 321 2.f Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Staff recommends the project be continued to allow for refinements to the site plan that allow for enhanced pedestrian connectivity and refinements to the proposed surface parking lot. Background Project Information Owner: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Bob Giannini, Form4 Architecture Representative: Allison Koo, Sand Hill Property Company Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 3223 Hanover Street Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 10.17 acres (781 feet in width along Hanover Street, 570 feet in depth) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): None, previous buildings demolished in 2017 Existing Land Use(s): Vacant, 115,500 sf office/R&D building including 5,500 sf of amenity space. Currently entitled and in Building permitting process. Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Research Park (Office / R&D Buildings) West: Research Park (Office / R&D Buildings) East: Residential Estate (Single Family Residences) South: Research Park (Office / R&D Buildings) and Residential Estate (Single Family Residences) Aerial View of Property: 4 Packet Pg. 322 2.f Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Research Park (RP) with Landscape Combining District (L) along the rear Comp. Plan Designation: Research / Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, single family residences are adjacent to the site Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action Note: Buildings now demolished. 4 Packet Pg. 323 2.f Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: March 2, 2017: ARB reviewed and recommended approval of a 115,500 sf office/R&D building on the site (Project #16PLN-00190). A link to the staff report is included here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56127. A copy of the staff report without attachments is included in Attachment F, and meeting minutes from the March 2, 2017 hearing are included in Attachment G. Project Description The site is located on the eastern edge of the Stanford Research Park, across Hanover Street from the HP Campus and adjacent along the rear property line are four single family homes on Matadero Avenue. Until May 2016, the site constituted the northeastern portion of a larger 25 acre lease area occupied by Lockheed Martin offices and R&D facilities. Hanover Street slopes uphill towards the southwest in the vicinity of the site, and the 25 acre lease area was terraced into three levels containing two groupings of buildings. The lease lines were reconfigured in May 20161, and the 10.17 acre subject site constitutes two of these terraces: an upper terrace containing the existing buildings that were demolished in 2017, and a lower terrace with a surface parking lot and vehicular access to the site. Previously Approved Project (16PLN-00190): On March 2, 2017, the Architectural Review Board recommended to the Planning Director approval of a project (Application #16PLN-00190) proposing to demolish the buildings on the site and construct a two-story, 110,000 sf office/R&D building with an additional 5,500 sf of traffic-mitigating amenity space. The Planning Director approved this project on March 22, 2017 following the ARB hearing and the conclusion of the circulation period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. In addition to the 115,500 sf building, the project included the construction of a new two-level underground parking garage to be built beneath the higher terrace on the site, which would be covered at grade with a plaza containing landscaping, tables, and walkways. The proposal also included the removal of the existing surface parking lot that occupies the majority of the lower terrace in favor of a wildflower meadow for this area. A bicycle and pedestrian pathway was proposed with the application that connected the site to the adjacent Bol Park Bicycle Path to the north of the site. The site plan for this previous project is included for reference on Sheet MP 1.4 in the plan set for the current project (17PLN-00255). Current Proposal (17PLN-00255): The current application was filed on July 18, 2017, and includes a new 67,202 sf office/R&D building with 3,783 sf of traffic mitigating amenity space oriented parallel to the previously approved building. The new building utilizes the same 1 In conformance with the Subdivision Map Act, commercial lease parcels are not subject to City review. As agreed by Stanford and the City, these lease parcel changes will be tracked through the Mayfield Development Agreement annual reporting process. 4 Packet Pg. 324 2.f Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 architectural forms, materials, and colors as the previous project, which includes the use of inverted gable “butterfly” roof forms, metal canopy overhangs, glass curtain walls, blue-colored cornices, and wood soffits. The building is situated at the center of the site and on the upper terrace, and occupies an area above the underground parking garage previously proposed for a large patio. The building placement reduces the size and encloses the patio area, which is now framed on several sides by the two buildings. The wildflower meadow previously proposed for the lower terrace is now proposed to remain a surface parking lot, which is the existing condition. The existing trees in the parking lot would be removed and replaced in new island planters. As with the previous proposal, vehicles access the site from Hanover Street using the existing driveway entrance. As a component of the project, the applicant is proposing to enhance the Bol Park Bicycle Path along the site perimeter with new asphalt surfacing, perennial plantings, and seating walls. The application also retains a bicycle and pedestrian path linking the site to the Bol Park Bicycle Path that was proposed with the previous application. 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 C. Analysis2 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located on the eastern edge of the Stanford Research Park, and is surrounded on three sides by two-story office / R&D buildings of various sizes and ages. The site also backs up to single family residences to the east, which are separated from the site by an existing forested landscape edge. The previously approved project included several design elements intended to buffer the use from these residences, including enhanced screening landscaping and earthen berms, a gradual change in grade to prevent noise associated with vehicles downshifting while ascending from the lower to the upper platform, and automatically timed window shades to prevent nighttime glare. These features/conditions would carry-over to the current proposal. 