Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-07-19 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 19, 2018 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]: Recommendation on a Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Application for a Five-Level, 50' Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level, Providing 325 Public Parking Spaces and Approximately 2,000 Square Feet of Retail Space Fronting Waverley Street. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published May 18, 2018 and circulated for public comments. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00054]: 2nd Hearing for a Request for Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit for Shake Shack Restaurant to Allow for Exterior Facade Improvements and to Allow for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages in and Existing Tenant Space at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. _______________________ 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. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3406 Hillview Avenue [17PLN-00438]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 62,500 Square Foot R&D Building and Construction of a new two-Story Approximately 79,076 Square Foot Office/R&D Building. This is a Designated Project Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Research Park (RP-5(D)). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 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 # 9452) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 7/19/2018 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 Wynne 9/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter 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 August 2  250 Sherman Avenue: Public Safety Building Second Hearing  2609 Alma Street: Four Unit Condominium Project in RM-30 (1st Formal)  656 Lytton Avenue: Facade Revisions (Prelim) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9376) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/19/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 375 Hamilton: Downtown Parking Garage (3rd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]: Recommendation on a Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Application for a Five-Level, 50' Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level, Providing 325 Public Parking Spaces and Approximately 2,000 Square Feet of Retail Space Fronting Waverley Street. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published May 18, 2018 and circulated for public comments. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct the public hearing continued from the June 21, 2018 hearing, and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval contained in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on two other occasions. The municipal code encourages the Director of Planning and Community Development to make a decision on projects after three public hearings. In this case, the Council is the decision-making body. The public comment period for the Draft EIR closed on July 2, 2018. A final EIR addressing comments submitted during the review period is being prepared for Council action on the project. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; these reports are available online; a copy of the second report without prior attachments is available in Attachment B. The February 15, 2018 ARB staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63384. A video recording of the February 15th meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review- board-75/. June 21, 2018 staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65550 The purpose of this report is to transmit the June 21, 2018 staff report to the two members who were unable to attend the June 21, 2018 ARB meeting, and to summarize comments made by the three members on June 21, 2018. Electronic plans were provided to staff and uploaded to the project webpage on July 11, 2018 (viewable as per the instructions in Attachment F). With all five members present, the ARB is encouraged to make a final recommendation for Council to approve, conditionally approve or deny the project. Background/Analysis On June 21, 2018, three members of the ARB reviewed the project and the public had the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the Draft EIR that was published May 18, 2018. A video recording of the ARB meeting of June 21, 2018 is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2-2/. The June 21st staff report provides analysis of the revised plan set, covering a range of discussion topics and how the revised plans addressed ARB’s prior comments, including the pedestrian pathways, setback on Hamilton, alley width, landscaping, massing. Comments of three ARB members on June 21st are reflected in the attached meeting minutes (Attachment C). The June 21, 2018 staff report included meeting minutes of the February 15, 2018 ARB meeting. The project team updated the May 2018 project letter to reflect project modifications made following the June 21st ARB hearing. The updated letter is provided as Attachment E. At the writing of this report, the updated plans had not yet been received. The applicant’s presentation will note how modifications were made to address the June 21st ARB comments. The Draft Record of Land Use Action has been adjusted, responsive to comments on June 21st, to further emphasize the project’s benefits for cyclists and improvements to existing conditions with respect to trash enclosures, inadequate parking layout, old pavement, and badly constrained trees, as well as the provision of an improved street corner, healthier and bigger trees, and better sidewalks. The updated wording is found in the response to Comprehensive Plan Policy L-1.10. The below list of updated information and images may help focus the ARB hearing discussion. 1. Setback from 560 Waverley’s window wall: The ten foot setback facilitates construction, provides a path for underground utilities, allows for openings for natural ventilation into the 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 parking garage (thereby avoiding noise from a mechanical ventilation system above grade), and allows light to reach the existing windows. 2. Photovoltaic (PV) structure/plan: As noted on June 21st, PV installation would be per the architect’s design, following new program feasibility assessment (as the CLEAN program is full). Updated renderings are provided in the revised plan set, and shown below. 3. Vertical fins and building cornice: The lowered fins now line up with the upper parking deck. A cornice is provided via a new dark bronze metal cap and open metal guardrail. This design is enhanced by, but not dependent on, future columns and beams supporting photovoltaic panels. Vertical metal louvers fill the space between columns at the upper stories. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 4. Bike locker area: Improvements include decorative screening, back wall accent paint, and protected walkway. An image in the upated plans show the bike storage protected walkway. 5. Street trees, landscape planters and plant species: Trees along Hamilton Avenue will be planted in enlarged, 4’x7’ tree wells and a suspended pavement system, to help ensure healthy growth of the new Ginkgo trees. The planters designed to handle storm-water drainage (to meet “C-3” requirement) in the alley and at Lane 21 would have a height of approximately three feet. Although the designer looked into reducing the size of the planters in the alleyway, the width was not reduced due to storm water (C3) requirements. The project Landscape Architect, who will attend the July 19th ARB hearing, has provided the following statement: “All of the plant selections for the alleyway are adaptable to shady environments but also are tolerant of direct sun and urban heat. The alleyway can be shady during most periods of the day but are also subject to direct sun for a portion of the day. Sunlight in the alley, even for short periods of a day can create significant amounts of heat in the pavement and in the building structures that is then reflected onto the plants. All of the plant selections are tolerant and adaptable to periods of high temperatures that can cause distress to plants that prefer shade but cannot tolerate heat.” 6. Seating: Additional bench seating is proposed at Hamilton and near the corner plaza. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 7. Public Art: On June 21st, ARB members commented on the topography concept of the public art. The latest renderings of the garage show the public art incorporated into the perforated metal shroud at the corner stair. The City’s Public Art Commission selected the artist in November 2017 and approved the proposal for “Tapestry” on the perforated screens of the downtown garage art on March 15, 2018. Decisions on artistic matters are made by city staff and the public art commission (Palo Alto Municipal code 2.26.060 (a)(1)). The public art element is commissioned through the Municipal Percent for Art Ordinance No. 5301. The project artist, Amy Landesberg, selected in a competitive process, met with the design team and key stakeholders, toured the site, held a community meeting to gather input, and developed her concept with the design team and public art staff. Landesberg has begun detailed design development; as the shear wall was added, she developed a possible related design for the concrete shear wall within the art budget but that design has not yet been presented to the Public Art Commission. Concept renderings are available for ARB to view. Amy Landesberg’s statement on the public art project is provided below: “An awareness of the stunningly dramatic topography of the Palo Alto Hills has always been essential to a sense of the place, but there’s hardly a trace of it in the heart of historic downtown. Representing topography has always been a challenge, with many modes of mark making – from sampler stitched maps, thru pen and ink and lithography to GPS data - striving to capture the lavish line curvature, which has become a rich visual language of its own. Tapestry extends that language to the Downtown Parking Garage. The project harvests sections of topographic data and maps it onto the perforated panels planned for prominent surfaces on the deck’s main entrances. An adjacent concrete wall will be cast with topographic contour, and these contours will have what appears to be an emergent 3-dimensional quality via stainless or glass elements embedded in their surface. A sense of our place on this planet is cued by the wonders of topographic geography.” Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The June 21st staff report provides a summary of topics 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 addressed in the Draft EIR. The public comment period closed on July 2nd. No comments were received other than those stated during the June 21st ARB public hearing. Board member Baltay commented on the Draft EIR phrasing regarding the potential impact of the building on the historic post office, and regarding notes on height in the DEIR; in addition, Boardmember Baltay noted that the mass of the project should not be described in a “sugarcoated” manner, that the height should not be called “restrained” and that a phrase in the tree report about the condition of the oaks should be deleted. The Final EIR will include responses to comments made on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR will be presented to City Council along with the updated plans for action on the project. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. This project was continued to the ARB public hearing of July 19, 2018, therefore no additional notice was required. Public Comments Public comments were received in the form of a letter from the adjacent property (Attachment D). Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOC)  Attachment B: June 21, 2018 ARB Staff Report Without Attachments (DOC)  Attachment C: June 21, 2018 ARB Draft Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment D: June 20, 2018 Letter from Adjacent Property Owner (PDF)  Attachment E: Downtown Parking Garage Project Description 7-11-18 (PDF)  Attachment F: Directions to Project Webpage and Plans (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 13 1 DRAFT ACTION NO. 2018-0X RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 375 HAMILTON AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17PLN-00360 On September 17, 2018, the Council held a duly noticed public hearing, and after considering all of the evidence presented, approved the proposed Public Parking Garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. On September 17, 2018, Council conducted a public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all person were afforded an opportunity to be heard, to consider: (1) The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), published on TBD 2018, in response to comments made during the initial public comment period on the Draft EIR published May 18, 2018, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (2) The Architectural Review application and approval recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, for the Public Parking Garage at 375 Sherman Avenue. B. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted three formal public hearings on the Public Parking Garage project; the first hearing was on February 15, 2018; the second hearing was held June 21, 2018, and provided a public hearing opportunity for the public comments on the Draft EIR; the ARB continued the hearing to July 19, 2018, recommending DECISION of the project on that date; C. City Council, on June 11, 2018 and June 25, 2018, approved the ordinance recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission to modify the PF zone development standards and parking requirements in the Downtown and California Avenue business districts for essential services facilities and public parking garages; SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City of Palo Alto prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project in accordance with CEQA, which was circulated for public review and comment from May 18, 2018 through July 2, 1028; a Final EIR was prepared to respond to comments and published on DATE 2018; the City Council certified and made related findings by Resolution No. TBD on DATE 2018, prior to approval of the decision that is the subject of this RLUA. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. The design and architecture of the proposed public parking garage complies with the Six Findings for Architectural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.020. (1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 2.a Packet Pg. 14 2 Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:  With Council’s adoption of an ordinance amending the Public Facilities development standards for city parking garages, the project will comply with the land use and development standards of the PF zone.  The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the project: o Policy T-5.6, Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. The project includes below grade and structure parking; mechanized parking is not proposed. o Policy T-5.7, Require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and bicycle safety. The project includes bicycle storage with special entry plaza at Hamilton, and a dedicated, striped pedestrian pathway on the ground floor leading to the enhanced, pedestrian alley between the garage and existing buildings. o Policy T-5.8, Promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce storm water runoff, increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the Urban Forest Master Plan. The project includes storm water features, street trees, and photovoltaic structures to accommodate solar panels on top of the parking structure. o Policy T-5.9, Promote safety for pedestrians in City-owned parking lots by adopting standards for landscaping, signage, walkways and lighting that reduce crime and ensure a safe and orderly flow of traffic. The project will include pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist oriented wayfinding signage and adequate lighting to promote orderly and safe passage. o Policy T-5.10, Encourage the use of adaptive design strategies in new parking facilities in order to facilitate reuse in the future if and when conditions warrant. The project includes a taller ceiling on the first floor retail space and garage than on the upper floors; this may assist adaptive ground floor reuse, if desired in the future. o Policy N-2.3, Enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same and discouraging the planting of invasive species. The project includes planting of two varieties of trees and multiple varieties of low-growing plant species. o Policy N-2.10, Preserve and protect Regulated Trees on public and private property…and related program N2.10.1, continue to require replacement of trees including street trees lost to new development. The project includes protection of several trees and replacement of the regulated parking lot trees to meet the City’s ‘no net loss of canopy’ requirement. 2.a Packet Pg. 15 3 o Policy N-4.12, Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban storm water runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where practical. The project incorporates permeable pavers and landscape planters designed to meet storm water run-off treatment best practices. o Policy L-1.10, Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The project increases the supply of parking spaces Downtown, provides new ground floor retail space, public art, and amenities supporting pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and includes high quality materials. The project will provide benefits for cyclists and improve existing conditions with respect to trash enclosures, inadequate parking layout, old pavement, and badly constrained trees, as well as the provide an improved street corner, healthier and bigger trees, and better sidewalks. o Policy L-4.2, Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. The project features a small street corner plaza highlighting the staircase and retail space, new trees, and pedestrian level landscaping. o Policy L-4.3, Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. The project includes benches, street trees and public art; however, the existing public restroom on the property will not be replaced in the new construction. o Policy L-5.2, Provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts. The project includes new street trees in replaced and wider sidewalks, a new pedestrian alley, parking for 50 bicycles, and pedestrian circulation through the garage ground floor. o Policy L-5.3, Design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the character of the area where they are located. The project includes enhanced sidewalks along the two frontages, special paving and landscaping in the pedestrian alleyway. o Policy L-6.1, Promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The site design considers surrounding development, creates public and retail spaces, and includes components and features intended to create a contextually compatible garage structure. o Policy L-6.3, Encourage bird-friendly design. The project includes retail storefront glass that would face new street trees and storefront glass at the elevator hoist way; a condition of approval requires bird-friendly glass on these windows. 2.a Packet Pg. 16 4 o Policy L-6.6, Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety. The project design includes transparent materials, lighting, and pavement markings to promote/enhance a sense of pedestrian safety. o Policy L-6.10, Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. Retail signage, indicated for placement on retail space(s) elevations facing Waverley and Hamilton, and parking lot wayfinding signage will be developed and submitted in a separate architectural application. o Policy L-8.2, Provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art. The project includes stained cedar wood benches adjacent to board formed concrete planters in the alley and along Hamilton Avenue. o Policy L-70, Enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street trees. The project includes new street trees on Hamilton and Waverley. o Policy L-8.5, Recognize public art … as a community benefit; encourage the development of new public and private art and ensure such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the neighborhood; and Policy L-8.6, seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open space and community gardens The project includes public art integrated into entrances. o Policy L-9.2, Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The project provides underground parking and parking behind first floor retail, and improves the street safety and street tree count at this site. o Policy L-9.8 (Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan by reference, in order to) assure that new land uses recognize the many benefits of trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust tree canopy throughout the city; Related Program L-9.8.1, establish incentives to encourage native trees and low water use plantings in new development throughout the city; and Policy L-9.9, involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development review. The project includes planting of three new, native oaks and additional street trees to address the removal of existing parking lot trees; the Urban Forester has worked to ensure project conformance with policies. o Policy L-9.11, design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots, to meet high-quality urban design standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in design of public infrastructure. The project includes public art and will incorporate parking guidance system. o Related Program L9.11.2, Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers and 2.a Packet Pg. 17 5 telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. The existing transformer and the proposed additional transformer for the project will be located below grade in the proposed pedestrian alley. (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (2a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community; The project is consistent with Finding 2(a), given:  The reduction in driveway curb cuts and right-of-way improvements and provision of parking wayfinding system(s) will improve pedestrian circulation,  The improvements including the location of bicycle parking and pedestrian plaza near the AT&T building on Hamilton Avenue, will be convenient and compatible with the design concept and functions and will improve pedestrian safety along the wider street sidewalks and inside the garage; (2b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant; The project is consistent with Finding 2(b), given:  Although existing on-site trees will be removed to allow for construction of the garage, replacement trees are proposed along the frontages of Hamilton and Waverley.  While the setbacks of the building are less than those on the other three corner properties at the intersection, two of which utilize lawn in the front yard setbacks, the design respects the historic context of: o The National Register and Category 1 Local resource at 380 Hamilton (US Post Office) and 526 Waverley St. Category 3 Local resource designed by Birge Clark, with incorporation of terra cotta material that is reminiscent of clay roof tiles on these and other Downtown buildings in the area, and o The potentially eligible, mid-century modern ‘brutalist’ style All Saints Church, with incorporation of board-formed concrete planters, walls and columns at the base section of the building, below painted concrete structure on the upper floors; (2c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district; Finding 2c is not applicable since the PF zone does not impose context based design criteria. (2d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations; The project is consistent with Finding 2(d), given:  The garage is integrated into the context of the downtown rather than being self-conscious and aggressive, defining itself though program, connections with the site and context as well as streetscape character, drawing from architectural styles but not replicating them.  The massing of the façade is scaled to the street with a new canopy at Hamilton and Waverley that is higher at Waverley Street to relate to the adjacent retail and nearby Post Office arcade.  The height of the AT&T building at seventy-five (75) feet serves as a backdrop to our 2.a Packet Pg. 18 6 building that is 50% shorter.  The retail storefront assists in the transition to retail buildings along Waverley Street.  The materials and architectural forms that establish the character are intended to be compatible with the architecture of the area including use of: o Terra cotta vertical louvers and warm color pavers in interesting patterns at the corner plaza, bike parking plaza and pedestrian alley, as a nod to the character of the brick pavers and walls of the Wells Fargo building on the opposite corner, o Square penetrations/indentations in the Hamilton board-formed concrete wall to echo the Hamilton Avenue windowed-wall of the AT&T building, o Use of custom, perforated metal panel in burnished bronze as a nod to the mesh screen on the building at 560 Waverley. (2e) enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas;  There are no living units proposed on the site; the project is consistent with Finding 2(e), wherever feasible, with pedestrian friendly landscaping, lighting and sidewalks to enhance residents’ experience walking along Waverley and Hamilton. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area; the project is consistent with Finding 3, given:  The materials were selected for durability and construction techniques are appropriate for the use. The primary construction material is poured in place concrete columns, slabs and walls. Along the street edges, the building base columns and shear wall are board-formed concrete in a natural color, similar to All Saints Church.  Metal flat bars painted a dark bronze color are proposed to infill the first floor openings to create screening for pedestrians. The metalwork is continued on the runs and landings of the stair celebrating the metalwork found in the post office and other Spanish revival buildings.  An illuminated perforated metal scrim wraps the main corner stair creating a lantern element that serves as a wayfinding device. This element is also the focus of the public art program for the building.  Vertical metal louvers, capped by a horizontal metal channels, wrap the upper stories and define the cornice of the building. The vertical louvers serve to create a body to the building while allowing for the required garage ventilation.  Colors and textures will be compatible with nearby buildings as noted above and with additional use of quality materials for the pedestrian-amenities, such as stained cedar benches; dark bronze aluminum canopies; dark bronze painted steel posts, trim, guardrail, and pickets. (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space 2.a Packet Pg. 19 7 and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.); the project is consistent with Finding 4, given:  Ease of wayfinding is one of the garage’s key features. For automobiles, the proposal includes a parking guidance system, with the main vehicle entry / exit on Hamilton Avenue near the south corner of the lot since Hamilton is a more travelled way, and a secondary vehicular exit shall be at Lane 21.  The mini-plaza on Hamilton, bike plaza and pedestrian alley accommodate seating and shade for individual passive activities.  Lighting is provided to enliven the architecture and provide for operations at nighttime: o Cantilevered light fixtures and festooned string lights at alley o Uplighting in alley to highlight living walls o Downlighting in canopies (zaniboni luna 2) o Linear downlighting hidden in canopy framework (aion T402) o Full cutoff security downlight in alley o Downlights (delta-lights) recessed in concrete ceilings at pedestrian entries at Hamilton, Lane 21, and elevator/stair plaza o Linear downlight grazing living wall on Hamilton avenue (lumen-pulse lumen- facade series) o Point source down-lighting for art mounted to top of wall (eco-sense rise) (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained; the project is consistent with Finding 5, given  the use of shade-tolerant plant materials for the shaded pedestrian plaza,  provision of street tree species compatible with and replacing existing tree species found at the site,  use of vegetated planters to handle storm water runoff. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning; the project is consistent with Finding #6 given:  Photovoltaic panels are proposed to (eventually) provide shading of vehicles at the top deck of the garage for energy efficiency as a key sustainable feature of the project.  Suitable street tree planting environments and storm water design features are key features of the project.  The building (above grade) will be naturally ventilated and meet California Building Code requirements to achieve the prescribed open area and length. The basement will be mechanically ventilated. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Public Parking Garage at 375 Hamilton Avenue by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 2.a Packet Pg. 20 8 SECTION 5. Plan Approval. The plans for the Downtown Parking Garage submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Watry Design, Inc. consisting of 34 pages, received May 7, 2018, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. The Mitigation Measures Described in the Draft EIR are incorporated into these conditions. The mitigation measures are provided in an Exhibit with the Council Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. 1. MM BIO-1 Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and any other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 to August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. MM BIO-2 Tree Preservation and Protection Plan. To avoid disturbance and injury to onsite trees, the recommendations for tree preservation in the Arborist Report dated May 2017 shall be implemented. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, tree protection fencing to enclose as much of the TPZ as feasible around City trees on the sidewalks, no grading encroachments closer than 6 inches to the tree trunk diameter, and periodic inspections by the Site Arborist during construction activities. A total of nine trees would be planted on the project site as part of the landscaping plan. Two Gingko Biloba trees would be planted on Waverley Street and four Gingko Biloba trees and three Quercus Agrifolia tree would be planted along Hamilton Avenue. There would be no net loss of trees, and Palo Alto’s Urban Forest Master Plan policy for “no net loss of canopy” would be met with the project via standard conditions of approval requiring replacement of lost canopy within 15 years of planting with the provision of adequate soil volume at the planting sites. Replacement ratios can be adjusted due to the condition of the existing tree as long as the minimum replacement for any live tree is 2:1. To ensure “no net loss of canopy” new trees replacing the site’s non-protected trees to be removed will be addressed through the City’s implementation of standard approval conditions. MM BIO-3 Tree Replacement. The removal of protected Coast Live Oak tree (Tree #8 in the Arborist Report prepared for the project) is subject to the City of Palo Alto’s tree removal ordinance in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10. Trees removed will be replaced according to replacement tree mitigation measures using the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00 (see table below). The replacement standards outlined in the Tree Technical Manual will be utilized to achieve no net loss of canopy per Policy 1.G of the Urban Forest Master Plan. Site preparation and soil volume requirements apply so that newly planted trees have the potential to mature to desired size and thrive. As determined by the City’s Urban Forester, the planting of three native oaks in the Hamilton Avenue right of way at the project site is appropriate as mitigation to replace the loss of the one Coast Live Oak on site, subject to the standard requirement to provide adequate soil conditions to ensure the replacement trees will thrive. 