Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-08-16 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 or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: August 16, 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. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. 656 and 649 Lytton Avenue [18PLN-00214]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of Proposed Revisions to the Facade of an Existing Multi-Family Affordable Senior Housing Facilities and Other Minor Site Revisions. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: PC-2649 for Lytton Gardens I and PC- 2698 for Lytton Gardens II (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2609 Alma Street [18PLN-00074]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of two Existing Residential Buildings and two Carports, and Construction of two Three-Story Buildings Comprised of Four (4) Condominiums, Including one (1) Below Market Rate Unit. Environmental _______________________ 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 or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Assessment: Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN- 00253. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan, Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review Consistent With Condition of Approval #3, for a Previously Approved Mixed- Use Building (14PLN-00222), Requiring Architectural Review Board Approval for the Proposed West Elevation Wall Design, Landscape Details, and Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsmanship. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning District: CD-C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m- group.us Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 5, 2018. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 19, 2018. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less 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 # 9491) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/16/2018 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 Furth 9/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay 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 September 6 3223 Hanover Street (3rd Hearing) 3241 Park Boulevard (Prelim) 3877 El Camino Real (Subcommittee) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9438) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/16/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 656 Lytton Avenue: Facade Revisions (Prelim) Title: 656 and 649 Lytton Avenue [18PLN-00214]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of Proposed Revisions to the Facade of an Existing Multi-Family Affordable Senior Housing Facilities and Other Minor Site Revisions. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: PC-2649 for Lytton Gardens I and PC-2698 for Lytton Gardens II (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment Department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to the municipal code and applicable guidelines would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to Boardmembers and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate, given the neighborhood context, and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: Karim Sultan/Covia Architect: SGPA Architecture and Planning Representative: Alexis Burk Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 656 Lytton Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown North Lot Dimensions & Area: APN 120-03-074: 97,137 sf (2.23 acres); frontages on Lytton Avenue, Middlefield Road, and University are 300 ft, 400 ft, and 175 ft, respectively APN 120-03-078: 1,634 sf (0.03 acres); 25 ft frontage on University APN 120-03-079: 33,125 sf (0.76 acres) 152 ft frontage on University APN 120-03-080: 1,229 (0.28 acres) no street frontage Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Street trees, to be protected Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): Lytton Gardens I: 130,831 sf; four stories plus one level below ground parking; 40 feet; 1975 Lytton Gardens II: 81,162 sf; four stories plus one level below ground parking; 40 feet; 1978 Existing Land Use(s): Multi-family residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Zoning R-1 (single family residential land uses) West: Zoning RM-30 and PC-3753 (multi-family land uses) East: Zoning R-1, RM-30, and RM-15 (single-family residential, and medium- and low-density multi-family land uses) South: Zoning RM-40 (high density multi-family land use) Aerial View of Properties: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: City of Palo Alto Geographic Information Systems, Google Images Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: APN 120-03-074: Planned Community (PC 2649) APN 120-03-078, APN 120-03-079, APN 120-03-080: Planned Community (PC 2968) Comp. Plan Designation: Multi-family Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Applicable, see discussion below South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project includes replacement of existing wood shingle siding throughout the exterior with new fiber board siding for both Lytton Gardens I and II. Other key changes includes new through-wall packaged terminal air conditioning/heating units in all apartments in Lytton Gardens I, lighting upgrades, reconfiguration of the drop-off zone and adjacent landscaping along Lytton, and changes to add Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking within the parking garage, resulting in the overall loss of four parking spaces. These changes are discussed in more detail below. There is no change to the use on either parcel or to the gross floor area, lot coverage, open space, or number of units on site (currently 319 units) proposed at this time. A location map is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment D. Based on staff’s review of the plans and project description in the plan set, it appears other changes are proposed but additional information would be necessary to evaluate these changes. Further information would be requested as part of any formal application: A proposed new transformer adjacent the drop-off area along Lytton Avenue Proposed additional short-term bicycle parking, benches, and a revised pathway near the corner of Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road Proposed revisions to the interior courtyard, including the addition of a new gazebo and a shade structure (these changes may result in changes to lot coverage and/or gross floor area depending on the design) Proposed revisions to rooftop gas water heating equipment Exterior Material Changes As noted in the project description on