2 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. 4 Packet Pg. 325 2.f Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The placement of the new structure would reflect the previous pattern of development on the site, with two buildings situated on the upper terrace and a surface parking lot located on the lower terrace. The scale of the building as viewed from the public street would be in keeping with the previously-approved building, and is similar in architecture in most respects. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research / Office Park Office, which allows for research and manufacturing uses. The project is consistent with this designation. The project appears generally consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, but additional review is required, in part based on the concerns expressed later in this report. Zoning Compliance4 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with the basic development standards for the RP zone, however, the existing parking lot is nonconforming with respect to the City’s 50% tree shading requirement (PAMC 18.54.040) and other design deficiencies detailed below. Through the architectural review findings, staff believes these issues should be remedied. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The site is located adjacent to two VTA bus stops on either side of Hanover Street. As a condition of approval for the previous project, these bus stops will be relocated to areas along the site frontage that provide for safer lines of site near the site drive aisle. From the Hanover Street right-of-way, one main point of access is provided for pedestrians at each terrace level. While these walkways provide sufficient access to each level, staff is concerned that the plan does not provide sufficient access between each terrace level, especially near the site frontage, which could otherwise be the highest pedestrian traffic area. The existing site, for example, provides a staircase between the terraces near the site entrance, which is a positive amenity, and could be replaced with the current application. Additionally, staff is concerned that the number of drive aisles in the parking lot presents an unnecessary number of conflict points and interruptions to the pedestrian and bicyclist paths along the northern side of the main drive aisle. Staff encourages the Board to study the pedestrian and bicycle movements from the surface parking lot to the proposed building to ensure safe, clearly delineated pathways. 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4 Packet Pg. 326 2.f Packet Pg. 31 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The applicant is seeking to retain the 1950s era surface parking lot to support roughly 67,000 square feet of net new building area. Phase I, previously approved, incorporated a below grade parking structure with a thoughtful design supporting appropriate bike, car and pedestrian movement. The existing surface parking lot provides 46 parking spaces beyond the code requirement, inadequate canopy shading and fails to provide safe and convenient access for motorists exiting their cars and entering the proposed development. While staff recognizes the incremental environmental benefits of reusing the surface lot, to support the proposed development, staff recommends at a minimum that the surface lot be reconstructed to meet current parking lot design standards and transportation objectives, which will also serve to enhance environmental protections through improved storm water management, reduce the heat island effect and create more green space. Consistency with Application Findings The findings required for approval of an architectural review application are provided in Attachment C. At this time, staff is unable to support the project as it fails to meet 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.)”. Moreover, staff has some concern that Phase I was intended to include a meadow at the location of the subject surface parking lot. This was a point of discussion at the prior Board hearings and applicant noted its intent and interest in providing the meadow as an environmentally sensitive amenity. While it was understood that this was a temporary installation and that a future redevelopment of the site was contemplated, it was not foreseen that the meadow would never be planted. The applicant is proposing improvements to the Bol Park bike path perhaps to address the loss of the meadow. Staff encourages the Board to consider its comments regarding the meadow (see excerpted transcripts from prior meeting regarding meadow discussion in Attachment G), which was referenced in the findings of the previous approval to consider whether the proposed enhancements on and near the bike path are sufficient. Staff finds the improvements on the applicant’s property to be heading in the right direction, but would like to see attention paid to the adjoining property. The applicant has indicated they have had some initial conversations with the property owner regarding installation of some plantings along the existing wall near this location. Staff would like to see a formal agreement between the two property owners and plan for these improvements, which would include consideration of planting, irrigation, lighting, amenities and maintenance, when the project returns to the Board. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. An initial study is being prepared. 4 Packet Pg. 327 2.f Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on March 2, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 2, 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. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOC)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: March 2, 2017 Staff Report for 16PLN-00190 w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment G: March 2, 2017 ARB Meeting Minutes for 16PLN-00190 (DOCX)  Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 328 2.f Packet Pg. 33 Attachment G Project Plans and Environmental Documents Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects 2. Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects” 3. Scroll to find “3223 Hanover Street” 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=4198 2.g Packet Pg. 34 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.