2.a Packet Pg. 21 9 MM CTR-1 Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist or paleontologist has evaluated the nature andsignificance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. MM CTR-2 Human Remains Recovery Procedures. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. Additional surveys will be required if the project changes to include unsurveyed areas. MM CTR-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative MM GEO-1 Geotechnical Investigation for Basement Structure. Building foundations shall be designed to tolerate total and differential settlements due to static loads and liquefaction-induced settlement in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The current geotechnical report includes recommendation for a no- basement building only. The project sponsor shall retain the service of a qualified state licensed engineering and geology specialist to include site-specific recommendation to mitigate the potential for risks associated with seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure and liquefaction for the foundation of a building with basement. The updated report would include design requirements for the construction of the foundation for the basement option. MM GEO-2 Temporary Shoring, Slopes and Cut. The contractor is responsible for maintaining all temporary slopes and providing temporary shoring where required. Temporary shoring, bracing and cuts/fills would be performed in accordance with the strictest government safety standards. Excavation during site demolition and fill removal should be sloped at 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) within the upper 5 feet. For excavation extending more than 5 feet below building subgrade, excavations should be sloped in accordance with the OSHA soil classification. The contractor is responsible for selecting the shoring method according to their judgment and experience considering adjacent improvements such as foundation loads, utilities and pavement. The qualified state licensed engineering and geology specialist in charge of the geotechnical report shall review the shoring design prior to implementation. Recommendations of the geotechnical report for temporary shoring are soldier beams and tie-backs, braced excavation, or other potential methods. The contractor is responsible or using best management practices to maintain all temporary slopes and providing temporary shoring where required. MM HAZ-1 Health and Safety Plan. The project sponsor will implement the following standard measures to avoid and minimize impacts from hazardous material to construction workers and the general public during construction. 1) In the event of exposing hazardous material during construction, the City will implement standard measures required by the federal, state, and local regulations for the collection, transport, and disposal of the material to prevent the exposure of workers and the public to such material. 2) The City will require the contractor to prepare and implement Health and Safety Plan that include a Hazardous Materials Management and Spill Prevention and Control Plan prior to commencement of construction. The plan will include the project-specific related hazardous materials and waste operations. 2.a Packet Pg. 22 10 MM TR-1 Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the excavation, the construction contractor shall develop the traffic control plan in accordance with City’s policies, coordinate with VTA and submit for City approval. The plan shall be implemented throughout the course of the project construction and may include, but not limited to, the following elements: • Limit truck access to the project site during peak commute times (7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.). • Restrict construction truck routes to truck routes designated by the City. • Contractor will provide adequate parking or carpool strategy for construction employees near the construction site, as approved by the City. • Require traffic control in the project entrance driveway, including flag persons wearing bright orange or red vests and using “Stop/Slow” Paddle to control oncoming traffic. • Coordinate with VTA to temporarily relocate the bus stop to ensure minimal impacts during sidewalk closure, if needed. • Maintain bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation during project construction. If construction encroaches on a sidewalk, a safe detour will be provided for pedestrian at the nearest crosswalk. • Repair or restore the road right-of-way to its original condition or better upon completion of the work. • Provide access for emergency vehicles at all time. MM TR-2 Vehicle Queuing Analysis. In the event the project includes a paid parking component; and, therefore, includes a parking gate, the project must prepare and submit a queuing study that shows, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division, that queuing into Hamilton Avenue would be avoided. Queuing includes a line of two or more vehicles waiting to enter the structure, which could block traffic on Hamilton. The study will consider the configuration and the anticipated volume of vehicles accessing the parking garage during the peak hour. The provisional gates must process vehicles efficiently such that vehicles do not have to wait to turn into the parking facility. MM TR-3 Parking Structure Access and Exit Safety Improvement: The following improvement shall be implemented to improve safety in accessing and exiting the proposed parking structure: • The City will install a stop sign at the intersection of Lane 21 and Bryant Street Planning 1. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this project. 2. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review. 3. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 4. As noted in the Civil Site Plan, the drive-by mailboxes and median, signage and striping shall be removed on Hamilton Avenue across from the project and restriped for four on-street parking spaces. Public Art The project will have a public art element commissioned through the Municipal Percent for Art Ordinance No. 5301. After a competitive process, Amy Landesberg was selected as the project artist and approved by the Public Art Commission in November 2017. Landesberg came to Palo Alto in December and met with the design team and key stakeholders, toured the site, and held a community meeting to gather input. She is currently working on a conceptual design for artwork that will likely be mounted on the perforated metal screens above the main entrance to the garage and at the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. Once her design is approved by the Public Art Commission, then she will be issued a contract for the fabrication and installation of the artwork. That contract will require City Council approval. 2.a Packet Pg. 23 11 Transportation The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 1. BIKESTATION DESIGN: As plans are refined, ensure the following features are incorporated into the design of the proposed bike station: a. The bike station shall have a two-tier bicycle parking system with the second level equipped with a lift-assist system to allow users to lift the bicycle storage tray to the second level with little physical effort. An example of this product is the Dero Decker, manufactured by Dero. b. The bicycle parking enclosure shall be accessible only to owners or operators of bicycles within it and doors of the enclosure equipped with key or electronic locking mechanisms that admit only users and managers of the facility. The enclosure doors must close and lock automatically if released. c. Adequate horizontal and vertical clearances shall be provided between the bicycle parking fixtures and walls or other vertical obstructions. A two-tier bicycle parking fixture requires additional clearance to facilitate bicycle loading and unloading of the second-level tray. d. Adequate lighting within the bicycle parking enclosure shall be provided. e. Conduit or similar features shall be provided for future CCTV systems within the bicycle parking enclosure. 2. TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS: As part of this project, traffic signal modifications are necessary at two intersections: Hamilton Avenue and Gilman Street and Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. Traffic signal engineering design plans shall be prepared and developed in coordination with the Transportation Division. 3. PARKING WAYFINDING SIGANGE: Parking wayfinding signage shall be provided which is consistent with the appearance and messaging system developed as part of the city’s downtown parking wayfinding signage program. A freestanding pylon or façade-mounted marquee sign shall be provided adjacent to the Hamilton Avenue entrance. Sign design details and specifications are available in the city’s parking wayfinding sign construction plan set. Public Works Urban Forestry 1. Tree replacements for removals must result in no net loss of canopy within 15 years of planting. 2. The number and species of trees is appropriate to accomplish this except that soil volume and distance between the trees and building is inadequate. 3. Gingko biloba, a medium-sized tree at maturity, needs 800 cubic feet of soil per tree and Quercus agrifolia, a large-sized tree, needs 1200 cubic feet per tree. 4. The 9 proposed trees require 8400 cubic feet of soil volume at 3 feet deep. 5. If tree wells are combined into a connected soil area, 75% of the combined volume, 6300 cubic feet, would be adequate to allow trees to grow to full mature size. 6. Combined soil volume can be provided with a suspended pavement system using soil cells, pier and grade beam, or other methods to provide non-compacted healthy soil under pavement. 2.a Packet Pg. 24 12 Building The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 1. The quantities in the Parking Stall Summation Chart shall be maintained showing the required number for each of the following: a. Van Accessible: 2 spaces, b. Accessible: 6 spaces, c. Standard: 244 spaces, d. Van Accessible EV: 1 space, e. Accessible EV: 1 space, f. Standard EV: 17 spaces, g. Future EV: 43 spaces, h. Clean Air/ Carpool: 24 spaces, i. Total: 338 spaces. 2. For the 5-Story parking garage to be considered as an Open Parking Garage, it shall comply with the following criteria from CBC 406.5.2: a. For natural ventilation purposes, the exterior shall have uniformly distributed openings on two or more sides. b. The area of the openings on each tier shall not be less than 20 percent of the total perimeter of wall area. c. The aggregate length of the openings providing natural ventilation shall be not less than 40 percent of the perimeter of the tier. 3. The vertical clearance within the garage from the garage floor to the lowest ceiling projection above, e.g. ceiling/ floor beam shall be a minimum of 98” (8’-2”) for accessibility. (BC 11B-503.5) 4. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. 1. Buildings with two or more stories above grade plane are required to be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with CBC Section 903.3.1.1. 2. For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements are required per PAMC 16.14.080. A completed Green Building Checklist “GB-1 Non-Residential Mandatory Plus Tier 2” sheet is required for the building permit submittal package. 3. City of Palo Alto has adopted CALGreen Mandatory +Tier 2 for new construction and requires that 12% to the total parking spaces shall be low-emitting, fuel-efficient and carpool/van pool vehicles. (CALGreen A5.106.1.2) 4. The Palo Alto Municipal Code, PAMC section 16.14.130 requires new non-residential structures to provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. In addition, where EV spaces have been provided, the EV charging spaces shall comply with CBC 11B-228.3.2 and Table 11B-228.3.2.1 for the minimum number of accessible EV spaces. The accessible EV charging spaces shall comply with the technical requirements of CBC 11B-812. 5. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. Public Works Engineering 1. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the 2.a Packet Pg. 25 13 approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bio-swales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the planning review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to planning approval by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings.  Provision C3 Form  Storm Water Treatment Design Certification  3rd Party review response letter (stamped/signed)  http://www.scvurpppw2k.com/pdfs/1112/SCVURPPP_C.3_Data_Form_final_2012.pdf 2. City records indicate there is a small easement running along the Hamilton Ave frontage. Please verify with title report and update plans in these locations. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and/or Encroachment Permit. 1. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 2. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 3. EXCAVATION: Plans shall clearly identify the deepest point of excavation including below grade basement slab with note and appropriate dimensions. 4. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing 2.a Packet Pg. 26 14 runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 5. GRADING: Project proposal includes an underground structure. A rough grading plan will need to be present in submittal. 6. ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE: Garage drains shall have sand/oil separator indicated. Proposed trash enclosure shall be required to drain to sanitary sewer only. 7. RETAIL SPACE: If any proposed food service is planned a grease trap will be required. 8. UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 9. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line and 3-feet from side an rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 10. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 11. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide the following note on the Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.” 12. DEWATERING: Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. 2.a Packet Pg. 27 15 Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Grading Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a Grading Permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website.  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64867 13. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of- way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 14. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 15. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 16. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Include a scan copy of the Site Inspection Directive obtained from Inspector in plan set. 17. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Along with full sidewalk, curb & gutter replacement, street resurfacing is also required for the property frontage along Hamilton Ave and Waverley St. 18. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 19. PUBLIC RESTROOM: Please clarify the proposed plan for the existing JCDecaux public restroom. The plan indicates a proposed removal. The relocation of the facility or proposed outcome shall be identified on the plan set. 20. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 2.a Packet Pg. 28 16 21. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 22. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Include a copy in resubmittal. Guidelines are attached below: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2719 23. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is a C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. Fire Department None Utilities WGW PLACEHOLDER: CONDITIONS SPECIFIC TO DOWNTOWN GARAGE MAY 2018 PLANS TO BE PROVIDED WEEK OF JUNE 18 The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 1. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application – load sheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads 2. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way. 3. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the duct bank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 5. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 2.a Packet Pg. 29 17 6. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 7. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 8. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 9. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 10. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 11. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 12. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Utilities Electrical A. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to Planning entitlement (Council) approval: 1. Project specific comments: This project is in conflict with existing electric and fiber optic utilities which will have to be relocated in order for the project to proceed. Applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of the primary electric utility line which runs through the project. Relocation work includes, but is not limited to, all trenching and substructure construction and the installation of conduits, cables and equipment. Applicant shall coordinate work with CPAU – Electric. Applicant shall be responsible for the relocation of the City’s dark fiber optic system backbone which runs through the project. Relocation work includes, but is not limited to, all trenching and substructure construction and the installation of conduits. Applicant shall coordinate work with CPAU – Electric. All relocation work shall be completed prior to disturbance and/or demolition of existing electric and fiber facilities. Applicant shall submit a formal request and application for the relocation of facilities to CPAU – Electric Engineering. CPAU – Electric shall provide specifications for the design for the relocation of the electric primary lines and fiber optic cables. Applicant shall be responsible for engineering design and shall submit the design for approval by CPAU Electric Engineering. Applicant shall show the proposed locations of the relocated electric primary line and dark fiber optic line on the site plan. Locations of the new electric primary line and dark fiber optic line shall be submitted to CPAU Electric Engineering for review and approval. 2.a Packet Pg. 30 18 Applicant shall provide space for a minimum of four (4) new electric vaults. The vault dimensions are provided on the engineer’s mark-up. Applicant shall provide space for a fiber optic communication box. The box dimension is provided on the engineer’s mark-up. Applicant shall be responsible for the installation of an electric/city fiber joint trench. Applicant shall show the location of the joint trench, vaults and boxes on a resubmitted site-plan. Vaults 1820 and 1821, located in the triangle area of the premise, shall not be removed. Applicant shall be responsible to keep these vaults at grade. The electric room shall be above grade level. Location of electric room on basement level is not approved. All service equipment must be located above grade unless otherwise approved by Electric Engineering. If applying for an exception, please state the reason why you cannot meet the standard requirement. Meter equipment must be accessible to CPAU personnel at all times. Applicant shall adhere to the requirements stated in CPAU Electric Engineering Standard Drawings DT-SS-U-1002 (Underground Junction Boxes) and DT-SS-U-1003 (Underground Duct Lines). Applicant shall maintain the required minimum clearances between electric and fiber lines and other utilities as noted in DT-SS-U-1003. 2. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 4. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18 5. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 6. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 7. The location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 8. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 9. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards. 10. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 11. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 12. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 13. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 14. Transfer of fiber customers will require a minimum of six months to complete from completion of infrastructure. Existing fiber conduit shall not be disturbed until all fiber customers have been transferred to the new fiber facilities. B. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: B 1. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 2.a Packet Pg. 31 19 B 2. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. B 3. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. B 4. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. B 5. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. B 6. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. B 7. The customer is responsible for installing all substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. B 8. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. B 9. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. B 10. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. B 11. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. B 12. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. B 13. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. B 14. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: 2.a Packet Pg. 32 20 Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 B 15. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. B 16. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. B 17. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. B 18. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service:  All fees must be paid.  All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.  All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant.  Easement documents must be completed. Public Works Water Quality (Stormwater Management) 1. Submit and follow the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” construction BMP sheet during life of project. 2. Highly consider using rain chains or similar along vines and other walls/building corners. 3. Stormwater treatment measures o Consider using low-maintenance permeable pavers for a small demonstration area. Appropriate specs must be followed. Vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks Maintenance Staff before installation. o Installation vendor specs should be followed, though vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks Maintenance Staff before installation. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. o A clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent Departments (Public Works, Parks) before occupancy approval. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 to facilitate this agreement. o Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. o Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details o Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329- 2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. o Install an interpretive sign regarding stormwater treatment and pollution prevention. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this text. 4. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) o Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape- professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note in the building plans. o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note in the building plans. 5. Stormwater quality protection o Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. o Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). 2.a Packet Pg. 33 21 o Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. o Establish a street sweeping maintenance plan in open parking lots. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this plan. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy: 1. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. 2. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 3. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 4. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 6. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and equipment. 2.a Packet Pg. 34 22 SECTION 7. Indemnity. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 8. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Downtown Parking Garage Those plans prepared by Watry Design, Inc., entitled Downtown Parking Garage and consisting of 34 pages, and received May 7, 2018. 2.a Packet Pg. 35 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8918) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 375 Hamilton Downtown Parking Garage Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]: Recommendation for a Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Application for a Five-Level, 50' Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level, Providing 325 Public Parking Spaces and Approximately 2,000 Square Feet of Retail Space Fronting Waverley Street. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published May 18, 2018 and circulated for public comments. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) published May 18, 2018, and provide comments on the Draft EIR, and 2. Conduct public hearing and provide comments on the proposed project and continue the hearing to a date certain, July 5, 2018, to allow all five ARB members to consider and provide a recommendation on the project. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63384. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. 2.b Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the ARB’s comments and detail the applicant’s response to those comments, as well as to provide discussion regarding the recently published Draft EIR to allow public comments during the public comment period ending July 2, 2018. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report, modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On February 15, 2018, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-75/. Excerpt meeting minutes are attached (Attachment C). The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response The extent of the Hamilton setback encroachment is too great (zero setback for columns, two feet to building wall) – provide a greater setback from Hamilton property line The building is now set back 3 feet (a 4 foot encroachment into 7 foot special setback) from the property line, and better aligned with the ATT building. This change contributed to the reduction in the overall number of parking spaces provided at each level. (1) Proportion and massing are a concern at the Hamilton side (too uniform); (2) Building has a base and middle but no top; (3) Greenery can soften brutalist architecture (but clarify how can ensure greenery will succeed - texture alone should succeed even without the plant material). The heavy two-story arcade base is now a narrow canopy at Hamilton and Waverley. There is still no ‘top’ – it is base and above base. Public art will now also be installed above the parking entrance on Hamilton Avenue. Vines trained to grow on cable grid will visually soften the board-formed concrete wall that has a pattern of square penetrations or indentations. Corner stair concern: the relationship between the edges and the floor and the stair are “sort of out of sync” The material of the perforated metal shroud at the corner stair was refined into a more open, transparent structure and the mass/apparent mass of the stair covering was reduced. The public art installation will be incorporated into and onto the perforated metal panel screens around the stair. Alley service area issues, difficult to resolve Concrete paving will ensure durable access to the common refuse storage room at Lane 21 Provide as high as a ceiling on the ground floor as feasible, to make it more open (safe and inviting) for a better pedestrian experience travelling from Hamilton to CVS – increase the perception of height for the pedestrian path inside the garage and bring more attention to where the bike parking is First floor ceiling height was raised to 12’6” and the fourth floor ceiling height was reduced to keep the same overall building height. Small entry plaza near 50-bike, 585 sf storage room near the main vehicle Leads to a pedestrian pathway through the structure to Lane 21 near CVS. Landscaping concerns were: (1) plants on the dark side of the building are unlikely to flourish, and (2) the section of the alley where the trees were shown would be more utilitarian - The project landscape architect is preparing a letter describing the viability of plant material. The columnar Gingko trees in the alley were deleted from the plans and the number of street trees was increased by four trees (two Gingko trees added to 2.b Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 trees might inhibit access. existing trees on Waverley, two Gingko trees added on Hamilton) The 3 Oaks on Hamilton would compensate for the removal of the one protected oak tree. Pedestrian Circulation The above left image shows the proposed, dedicated pedestrian circulation path from Hamilton, intended to minimize conflicts with vehicles. The middle image shows the Hamilton Avenue pedestrian plaza next to the AT&T building, leading to the bicycle storage area - and including a wood bench attached to the board formed concrete planter, near the vehicle entrance. Several of these wood benches are also proposed to be attached to planters along Hamilton, where a wider sidewalk (given the increased building setback) and seven street trees are proposed. The above right image shows the pedestrian experience exiting the garage into the alley and walking down the alley toward the Waverley Street retail stores. Stairwells will be illuminated by linear downlights hidden in the canopy framework (Aion WT402 series) and by delta-lights (recessed in concrete lights). The daytime experiences at the corner plaza and Waverley entrance to the alley are illustrated in images below left and right, respectively. Design Changes Contributing to Reduction in Parking Spaces The design modifications that contributed to a 13-parking space reduction (to 325 spaces) included:  Reduction in plan depth on Hamilton to move the building away from the property line.  Increase in the height of the first story to improve pedestrian routes and retail area.  Provision of safer pedestrian route from Hamilton Ave to the pedestrian alley. To move the building away from Hamilton, the drive aisle was reduced by one foot and the parking stall widths in this area were increased to meet City stall width standard. The increase 2.b Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 in stall width necessitated a reduction in the number of stalls that could be accommodated in this area on all floors. The reduction of the height of level 4 removed the ability to provide ADA stalls at levels 4 and 5 and stall layouts at ground floor and floors 1 and 2 were adjusted to meet ADA code requirements, but this also impacted the stall count. The dedicated pedestrian route from Hamilton to the pedestrian alley way crosses a previously parked area and therefore, additional parking stalls were lost to make a safer crossing. Elevations The images below show a post and wire system (left photo), excerpt of the Hamilton elevation (middle image) wired vines attached to board-formed concrete), and 2017 elevation excerpt. Images of the Hamilton and Waverley elevations below allow visual comparison of December 2017 and May 2018 designs. The first elevation shows the revised Hamilton Ave. elevation. The below image from the December 2017 plans, shows the earlier Hamilton Ave. elevation: 2.b Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Images of the Waverley Street elevations are above (May 2018) and below (December 2017). Street Tree Additions The revised landscape plan (sheet ARB 4.1) shows two new Gingkos (to supplement the two existing Gingkos) on Waverley, and four Ginkgos and three oaks on Hamilton following the February ARB meeting, and deletion of the alley’s columnar Gingkos. Corner Plaza and Alley Treatment: Hardscaping, Storm-water Treatment, Landscaping Clarifications are as follows:  The rendered images on plan sheets ARB 3.3 and 3.9 still reflect alley Gingkos, which are no longer proposed and would be modified in plans for City Council review.  Plan sheet ARB 3.9 renderings indicate a gray paving pattern for the corner plaza and alley, whereas plan sheets ARB 4.1 and ARB 4.2 show warm brick colored pavers mixed with gray pavers in the corner plaza, alley and a small plaza near the bike locker area. 2.b Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The pedestrian access alley is intended to be a quiet, human-scaled alternative route through the project site with inviting, decorative pervious pavement, benches, landscaped storm water treatment planters, and pedestrian scaled lighting. The bench options shown in the plans included Timber form ‘Colossus’ and Landscape Forms ‘Parallel’. The storm water planters are at grade level (even with the walkway), and will feature a combination of low growing knee high foliage, flowering plants that provide year round interest and function to cleanse storm water directed from the parking structure roof. Planting species have been carefully selected to be successful in the alley environment and to enhance the pedestrian experience. Deep shade plants (sword fern, red current) are among the plants selected for alley landscaping; images of these species are provided on sheet ARB 4.2. Parking Space Composition The 325 automobile stalls on all levels include eight accessible spaces, 82 Stalls enabled for electric vehicle charging capacity (with 17 to be installed initially). A total of six stalls are proposed to serve the new retail area, with one stall provided to serve 550 Waverley. None of the spaces are proposed to utilize mechanical parking systems. Approximately 46 bike parking spaces appear to be possible on the first floor of the garage in double vertical racks; the remaining space is adjacent to the shear wall and will not allow the depth required for the stackers. The applicant is considering using a different rack system that would allow at least an additional 10 bikes and still allow bike and trailer storage – so the total bike parking count is anticipated to increase to 55-60 bikes (including 3 trailers). Photo-Voltaic Panels and Building Height The building will be designed with infrastructure to allow for the future installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels mounted above the top parking deck. The PV structure will reach a height of 56 feet above grade. The elevator penthouse would reach a height of 63 feet above grade. The primary stair and elevator circulation features are prominently positioned at the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue where the building edge erodes to create a pedestrian court. Setbacks and Floor Area As noted in the above chart and attached zoning compliance table, the building is now proposed to be set back three feet from the property line at Hamilton Avenue (extending four feet into the special setback). The building extends to the property line at Waverley Street. The structure would still be two feet from the interior lot line at the AT&T building, ten feet from the southerly wall of 560 Waverley Street property, and 16’7” from the rear wall of the Waverley Street properties. The building separation/setback compliance in this location is important to allow for openings for natural ventilation into the parking garage, and for light to reach the existing windows at 560 Waverley. This necessary setback also creates the opportunity for the pedestrian walkway. 2.b Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Analysis1 The proposed changes address the ARB’s and staff comments as noted in the previous report section. The February 15, 2018 report provided analysis of the project with respect to the Downtown Urban Design Guide, Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning compliance. To the extent the modifications warrant further conversation, that discussion is provided below. The project will be scheduled for approval by Council following (1) conclusion of the DEIR comment period on July 2, 2018, (2) the preparation of a Final EIR responding to any comments. Downtown Urban Design Guide The revised project now better supports the Guide’s district goal to promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed use district and meet the goal for complimentary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity, by provision of:  Reduction in the automobile parking space supply (now 325 spaces, a 13-space reduction) is balanced by the number bicycle parking spaces (50 spaces) and improved pedestrian circulation within the garage,  Retention of 1,955 sf of retail space (slightly reduced area from the prior plans),  Four additional street trees,  Additional bench seating with planters along Hamilton Avenue.  The parking guidance system will make parking in the upper and lower garage levels more convenient.  The improved pedestrian route from Hamilton Avenue through the building will assist wayfinding.  The corner building and plaza treatment is still strong but the mass of the stair covering was reduced to respond to the ARB’s comments.  Direct access to the retail space is still provided from the corner plaza as well as from the Waverley frontage.  Public art, low plant material along Hamilton Avenue, supplemented by the additional street trees, will contribute to pedestrian friendliness on this frontage. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Compliance Relevant Comprehensive Plan policies, and project features related thereto, are cited in DEIR and the RLUA (Attachment A). The Zoning compliance table has been modified (Attachment B) to reflect project plan changes such as the increased setback along Hamilton Avenue. The PF zone minimum 10 foot setback from the property lines shared with the existing Waverley Street buildings will be met with the project. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2.b Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Additional plan modifications to ensure consistency between plan sheet pages, and further address recent City staff comments regarding soil volume and storm water treatment, will be undertaken prior to Council review in the fall. Key Issues PF Zone Ordinance, Hamilton Setback and Parking Spaces: On June 11, 2018, Council approved the PF zone and parking regulations ordinance amendment. The second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for June 25, 2018. The code modifications will allow Council to approve the Downtown Garage with the exceptions to development standards including setbacks. The architect/project team responded to the ARB’s request to reduce the encroachment into the Hamilton setback, and for safe pedestrian access from Hamilton through the garage to the pedestrian alley. As noted, the provision of a three foot setback from Hamilton, and other plan modifications to address pedestrian safety inside the garage, resulted in a reduction in the overall number of parking spaces. The Council will have the opportunity to consider and act on the application, including the number of automobile and bike parking spaces to be provided. Transformer: The existing above -grade transformer will be placed below grade as part of this project, to clean up the alley. The new transformer for the garage will also be put below grade, as shown on plan sheet ARB 2.1 Bird Friendly Glass: The retail storefront windows and the elevator tower storefront system will be facing new trees, so bird-friendly glass is needed. An approval condition to require bird- friendly glass is included in the RLUA. Signage: While the plans indicate wall signage for the retail space(s) facing the Waverley and Hamilton frontages, the tenant(s) and sign program is unknown at this time. The plans show signs would hang above the vehicle entrances, stating “exit only” and “public parking”. Address signage, and vehicular and pedestrian wayfinding signage would be needed. The retail space signage would be part of a separate architectural review application. Street Trees: The Urban Forester has noted that the soil volume and distance between the street trees and new building are inadequate, with the following specific comments: 2.b Packet Pg. 43 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9  Gingko biloba, a medium-sized tree at maturity, needs 800 cubic feet of soil per tree and Quercus agrifolia, a large-sized tree, needs 1200 cubic feet per tree.  The nine proposed trees require 8400 cubic feet of soil volume at 3 feet deep.  If tree wells are combined into a connected soil area, 75% of the combined volume, 6300 cubic feet, would be adequate to allow trees to grow to full mature size.  Combined soil volume can be provided with a suspended pavement system using soil cells, pier and grade beam, or other methods to provide non-compacted healthy soil under pavement. Relevant conditions of approval are included in the Draft Record of Land Use Action to address these concerns. Loading and Access to Existing Waverley Street Properties: At the February 15, 2018 ARB meeting, a representative of the owners of property on Waverley spoke regarding access, parking and deliveries to the Waverley businesses. The discussion about the issues raised is under the Public Comments section of this report. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published on May 18, 2018 and circulated for public comments. The comment period ends July 2, 2018. The Draft EIR is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65110. Draft EIR Summary and Mitigation Measures The Draft EIR page 1 Executive Summary provides a project overview, project objectives and approach, four alternatives to the proposed project, and a summary of impacts with level of significance described in a table. The topics with mitigation measures required are: 1. Biology: Mitigation measures are proposed to address potential impacts related to nesting birds, tree preservation and protection, tree replacement. The tree measures require the arborist report of May 2017 to be implemented, with no net loss of canopy, and the planting of Gingkos and Oaks along Hamilton and Waverley are part of the mitigation. 2. Cultural Resources: Mitigation measures are proposed regarding resource and human remains recovery procedures, and unanticipated discover of tribal cultural resources. 3. Geology and Soil: Mitigation measures are proposed related to geotechnical investigation for basement structures, and temporary basement shoring, slopes and cut, and require implementation of the geotechnical report recommendations and best management practices. 4. Hazardous Waste and Material: One mitigation measure is proposed to require preparation and implementation of a health and safety plan, and implementation of standard measures for 2.b Packet Pg. 44 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 collection, transport and disposal of material if hazardous material is exposed during construction. 5. Transportation: Three mitigation measures are proposed to require a construction traffic control plan, a vehicle queuing analysis (in the event a paid parking component with gates is implemented) and a parking structure access and exit safety improvement (a stop sign at the intersection of Lane 21 and Bryant Street. In 2017, a Draft Initial Study and Notice of Preparation had been circulated to the State Clearinghouse and notice was provided under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR has also been circulated to the State Clearinghouse for comments. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on June 8, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 8, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments The City has responded to comments made by the property owner of 558-560 Waverley Street via letters attached to this report (Attachment G). The topics addressed therein included garage access for on-site parking, dedicated parking spaces in the garage, access to clean out servicing, and aesthetics of the garage. The City’s response noted:  Any request for access easements would be revisited if and when applications for redevelopment of the properties are submitted, and the formal parking space allocated to 550 Waverley per the City’s Assessment Roll is replaced in the garage plan. The City has offered to create a loading zone on Waverley Street for deliveries.  The grease trap service vendor for 560 Waverley utilizes the public parking lot and improperly blocks the drive aisle to service the clean outs, and the garage design allows a typical large pump truck with a 100’ hose to park adjacent to the trash enclosure to perform servicing operations.  Unchanged are the 10 foot pedestrian alley width (required to allow openings for natural ventilation into the garage) and the eight feet long canopy lighting.  The elevator hoist way is designed to have clear tempered glazing to provide patrons a better view of the historic Post Office and Hamilton Avenue streetscape. As of the writing of this report, staff had not received any public comments on the Draft EIR. Public comments submitted in writing prior to the comment period end date, July 2, 2018, will be addressed in the Final EIR prior to Council consideration of the project. Alternative Actions Alternatives to the recommended action include: 2.b Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 1. ARB recommends approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval contained in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). 2. ARB recommends approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; or 3. ARB recommends project denial based on revised findings. Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOC)  Attachment B: Downtown Parking Garage Updated Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: February 15 2018 ARB Excerpt minutes (DOCX)  Attachment E: February 15, 2018 ARB Report Without Attachments (PDF)  Attachment F: Project plans and Draft EIR (directions to project webpage) (DOCX)  Attachment G PART 1: 2018-02-12 Letter to Brian McSweeney (2) (PDF)  Attachment G PART 2: Wong letter February 14 (PDF)  Attachment G PART 3: Most Recent Letter to Brian McSweeney (PDF) 2.b Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Robert Gooyer. Absent: Board Member Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00360]: Recommendation for a Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Application for a Five-Level, 50' Tall Parking Structure, With One Below Grade Parking Level, Providing 325 Public Parking Spaces and Approximately 2,000 Square Feet of Retail Space Fronting Waverley Street. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was published May 18, 2018 and circulated for public comments. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Item number 1 [sic] is a public hearing, it's a quasi-judicial public hearing, and it concerns 375 Hamilton Avenue. It's a request for a recommendation on architectural review approval of an architectural review application for a five-level, 50-foot-tall parking structure with one below-grade parking level, providing 325 public parking spaces and approximately 2,000 square feet of retail space fronting Waverly. And, perhaps more important for us today, there is a draft Environmental Impact Report, which was published on May 18th and is being circulated for public comment. One of the purposes of today's hearing is to take public hearing on that environmental document, and also to hear any comments from the members of the Board. As you can...Oh, so sorry, we'll get there in just a second. We have some, is that right? Mr. Owen: We have one speaker who would like to speak. Chair Furth: Super. We will get back to Item 2, and we will do Oral Communications. [The Commission returned to Oral Communications] Chair Furth: We'll try again on Item Number 2, which is still a public hearing on the downtown garage proposed at 375 Hamilton Avenue, and in particular, on the Environmental Impact Report, which has been available for some time. Before we do this, this is quasi-judicial. Does anybody...? I think we've all visited the site, correct? Multiple times? Has anybody had any communications outside of our board meetings they wish to or need to report? I have. I met with staff, with Brad and others, before this meeting, to go over what they planned to present. The one piece of information that I had not focused on, which is not to say it was not in the literal mountain of information they gave us, was the need to relocate electrical and telecommunications lines, fiber line, that presently go from Hamilton towards CVS. They go through the existing parking lot. And the affect that that has on their choices and preferences with respect to open spaces around the edge of the project. Having said that, staff report, please. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you. Today, the purpose of the hearing is to conduct the comment, the public testimony hearing on the draft Environmental Impact Report, which you received the binder of. These are at the libraries and on line. They were circulated to the state clearing house, as ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: June 21, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 2.c Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Page 2 well as the county notice of preparation and availability. The second piece of today is to hear from the architect on the modified project plans, and hear about how these comments that were provided on February 15th were addressed in the revised plans. Finally, your comments as the three members present, as to anything you would like to see come back at the July hearing. Right now, we have said we're coming back on July 5th, as all members are available. This was noted as a value of this Board, to have all five members present to make a recommendation to the City Council on this project. On the screen -- and this was in the staff report -- is the process that we've been through. The Environmental Quality Act of California requires several stages of review. We opted for the scoping hearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission back last year, May 31st -- more than a year ago now -- and then, the City Council had conducted a pre-screening meeting regarding the changes proposed to the public facilities zoned district to accommodate public safety building, essential service buildings, and public parking garages. We then had two preliminary hearings, one with the HRB and one with the ARB -- yourselves -- back in the end of summer last year. Then we had our first formal back in February. This is the second formal hearing. We try to do public buildings in two hearings. Obviously, the need for five members, you know, gives us the opportunity to have a third hearing because that has been expressed as desired. Then, as far as the Public Facilities’ own development standards ordinance, that was approved by Council on June 11th, just last week, and it will be going back, a second meeting on June 25th. They did approve all the changes, and as noted, the Council will be reviewing each of these projects that comes through with these exception to the zoning standards. Then, we're looking towards going back in the fall to Council with this project, the downtown garage. Some of the issues that were identified previously were this pedestrian path from Hamilton to CVS. It's a path that's traveled today through a parking lot, so it will continue to be traveled through a parking lot. But, the experience is a bit modified, coming from a plaza that goes past the bicycle and, with strollers now, stroller parking, through the garage, angling over to this pedestrian alley, the improved alley that would have features including pedestrian amenities, benches, landscaping. And then, there would be this other alley exiting over to Waverley. The first-floor ceiling has been raised to 12-6 to provide a more spacious head height for the pedestrians walking through there. The architect will cover this in detail. Then, we have our second issue, which is the Hamilton setback. The response has been to increase the setback from Hamilton. It is now a three-foot setback, otherwise known as a four-foot encroachment, into the seven-foot special setback. It is better aligned with the AT&T building, which is the shaded building to the left. What this has done is it has reduced the number of parking spaces provided in the garage at each level. The third issue is...(that's right, there's these little...okay…trying to get to the next slide. There we go). Key issue three is the architecture and the landscaping, which the architect will cover in his presentation. There are some key features of the concrete use, with the punched indents on the Hamilton side and not on this side. And then, we have vines growing up with cables. We have some durable concrete use in the alley to allow for all of the logistics there. And, we have alley plantings that are going to be working with the shade. We have a letter that's coming forward....Not? Okay. So, there's a letter that will be coming forward from the landscape architect that will discuss the plant materials chosen. That will be available at our next hearing, if not before. We do have storm water planters that will be at grade in Lane 21 here, but then, in the alley there will be some raised planters, and along Hamilton. We do have more street trees showing in the new plans that we've received, so two additional trees on each of the frontages. That is the new look here. We have a little more detail on the art that is to be used at the stair enclosure and over the driveway entry. The fourth issue was the property owner, the adjacent property operations along the rear of the Waverly businesses. I did forward to the Board a couple additional letters that were not in the packet. Those are available here for the public if they are interested to see those, behind me here. One is dated May 10th, and that one is to Ms. Wong, the property owner of 550 Waverly, and the other one is to Holly Boyd, and that was dated February 26. I guess that's the end of my presentation. Oh, yeah. Just a brief review. We have the Downtown Urban Design Guide with our Hamilton district. A lot of the...Just a reminder of what this Guide was seeking, including strong corners and pedestrian links, outdoor amenities. It's what we've got here. Let me turn this over now to our architect to make a presentation. Do you have any further words for...? Mr. Owen: No, not at that is point. Let's get the architect. Chair Furth: Good morning, Mr. Hayes. You have 10 minutes. 2.c Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning, Chair Furth, members of the Board. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'll be making the presentation on behalf of the project team. Most of them are here in case you have questions. Michelle Wendler and Gordon Knowles from Watry Design Group, as well as Lorraine Ahlquist and Lynn Marie Bouvet from WSP, the environmental consultants, and Terry Murphey from my office. Just to refresh on the salient points of the program, the physical program, we still have five above-grade levels and one basement level. We have reduced the parking count to 325 spaces from...Did I do that? [Brief pause, adjusting slide presentation.] Mr. Hayes: We're back to the salient aspects of the physical program. Three hundred and twenty-five parking stalls down from the 338. We've increased the bike parking, almost doubling that. There was some expense on the retail space, so that's 1,955 square feet now. We're showing the plans with the future solar voltaic system on top of the building. We're all familiar with the site. It's a two-thirds of an acre asphalt parking lot on the corner of Waverly and Hamilton. Lane 21 is behind. The property is zoned PF. Surrounding properties are CDC, GF, with a pedestrian overlay predominantly around it. The properties that are in green are historic properties, so we know the Category 1 historic post office across Hamilton Street. At the back of the site here is Lane 21, and that's a one-way alley to the left, to Bryant Street, essentially. I want to point out that on the corner, we are widening the sidewalk here by extending the curb out. That's going to be about 18 feet, I think, in the end, and then, the sidewalk along Hamilton is also being extended out to match the curb, and that will be about 14 feet on that frontage. What we heard in February -- and thank you, Amy, for introducing the project -- the special setback, I think Council on June 11th probably has eliminated that from the site development requirement, but this was a concern that was expressed at the last hearing. Also, this pedestrian alley, why do we need the pedestrian alley? I'll talk a little bit about that. And then, there was some comments regarding the strength of this connection between Hamilton Avenue and the rear alley and CVS, as well as the introduction of more bicycle parking and perhaps some stroller parking, as well. This is the new site plan. The building has moved essentially three feet in on Hamilton here to better align with the AT&T building. We've done that by going to minimums pretty much inside the garage, but still compliant with the City requirements for parking space design here, and a 22-foot-wide ramp to go below and to go above. The alley is needed for a number of reasons, and ironically, it is actually a setback that is in the site development regs for the PF. That may have been modified now by Council, but that is a 10-foot side setback. We are respecting a 10-foot setback here, even more than that, as well as the back of the building, a 10-foot setback there. The alley is needed for many things, including required openings in the garage, that we can have a naturally-ventilated garage. We don't have to have mechanical ventilation. It's there to alleviate some of the construction costs associated with underpinning of the Thai Pan restaurant building next door, and it also creates a wonderful pedestrian linkage to one of the main circulation elements of the garage, the stair that extends from the basement to the top of the building. There will be pedestrian enhancements in the alley that I'll talk about a little later on. We also are bringing our utilities in there, so the utilities that are being relocated, that actually comes through the parking lot now, will be in a joint trench in that pedestrian space below grade. At the expense of three automobiles in this location here, we've made a stronger entrance, I think, for this connection to get through the building. You bypass the bottom of the ramp on the safe side of the garage. You would cross here in a crosswalk, run past the vertical stair element, and then, circulate in the pedestrian alley there. The garage has been raised 12 inches to create a little more welcoming feel as you walk through the garage. None of this precludes someone from wanting to walk straight through the garage like they do now, through the parking lot, but we think is a nicer experience. The bike area, as I said, has increased by about 50 percent, and that will be a secure bike area for strollers and bicycles, easily accessible. You can take your bike out this way or take it back out to Hamilton. On the elevations, there were some concerns. This is Hamilton on the scale, and use of the concrete, and maybe the power of that façade and the arcade, as well as the size and detailing of what is that stair tower. So, the changes that we've made essentially to limit the use of the concrete, reduce the scale of that façade and the arcade, reduce the size of that stair element itself so it really is something that circumscribes the stair itself. And then, we've completely changed the rhythm of that façade, so instead of it being a very repetitive, kind of colonnade sort of statement which was referencing the post office, we still have that rhythm here, but it's really at the pedestrian scale, and we've created a horizontal band that picks up on the building next door. That serves as a place for the vertical fins to kind of rest and provide visual support for them. 2.c Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Syncopation has changed. We have the perforated metal here, the perforated metal at the exterior stair. The share wall has moved in its location and it will have vines growing on it, as well as a pattern that's kind of reminiscent of Spanish Colonial architecture that are, essentially, just shadow pockets in the wall. We have benches along this side, as well as we're still celebrating the metal work that you find on the post office at this ground floor to provide visual screening into the garage. On Waverly, the comments were pretty much the same, although there was the added comment that the proportions were a little odd. I agree, it was a little bit stubby on this side at that location, but the idea here was that that was a two-story element that related to the Thai Pan space. We all agreed that that wasn't necessary, so the new proposal has, we've reduced the concrete, we no longer have that two-story element. We introduced the horizontal shade across the top of the retail space, and then, a transom element that ties into the Thai Pan doors in front of that façade. We've also reduced the size of that stair enclosure, and I think, in general, the proportions of this with the elimination of that two-story piece have changed to a much more elegant expression, using the metal fins in that terracotta color. This gives you an idea of what that looks like there. This element here is at the end terminus of the pedestrian alley, and that's at the stair. This is a view of the pedestrian alley from before. The Thai Pan building is superimposed in front. There was concern over the success of this alley, as well as the viability of the landscaping. We have talked with the landscape architect, who has assured that the California grape or the lilac as a vine would be fine, both in a sunny and a shady exposure. They have a preference for the California grape. It would be great to hear what your preference is. It would also be nice to hear what your preference is on the paving because they've given you two alternatives on the paving in the alley. This essentially shows the rhythm of the façade there, and we've introduced the photovoltaic panels above so you can see what that's like, to terminate the top of the building. This is the rendering of the corner, but from Waverly looking down the pedestrian alley. You can see the board-formed concrete at this first story. Those openings are then infilled for retail storefront with dark anodized or dark bronze frames that are topped by this metal canopy that serves as a visual support for the vertical fins that provide the openness for the garage, and it ties in visually from a color standpoint with the tile roofs in the neighborhood. The top of the building is terminated by the photovoltaic panels, and actually an extension of that structure to provide a visual terminus when you're on the sidewalk. That was something that was talked about before. This is a view from the corner, shows the stair element in the corner and how the façade is treated down that side of the building. The artwork actually is incorporated onto this perforated metal. I'll talk about that a little bit more in a second. We're still celebrating the metal work of the stair that descends out of that canopy. Gives you an idea of that plaza space. This is our renderings of Hamilton, showing the pedestrian benches, the vegetation, as well as the metal screen work that sort of limits views into the garage. This metal panel wraps the corner. This is the pedestrian alley. The festooned lights that run down that alley will provide some visual experience. I think this is a great way of providing connections to the street. Did that include my 30 seconds, or...? Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Hayes: I'm just about done. We've eliminated the trees from the service alley at the back but we extended this plant around a little bit to create more plantings and provide areas for some benches. But, I believe there's still 12 or 13 feet across this dimension here for any kind of service to get back there. This is the rear corner of CVS where, again, the board-formed concrete has this stand-off and wire system for the vines to grow on that wall. Tapestry is our public art, and we really wanted it to be integrated with the building. It's about creating an awareness of the topography of the Palo Alto foothills through sections of topographic data that then is incorporated into the perforated metal panels. We thought it was a really intriguing idea. We had talked once before about how the perforated panels visually could work. We had some images last time that then, with further collaboration of the design team, we thought, wow, what an opportunity to integrate that artwork with the bronze corner perforated metal. That would occur both here and at the entrance itself into the garage. I look forward to your questions. That's my presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there questions of the applicant before we hear from other members of the public who might care to comment? I do have one speaker card. Do you want to defer your questions or ask them now? 2.c Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Vice Chair Baltay: No. Architect Hayes, could you tell me in a little more detail the spacing of these terracotta-colored aluminum panels, the vertical ones that seem to make up the bulk of this [crosstalk]? Mr. Hayes: Sixteen inches on center. Vice Chair Baltay: They're mostly transparent, is that right, then? Mr. Hayes: I believe they're two or 2 1/2 inches wide, at 16 inches on center. That's not the true width, I don't think. Vice Chair Baltay: I see. They're 2 1/2 inches, 16 inches on center? Mr. Hayes: And I think they're about 16 inches deep. There's a detail, Board Member Baltay, in the drawing set. I'll tell you exactly. Vice Chair Baltay: I ask the question because some of the renderings make it look like a solid wall. I just want to [crosstalk]... Mr. Hayes: I think it just is a function of how obliquely you're looking at the rendering or the drawing. Vice Chair Baltay: And what is the design intent behind putting those there? Is it to be transparent, or to be solid? Mr. Hayes: It's to be both, essentially. It's to change that look of the building as you walk along the street, but also to provide a consistent vocabulary, I think, for the façade where we need to have this openness quality for ventilation. Vice Chair Baltay: Do you have some sort of safety screening behind that? Mr. Hayes: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, there will still be the 42-inch bulkhead or, in some cases, the safety cable. I think that's shown on the...On sheet A3.5, Drawing 3.5, Detail 4. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a speaker card from Elizabeth Wong. Elizabeth Wong: I have a thumb drive. Is it possible to...? Chair Furth: Staff will help you with that. [Short pause while setting up thumb drive] Chair Furth: Good morning. You have three minutes. Ms. Wong: Okay. Good morning, members of the ARB. My name is Elizabeth Wong. I am the manager for Waverly Post LP, which owns 558-560 Waverly Street. I want to point out a few things before my main speech, and that is that in the Watry Design letter dated May 7th, on the third page, under Materials, Colors, Construction -- Okay, no, no. The paragraph right before that. It says that the height of the AT&T building at 75 feet serves as a backdrop to our building, meaning the garage. That is 50 percent shorter. Well, this building is not 50 percent shorter than 75 feet. Chair Furth: I think we agree with your arithmetic. 2.c Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. Wong. Let's see. Going over to the staff report, on page 6, it talks about the elevator penthouse would reach a height of 63 feet. That is much more than the 50 feet or 58 feet that is usually allowed. It is a very tall elevator. My other thing on the same page, under Setbacks and Floor Area, it says that there is a 16 feet 7 inches from the rear wall of the Waverly Street property. Okay, so, my property is recessed three feet. It is preposterous to count my property as to be part of that thing because I can put a wall right on my property line at any time. So, basically, that 16 feet 7 inches should not be mentioned at all. It should be more like 13 feet. And the views, this is the view of the 558-560 Waverly, and none of the considerations of this building have been taken into account, other than the 10-foot setback. Could I have the second slide? These are the views that we have presently from a second-story office. We have three bays. This is one of them. Let me show you the second one. This is the second one. Here's the third. And we have side windows that also show us side views. All of this will be disrupted by this huge building. Could I have the view of the, you know, the whole building, that is part of the Ken Hayes presentation? Ms. French: (inaudible) Ms. Wong: Yes, I am done with mine. [Short pause while locating slide.] Ms. Wong: Yeah, this one. This building is super massive. There's no need for all the vertical, whatever it is called. I would much rather get rid of all of that and have an organic, open building, so the people who are parking their cars can avail themselves to that beautiful view that I showed you before. This building, you know, I think, talking about the appearance of the building, I think totally, you know, massive. I would save all that money and put the greens on the back sides of the building that the passer, you know, the way for the passengers, for the pedestrian pass way, because that's where you need it. Chair Furth: I've given you an extra minute and a half. Could you wind up? Ms. Wong: Yeah. So... Chair Furth: You've already had that extra minute. Ms. Wong: Okay. Lastly, I want to mention that I received no letter from the Public Works, or whoever is doing this. It wasn't addressed to me, it wasn't mailed to me. It happened to be...I found it, okay? But it wasn't addressed to me. I did not receive it. Nor did I have any communications with them, which is a shame, because some of these things could be easily voiced in private conversations with staff. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Wong: Thank you. Chair Furth: Is there anybody else who would care to speak on this item before we bring it back to the Board and staff? Mrs. Wong, Board Member Baltay would like to ask you a question about your comments. Would that be acceptable? Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Mrs. Wong. I've read various correspondence from you over the course of the review of this project, and I have great regard for your active civic in the community. But, I have to say I'm confused as to what you really want with this building. I'm not sure if I understand you to be saying you just don't want a parking garage there, or you want some sort of modifications. If you want modifications, what are they? What would you like us to do? Ms. Wong: Yeah. The modifications are elimination of the vertical slots. I think that the pedestrian walkway at the west side of the building, the back of 558-560 Waverly should be wider. I think when you have a garbage truck backing into there, you know, the truck is so big and the doors are so wide, that if 2.c Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Page 7 my next door neighbor builds to his property line, it will bang the doors of the garbage truck, or whatever truck, service truck there is there. There's one big thing that I'd like you to do, and that is to either have staff record an easement, or record some sort of access, for us to be able to access to the back of our building through an underground tunnel, or to allow us to pay in-lieu parking for any parking that we might need in the development of this building in the future. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything that staff wishes to comment about before we deliberate up here? Brad Eggleston: I'd just like to comment... Chair Furth: Could you introduce yourself for the record, for the benefit of our transcriber? Mr. Eggleston: Oh, I'm sorry. Chair Furth: I spoke right over you. Would you do that again? Mr. Eggleston: Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works. I just wanted to say I'm perplexed about why Ms. Wong didn't receive our correspondence. We will definitely look into that. We thought that she had that. Chair Furth: Yes? Vice Chair Baltay: One last question for staff regarding the photovoltaic assembly on top of the building. My understanding is that that is possibly going to be built, but not for certain. Is there any way to assess how likely it is that that will be put on top? Mr. Eggleston: Well, it's complicated because it has to do -- at least partly -- with the incentive programs that the Utilities Department offers for local photovoltaic projects. I think you're aware, and I think the Board even saw the proposals for the photovoltaics that were placed on top four of the City's five existing parking garages, and we were able to enter into a lease with an entity which provided that because Utilities Department was offering a 16.5 cent per kilowatt hour price under what they call the CLEAN program. That program is now entirely filled and the future rate will be much less. Essentially, we've got to assess the feasibility under future programs that will exist, of how we might do that. Vice Chair Baltay: If I could follow up. If this program allows you to put solar panels on top of the building, will those panels be put on per the design of this architect? Or will it be done the way you did it on California Avenue. Mr. Eggleston: Per the design of this architect. Our intent is to, rather than the process that we had with the previous garages, our intent is to bring the design through the Board so that we have an approved design for the potential future installation. And then, if we did that, it would be in accordance with [crosstalk]... Vice Chair Baltay: You're going on the record to say that if solar panels are put on, they'll be put on per this design. Mr. Eggleston: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Eggleston: Or we would need to go through another process. I can't speak for what the City might do in the future. 2.c Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Furth: In fairness to staff, the future Council can do what it wishes. Mr. Eggleston: Yeah. Chair Furth: But that is in the intent at this point, and you would not view yourselves as having an approved photovoltaic design other than this one. Mr. Eggleston: That's correct. Chair Furth: Robert, any questions of staff? Board Member Gooyer: Nope. Chair Furth: I had a question. The stormwater handling landscaping. Is it at grade, essentially, is that right? As opposed to the higher landscaping that's in raised planters? I was just wondering if there... Mr. Eggleston: I believe the higher landscaping is the C-3 stormwater treatment, but I'll let the architect clarify that. Chair Furth: I'm still a little...I have carefully studied most of these documents, but could you explain to me where we have landscaping that's at my feet, and where it's at my knees... Mr. Hayes: Sure. Chair Furth: ...and how you made those decision. Mr. Hayes: And I can understand the confusion because I think there's some conflicts on the drawing. In the alley at the back, Lane 21...I'm sorry, the alley, the pedestrian alley and the rear of Thai Pan, those two spaces will have raised planters. That's all drain-through for C-3. All the planters are for C-3 at the back... Chair Furth: And "C-3" means...? Mr. Hayes: This is the stormwater... Chair Furth: The technical term for stormwater... Mr. Hayes: Yeah, sorry. Chair Furth: ...treatment, handling. Whatever. Mr. Hayes: Correct. Chair Furth: Reabsorption. Mr. Hayes: And the planters in Lane 21 we're showing as being low, but there's a likelihood that they will need to be -- where's Gordon? -- higher. Mr. Knowles: (inaudible) Chair Furth: You need to come and speak in the microphone. Mr. Hayes: This is Gordon Knowles with Watry Design. Gordon Knowles, Watry Design: Good morning. 2.c Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: Good morning. Could you introduce yourself for our transcriber? Mr. Knowles: My name is Gordon Knowles. I'm working with Warty Design. We're the architects and structural engineers. Chair Furth: And how do you spell your last name? Mr. Knowles: As in Beyonce. [Spells name.] Chair Furth: Thank you, I'm sure she'll get that. Mr. Knowles: She's a distant relative. The planters to the rear of Lane 21 are low-level. They're at grade. They will still be used as C-3 or stormwater treatment. However, the planters at the moment are in the alleyway to the west of the building, the 10-foot alleyway between Thai Pan and the building are raised planters. They're also stormwater treatment. They're raised, in part, to help the treatment, but also, with deliveries coming into that alleyway, they protect the planting in that area. Our landscape architects feel, in working with our civil engineers, that the low-level planters will still work for stormwater treatment to the rear of the alleyway, and we didn't want to create any other larger planting areas on that alley. However, that's our current design and the current thinking. Chair Furth: My concern is that the existing planters -- meaning the ivy -- is constantly stepped on and in, so whenever you have foot-level planters, we're going to be very concerned about what you put in them so they don't get trampled and don't present a hazard. Trying to understand the plants better. Mr. Knowles: I understand your comments. I believe there's a lip to the planter, but it's not raised as the others, which are, I think 2 1/2 feet off the ground. Chair Furth: Well, speaking as a member of a family where two people have broken their legs, tripping on things of this design, I'll be interested to see what you have. Mr. Knowles: We can [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: I wasn't either one of them. Thank you. Anything else? Mr. Hayes: Mr. Knowles will actually be, if there is a hearing on July 5th, Mr. Knowles will actually be doing the presentation because I will not be here. Chair Furth: Thank you. And I should mention that two of our members are unable to be here today. We thought that this was an important decision for everybody to participate in. They will be able to watch the tape of this, and I'm sure that staff will make sure that they get all the slides that we saw today, both Mrs. Wong's and Mr. Hayes', so that they will be up to date when we do that. And we appreciate that this is not easy, but as it's been pointed out, this is a very big project. Okay. Robert? Ms. French: May I just jump in, just for a moment... Chair Furth: Certainly. Ms. French: ...to -- thank you -- to address the 16-foot-seven-inch note that Elizabeth Wong did state. It's an error in the staff report. It should say as per plan, 16 foot, 7 inches from the rear property line, or the adjoining line between this property and those Waverly properties. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, what page? 2.c Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Ms. French: Page 6, or packet page 13 of the staff report. The bottom paragraph says, you know, 16 feet 7 inches from the rear wall of the Waverly Street properties. It's not. It's from the rear property line of the... Chair Furth: Got it. Ms. French: ...adjoining. Chair Furth: So, even if the Thai Pan building...I'm getting a head shake from Mrs. Wong, so I will let you all address that off line, and we'll have consensus on that, or at least our best attempt at it, before our next meeting on this subject. That brings up a question that I need you to go over again. I'm so glad I brought my magnifying glass. Those are very small drawings in the staff report, at least if you read them on paper. With the revised Public Facilities District, what is the required setback along Waverly? Ms. French: The ordinance allowed for Council to approve... Chair Furth: Anything. Ms. French: ...anything. Chair Furth: So it's zero. Ms. French: It's project-by-project. Chair Furth: But it's zero, is the required minimum setback. Ms. French: Zero is required, yes. Chair Furth: And what is the required minimum side setback for the other parcels along Waverly? Is it CDC, or whatever it is? Ms. French: So... Chair Furth: The buildings are built touching, but is there a required setback? Ms. French: On which street? Sorry. Chair Furth: Waverly. The Waverly frontage. Ms. French: Zero. Chair Furth: Okay. So, the pattern of law, by law, is zero. Ms. French: Correct. Chair Furth: But... Ms. French: It's only because of the PF zone that a setback would be required at all on Waverly. Chair Furth: But traditionally, the PF zone has required a 10-foot setback? Ms. French: Correct. Chair Furth: That might have been what people were anticipating. Thank you. All right. Anything else? Robert. 2.c Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Chair Furth: And just to continue, we will have our detailed discussion of the building at our next meeting, but this is a good time that shouldn't go to waste. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Based on the modification, or I should say, the modifications that we sort of requested last time, I think the building has improved a great deal. I also have a bit of concern, as I had last time, of the verticality of the middle slats. It just seems, depending on where you, you know, as you said, I'm guessing, as you said, the idea was when you walk by it, it changes. But, like standing on the corner of Hamilton and Waverly, you can begin to understand the relationship with the various portions of the building. I think if you're walking on Waverly, the way to design this now, especially if you're approaching the building going...what would that be? I guess south on Waverly. That seems like an awfully massive 3 1/2 story, solid, flat wall. I have a bit of a problem with that. I can appreciate the Hamilton elevation where you've got some different materials, different textures, and I think it works there. But, the Waverly one, I just think, not that I was a big fan of the previous design, but there was more variation on that design than you have now. Interesting point. The comment came up about the solar voltaic panels. Actually, I liked the design with the panels on it better than without them. I've always been a fan of, like I said, a building having somewhat of a top or something of a distinction, and when those panels aren't there, that isn't there. The panels are almost acting as a cap, which I like. Even though I'm not a fan of raising the building any further than it needs to be, but somehow or other, I think it works better. Also, just the gap makes that a whole statement at the top, and I think it looks a whole lot better. I'd be tempted to say even without the panels, we should put something up there that addresses that. I know, you're looking at me as though that's not going to happen, so, fine, I understand. Chair Furth: (inaudible) to people yet. Board Member Gooyer: Okay, let's see. I would say at the moment, the problem, like I said, I have is, is that...I'm just not a big fan of the verticality of those panels. They're just too big. It makes it look too institutional. Not that I'm saying this needs to look like a bunch of homes put together. That's not the point. But I think it's a big step forward, but I'd like to see a little more variation. I'd be willing to say even if there was a concrete panel on the Waverly side that eventually would become a, sort of a green wall, I think I'd be happier than with what I see now. That's it for the moment. Chair Furth: Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning, thank you. I'm going to follow right up on what Robert was saying because I agree with the thread he was doing. I just agree that the vertical panels, especially on the Waverly elevation, give the building a very large, solid-looking wall, and certainly from some angles, it will just be solid-looking wall of some 35-feet tall, or so. I think that's going to cause a lot of public outcry. It’s not going to be a popular building, and I don't think it will look very good that way. It just enhances the boxy-ness, the verticality of the parking garage. I understand the difficulty of the architectural challenge when you don't have windows and you don't have other elements that are usually used. That's why we have one of our best architects looking at this. I can offer a few ideas or thoughts that I have, looking at it. You have a horizontal element above the retail store frontage, and if that could be enlarged, perhaps a greater overhang, the way that it's done on the Walgreen building, or thickened somehow. It would just take your eye off of the piece up above it, which is ultimately going to be there. It's a parking garage. But, I think the Walgreen's building on the other corner of the same block is more successful because of the large overhang. And maybe that's something you could integrate into it. A second thought is that, do the top of these vertical panels need to be as high as they are? Could you pull them down a little bit? Maybe articulate them more from the vertical concrete columns and let the safety railing behind it stepping back, perhaps. Give you some articulation at the top of the building. I agree completely that with the solar panels, the building looks much better, even though it's much taller. I don't have much confidence that that's going to be built. 2.c Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mr. Hayes: [Crosstalk] it could be separated from the panels. Vice Chair Baltay: A trellis of some kind. Something. Anything really helps with the look of the building that way. Thirdly, and this is more on the Hamilton elevation, you have basically three different materials -- the board-formed concrete, the vertical elements, and then, the perforated metal with the artistic pattern. And they're all exactly flush along the top. To me, that just accentuates the boxy nature of the building. I'm wondering if you can't get some sort of delineation up and down, variation someplace to just mitigate the effect. I'm just following up on Robert's comments about the verticality and the blank wall look of it. I find it problematic. I'd like to speak to the perforated metal screening, especially with the idea of the topography as to the artistic theme. A year or two back, we had a, a North Face store over at the Stanford shopping center chose to use that same idea as their sort of decorative pattern on the front. I have to say, it's not very successful. When you walk by, you don't see a topographic map; you see a bunch of wiggly lines. Mr. Hayes: That's abstract. Vice Chair Baltay: And I caution you that it's something that's already an abstract concept for many people, and I think you really want to be careful that you're confident it's going to work. I don't think it works on the storefront of Stanford shopping center, albeit that's done differently, and that's two- dimensional. But, I think it's actually a very difficult concept to pull off, that looks artistic, not just like bumps on the wall. Mr. Hayes: On North Face, you're saying, at Stanford...? Vice Chair Baltay: North Face store at the shopping center, yeah. I mean, their contour lines are too thick, the colors are too bright. I mean, obviously it's a failure of execution, but I also wonder if it's not a failure of concept. That's what I’m questioning here. I agree that making this into a piece of public art is a great idea, and all along, Ken, you've been putting forth this idea of this muted transparency, and what do you see and don't you see. I think those are really powerful architectural ideas. I'm not sure that the contour concept is really the way to execute it. I can offer...So, that's the second thought about the perforated metal panels. I do think that the board-formed concrete with the small holes and the plants on it is going to be very successful. It's a durable, strong material, it has an important structural purpose. The holes do somehow relate to a historical type of architecture that you're talking about, but in a contemporary way, I think it's a very successful treatment. I think that will be very good. I would like to see that somehow differentiated more, maybe just by the height of it. On a separate note regarding the pedestrian circulation down at the ground level, I have two things I think it would be nice if you could work on a little bit more. At the bottom of the staircase, I appreciate that there's a large plaza there, and it's great that we have wider sidewalks. I still don't see enough places to sit or enough landscaping at that corner where currently we have that restroom facility, and some trees, and some benches. Just an enormous number of people congregating around this area. Maybe in that area at the base of the stairs, somehow you could do something else to soften it a little bit. It would just feel a lot better that way. I think your idea of bringing the pedestrians through the parking garage is good, and I agree the way, the basic pattern you've done is really nice. It brings to mind, however, that the design of that bicycle enclosure is now more critical than ever. If it's just a chain-link fence, it's just not very pleasant. I'm wondering if you could show us -- or design for us -- something that really is attractive to walk past. At the same time, it would be really nice to have something like bollards or a pattern on the pavement, something that easily tells pedestrians where to go, so they do follow the path you've outlined, and gets them over to that alley on the side. I think that will be a nice alley. I've said it several times through this review process. The amount of people walking through that shortcut in the parking lot is huge. To respect that, if you could make the path really clear. Make it so you're not afraid when your child is with you that they're going to run into the cars, because there's such a clear delineation. Right now, it seems to be a painted pattern. But bollards, even planters if you could get something to grow there, or benches, or anything to make it welcoming and public will be welcome. 2.c Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Page 13 I'd like to go on the record. I've said this several times and I think it's belaboring the point, but I think the 10-foot setback from the Thai Pan building is excessive. I don't think the public alleyway there is necessary or going to be successful at that width, and I think the building would be better with a five- foot setback, either landscaped or used for surface parking. I think your technical needs could still be accommodated with a five-foot setback and the whole building would be better off with the extra space. I think that that decision has been made already, but I want to state my opinion on that. I do appreciate the extra setback on Hamilton Avenue. I think that's important, and much appreciated, to line it up with the AT&T building. Between that and widening the sidewalks, the building, as large as it is, will probably be large enough. It will probably work okay. Wynne, I have more comments about the EIR. DO you want to do that separately? Chair Furth: No, let's do...Wait, yeah, let's do that last. Mr. Hayes: Board Member Baltay... Chair Furth: Don't let us forget to do the EIR comments when we finish this discussion. Mr. Hayes: Through the Chair, may I have a follow-up question... Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. Mr. Hayes: ...on the first comment? Chair Furth: Is your mic on? Mr. Hayes: I think it is, yeah. Regarding your comment, your comparing the Waverly façade here, the canopy, to the Walgreen's. You're talking about this canopy here? Can you see my cursor? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, exactly. The horizontal element. Mr. Hayes: As a more significant element, you're talking about? It's five feet deep right now. Vice Chair Baltay: Right. I can't quite tell how deep it is, but I'm really thinking it's substantial enough that it gives you a sense of coverage as you're walking by. Mr. Hayes: Walgreen's is a model that you prefer because it's probably eight feet deep, at least, I would think. Right? Vice Chair Baltay: I think, I want to phrase that differently, but I think it's an element that might help reduce the impression of the height of the building, and focus your attention on the storefront, which is what we want. Mr. Hayes: Okay. But that is the element you were talking about. Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Those are my comments, Wynne. Chair Furth: Thank you. And you will remind me to get back to the CEQA issues. Thank you. I appreciate the resubmittal. I'm pleased with the expanded bicycle parking. I'm pleased that you're addressing the pedestrian experience. I echo the comments about the importance of that, and I hope when we see this next time that some of what you show us can give us a good idea of the experience of pedestrians and cyclists using this pass-through, what they'll see, what they'll experience. And, similarly, what the sidewalk experience is on both Waverly and Hamilton. One of the things I can't tell, you know, it's so misleading -- or interesting -- to look at the Waverly Street elevation, because nobody ever sees that. What will I see from the sidewalk on either side of the street? I suppose as you're driving, maybe as you near the church, maybe you can see the whole building as you look towards the hills? We can see the 2.c Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Page 14 view from over there, and at the sidewalk. I think the actual experience of walking down the streets is very important in these buildings. I mean, the classic example being the President Hotel. Nobody's ever aware of how high it is because they're too busy looking at what's going on at street level. I agree with Elizabeth Wong that this is a very big building. However, I do not want to have it open with good views of cars. I prefer that it be screened as you have. I don't have a strong feeling about the vertical element. I do agree with my colleagues that this building works much better -- at least in the drawings -- with the photovoltaic system on it because it gives it a top, and it gives it a lightness, which it completely lacks otherwise. I think we're probably asking you to incorporate the superstructure, even if you don't get the - - which is most of the expense, I expect -- even if you don't get the panels in. I have worked on the other side of the City's feed-in tariff program and it's not easy. Certainly, that very high rate that the City made available made the finances work in cases where it wouldn't otherwise, if you were simply looking at the issue of what's the cheapest place to get electricity. I think that a major part of this element of the project is an aesthetic one, and I hope to make that point to the City Council. On the art element, I think we have seen a very unsuccessful attempt to use -- well, somewhat unsuccessful -- an attempt to use topographic map contours. Myself, I don't want to celebrate the hillside with a contour map. This is the former swamp that has been redeveloped as Palo Alto. We have our own interesting geologic character and history. One of the weirdest things about the town is that the banks of the creek are the highpoint. And myself, if you're going to do this, I would like you to concentrate on downtown, and I would love a neon interactive element that shows us water intrusion over the next 50 years, decade by decade. That would be real public art. It would alert us to what is happening in our town, which [crosstalk] often. So, go for it. I mean, let's have powerful, dynamic, useful, beautiful public art with a message. Those are my thoughts on that. One of the things I think I read in the staff report was that some of the reconfiguring you did of parking spaces involved bringing them up to standard City width. Did I misread that? Some of them were a little skinny before and now they're up to standard width? Or is that a complete misunderstanding? When you had to do the reconfiguration. Ms. French: We'll look at that and have that later. Mr. Eggleston: I suspect we might be talking about existing spaces in the lot, rather than the garage... Chair Furth: Oh, but that led to... Mr. Eggleston: ...but we'll verify that. Chair Furth: You couldn't replace them one-for-one if you were doing that now. Mr. Eggleston: Yes, and I believe we've always been planning to have the standard... Chair Furth: It's a little ad hoc as it exists. Let's see what else I have in my notes. Board Member Gooyer: While you're thinking of that, can I ask... Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Gooyer: ...Peter a question? Your comment about the building and the width of the alleyway, if you want to call it. You're thinking of just shifting the entire building over to allow more space or setback on Hamilton? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I'd like to go on the record, agreeing with that. I think you're absolutely right. I mean, I think part of the concept was because of the windows at that existing building, but the part that has always amazed me from the first time I saw it is, we're basically talking enormous windows on a property line. And how those things were allowed to be built in the first place, I don't understand. Because usually it's within -- what is it? -- three feet or five feet of a property line...Yeah, three feet. 2.c Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Page 15 That's what I thought. It has to be rated, or wire glass, and this kind of thing, and they're not. I think because everybody anticipated years ago this will always be a parking lot, we can go ahead and just build it and it's no big deal. But, you know, things change. If we're doing the 10 feet because of that visual impact, or whatever, I don't think it's a valid point to use that as a criteria. Chair Furth: I have a question for staff again, which is: To what extent is the width of that alley being driven by your proposal to use it for relocating utilities? Mr. Eggleston: I think the location of the utilities is a significant reason why we wouldn't be able to close the alley entirely. Board Member Gooyer: Well, I'm not asking that. Mr. Eggleston: Right. I think you're talking about Commissioner Baltay's suggestion of the five foot, right? That, for us, I think is more of an issue with respect to two other issues. One is the openness for, I believe the first two floors. That would not provide the openness that's required to not have mechanical ventilation. We'd have to have mechanical ventilation on those floors, which could have a moderately significant cost. I think the bigger impact even than that would be during construction, the fact that we're having to build a basement level, and coming so close to another existing building, and the complexities of having the shoring systems. Chair Furth: You think you need a full 10 feet to avoid shoring? Mr. Eggleston: With the subterranean excavation. Yes. Chair Furth: I'm seeing a lot of nods from your staff. Mr. Hayes: The big issue really is the technical requirements around the building code. We can't have more than 25 percent of that wall open at less than 10 feet to the property line. That is dictating that we have to be at least at 10 feet so that we can have unlimiting opening, so that we can avoid a mechanical ventilation system and avoid running it, you know... Chair Furth: That generates both noise and power use. Mr. Hayes: Right. And I, you know, I really do believe...The more choices we have about how we move around our communities, the more democratic we become. I think that that pedestrian alley is something that is a good benefit. When you come down that stair, why force everybody down the CVS alley? Unless you own stock in CVS and you want them to shop there. Give them a choice. They can go out to Waverly via that pedestrian way. I feel pretty strong that it's needed for that reason, as well. Chair Furth: We've heard a lot of rhetorical flourishes here. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, well... Chair Furth: That's quite something. More democratic to have that. Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll vote for Ken. Chair Furth: Avoid shoring and permits natural ventilation. I must say, it was interesting reading bits and pieces of the environmental -- meaning contamination -- study. What a lot of drycleaners we used to have. Every corner. And they relocated so frequently, bringing their hazards with them. I do prefer the altered Waverly frontage. I do think it was better not to try to echo the Thai Pan building. I never know how long those buildings are going to be with us, and when it redevelops, it might seem quite odd to have that. But, I think it looks better in its present iteration. Anything else anybody wants to say before we go on to the environmental documents? 2.c Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Mr. Hayes: Paving preference? Chair Furth: I beg your pardon? Mr. Hayes: The paving preference? There were a couple of ... Chair Furth: I always feel that's like you putting bright, shiny objects in front of us so we don't think about the big issues. I prefer California grape to lilac vine. I don’t know what Alex will say. Anybody have opinions on paving materials? Nope? Mr. Hayes: Okay. Chair Furth: I think you're free to do what you think is best. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Furth: Environmental document comments. Thank you for providing it to us. We inadvertently got paper copies of the whole thing, which in some ways is interesting. Seeing the graphics at that large scale and being able to mark them up was great. I don't think I can imagine any situation under which the traffic study fine details or the contamination study fine details are something I can apprehend. But, thank you for the document. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. On the EIR, I was wondering if we could modify slightly some of the phrasing on page 92. This is where you're talking about the cultural impact and context of the building. It's actually page 91, first. I think the first paragraph, you're referring to impacts to the, it says impacts to would be -- there's a typo in there -- but affecting the post office. Chair Furth: This is the historic... Vice Chair Baltay: Historic... Chair Furth: ...resources section of the summary. Vice Chair Baltay: The gist of my comments is I think this building does have an impact on the post office, and I don't think that's adequately addressed in here. I think the architect has mitigated those impacts, but I think it needs to be discussed in a neutral and thorough way here. And then, on page 92... Chair Furth: Before you go on, Peter...Oh, you're still on the same thing. Sorry. Go ahead. Vice Chair Baltay: I underlined things on the, it says [reading] The design of the proposed garage incorporates several architectural elements intended to make it an appropriate and compatible addition to the Palo Alto downtown area. This includes consideration of the total building height, the character of the ground floor facades, and building setbacks. I think the building is as tall as it can possibly be. I don't think it's doing anything to, special consideration for the area. I don't think that's a mitigation. It's implying that includes consideration of the height. It says further [reading]: The building will be 49 feet 10 inches below the citywide 50-foot height limit. That's not including the solar panels, again. Chair Furth: That's not (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: Push it up to 65 feet. [Reading] The proposed building will also have a lower height than the building to the west, which is 75 feet tall. That's sort of an editorial comment. The gist of my statements on all this is that the building is massive, and I don't think we should sugarcoat that and try to say no, it's not actually that big. I think we do ourselves a disservice. And a big building, especially across the street from probably the most important historic building in town, I think it's important to acknowledge that. Further down, the third, fourth paragraph, the proposed project, etc. [Reading] 2.c Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Furthermore, given the restrained height and compatible design... I don't think this building has a restrained height. Chair Furth: I think that's a fair statement. Vice Chair Baltay: Those are just editorial adjustments, trying to get the report to be a little more thorough. The second comment I address -- and again, it's detailed and picky -- I'm looking at page 2 out of 5 of a tree report regarding the condition of the oaks. [Reading] The three Holly Oaks and one Coast Live Oak tree were determined to be in good health condition. Fair enough. The trees are in need of appropriate repruning, etc. Poor pruning in the past has contributed to Fair structures. I'd like to see that last sentence just struck from the statement. The tree is in good health. Anybody who goes and looks at it can see that. And we're going to mitigate the removal of the tree, but I don't think we should try to spin it to say it's somehow not okay. Those are my comments on the EIR. Thank you. Chair Furth: Robert? Board Member Gooyer: I pretty much had no specific comments, but sort of the same concept of what I've read, that you're trying to sugarcoat the size of this place. No matter what you do, you can't sugarcoat that. It's huge. The reality is, we need the thing, so you have to just be a little bit more blunt about stating that that's the requirement. Chair Furth: From a CEQA point of view, the question is whether this adversely affects the post office. If it does, then we need to acknowledge that, and if the Council still wants to approve it, they make a statement of overriding considerations and say we understand it does this, but because of the other compelling reasons, we're going to go ahead and do it anyway. Board Member Gooyer: Like I said, I don't think it adversely affects the post office, but it doesn't enhance the post office. I mean it's... Chair Furth: It's big. Board Member Gooyer: It's big. Yeah, exactly. Chair Furth: We're not calling for a finding of adverse impact under CEQA. We're simply saying that a more accurate description would be -- It's a really big building and it doesn’t particularly complement the post office's efforts of, you know, materials or, you know...I wanted to say that I think the extra-wide sidewalk helps because it's not just the street width. I mean, one of the interesting things about this setback is, it's not just some line on paper. It's a built line. So, intruding into that setback, that's a real deal. When I was looking at, I think it was 1.5, one of the things it highlights is that a really important characteristic of a post office is it sits back from the street. It has garden in front of it, and that's a really important element of that kind of design. Of course, it makes it somewhat domestic and, you know, Mrs. Hoover said we're not having one of those federal buildings in our town, so ours is the only non-federal WPA post office in the country. One of the key elements of that was you put a garden in front of it, and you see that in a lot of civic buildings all over California -- courthouses, post offices, whatever -- often with roses in the says when we still had gardeners. Ours is more interesting than roses. Actually, it's a mass of weed trees right now. When I look at this, I was thinking, how would I make a sympathetic, supportive building across the way? I would set it back as far as I could so that I could have a similar stepping-back to another civic building. And then, do whatever I was going to do. I think it's unfortunate that we can't do that here, that we are under these constraints that push it forward. If mechanical lifts made it possible to do something else, that would be great, but that is not something we need to deal with. I am happy that you are thinking about wayfinding/space-finding technology for the building given its design, which includes a lot of, kind of closed-ins. I am curious as to how we'll signal to people who don't use them all the time where the pedestrian entrance is along Hamilton, that will signal that here is the point of entry for bikes and people. I think that's important. And I think that's it for me. Anything else from anybody? 2.c Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Vice Chair Baltay: You might consider adding in the EIR a statement about the sidewalks becoming wider. I think that's easily missed in all this analysis that both... Chair Furth: And it's important. Vice Chair Baltay: ...on Hamilton and Waverly, the widened sidewalks actually do one thing towards helping the historic building across the street. It just gives you a little more space to have that civic breathing room Wynne just described for us. Chair Furth: Also, I think you have, particularly in your revised design, you have a really strong upside for cyclists, which I hope you emphasize. This is a very bike parking-short space. You've heard me complain about parking in the ivy, which shouldn't be there anyway. It's a rat habitat. It's Algerian Ivy. But, you really, this is not, other than it's nice trees, this is not -- and it's convenient -- this is not a great civic space. We've got problems with trash enclosures, we've got problems with inadequate parking, we've got old pavement, we've got, I would say badly constrained trees. You're adding elements that are really improving this corner. We're going to have healthier and bigger trees, we're going to have much better bike accommodation, we're going to have much better sidewalks. This has some really non-parking upsides, which I hope you emphasize. Thank you. Anything from anybody? All right. Would you like us to continue this to a date certain? Ms. French: We would request the date certain be July 19th, rather than July 5th. Chair Furth: All right. I will say one other thing, which is that this is a very big project. I think it merits a very big sign on the existing parking lot so the general public is aware of this. We are using a sign about the same size as the one we use for a Verizon antenna. There is no comparison in the scope of the project, so I would suggest that this is a project worth trying to get people to come out for, and we have not succeeded in that, except for people who have very clear interest in the area. All right. MOTION Chair Furth: I would entertain a motion to continue this matter to July 19th. Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this matter to July 19th. Chair Furth: Is there a second, Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Second. Chair Furth: All in favor say aye. And there is no opposition. We are done. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0. 2.c Packet Pg. 64 ANDERLINI & McSWEENEY LLP  P. TERRY ANDERLINI ATTORNEYS AT LAW * BRIAN J. MCSWEENEY 66 BOVET ROAD OF COUNSEL SUITE 285 SEAN M. JACOBSON SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402-3520 LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON THOMAS J. BARGER CONSTANTINE P. TSAGARIS TELEPHONE 650-212-0001 G. CHRIS ANDERSEN FACSIMILE 650-212-0081 ANDREW S. ANDERLINI WWW.AMLAWOFFICE.COM ZACHARY R. SCRIBNER  PAST PRESIDENT STATE BAR * MCSWEENEY LAW GROUP, APC June 20, 2018 VIA US MAIL: Albert S. Yang Palo Alto City Attorney City Hall, 8th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Amy French, Planning Manager Holly Boyd, Project Manager City of Palo Alto Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Development Plans for Parking Structure D 375 Hamilton Avenue at Waverley Street LEGAL NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO DESIGN Dear Mr. Yang, and Mses. French and Boyd: As you know, this firm represents Manhattan Associates; O’Keefe Associates & Euclid/O’Connor Associates (collectively the “Owners”) with respect to the design for the development of Parking Structure D, located at 375 Hamilton Avenue, which is at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street in Palo Alto (the “Project”). This letter follows up my prior correspondence, the Owners’ direct correspondence, and the Owners direct meetings with you – each of which have provided you with notice on a multitude of occasions the defects in the present design of the Project as it affects the Owners’ property located at 550-552 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, California (the “Property”). We have repeatedly attempted to convey to you that while the Owners are supportive of the Project, generally, the current design is untenable for the reasons previously expressed, including that (1) the design would eliminate access to the vested and dedicated parking spot in the rear of the building which is recognized on the City Assessment Roll; (2) the proposed design eliminates rear access to the Property for deliveries and service (such as for grease trap maintenance) by 2.d Packet Pg. 65 June 20, 2018 Page 2 placing a dedicated pedestrian walkway in a manner totally obstructing the rear of the Property and rendering the rear of the Property landlocked and inaccessible; and (3) the current design will detrimentally impact, if not totally preclude, the Owners redevelopment plans for the Property. Despite the repeated notices provided to you, both from this office and directly from the Owners, the City has failed to address the Owners’ concerns, as reflected by Mr. Yang’s glib response to our most recent letter which totally ignored the issues which we described in detail and the City’s impending liability if the design proceeds as proposed. As you have been advised, the City’s act of taking the rear parking spot, and cutting off ingress and egress consistent with historical use, subjects the City to substantial liability which the Owners fully intend to pursue. The elimination of the vested parking space and access are not rectified by a loading zone in the front of the building – which should be obvious, as we have explained the tenants at the Property operate restaurants and cannot have deliveries entering through the front of the operating restaurant (including for safety reasons). Nor does providing a parking space in the garage compensate for either the loss of the attached and dedicated spot or the diminution in value attributable to the loss of the spot and the inability to effectuate redevelopment to realize the maximum value of the Property. I am reiterating the above points to each of you in advance of the upcoming ARB meeting to make perfectly clear that the Owners will not abide the losses caused by the current design, and if not rectified, the Owners fully intend to file suit to enjoin the Project and seek damages. I am not sure what it will take in order to make the City take these concerns seriously, however we urge that it do so in order to avoid litigation and to assure that the Project is able to proceed subject to the appropriate modifications. Sincerely, ANDERLINI & McSWEENEY LLP Brian J. McSweeney BJM:smj 2.d Packet Pg. 66 July 12th, 2018 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 375 Hamilton Ave., Downtown Parking Garage, ARB Formal Review Project Description To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is the formal ARB submittal package for 375 Hamilton Avenue, the proposed Downtown Parking Garage. The project applicant is Watry Design Inc., with Hayes Group Architects, on behalf of our client, the City of Palo Alto. This package includes 14 sets of half size drawings and two sets of full size drawings, including the vicinity map, neighborhood context, site plan, landscape plan, proposed floor plans, elevations, sections, and perspectives. SCOPE OF WORK Due to an increased parking demand and a shortage of available parking spaces in the downtown area, the City of Palo Alto has begun the process for the design of a new parking structure at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. The primary goals of this project are to maximize the amount of structured parking while integrating the structure within the downtown context of retail storefronts. EXISTING SITE USE The site is located at the east corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. The rear of the site adjoins Lane 21. The surrounding vicinity is a mix of downtown retail and office uses. Southwest of the property, at 345 Hamilton is the four-story AT&T central office. Northwest along Waverley are several one and two-story retail buildings, including historic buildings at 526 Waverley, a category 3 historic building and 510 Waverley, a category 2 historic building. Across Hamilton, to the Southeast, is the historic, two-story Post Office, a category 1 historic building. Across Waverley to the Northeast is the All Saints Episcopal Church. The site is more than 150 feet from any residentially zoned properties so increased zoning restrictions do not apply. The zone district is PF: Public Facility. The district has a 50 foot height limit. A PF zone amendment, allowing an exception to the seven foot special setback at Hamilton Avenue, was approved by Palo Alto City Council. Easements are not known at this time. The site area is 29,164 SF, accommodating a surface-level parking lot for 86 vehicles. There is a public restroom at the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. The Arborist Report identifies eight trees on the property, including one protected Coast Live Oak. The protected Coastal Oak is in fair condition with good grow but is not suitable for transplanting. The occupants of 526, 550 and 560 Waverley utilize a portion of the site to access the backs of their buildings and pick up trash and recycling. 2.e Packet Pg. 67 PROPOSED USE The proposed parking structure shall be five levels above ground and one basement level with a ground floor retail area of 1,955 SF. The main entry to the building will be from Hamilton Avenue. Access is also provided from Lane 21, however this access will generally be for exit only with entry only in the event that the Hamilton Avenue access may be restricted. This project shall provide 325 total parking stalls. Of these, there will be provision for accessible spaces (8); electric vehicle charging (82, 17 to be installed initially) stalls serving the new retail area (6) and a stall serving 550 Waverley. A long-term bike storage room shall be provided at Hamilton Avenue near the main vehicle entry/exit. This room shall be approximately 438 square feet and have space for approximately 50 bicycles with additional space for child carriers etc. Short-term bicycle storage can be provided at the sidewalk near the retail space. A common refuse storage room shall be at Lane 21 near the secondary vehicle entry / exit. This room shall be approximately 450 square feet. It will serve the Waverley businesses and the proposed new retail space. The parking structure will be 50’-0” to the top of rail on the fifth deck with an elevator penthouse continuing to 63’-0”. The building will be designed with infrastructure to allow for the future installation of photovoltaic panels mounted above the top parking deck. SITE AND BUILDING CONCEPT The proposed building sits three feet away from the property line at Hamilton Avenue; it extends four feet into the special setback. The building extends to the property line at Waverley Street. A continuous 12 foot sidewalk wraps both frontages. The structure is two feet from the interior lot line at the AT&T building. At the north property line, shared with 560 Waverley, the edge of the garage sets back 10 feet from the property line. This facilitates construction, provides a path for underground utilities, allows openings for natural ventilation into the parking garage, and lets light reach the existing windows at 560 Waverley. This necessary setback also creates an opportunity for a pedestrian walkway, focused on and leading to the secondary stair vertical circulation element. Additionally, a visual connection to All Saints Episcopal Church is created between the garage and the church by way of the new alley connection. The alley is visually enhanced with architectural paving, plantings, benches and decorative lighting features that will provide the infrastructure for a useable space. The primary stair and elevator circulation features are prominently positioned at the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue since pedestrian way finding is an important aspect of garage navigation. At this street corner, the building edge erodes, creating a pedestrian court with access to the stair and elevator, as well as an entrance to the ground floor retail space that extends down Waverley Street. In order to maintain access for utilities, services and secondary means of egress for the existing buildings fronting Waverley Street, the garage sets back 16 feet from the shared property line at this location. Vehicle access will 2.e Packet Pg. 68 be restricted in this alley to those vehicles needed for service. The alley will be enhanced with architectural paving, new planting, benches and lighting so that it can be a useable space. To satisfy the car count goal, the garage is four stories, with parking at the roof level, plus one level of basement parking. The main vehicle entry / exit shall be on Hamilton Avenue near the south corner of the lot since Hamilton is a more travelled way. A secondary vehicular exit shall be at Lane 21. The building will be naturally ventilated and as such must meet California Building Code requirements for openness. This requirement requires that the design must have a sustainably open façade to achieve the prescribed open area and open length. The basement will be mechanically ventilated. The building concept is one of transition and compatibility. The garage is integrated into the context of the downtown rather than being self-conscious and aggressive. An integrated building defines itself though program, connections with the site and context as well as streetscape character without replicating architectural styles but drawing from them. The general massing of the façade is scaled to the street with a new canopy at Hamilton and Waverley. This canopy, higher at Waverley Street, relates to the adjacent retail and nearby Post Office arcade. The height of the AT&T building at seventy-five (75) feet serves as a backdrop to our building that is 50% shorter. The retail storefront assists in the transition to mercantile buildings along Waverley Street. MATERIALS, COLORS, AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS The primary construction material is poured in place concrete columns, slabs and walls. Along the street edges, the building base columns and shear wall are board-formed concrete in a natural color, similar to All Saints Church. Flat metal bars painted a dark bronze color infill the first floor openings to create pedestrian screening. The metalwork continues on the runs and landings of the stair, celebrating the metalwork found in the post office and other Spanish revival buildings. An illuminated perforated metal scrim wraps the main corner stair creating a lantern element that serves as a wayfinding device. This element is also the focus of the public art program for the building. Vertical metal louvers, fill the space between columns at the second, third and fourth stories. The vertical louvers serve to create a body to the building while allowing for the required garage ventilation. Their color is reminiscent of the terracotta colors found in the downtown. Above the roof parking level, a dark bronze metal ‘cap’ and metal railing create a cornice for the building. This design is enhanced by, but not dependent on, future columns and beams supporting photovoltaic panels. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL In response to board member comments on February 15th and June 21st, we have made several changes to the design. The building moved three feet back from the Hamilton Avenue property line, better aligning with the existing AT&T building. A pedestrian pathway through the structure leads from the bike parking entry near Gilman Street to Lane 21 near CVS as recommended by the Transportation Department. Responding to comments on proportion and massing, the heavy two-story arcade base is now a narrow canopy at Hamilton and Waverley. The material of the perforated metal shroud at the corner stair has been refined into a more open, transparent structure. The vertical fins were lowered to line up with the upper parking deck, and a new metal cap and open metal guardrail create a cornice at the top of the building. The bike locker received decorative screening, an accent paint at the back wall, and a protected walkway. A long planter shifted to add more bench seating Hamilton. Seating was also added near the corner plaza. The latest renderings of the garage show the public art incorporated into the perforated metal shroud at the corner stair. 2.e Packet Pg. 69 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT The landscape of the proposed parking structure is designed to enhance the pedestrian environment of downtown Palo Alto and encourages positive social interaction through providing an inviting streetscape and creating a unique and convenient pedestrian alleyway between the existing surrounding buildings and the proposed structure. The streetscape walkways are replaced and widened to provide more room for circulation along the proposed retail space on Waverley Street and for enjoying the built-in benches and landscaped raised planters on Hamilton Avenue. New street trees are proposed along Hamilton in enlarged, 4’x7’ tree wells and a suspended pavement system to help ensure healthy growth of the new Ginkgo trees which reflect the existing species of the preserved street trees on Waverley Street. Three native Oak trees have been added on Hamilton to compensate for the removal of the one protected oak tree. The corner of the parking structure features a small plaza area that introduces decorative pavers which are also used in the pedestrian access alleys. The pedestrian access alleys offer a quiet and human scaled alternative route through the project site. To invite people to explore and use the alley we use decorative pervious pavement, generous benches, landscaped storm water treatment planters, and pedestrian scaled lighting. The storm water planters in the alley and to Lane 21are about three feet high, and will feature a combination of low growing foliage and flowering plants that provide year round interest and function to cleanse storm water directed from the parking structure roof. Planting species have been carefully selected to be successful in the alley environment and to enhance the pedestrian experience creating a pleasant atmosphere for what is expected to be a well-used passageway. Maintenance access for surrounding Waverley Street businesses is provided in the pedestrian access alley. Concrete paving is used at the north end for durable access to the refuse storage room. Vines trained to grow on the façade visually soften the appearance of the parking structure. PUBLIC ART The public art installation will form an integral part of the building’s fabric. Public art shall incorporate into and onto the perforated metal panel screens around the stair at the corner of Hamilton and Waverley and above the parking entrance on Hamilton Avenue. GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM The building will comply with the mandatory requirements of the 2016 Non Residential California Green Building Code (CALGREEN + TIER 2). We look forward to our presentation and discussion with the Architectural Review Board. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal cc: Watry Design Group enclosed: Arborist Report, June 2017 2.e Packet Pg. 70 Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 4th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects 2. Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects” 3. Scroll to find “375 Hamilton Avenue” and click the address link 4. Public Works maintains a project webpage which provides links to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure_plan/new_downtown_garage.a sp 2.f Packet Pg. 71 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9421) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/19/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Shake Shack Storefront in Building W (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00054]: 2nd Hearing for a Request for Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit for Shake Shack Restaurant to Allow for Exterior Facade Improvements and to Allow for the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages in and Existing Tenant Space at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65548. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. 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. 3 Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background On June 21, 2018, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2-2/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response A concern was expressed regarding lavender plants attracting bees. The ARB also felt they could not make the landscape finding that states projects shall utilize to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought- resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat. The plan selection was updated with a revised landscape plan (sheet SP103) Concerns regarding the durability of the cedar wood paneling on the exterior, suggest using an alternative material or the existing brick façade. The applicant has two options proposed for the exterior. One with a treated wood facade and the other with a painted brick option. The applicant has provided material samples for each option. Focus on the point of the triangular building to address the lack of public seating in the area for people waiting to enter the restaurant. New public seating is included in the revised plans; four new benches are added to the pathway (sheet SP101). Two of the three ARB members present were not in favor of the logo on the trash room door. The logo on the trash room door has been removed. Analysis1 As noted above, the ARB expressed a number of concerns during the first hearing and the applicant has revised the project plans to address these comments. The landscape plan now incorporates more regional indigenous drought resistant plant material. With these changes to the landscape plan, ARB finding #5 can be met as detailed in Attachment B. The applicant has updated the proposed site plan to include four new benches. The location of the new benches are along the pathway from the main mall to the project site, with two benches located on either side of the pathway and two benches adjacent to the project’s new landscaping area. These benches could be utilized by the public and would address the comment from the ARB regarding public seating. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The applicant has removed the logo design from the trash room door in accordance with the ARB comments. Regarding façade materials, the ARB expressed concerns about maintenance requirements for the proposed wood paneling. The applicant has prepared two options for the ARB to review. One option is wood paneling made of treated Accoya wood. The second option utilizes the brick of the existing façade painted dark grey scale color (noted as iron ore) to match the upper façade design along the triangular portion of the building. While the lower portion of the longer façade would continue the brick material, contrasting the iron ore paint with a lite grey scale color (glazed ash matte). Staff recommends the wood panel option as it adds warmth to the façade and compliments the new landscaping. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 1 or an “Existing Facilities” exemption (Categorical Exemption 15301). This project meets this exemption due to the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. This project was continued to the ARB public hearing of July 19, 2018, therefore no additional notice was required. However, the project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 6th, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Previous Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 75 3.a Packet Pg. 76 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 18PLN-00054 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. The proposal seeks to renovate the existing tenant space via a new façade design, adding outdoor seating under the covered patios, and new landscaping to support a new restaurant use that is compatible with the Stanford Shopping Center pedestrian friendly environment. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high quality regional shopping center. The projects new façade will add to the mixture of tenant façade design. The incoming tenant is a new restaurant establishment that is expanding to Northern California. This business features a high end design for casual eating consistent with other restaurant within the Shopping Center. This project will add to the exclusive mixture of tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center making it a distinctive regional shopping center. GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The façade is well designed and enhances the Stanford Shopping Centers pedestrian friendly environment. 3.b Packet Pg. 77 Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The project involves a change in use but does not involve a change in the building massing. The project maintains the existing scale of the area and the proposed land use is consistent with the surrounding land uses within the site. The project would remain consistent with the zoning requirements and Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. The project will not increase the development area of the site in regards to height, floor area ratio, setbacks, and parking as the project involves only exterior cosmetic changes to the existing tenant space and landscaping around Building W of the Stanford Shopping Center. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is proposing façade improvements that will enhance the pedestrian and tenant environment within the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposal will maintain the existing footprint of the building and will not increase the massing or encroach on any setbacks, preserving the pedestrian scale of the Stanford Shopping Center area. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project will improve the conditions along the pedestrian walk way by adding new landscaping and public seating via four new benches, creating a more pleasant pedestrian environment for pedestrians and cyclists who visit the Shopping Center. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the The projects proposed façade includes new larger storefront windows where there previously was solid 3.b Packet Pg. 78 sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements walls and an ATM machine, allowing for additional views to and from the interior of the building encouraging pedestrian activity at this location of the Stanford Shopping Center while supporting a connection between the interior of the tenant with pedestrian and patrons on the outside. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will not change the existing buildings setbacks or massing. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding does not apply. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding does not apply. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The proposed project will change the existing parking total on site as it removes two parking spaces to provide a new trash loading area and adds three new parking spaces to the total required parking spaces for the site. The site is over parked and can easily accommodate the change in parking demand generated by the project. None of these changes modify the overall size and shape of the existing parking facilities (parking lots and garages), resulting in no impacts to the character of site or the pedestrian environment. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting and will include new plants that are low water usage. The project will also conform to Green Building Energy codes for commercial businesses. 3.b Packet Pg. 79 Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project involves materials which are durable and of high quality finishes. The new façade will consist of façade with dark and light colors, with the façade mainly painted dark grey scale color (noted as iron ore), with contrasting of white, green, medium grey, and cedar bark trim pieces and mullions. The design will enhance the character of the site and update the existing tenant to better fit with the proposed eating & drinking use and the overall tenant façade found along the El Camino Real facing portion of the Stanford Shopping Center. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project will not impede circulation and access for any modes of transportation to the site. The modifications to the façade will expand the usable open space by providing new covered outdoor seating areas for visitors to the site. The proposed signage allows for the proposed business to be readily located while being consistent with the signage found at the Shopping Center and conforming to the regulations found within the Palo Alto Municipal Code for signage. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project will not remove any of the existing trees located around the tenant space. The project has been revised per ARB feedback and now includes more regional indigenous drought resistant plans over the previously proposed landscaping. The landscape plan includes five plant species all of which are plants that are compatible with the climate index of the area. The proposed landscaping also enhances the area as it ties the project better with the surrounding landscaped areas adjacent to the project site. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting, and will compliance with green building energy code requirements along with the local construction debris diversion rates. In addition, the project also includes new landscaping that has plants which are moderate to low water usage plants. 3.b Packet Pg. 80 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 18PLN-00054 _______________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Except as modified by these conditions of approval, construction and development, and operation of “Shake Shack” shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Shake Shack” received by the City of Palo Alto on July 3rd, 2018. The approved plans are on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94301. 2. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT: A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for the Nobu restaurant. 3. This approval letter, including the Conditions of Approval, shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit review, as applicable. 4. KITCHEN FACILITIES: Suitable kitchen facilities shall be maintained for the eating and drinking establishment. 5. SERVICE HOURS: Alcoholic beverage services shall not be served beyond the hours of operation. The use is allowed to operate from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. per Zoning Code Section 18.16.040(b). All clean up or set up activities shall be conducted within these approved business hours. 6. FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT: This conditional use permit allows the sale of alcoholic beverages, in conjunction with a restaurant use, to be located within an existing building. A full service food menu shall be provided during all business hours. 7. INTENSIFICATION: This CUP allows alcoholic beverage service (beer and wine) within the interior and exterior public service areas of the restaurant as indicated in the approved plans. Any intensification/expansion of the public service areas will require amendment to this CUP for said intensification/expansion shall be secured prior to commencement of the expanded service. Formal approval from the County ABC department is also required. 8. EXPIRATION: The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s) is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 9. GENERAL OPERATION: This conditional use permit allows indoor and outdoor sales and service of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant use. The consumption of beer and wine 3.c Packet Pg. 81 shall be consistent with the established hours of operation and permitted functions of the restaurant. A full service menu selection shall be available during all operating hours. 10. ENTERTAINMENT: This permit does not allow any operations associated with a nightclub- type use and live entertainment shall not be permitted. There shall be no live entertainment, live music dancing or other amusement facilities or devises. An amendment to this use permit shall be required to permit these uses at the restaurant. 11. CODE COMPLIANCE: The current and proposed uses shall be comply with all applicable City codes, including Titles 9 (Public Peace, Moral and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Titles 4 (Alcoholic Beverage Business regulations) and 19 (Public Safety) of the State of California Administrative Code. 12. FIRE SPRINKLER COVERAGE: Fire sprinkler protection is required under any covered outside seating areas. 13. AGREEMENT: The consumption of alcoholic beverages under this use permit shall be deemed an agreement on the part of the applicant, their heirs, successors, and assigns to comply with all terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit. 14. PUBLIC SEATING: The public seating (4 new benches) indicated on the approved plans shall be installed prior to final building inspection. 15. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS: Any exterior alteration would require a separate Architectural Review application, including new lighting fixture, changes to outdoor furniture, new seating barrier, and other outdoor improvements related to the food service area. 16. The consumption of alcoholic beverages under this use permit shall be deemed an agreement on the part of the applicant, their heirs, successors, and assigns to comply with all terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit. 17. OCCUPANCY: The operator shall ensure the building’s permitted occupancy is not exceeded at any time. 18. RECYCLING & GARBAGE: The Businesses on site must ensure that all service areas have access to garbage, recycling, and compost as required in Municipal Code 5.20.108. 19. NUISANCES AND NOISE: The business shall be operated in a manner to protect any nearby residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during the business hours. Noise levels emanating from the restaurant use shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. 20. REVOCATION OR MODIFCATION OF APPROVALS: The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or 3.c Packet Pg. 82 when a use conducted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 21. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 22. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 23. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 24. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 25. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 26. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 27. Public area restrooms must have color-coded labeled compost service for paper towels and garbage service for any diaper changing stations. 3.c Packet Pg. 83 BUILDING DIVISION 28. The proposed restaurant will require Santa Clara County Health Department approval to be submitted to the Building Division prior to the Building Permit issuance. 29. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. PUBLIC WORKS 30. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 31. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 32. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 33. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 34. C.3 SMALL PROJECTS: This project may trigger the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to land development projects that create or 3.c Packet Pg. 84 replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 35. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 36. If applicant upgrades or changes electric switchgear and/or impacts CPAU electric facilities, applicant shall resubmit application for review. UTILITIES WASTE GAS WATER 37. If applicant upgrades or changes electric switchgear and/or impacts CPAU electric facilities, applicant shall resubmit application for review. 3.c Packet Pg. 85 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00054 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 2,300,402 sf No Change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (8) Varied No Change Rear Yard No Requirement N/A N/A Interior Side Yard No Requirement N/A N/A Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) N/A N/A Special Setback (PAMC 20.08) 24 feet along Sand Hill, Arboretum and Quarry Varied No Change Max. Building Height 50 feet Varied, max 25’2” feet No Change Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1,412,362 net sf 1,361,751 net sf No Change (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 4: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area (1,469,074 gross sf) for a total of 5,342 on-site parking spaces 5,446 spaces 5,441 spaces (after removal of 5 parking spaces associated with the proposed project) 3.d Packet Pg. 86 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property No Change Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) (2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage: (A) Except in shopping centers… (B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 sf shall be subject to a conditional use permit. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) … The proposed outdoor patios are 440 sf Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. New trash room to support the proposed eating & drink use Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building ... 4 showers are required for 100,000 sf and above No Change Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. N/A 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 3.d Packet Pg. 87 Table 2: PROPOSED SIGN CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS) Type Location Proposed Size Allowance Per Facade Awning Sign* (16.20.150) Sign A Fixed above covered patio facing the parking lot 20’ 2” inches long and 2’ tall. Area=40.3 sf 96 sf (wall area of 2,228.6 sf) Awning Sign* (16.20.150) Sign B Fixed above covered patio facing the Quarry Road 14’ 10 1/2” long and 1’ 6” tall. Area=22.3 sf 78 sf (wall area of 1,428.1 sf) *16.20.150 Regulations for Awning Signs: (a) Type of Sign - Limitation. Awning signs shall be limited to those signs printed, painted, fixed, marked, stamped or otherwise impressed upon the surface of an awning covering. (b) Area. The maximum awning sign area on any awning shall be equal to the area allowed by Table 3* (Wall Signs), on the wall from which the awning is supported. However, on any wall the aggregate of the wall sign area on said wall plus the awning sign area, on an awning or awnings supported from said wall, shall not exceed the maximum wall sign area allowed on said wall. (c) Height. No part of any awning sign shall extend above the top level of the wall from which it is supported. 3.d Packet Pg. 88 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9204) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/21/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Shake Shack Storefront in Building W Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00054]: Request for Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit for Shake Shack restaurant to allow for exterior facade improvements and to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages in an existing tenant space at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The Applicant is proposing renovation of an existing tenant space within the Stanford Shopping Center for a new restaurant named Shake Shack. The tenant space within Building W has a triangular shape and is located near the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real. The project involves changes to the existing façade, new covered outdoor seating areas, new landscaping, and new signage. The project is subject to architectural review findings, context- based design criteria, and zoning compliance review. The El Camino Real Design Guidelines from 1976 are also applicable to this site. Draft findings and conditions contained in this report include conditions related to the request for a conditional use permit for alcoholic beverage service. 3 Packet Pg. 99 3.e Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Architect: Darren Machulsky Architects Representative: Jason Smith – Land Shark Development Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 180 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area: Various & 2,300,402 square feet Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: N/A Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site Historic Resource(s): N/A Existing Improvement(s): 1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s): Retail, Personal Service, Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PF (Caltrain and parkland) West: CC(L)/PF(D) (Multi-Family Housing) East: HD (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) South: CC (Retail) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 100 3.e Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): El Camino Real Design Guidelines 1976 only Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description 3 Packet Pg. 101 3.e Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Request for Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review by Ty Jackson on behalf of Shake Shack restaurant to allow for the sale of alcoholic beverages tied to a restaurant use, and for exterior facade improvements to an existing tenant space at the Stanford Shopping Center. The project is located at the north eastern portion of the Stanford Shopping Center with the store front facing El Camino Real. The project involves replacing the existing façade of the tenant space which was previously occupied by Wells Fargo Bank within Building “W” near the Quarry Road El Camino Real intersection. The project includes outdoor seating areas under covered patios painted white, with cedar bark finished exterior panels and Grizzle Gray painted exterior walls. The project also includes new signage consisting of two new signs reading “Shake Shack” with an associate green burger logo made of internally illuminated individual letters mounted directly to the covered patios above the outdoor seating areas of the project. . Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B.  Conditional Use Permit: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.010 and 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by Planning staff and forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action. This aspect of the project is outside the purview of the ARB. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the south western portion of the Shopping Center near the El Camino Real and Quarry Road intersection. The Stanford Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The proposed design fits within the character of the Shopping Center with its’ varied store front designs throughout. The project with the proposed landscaping and covered outdoor dining areas, compliment the active outdoor shopping environment of the Shopping Center. The adjacent tenant façades consists of range of colored stone, stucco, metal and wood. The project would 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 102 3.e Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 not need to increase the height of the existing buildings parapet to properly install and screen the required roof top equipment associate with the change of use from banking and financial services to an eating and drinking use. This will preserve the compatibility with the other tenant space within Building W, maintaining a consistent height of the building overall this area of the Shopping Center. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation for the project site is Community Commercial. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. Specifically, the Palo Alto Municipal Code states that the Stanford Shopping Center is limited to a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362 per section 18.16.060(e)(3). This project does not result in any changes in regards to floor area or building height. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes within the Zoning Ordinance. Façade Changes The guidelines for the Stanford Shopping require an entitlement for proposed changes to all standalone buildings or tenant spaces that face a public right of way. The requirement for Board Level review involves tenant spaces with outward facing façades greater than 35’ long, while tenant spaces with façades under 35’ long are subject to staff level Architectural Review. The proposed project is located within a standalone building with two tenant spaces, one is currently occupied by P.F. Chang restaurant, and the other subject tenant space with a triangular shape was previously occupied by Wells Fargo Bank. The subject tenant space is 2,878 sf with exterior facing façades that are 105 feet and 67 feet respectively. The height of the building varies from 25 feet to 21 feet. The existing façade consists of a tan colored brick façade with two canopy covers above each of the entrances, and rectangular windows with white trim. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 103 3.e Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Existing Exterior Façade Facing the Parking Lot Proposed Exterior Façade Facing the Parking Lot The Quarry Road side facing façade is not readily visible from the public right of way due to the density of the planted trees within the adjacent plaza area. The trees screen the façade throughout the year, though it is slightly more visible through the deciduous trees during the fall and winter months. 3 Packet Pg. 104 3.e Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Proposed Façade Facing the Quarry Road side of the Shopping Center The proposed tenant will be a restaurant named “Shake Shack” and is consistent with the other business within the Shopping Center, as well as a permitted land use within the CC zone. The proposed design for the new façade will include new paint, along with the installation of exterior wood panels with matching mullions. The new store front will increase the number of windows within the existing tenant space as the ATM machines from the previous tenant will be removed, providing more window area. The proposed use will require a fully functioning trash room to meet the increased demands of the proposed restaurant. The trash room is proposed to be located adjacent to the P.F. Changs trash room. The applicant is proposing two options to blend the trash room with the proposed façade changes. One option is to have the trash room doors incorporate the Shake Shack burger logo, which would be considered signage, while the second option is to have the trash room doors incorporate the proposed wood panels and preserved green moss. Staff would appreciate the Architectural Review Boards comments and recommendation on these options. 3 Packet Pg. 105 3.e Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Signage The project includes new signage with the exterior changes. The two proposed signs are located above the covered patios on each side of the tenant space. The signs read “Shake Shack” and will be internally illuminated individual channel letters that are directly mounted to the top of the covered patios. The signs will include the green Shake Shack burger logo which is also internally illuminated. The sign located on the Quarry Road facing façade will be 14’ 10 1/2” long and 1’ 6” tall, while the other sign facing the parking lot El Camino Real measures 20’ 2” inches long and 2’ tall. Both signs have three (3) inch thick letters. The design and materials of the new signs are compatible with the signage found at the mall. The burger logo option for the trash room door would measures to 4’ 4” long by 4’ 8” tall on the 6’ wide doors. The signage is not over powering and is scaled correctly for each façade with the longer sign being placed on the longer facade. The Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Sign and Façade Program (MTSFP; 15PLN-00040) does not apply to this building, per the conditions of approval for the MTSFP that excludes standalone buildings (COA #22). The signage regulations found within the Palo Alto Municipal Code apply in this situation, along with the El Camino Real Guidelines from 1976. Proposed signage is compliant with these code regulations as shown in Attachment D. Landscaping The project includes new landscaping along both facades. The proposed landscaping falls within the approved landscape palate for the Shopping Center and includes species that are medium to low water usage, with two of the plants specifically suited for our climate zone 9 (carex tumulicola and lavandula intermedia). The landscape plan as proposed is compatible with the Shopping Center landscaping. Staff would appreciate the Architectural Review Boards comments and recommendations on the landscape plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has expensive multi-modal access and parking, and can be accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface level parking lots with two multi-level parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. Throughout the site there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. The proposed project includes the addition of covered outdoor seating areas that count towards the gross floor area for parking, resulting in the need for three (3) additional parking spaces. Further, the new trash room will require unobstructed access via the parking lot area for regular trash pickup. This results in restriping of the parking lot area and the removal of two (2) parking spaces to allow access to the trash area. The overall impact is a need for five (5) additional parking spaces. The Shopping Center currently has 103 parking spaces in excess of the required parking standard and can therefore accommodate the minor increase in required parking generated by this project. Consistency with Application Findings 3 Packet Pg. 106 3.e Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The project is consistent with the required findings as shown in Attachment B. For example, the project will renovate and vacant tenant space for a new exclusive retailer that will strengthen the Stanford Shopping Center position as a premiere regional shopping center with distinctive businesses. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 1 or an “Existing Facilities” exemption (Categorical Exemption 15301). This project meets this exemption due to the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on June 8, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 8, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Applicant's CUP Request Letter (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 107 3.e Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10  Attachment F: Applicant Project Description Letter (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 108 3.e Packet Pg. 98 Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 4th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects 2. Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects” 3. Scroll to find “180 El Camino Real” and click the address link 4. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4283&TargetID=319 3.f Packet Pg. 99 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9445) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/19/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3406 Hillview Avenue: New R&D Building (3rd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3406 Hillview Avenue [17PLN-00438]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 62,500 Square Foot R&D Building and Construction of a new two-Story Approximately 79,076 Square Foot Office/R&D Building. This is a Designated Project Under the 2005 Mayfield Development Agreement. Environmental Assessment: An Addendum to the Mayfield Development Agreement Environmental Impact Report has Been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: Research Park (RP-5(D)). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB at hearings on May 3, 2018 and June 21, 2018. Staff reports were prepared in advance of these two previous hearings and include extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; those reports, as well as video of the hearings, are available online at the following links. 1st Hearing – May 3, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64836 4 Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2/ 2nd Hearing – June 21, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65546 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2-2/ Copies of the reports without prior attachments are available in Attachments H and I. 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 reports and is modified to reflect recent project changes. Background The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table, as well as in a letter prepared by the applicant in Attachment B: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Tactical use of the landscape reserve adjustment should be considered to provide a more gradual transition from the asphalt to the adjacent open space and to make the Site and Design findings for ecological balance. Comment addressed: The applicant has increased amenity space on the site from 1,000 SF to 3,954 SF in order to decrease the number of required parking spaces from 274 to 264, while providing space for a larger scale employee amenity. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a landscape reserve of 19 parking spaces along the western boundary in order to achieve the intent of the Site and Design Review objectives regarding ecological balance. The staircase along the Hillview frontage should more obviously direct visitors and employees to the Hillview entrances. Comment addressed: The location and termination point for the staircase have been modified to now lead directly to the Hillview Avenue employee entrance. The Hillview entrance should be more inviting and of comparable visual quality to the main entrance. Comment addressed: Applicant has prepared additional renderings to better illustrate the design intent for this street- facing employee entrance. The renderings and elevations should show the planned PVs. Comment addressed: Applicant has provided elevations and cut-sheets of the planned rooftop PVs, which are low-profile and would be minimally visible from most public vantage points. 4 Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 In addition to these ARB comments, staff requested information on the range of employee densities that are present in the Stanford Research Park in order to better inform the discussion of a landscape reserve for parking. The applicant has provided information in their July 12, 2018 response letter indicating that typical employee densities vary by building use. In particular, the applicant reports that software and automotive-oriented R&D uses having relatively higher employee densities while biotechnology and medical-oriented R&D uses have relatively lower densities, with a Stanford Research Park-wide average of 355 gross square feet per employee. Analysis1 The revised project plans address the comments raised at the project’s second ARB meeting on June 21, 2018. Of particular interest to the Board were the arrangement and amount of asphalt paving in the upper parking module given the adjacent open space area. Moreover, some Board members raised concerns that providing a potentially unnecessary number of parking spaces, albeit at the code-mandated minimum requirement, may be inconsistent with the City’s and applicant’s goals of reducing peak hour single-occupancy vehicle trips. To address this concern, the applicant has provided use-based employee density rates which reveal a range of densities from 225-450 gross square feet per employee across various types of permitted Research & Development (R&D) uses in the Stanford Research Park. For perspective, the Municipal Code requires a single parking space per every 300 square feet of gross floor area. This data suggests that there may be certain uses where the 1:300 required parking ratio is producing a parking supply in excess of the parking demand, as well as other uses where the required ratio may not sufficiently capture parking demand. Further study and collaborations with Stanford Real Estate and the Stanford Research Park TMA will help better illustrate the dynamics of parking demand in the SRP. Specific to this project, the PAMC Section 18.52.050(b) provides the Director of Planning and Community Environment with authority to permit a deferral of required parking through the use of a landscape reserve. The Code language is included below in italics: Deferral of Meeting Full Requirement by Landscape Reserve: Where the expected need for off- street parking or bicycle facilities for a particular use is uncertain, due to unknown or unusual operating characteristics of the use and unavailability of comparable data to establish need, the director, upon recommendation of the architectural review board, may authorize that construction and provision of not more than fifty percent of the required off-street parking stalls and not more than twenty-five percent of the bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The number of bicycle parking spaces deferred shall be apportioned by construction type (long term or short term) in the same percentages as indicated in Table 1 of Section 18.52.040. The director may set such conditions as necessary to guarantee provision of such deferred spaces whenever the 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 4 Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 director determines the need to exist. Land area required for provision of deferred parking or bicycle spaces shall be maintained in reserve and shall be landscaped pursuant to a plan approved by the architectural review board demonstrating that ultimate provision of the deferred spaces will meet all requirements of this chapter. Upon use of the parking area at near build-out (at least 90% occupancy) over a period of at least ten years, the director may allow the reserve area to be used for other uses that do not generate parking demand, subject to restrictions and conditions to prevent conversion to a more intense use unless sufficient additional on-site parking is provided. A primary tenant for the subject building has not been identified to the City, and given this uncertainty as well as the location of the site, which is adjacent to the foothills at the southern end of the SRP and relatively far from Caltrain, staff is not in support of a dramatic adjustment to the number of required parking spaces. However, the range of employee densities presented by the applicant, as well as the relevance of the Site and Design objectives given the adjacent open space, present compelling justification for authorizing a landscape reserve. The applicant has proposed a landscape reserve of 19 of the required spaces, which constitutes 7.1% of the code’s minimum requirement. The project will have a parking ratio of 1 space per 322 gross square feet with the deferral of 19 parking spaces in landscape reserve, which is comparable to the SRP-wide employee density average ratio of 1 employee per 355 gross square feet (however, such a comparison requires an assumption that 100% of employees commute alone by car), and would more than accommodate a biotechnology and medical-oriented R&D user. Given this is a speculative building; the landscape reserve will also provide the parking flexibility needed should a high density user wish to occupy the site. Staff is in support of this landscape reserve, with a condition of approval requiring a parking demand study be prepared for the site no later than one year after full occupancy to describe the utilization rate and should the applicant request the 19 parking spaces be taken out of landscape reserve. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is a designated project subject to the provisions of the Mayfield Development Agreement and the City Of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report (“Mayfield DA EIR”), which contains mitigation measures applicable for all designated projects, including the subject site. These measures include requirements for mitigating potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, traffic, air quality, biological resources, and public health concerns regarding hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and soil and groundwater contamination. This project was reviewed and determined to be consistent with the Mayfield DA EIR. An addendum referencing the project and a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Mayfield DA EIR has been included in Attachment F and G. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments 4 Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. This project was continued to a date certain of July 19, 2018, therefore no additional notice was required. However, this hearing was published in the July 6, 2018 issue of the Palo Alto Weekly. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information 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 Response Letter (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB and Site & Design Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment F: EIR Addendum, no appendices (DOCX)  Attachment G: Mayfield Development Agreement EIR MMRP (PDF)  Attachment H: June 21, 2018 ARB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment I: May 3, 2018 ARB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment J: Project Plans and Environmental Documents (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 104 54 2 A-4 Prom H 5 2 3 Foothill Club 4 University Club 1 HTG HTC A-2 HTE A-5 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 C Hillview Station Prom Garage Prom A Prom D Prom B Prom C Prom E CommonsBldg F HTB Landscape Overlay170'from 387.0' 492.6' 180.0' 160.0' 336.8' 31.4' 57.0' 787.4' 592.0' 544.2' 685.0' 410.3' 47.6' 101.5' 164.0' 81.7' 38.8' 78.0' 30.4' 194.5' 360.0' 47.6' 309.7' 685.0' 360.0' 194.5' 30.4' 78.0' 38.8' 81.7' 164.0' 101.5' 265.0' 291.0' 290.0' 216.0' 600.4' 524.8' 749.9' 393.3' 194.6' 1639.8' 55.0' 216.0' 290.0' 4' 552.3' 120.0' 545.4' 552.3' 584.2' 204.2' 255.8' 622 291.0' 950.0' 544.4' 43.2' 685.0' 360.4' 685.0' 360.4' 685.0' 325.0' 31.4'69.9' 80.9' 480.6' 78.8' 559.4' 255.9' 313.4' 584.2' 404.8' 749.9' 325.7' 2273.3' 176.2' 153.9' 678.7' 300.5' 696.9' 595.8' 373.7' 758.0' 544.2' 109.7' 313.4' 700.0' 17.3' 157.3' 88.3' 10.6' 196.6' 44.8' 8.3' 322.7' 433.3' 545.0' 1087.0' 492.6' 180.0' 160.0' 264.3' 216.7' 154.5' 1109.3' 322.6' 617.1' 619.2' 51.1'5.0'32.7' 55.7' 6.9' 133.8' 126.8' 358.4' 111.6' 607.6' 329.1' 30 276.2' 103.7' 63.5' 26.1' 260.6' 168.9' 45.4'103.1' 82.2'37.7' 48.3' 241.7' 358.4' 557.4' 03.1 82.2' 199.9' 280.3' 793.4' 259.3' 725.1' 758.0' 373.7' 595.8' 696.9' 300.5' 11.5' 599.3' 10.6' 132.5' 273.0'51.2' 34.0' 35.9' 85.4' 40.7'30.4'17.3' 8.2' 157.3' 88.3' 57.1'27.0'27.6' 334.6' 51.2' 69.9' 85.4' 40.7'37.7' .3' 241.7' 379.0' 381.4' 89.0' 89.0' 154.3'154.3' 232.4'232.4' 379.0' 330.3' 166.5' 166.5' 269.0'269.0' 51.0' 422.6' 422.6' 513.0' 513.0' 260.2' 260.2' HILLVIEW AVENUE MIRANDA AVENUE HILLVIEW AVENUE HILLVIEW AVENUE MIRANDA AVENUE C O Y OT E HIL L ROAD COYOT E H I L L ROA D F O O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y F O O T H I L L E X P R E S S WA Y F O O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y M I R A N D A A V E N U E M I R A N D A A V E N U E ) AC(D) RP-5 RP-5(D) RP-5 P P 5 (D ) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) 3406 Hillview Avenue Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 425' 3406 Hillview Avenue CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2018-04-16 16:11:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 4.a Packet Pg. 105 Stanford Research Park · 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 · Palo Alto, CA 94304 July 12, 2018 To: Graham Owen City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project: 3406 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto, CA Site and Design Review; 17PLN-00438 Re-submittal following ARB Meeting on 6/21/18 - Response Letter Dear Graham, Thanks for the action notes you have shared following the ARB Hearing on June 21, 2018. We are pleased to present this package in response. We appreciate the comments and feedback from you and the ARB and feel they have helped us to improve the project. The ARB comments are listed below in bold/italics, and our responses to the action notes follow in each section. 1. Show the data for the SRP employee parking densities. The Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association has collected the following data regarding employment densities for various types of employers and their uses in Stanford Research Park. The data have been validated by the City of Palo Alto Business Registry survey results. As the table below demonstrates, employment densities vary significantly among different types of employers and uses. In the near term and for the long term, the 3406 Hillview property must be marketable to all different types of employers, including those at the 1:225 sf end of the employment density range. Software/Cloud Computing Hardware/Computer/R&D Automotive-Mobility Biotech/Pharma/Med Device Stanford Research Park Average 225 355 450 BUILDING USE TYPICAL SRP RATIOS (Gross Floor Area 'SF'/Employee) 225 250 4.b Packet Pg. 106 Page 2 2. Clarification of the parking requirements under the Mayfield Development Agreement. a. Section 6.3.9 of the Mayfield Development Agreement permits the City to require underground parking for a Designated Project only if underground parking is needed to implement the City’s creek protection policies and programs. These policies do not pertain to the 3406 Hillview site, which is not adjacent to any creek. Nevertheless, as has been Stanford’s recent site planning practice for several recent projects, we proposed a project with one level of underground parking, and the underground parking plan has been optimized to accommodate the maximum feasible number of parking spaces underground. The Mayfield Development Agreement expressly prohibits the City from requiring more than one level of underground parking or underground parking outside the footprint of the proposed building. b. The City’s Municipal Code does not allow the City to require Stanford to build fewer parking spaces than the 1:300 gsf minimum required by chapter 18.52 of the Zoning Code. The Mayfield Development Agreement also does not grant the City the authority to require Stanford to build fewer parking spaces than the minimum required by the Zoning Code. As staff explained at the second ARB hearing, the City may authorize fewer than the required parking spaces if an applicant requests such a reduction. These were the City’s rules when the Mayfield Development Agreement was executed, and they remain the City’s rules today. c. Section 6.3.9 of the Mayfield Development Agreement further provides: “The City shall exercise its discretionary authority, including the imposition of conditions, in a manner that does not reduce the square footage otherwise allowable on a Site except as may be required by the Modified 2003 Rules, including requirements for setbacks from roads, creeks, and residential areas; the City's engineering review of ingress and egress to a site and of parking, pedestrian, bicycle, and motor vehicle circulation on it; the preservation of trees as required by the Modified 2003 Rules; and the location of utilities.” None of the factors described in section 6.3.9 that would allow the City to reduce the project’s square footage applies to the project as proposed, and if conditions imposed on the project prevent adequate parking from being available when the project is initially marketed to prospective tenants, then in effect the square footage otherwise available on the Site will have been reduced. As discussed further below, Stanford did not propose all of the square footage allowable on the 3406 Hillview site under the Mayfield Development Agreement (which would have amounted to 106,112 gsf). d. Finally, under the Mayfield Development Agreement, the City’s new Comprehensive Plan would not apply to a Designated Project if application of new policies would deprive Stanford of vested rights to develop under the rules that applied at the time of the agreement. However, Stanford sees no conflict between the new Comprehensive Plan and existing minimum parking ratios because the Comprehensive Plan does not change any of those ratios. It specifically provides for assessment and future consideration of whether some of the Municipal Code’s parking ratios might be reduced, but no action has yet been taken, and the Comprehensive Plan fully supports adequate parking for all land uses. 3. Tactical use of the Landscape Reserve adjustment should be considered to provide a more gradual transition from the asphalt to the adjacent open space and make the Site and Design findings for ecological balance. Stanford has addressed the suggestion that parking be permanently reduced and that Landscape Reserve be considered adjacent to the open space as follows: 4.b Packet Pg. 107 Page 3 a. First, after careful consideration, Stanford has agreed to convert an additional 2,954 sf of the building to traffic-mitigating amenity space from traffic-generating office/R&D space so that the new total for traffic-mitigating amenity space is 3,954 sf. This results in a permanent reduction of 10 parking spaces under the Municipal Code, as compared to our previously proposed site plan, given the new GFA of the 3406 Hillview Mayfield building will be 79,076 SF (reduced from the prior submittal of 82,030 SF and 1,000 SF of traffic-mitigating amenity space). The prior Code-required parking when the building was 82,030 SF was 274 stalls, and with the reduction of GFA to 79,076 SF, the Code- required parking is 264 stalls. b. Second, Stanford has offered to place 19 parking spaces (an increase from the 16 we discussed at the second ARB hearing) along the west side of the Site in Landscape Reserve. If parking in this Landscape Reserve is not needed, then not only will new parking be eliminated near the western boundary of the site, but existing parking near that boundary will be moved farther away. Stanford believes it can market the project to prospective tenants with an explanation of the Landscape Reserve, offering prospective tenants the option of building out the Landscape Reserve spaces at the outset or adding those spaces later upon request. If a prospective tenant has not been identified at the time the surface parking is constructed, the 19 spaces would not be constructed at the outset and would be constructed only according to the terms of the lease that is executed for the project. From the prior submittal (which included 274 parking spaces), Stanford has redesigned the project to include a permanent reduction in 10 parking stalls and a landscape reserve of 19 parking stalls. The new proposed parking is as follows: CODE REQUIRED PARKING - 79,076 SF BUILDING - 1:300 No. of spaces required by code 264 PROPOSED PARKING Surface 145 Surface Accessible 6 Garage 107 Garage Accessible 6 Landscape Reserve (19) NO. OF PROPOSED SPACES 245 With the parking lot redesign and landscape reserve, the character of the site has been improved as follows: c. By pulling the western edge of the parking lot away from the Coyote Hill open space, the size of the parking area has been reduced through use of landscape reserve, which creates more hillside open space in this area than our previously proposed plan. With the landscape reserve, the area between the parking lot and the open space boundary now ranges from 35 to 51 feet. d. The character of the upper parking area is significantly improved with a more organic layout that is sympathetic to the surrounding land form, which will offer the feeling of a state park setting. This arrangement allows for increased tree and shrub planting, with increased hillside grass areas, which will create a stronger visual and experiential connection to Coyote Hill. e. These proposed changes will improve the view of the occupants from the building to Coyote Hill. Larger planting areas within the parking will allow for more visible planting area and improved screening of cars. 4.b Packet Pg. 108 Page 4 f. The landscape stair serving the parking area is further enhanced with comfortable seating, paving and feature plantings, providing a better outdoor space for employee use. As noted above, Stanford elected to propose a building of 83,030 gsf (inclusive of both GFA and non-GFA amenity space), rather than the 106,112 gsf to which it was entitled under the Mayfield Development Agreement. We did this specifically in order to preserve ecological balance of the site and enable the southwest corner of the site adjacent to Coyote Hill to be enhanced as habitat. Rather than maximizing the Mayfield designated square footage and building size on this Mayfield Site, which would have been typical of a developer, we endeavored to carefully balance the long-term sustainability of the site and its precious ecological surroundings with the building size and scale. The project causes no new significant environmental impacts. The revised parking lot design results in the project having net zero increase in impervious surface. The project adds not only the southwest habitat, but 94 new native coast live, black, blue, and valley oak trees. Regardless of whether a Landscape Reserve is created, Site and Design findings for ecological balance are met. 4. The staircase along Hillview frontage should more obviously direct visitors and employees to the Hillview entrances. a. The Hillview staircase has been redesigned to provide direct access to the employee entrance. We have maintained the seating plaza features to celebrate this pedestrian approach to the east patio and building entrance. Our brokers have informed us that tenants only wish to “staff” one entrance for visitors, and that entrance is planned for the main entry off Coyote Hill. b. An enhanced plaza at the Hillview frontage provides a strong and inviting identity feature to the Hillview Staircase, with seating provided within 90' of the existing bus stop. c. A second plaza space is incorporated into the stair and ramp landing, with seating and shade trees, creating an inviting collaboration space. d. Trees are placed to frame views to the employee entry as viewed the space from Hillview. e. Enhanced planting is provided at the Hillview / Coyote corner, with additional trees provided to soften the view to the building corner. 5. Provide a rendering that shows the Hillview entrance and how it is inviting and of comparable quality to the main entrance. Previous submittal drawings only demonstrated this in elevation, and so an additional perspective rendering is provided to illustrate the same high quality of architecture on the Hillview employee entrance will make this an elegant entrance, comparable to the main visitor entrance to the east. A small plaza space is provided at the employee entrance, and a larger second floor deck area is positioned adjacent. Deck trellis, entry canopies, horizontal sunshades, and deep roof overhangs all add to the composition of the entry, reinforcing way finding and adding scale, detail, and amenity to the façade. In addition, the stair case at the corner has been repositioned to further enhance wayfinding to this entrance, while also connecting to pedestrian paths to the main entrance as well. 6. Show how the roof PV system is not visible from the street. An exhibit has been added demonstrating the photovoltaic system proposed is a “ballasted style” system (rather than the type that sits on an elevated frame). The proposed Sunpower Helix type Photovoltaic system is very low profile (dual tilt) and will not be visible from the street. 4.b Packet Pg. 109 Page 5 We would be happy to provide any further information you feel might be helpful to the Architectural Review Board. We appreciate the comments to date and have placed significant importance on addressing them by making these revisions to the project. We pride ourselves on putting our best foot forward, and we feel that the comments have caused the project’s design to be improved. We look forward to working with you again towards the upcoming hearing on July 19th. Warm regards, Tiffany Griego Jason McCarthy, AIA Managing Director, Stanford Research Park Principal cc: Jim Inglis, Office of Stanford Real Estate James Winstead, The Guzzardo Partnership 4.b Packet Pg. 110 3406 HILLVIEW - UPPER PARKING COMPARISON 07.09.18 PLANNING STAFF SUBMITTAL - OCT. 2017 PREVIOUS ARB SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2018 CURRENT PLAN WITH LANDSCAPE RESERVE 4.b Packet Pg. 111 3406 HILLVIEW - HILLVIEW ENTRY 07.09.18 PLANNING STAFF SUBMITTAL - OCT. 2017 PREVIOUS ARB SUBMITTAL - JUNE 2018 CURRENT PLAN 4.b Packet Pg. 112 PROPERTY LINE WIRE FENCE EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED EXISTING SHRUBS & SMALL TREES TO BE PROTECTED LANDSCAPE RESERVE PARKING - 16 STALLS 51'-0" 35'-0" 3406 HILLVIEW AVE UPPER PARKING LOT STUDY 07.09.18 EXISTING VOLLEYBALL COURT EXISTING SERVICE PATH EXISTING CONDITIONS (AERIAL AND BLACK LINES) PROPOSED DESIGN (BLUE LINES) EXISTING ASPHALT PATH LANDSCAPE RESERVE PARKING - 3 STALLS PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E 4.b Packet Pg. 113 Greater lifetime energy production The Helix™ Roof system combines SunPower’s high-efficiency, high- performance panel technology, productized mechanical mounting and electrical systems, comprehensive warranties and innovative O&M services to maximize energy output from your business’s rooftop. Healthier business operations Implementing a solar program can help boost your bottom line, invigorate employees and improve your brand reputation. The Helix Roof system is a fully integrated solution designed for efficiency, reliability and rapid installation–so you can quickly realize the benefits of solar with minimal business disruption. A Smart Energy future SunPower’s Helix platform provides the path to a smarter, clean energy future. From intelligent management resources that turn strategic energy insights into energy savings, to scaling your Smart Energy plan to include the adoption of new technologies like storage, potential is everywhere. SunPower® Helix™ Roof #1 in Commercial Rooftop Solar1 sunpower.com/helix 4.b Packet Pg. 114 Features • High-efficiency SunPower® panels • Productized mechanical mounting system • Productized electrical system • Plug-and-play inverter power station • EnergyLink Monitoring Hardware and Software Design Options ©2017 SunPower Corporation. All Rights Reserved. SUNPOWER, the SUNPOWER logo, HELIX and ENERGYLINK are trademarks or registered trademarks of SunPower Corporation in the U.S. and other countries as well. 1 Shiao, MJ, et al., Q4 2016 Solar Executive Briefing, GTM Research, Jan. 2017. 2 Manufacturer pass-through warranty. Warranties of 15 or 20 total years are available directly through manufacturer.3 Based on search of datasheet values from websites of top 10 manufacturers per IHS, as of January 20174 “SunPower Module 40-Year Useful Life,” SunPower white paper. 2013. Useful life is 99 out of 100 panels operating at more than 70% of rated power.5 X-Series same as E-Series. #1 rank in “Fraunhofer PV Durability Initiative for Solar Modules: Part 3”. PVTech Power Magazine, 2015. Campeau, Z. et al. “SunPower Module Degradation Rate,” SunPower white paper, 2013. See www.sunpowercorp.com/facts for details.6 “SunPower P-Series Technology Technical Review,” Leidos Independent Engineer Report. 2016. Powerful EnergyLink® Monitoring Software Gather real-time insights for intuitive energy management Helix Roof Dual Tilt (DT) • Most energy per roof • Ideal for constrained roofs • Ideal for customers prioritizing NPV Helix Roof Single Tilt (ST) • Optimized output per kW • Ideal for unconstrained roofs • Ideal for customers prioritizing IRR SunPower® E-Series Panel • High-efficiency • High energy production • 40 year useful life4 • Rated #1 in durability5 SunPower® X-Series Panel • Highest efficiency available3 • High energy production • 40 year useful life4 • Rated #1 in durability5 SunPower® P-Series Panel • High performance in shade • Superior durability and reliability to conventional panels • 35-year useful life6 Advanced mechanical mounting system With greater coverage, Helix optimizes the yield potential of your roof, delivering higher power density Anatomy of SunPower® Helix™ Roof Preconfigured inverter power station Plug-and-play design reduces field wiring and improves installation efficiency Innovative cable management Durable cable clips, cones and trays offer robust protection from harsh roof environments that can contribute to costly downtime Industry-leading solar panels SunPower high efficiency panels maximize energy and snap into place for simple, tool-less installation Warranties • SunPower panels, combined power ................25 years and product warranty • Helix mechanical BOS .........................................25 years • Helix electrical BOS ..............................................10 years • Plug-and-play inverter2 .......................................10 years • EnergyLink Monitoring Hardware ....................10 years 4.b Packet Pg. 115 ATTACHMENT C.1 ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3406 Hillview Avenue 17PLN-00438 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Research / Office Park. The project proposes an office / research and development (R&D) building in an area surrounded by other office / R&D uses. The designation allows for research and manufacturing uses, and an R&D building is therefore consistent with the designation and would be compatible with the surrounding development. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces. The project is a contemporary R&D building at the southern end of the Stanford Research Park, which is a major employment center in the City. The project would replace a functionally obsolete building on the site, and would provide several landscaped open space and 3,954 square feet of traffic-mitigating amenity space. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and The project proposes a two story building in an area surrounded by other two-story office / R&D buildings. The project would be 4.c Packet Pg. 116 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. compatible with the surrounding uses and overall scale of the neighborhood. Policy L-1.10: Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet of office/R&D development, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis. Require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and determine whether the cap and the development requirements should be adjusted. Continue to exempt medical, governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development. The project includes 16,576 net new square feet of office/R&D use on the site. This increase is designated Replacement Square Footage subject to the Mayfield Development Agreement, and does not count towards the citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The project complies with all development standards for the zoning district and presents a high quality design that constructs a new pedestrian walkway along the Coyote Hill Road frontage. All potential impacts to adjacent development and the environment are mitigated through compatible site design and with the adherence to the Mayfield Development Agreement MMRP as detailed in the Environmental Analysis for the project. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. The project would demolish the existing building on the site and construct a new R&D building. The applicant has indicated that the existing building is difficult to lease due to its inflexible floor plan and that a new building is more desirable. Policy L2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project includes large street setbacks that would be filled with trees, shrubs, and other greenery to enhance the appearance of the site. Several outdoor plazas, both on the ground level and second story, would provide amenities for future building occupants. Stormwater infiltration facilities are placed around the site to capture runoff from the 4.c Packet Pg. 117 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan building an parking lot, and have been incorporated into the landscape plan. Additionally, a large portion of the rear of the site will remain in a semi-natural state and allowed to revert to a native landscape. Safety Element Program S3.1.1-1: Continue City permitting procedures for commercial and industrial storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials and regulate the commercial use of hazardous materials that may present a risk of off-site health or safety effects. Program S3.1.3: Strengthen development review requirements and construction standards for projects on sites with groundwater contamination. The existing facility has undergone formal facility closure procedures with the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and the Palo Alto Fire Department. Soil testing indicates the project is located on a site with suspected soil and soil gas contamination due to the detection of Volatile Organic Compounds. In accordance with the Mayfield Development Agreement EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the applicant has provided a Site Management Plan that details steps that will be taken to protect human health from potential risks associated with soil and soil gas contamination during demolition and redevelopment. Further soil testing will be conducted post-demolition in order to further evaluate site conditions underneath the existing concrete slab. If contaminated soils are discovered, the applicant will be required per the conditions of approval to ensure construction workers, future occupants, and surrounding occupants would not be impacted by current or future soil vapor intrusion, as further documented in the associated MMRP. Transportation Element Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. The site is located in the southern portion of the Stanford Research Park, and is located relatively far from the Caltrain stations at University Avenue and California Avenue. However, site planning has prioritized a connection to the adjacent bus stop to make 4.c Packet Pg. 118 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan transit a more attractive and viable option for future building occupants. Moreover, the sidewalk addition along Coyote Hill Road will allow for better site connectivity. Staff has included a condition of approval to ensure that all future tenants that future tenants join the SRP Transportation Management Association, which will provide access to a variety of TDM resources. Policy T-5.6: Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. The project includes a below-grade parking structure beneath the building that contains slightly less than half of the project’s required vehicle parking. Mechanized parking is not proposed with the redevelopment. The surface parking is relegated to the site rear and is broken up into two terraces, with landscaping proposed throughout to shade the impervious surfaces. Runoff would be treated in a series of stormwater infiltration areas. The project is consistent with the development standards for the Research Park zone, including height, floor area ratio, setbacks, daylight planes and lot coverage. The project provides a unified architectural style with a number of high-quality materials, and is consistent with the surrounding development patterns. In addition, the design of the project as conditioned is internally consistent. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The proposed project is located in the Stanford Research Park and is surrounded by several corporate office/R&D campuses. Buildings in the vicinity are generally two stories in height. The project would mirror this existing land use pattern, while providing the required setbacks and enhanced landscaping 4.c Packet Pg. 119 along the public rights-of-way adjacent to the site. The project proposes to keep the southwest corner of the site undeveloped, which provides a transition from the adjacent open space use. Internally, the project provides an intuitive sense of order, with surface parking relegated to the rear and stairs and paths providing pedestrian access throughout the site. The building includes a unified, contemporary style with a hillside-appropriate palette. All four sides of the building provide appropriate visual attention. The project’s design is consistent with the Performance Criteria for the Research Park zone, and responds appropriately the surrounding uses and structures. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The surrounding area includes a variety of architectural styles that range from mid-century modern tilt-up construction to more recent contemporary themes. The project includes a palette of high quality materials, including terra cotta and wood paneling, as well as glass curtain walls and aluminum mullions and edges. The design fits within the hillside context, and appropriately balances heavier and lighter elements. The architecture would be consistent with the Research Park context and would represent a significant betterment of the site over the existing building. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design includes two points of access for vehicles entering and leaving the site on Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue, which is desirable given the size of the site and its location near the intersection of Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue. The project eliminates an existing curb cut and drive aisle located near the intersection, which will improve vehicle circulation and access management. The project enhances site connectivity by constructing a new sidewalk along the Coyote Hill Road frontage and reconstructing the sidewalk along Hillview with a new planter strip. A variety of pedestrian staircases and ramps provide universal access throughout the site, and work with the semi-natural topography. The project provides adequate short term and long term bicycle parking near the building entrances and in the parking garage respectively, which are appropriate and functional locations that will encourage cycling. Open space is provided along the street frontages as required by the City setback requirements, as well as in the upper terrace area adjacent to the Coyote Hill open space area. 4.c Packet Pg. 120 Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project includes substantial frontage, patio, and parking lot landscaping that are both aesthetically pleasing and functional. The design includes multiple stormwater infiltration facilities that capture and treat runoff on-site and allow for groundwater recharge. The project’s landscaping includes primarily native and drought-tolerant trees, shrubs, and perennials suitable to the area and the hillside open space context. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures including storm water drainage, topsoil protection, electric vehicle charging outlets, other water efficiency and conservation measures and the use of low odor and off-gassing materials in construction and finishes. 4.c Packet Pg. 121 ATTACHMENT C.2 SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVES 3406 Hillview Avenue, 17PLN-00438 The ARB shall review the site plan and drawings, and shall recommend approval or shall recommend such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following Site and Design objectives, as required in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC and as modified by Section 6.3.9 of the Mayfield Development Agreement. Objective (a): To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project is consistent with Objective (a) as it redevelops a site used historically for research and development with a new building in an area surrounded by similar developments. The site is ordered intuitively, with the building located at the street setback lines and functional areas, such as parking and loading spaces, relegated to the rear of the site. The site plan provides for substantial open space in the rear southwest corner of the property in order to protect the semi-natural state of this area, and while also providing appropriate setback and transition to the open space/agricultural use on the Coyote Hill property. Lighting, tree preservation, and new landscaping in this open space area would work to enhance the environmental value of this area, and would be compatible with the adjacent uses. Objective (b): To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project is consistent with Objective (b) as it proposes a new office/R&D building that would replace an obsolete building that the applicant has found difficult to market to prospective tenants. The project would provide future tenants with a range of floor plan options and a number of natural and occupational amenities, which will support the office/R&D function and enhance the desirability of the site for future occupants. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The project is consistent with Objective (c) as it utilizes a compatible palette consistent with the hillside setting, provides “solar ready” areas on the roof, and uses high performance and energy efficient materials that would exceed code requirements. The site planning retains a semi-natural open space area at the site rear that provides habitat value and is reverting to the native ecology of the hillside setting. The project would include the use of drought-tolerant, native plants throughout the site that would complement the existing plants and further enhance the habitat value across the site. Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As detailed in the ARB findings for approval in Attachment C, the project is consistent with Objective (d) as the use is in accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which allows for research and manufacturing uses in the Research/Office Park designation. 4.c Packet Pg. 122 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3406 Hillview Avenue 17PLN-00438 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, 3406 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on July 12, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. TRAFFIC MITIGATING AMENITY SPACE. The approved 83,030 sf building shall include a minimum of 3,954 sf of amenity space to ensure conformance with the allowed FAR for the property. The plans submitted for tenant improvement building permit shall include a floor plan describing the use of the 3,954 square feet of traffic mitigating amenity space. The space may include, but is not limited to, recreational facilities, credit unions, cafeterias, day care centers, automated teller machines, convenience stores, and onsite laundry facilities, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 5. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project is associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A. The MMRP is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document and as further detailed in site-specific technical reports provided with the application. 6. LANDSCAPE RESERVE. The project includes the deferral of 19 required parking spaces in a landscape reserve along the western side of the upper parking module pursuant to PAMC Section 18.52.50(b). A parking demand study shall be prepared by the applicant or future tenant(s) for the site no later than one year after full building occupancy to determine the parking utilization rate. 7. BIRD FRIENDLY BUILDING DESIGN. The project shall incorporate bird-safe glazing treatment that may include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. In some cases, bird-friendly treatment is invisible to humans. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at 4.d Packet Pg. 123 a maximum spacing of 2 inches. The applicant should reference the San Francisco Guidelines for Bird-Safe Buildings: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2506. 8. VAPOR INTRUSION PREVENTION. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for City of Palo Alto review the design of engineering controls, and sufficient information about construction and operation parameters as are determined by City and/or County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control to be needed to assure that the future occupants would not be impacted by current or future soil vapor intrusion. Common engineering controls that could be installed beneath the proposed structures and within the underground parking garage to prevent soil vapor intrusion into the structures include soil vapor barriers placed beneath the proposed structure and installation of an exhaust ventilation system in the parking garage, engineered to ventilate VOCs in addition to vehicle exhaust. The engineering controls shall be routinely inspected per equipment specifications to ensure proper functioning and that the system components have not degraded. The system shall include a monitoring device or alarm to alert the facility manager if the system fails. 9. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION. Employers at the subject site shall participate in the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association or any successor Transportation Management Association that is designed to reduce employee commute trips to and from the Stanford Research Park. The property owner shall ensure this condition is included in all lease agreements in order to streamline implementation. 10. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 11. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 12. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 4.d Packet Pg. 124 13. MAYFIELD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. The project includes 16,576 square feet of the total Mayfield 300,000 square feet that can be relocated (replacement square footage). No impact fees are due for this square footage. A total of 22,216 replacement square feet currently remains which may be relocated throughout the Stanford Research Park. 14. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 15. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 16. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). 17. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 18. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and 4.d Packet Pg. 125 approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 19. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 20. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 21. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 22. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 23. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 24. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 25. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge 4.d Packet Pg. 126 compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to grading or building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 26. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. 27. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: As applicant is proposing to connect the site’s discharge directly into the City Storm Drain system, please provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 28. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 29. PAVEMENT: Hillview Ave was resurfaced in 2011 & Coyote Hill Road was resurfaced in 2015. These streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Hillview Avenue and Coyote Hill Road based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 30. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. 4.d Packet Pg. 127 Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION 31. On sheet L4.1 add a column to show the number of each species to be planted. 32. On sheet L5.0 the total trees removed in the table should be 82, not 80. Other entries in the table appear to be consistent with numbers in the tree protection report. 33. On sheet L5.2 in the executive summary of the tree protection report, correct the number of protected trees to show 28, not 27. 34. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree. d. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 35. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” 4.d Packet Pg. 128 b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 36. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 37. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 38. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. UTILITIES – ELECTRICAL 39. The existing transformer on site is a 2500KVA unit, vintage 2003, and as a relatively new unit, can likely be reused for the new building, pending submittal of loading requirements. The newly proposed vault locations are satisfactory. 4.d Packet Pg. 129 UTILITILES - WATER,GAS,WASTEWATER 40. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads. 41. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 42. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 43. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 44. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 45. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 46. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 47. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 4.d Packet Pg. 130 48. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 49. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 50. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. GREEN BUILDING 51. CALGreen Checklist: The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant must indicate the requirements on the Planning Application. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 52. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. 53. Energy Efficiency: If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. Performance Approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building includes a 5kW or greater photovoltaic system. Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) 54. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet, then the must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 4.d Packet Pg. 131 55. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a non-residential building alteration with a permit value of $200,000 or more, then the project must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. (2016 CGBC Section 301.3, Chapter 5). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The requirements are subject to inspection. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 56. Commissioning: If the project is a new building over 10,000 square feet, then the project must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code section 5.410.2 for Planning Approval. The project team shall re-submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) in accordance with section 5.410.2.1 with an updated Basis of Design (BOD) in accordance with 5.410.2.2 that reflects the design elements finalized between Planning Approval and Permit Submittal. The project shall also submit a Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 57. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 58. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 59. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 60. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the rehabilitated non-residential project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area of greater than or equal to 2,500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). See MWELO Submittal Guidelines. 61. Construction & Demolition: If the project is a nonresidential new construction or renovation project and has a value exceeding $25,000, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 62. Construction & Demolition: If the project includes non-residential demolition, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction- Tier 2 Mandatory for all nonresidential 4.d Packet Pg. 132 construction include new construction, additions, and alteration, as long as the construction has a valuation exceeding $25,000. PAMC 16.14.370 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 63. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: If the project is a new non-residential structure, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5324. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5324 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.430 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54976 for additional details. 64. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 4.d Packet Pg. 133 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLES 3406 Hillview Avenue, 17PLN-00438 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (RP-5 DISTRICT) Regulation Provided Required Minimum Site Area, Width, and Depth 6.5 acres, 325 feet width, and 707 feet depth 5 acres, 250 feet width, and 250 feet depth Minimum Front Yard 150 feet 100 feet Minimum Rear Yard 345 feet 40 feet Interior Side Yard 60 feet 40 feet Street Side Yard 80 feet 70 feet Max. Site Coverage 16% (45,110 sf) Mayfield Agreement allows for 25% coverage, or 70,742 sf Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.28:1 (79,076 sf + 3,954 sf amenity space Mayfield Agreement allows for 0.375:1 (106,112 sf) Max. Building Height 34.75 feet 35 feet (with additional 15 feet for mechanical and screen) Daylight Plane N/A N/A Employee Showers 16 showers R&D: 50,000 sf and up requires 4 showers Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Administrative Office and Research & Development uses* Type Provided Required Vehicle Parking 245 spaces, plus 19 in landscape reserve (264 total) 1 per 300 sf of gross floor area (264 spaces) Bicycle Parking 28 bike spaces (22 long term and 6 short term) 1 per 3,000 sf (80% long term, 20% short term = 28 spaces (22 long term, 6 short term) Loading Space 1 space 1 loading space for 50,000-99,999 sf * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 4.e Packet Pg. 134 Page 1 of 4 ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 CITY OF PALO ALTO/STANFORD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND LEASE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Date: June 4, 2018 Project Name: City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project; 3406 Hillview Avenue SCH #: 2003082103 Project Location: 3406 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California Applicant/Owner: Stanford University This document is an Addendum to the approved City Of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report (“Mayfield DA EIR”) and has been prepared to address a changed circumstance. The applicant and the City have prepared technical reports to analyze the potential for environmental impacts on the site. The change has been determined not to create any additional impacts compared to those identified in the Mayfield DA EIR. ANALYSIS: Cultural Resources: The building proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new building under the Mayfield Development Agreement has reached 51 years of age, and must be analyzed for potential impacts to historic resources. According to CEQA, properties identified in an historical resource survey are presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that a property is not historically or culturally significant. Also according to CEQA, a project that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties would not have a significant adverse impact on a resource. Demolition of this building was analyzed in a Historic Resource Analysis analyzed and determined not to constitute a new significant environmental impact compared to those analyzed in the Mayfield DA EIR. The City has concluded that the building does not constitute a historical resource. As described in the attached Historic Resource Evaluation for 3406 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California, the building is associated with significant events and persons in the advent and development of personal computing. However, the building does 4.f Packet Pg. 135 Page 2 of 4 not exemplify the midcentury modern architecture style, and the building has lost many important aspects of its integrity due to the later additions and renovations that significantly altered the building’s appearance. Therefore, the building is not eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources. Hazardous Materials: The Mayfield DA EIR identified a number of potential public health concerns related to the 200,000 square feet of R&D/office uses permitted during Phase Two of the Development Agreement. These concerns were analyzed and categorized as hazardous materials, hazardous waste, contaminated soil and groundwater, and hazardous building components. The Mayfield DA EIR proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts related to these concerns to a less-than-significant level. As the project is a “designated project” subject to the Mayfield Development Agreement, the mitigation measures contained in the Mayfield DA EIR are applicable to the project. In accordance with the Mayfield Development Agreement MMRP, the applicant has provided environmental management plan documents, including a soil and soil vapor sampling report (Attachment C) that describes the subsurface conditions and associated considerations for the redevelopment of the site. The project site is not located within the nearby Hillview Porter Regional Groundwater Plume, and is therefore not subject to Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) orders for oversight and remediation. However, the site has undergone a hazardous materials facility closure process with Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health and the Palo Alto Fire Department due to the prior hazardous materials storage. In accordance with the Mayfield MMRP, the applicant has provided Phase II soil and soil gas testing results, which detected the presence of Volatile Organic Compounds in one soil gas sample that exceeded environmental screening levels for commercial sites without engineered fill. However, with the incorporation of engineered fill, the project would not exceed the applicable screening levels, and would not pose a significant health risk. Further testing is recommended in the Phase II documents and will be conducted after the existing concrete slab has been removed during demolition. Additionally, the applicant has provided a Site Management Plan that details steps to be taken during demolition and redevelopment to avoid health risks associated with soil and soil gas. The soil and soil vapor sampling report and site management plan implement Mitigation Measures HM1.1 Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), HM1.3 Implement Site Management Plan, and HM1.2 Prepare a Work Plan and Corrective Action. A Health and Safety Plan will be required to be prepared to protect construction contractors during construction from potential exposure to existing contaminated soil and/or groundwater. This Health and Safety Plan must be provided to DTSC or other appropriate oversight agency, who may conduct inspections to ensure adherence to health and safety protocols. This will implement HM3.1 Prepare and Implement a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan. Biological Resources: An arborist and tree preservation report was prepared to catalog existing trees on the site and propose site-specific protection measures. This report implements Mitigation Measure BR2.1 Require Arborist Tree Survey and Tree Protection and Preservation Plan, which is applicable for both demolition and construction. Adherence to the recommendations in the report, which identifies Regulated Trees, will further implement this measure during demolition and construction. Two protected trees (1 coast live oak, 1 redwood) 4.f Packet Pg. 136 Page 3 of 4 are proposed for removal due to their poor health and proximity to the construction zone. The Urban Forester has recommended their removal and replacement in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Forest Master Plan. Additionally, a biological review was prepared to describe the extent to which sensitive wildlife species occupy the site. The site is located adjacent to an undeveloped area of the Stanford Campus, and is located approximately ¼ mile from locations where California red-legged frogs have been recently observed. The southwest corner of the site is relatively undeveloped and contains a number of native wildflower species, as well as suitable foraging ground for dusky- footed woodrats which were obverted nesting immediately off-site. The project plans avoid development in this area, which will limit the impact of the project on this habitat area. Additionally, prior to construction, measures BR-1.1 Implement Procedures to Protect Sensitive Plant Species, BR1.2 Implement Procedures to Protect Sensitive Wildlife Species, and BR3.1 Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Measures if Identified will be implemented to avoid any potential impacts to any sensitive plant or wildlife species or nesting birds on the site. Transportation: While on-site circulation/ingress/egress for Phase Two projects was identified as a less-than-significant impact in the Mayfield DA EIR, a trip generation and circulation analysis was prepared for the 3406 Hillview Avenue redevelopment to ensure no new significant impacts would be created. The report concluded that the additional trips generated by the project would not cause a significant impact due to sufficient service capacity on Coyote Hill Road and Hillview Avenue. Construction-related traffic impacts are mitigated through TR-1.1 Prepare and Implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan, which will be implemented with the requirement of City approval of a logistics plan prior to the issuance a grading permit. This plan will describe any construction-related changes to local traffic patterns, construction working parking, equipment storage, and truck traffic to and from the site. The Public Works Department has required a construction logistics plan condition of approval for the project. Noise: The project plans include mechanical equipment on the roof of the structure, as well as a screen to shield the equipment. This design feature implements NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose Roof- Mounted Mechanical Equipment. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, an acoustical analysis shall be performed to ensure that the new building is in compliance with the Noise Standards in the Municipal Code, with any recommendations in the analysis to be incorporated into the construction documents of the project. Air Quality: AQ-1.1: Implement Construction Dust Control Measures. As a requirement of the construction documents, the applicant will be required to adhere to control measures as developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. These measures include watering all construction areas daily, covering all trucks hauling soil, and sweeping public streets in the vicinity if visible soil material is carried onto the streets. The implementation of this mitigation measure will help mitigate the short term increases in PM10 emissions that could violate air quality standards. Additional potentially significant impacts identified in the Mayfield Development Agreement, 4.f Packet Pg. 137 Page 4 of 4 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines 15164(c), “an Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted Negative Declaration.” This Addendum shall become public record as an attachment to the adopted City of Palo Alto/Stanford Development Agreement and Lease Project Environmental Impact Report. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, no subsequent EIR or supplement to the Mayfield DA EIR may be prepared, because changed circumstances do not create new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. Prepared by: Date APPENDICES A. Mayfield DA EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan B. Historic Resource Evaluations for 3406 Hillview Avenue C. Environmental Management Plan Cover Letter From Stanford University D. Palo Alto Fire Department Closure Letters E. Site Management Plan, 3406 Hillview Avenue F. Results of Subsurface Investigation 3406 Hillview Avenue G. Ingress/Egress and Circulation Analysis for Office at 3406 Hillview Avenue H. Biological Review, 3406 Hillview Avenue I. Arborist Report, 3406 Hillview Avenue 4.f Packet Pg. 138 4.g Packet Pg. 139 4.g Packet Pg. 140 4.g Packet Pg. 141 4.g Packet Pg. 142 4.g Packet Pg. 143 4.g Packet Pg. 144 4.g Packet Pg. 145 4.g Packet Pg. 146 4.g Packet Pg. 147 4.g Packet Pg. 148 4.g Packet Pg. 149 4.g Packet Pg. 150 4.g Packet Pg. 151 4.g Packet Pg. 152 4.g Packet Pg. 153