Sheet 2 of the plans, the project includes changing the existing wood shingle siding, which has a useful life of approximately five to seven years, to a painted fiber cement board siding with a useful life of approximately 30 years. The applicant states that the existing siding has ongoing issues with water infiltration, resulting in rot within the walls and active leaks, and is prone to both warping and rotting. The proposed siding is intended to better prevent moisture infiltration and help to stabilize the temperature inside the walls, reducing heat loss from the interior. Given the Lytton Gardens complex spans nearly an entire city block, staff would appreciate the ARB’s comments on this color and material change. Air conditioning/heating units For Lytton Gardens I (PC 2649), the applicant proposes packaged terminal air conditioning/heating units for all apartments, which would be visible from the public right-of- way on street facing apartments. The air/heating units would be painted to match the color of City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 the wall on which they are located. No air/heating units are proposed at Lytton Gardens II (PC 2968). Other interior improvements (e.g. interior flooring and casework) noted on the plans would not be visible from the exterior and therefore would not be subject to the ARB’s purview. Lighting Revisions to the existing exterior lighting are proposed. The location of the new post lamps are shown on Sheet 12 and the proposed design is shown on Sheet 24. Parking Reconfiguration The proposed project includes removal of two handicapped parking spaces within the drop-off area on Lytton Avenue. These spaces do not meet ADA standards and block a portion of the drop-off area when they are in use. The applicant proposes to remove these spaces and revise the drop-off zone to add a striped walking aisle with a path around the existing tree, as shown on Sheet 12 of the plan set. A total of three ADA compliant spaces would be added to the below-ground parking garage for Lytton Gardens I, resulting in a total of four fewer parking spaces on the site, including two fewer spaces within the garage and two non-complying ADA spaces at grade, as shown on Sheets 10 and 12 of the plans. No changes are proposed to parking at Lytton Gardens II. Staff has requested that the applicant provide a parking study as part of any formal application to determine the parking occupancy rates on site. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated: Architectural Review (AR) – Minor Board Level. The proposed project includes alterations to two previously approved Planned Communities, PC 2649 and PC 2968, which were previously reviewed by the Board. Given the prominent frontage of these buildings along University Avenue, Lytton Avenue, and Middlefield Road within the Downtown North neighborhood, the proposed changes to the façade and site improvements along these frontages could significantly alter the character or appearance of the building along these frontages. Therefore, this project would be processed at a board level. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or other applicable policy documents. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. In particular, staff is seeking the Board’s feedback on the proposed material changes, proposed through wall air conditioning/heating units, proposed City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 exterior lighting, and the proposed parking reconfiguration. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to: Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials; and Consideration of the project’s consistency with the Downtown Design Guidelines. Downtown Design Guidelines The proposed exterior changes would not affect the pedestrian scale or character of these existing buildings because the entrance design, windows, floor levels and other like features would not be revised. The guidelines also note that the gradual change from downtown to the residential neighborhoods in this area is partly recognizable by the increased landscaping and tree cover of the residential areas. The proposed project would retain the existing trees along the street frontages of Middlefield, Lytton, and University Avenue. Proposed revisions to the landscaping at the corner of Middlefield and Lytton to provide a revised pathway, benches, bicycle parking would improve the pedestrian character, making the site more consistent with the Guidelines. Any interior courtyard revisions would improve this outdoor area for residents, consistent with the Guidelines that encourages outdoor amenities. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Planned Community Ordinance 2649 (PDF) Attachment C: Planned Community Ordinance 2968 (PDF) Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 2 W ebster House Healthcare Center W ebster House Lytton Gardens 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 125.0' 12.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 75.0' 125.0' 250.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100 .0' 50.0'12 5 .0'100.0' 12.5'25.0' 20.5' 125 .0' 92.0'125.0' 92.0' 200.0' 152.5' 250.0' 52.5'50.0' 100.0' 11.8' 61.8' 27.4' 32.3' 15.6' 29.5' 19.3'3.0' 47.7' 25.2' 67.0' 22.2' 160.0' 160.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0'100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 10.0'2.5' 250.0' 147.5' 260.0' 150.0' 400.0' 174.7' 47.8' 3.0' 19.3'22.2' 133.0' 38.3' 11.7' 29.5' 15.6' 32.3' 172.6' 300.0' 140 .0' 150.0' 140.0' 150.0' 150.0' 50.0' 10.0' 140.0' 50.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 60.0' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 2.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5' 65.0' 150.0' 112.5' 125.0' 75.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'112.5' 50.0' 112.5'112.5 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 48.5' 7.0'1.5' 150.0' 50.0' 143.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 48.5' 82.0' 48.5' 82.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 57.5' 125.0' 57.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 67.5' 125.0' 90.0' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 150.0' 52.5' 150.0' 52.5' 0.0'112.5 50.0' 1 50.0'112.5' 50.0' 112 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5' 25.0' 25.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0'75.0' 75.0' 440-446 401 579 649 518 610 600 616 624 630 511 517 524 500 680 581 420-438 437 656 318 623-643 443 425 725 478 499 489 435 428 422 416 732 724 425 415 405 675 352 344 328 336 343 434 359 351 345 645-651 665 667 555 530 720 498 765 482 486 490 360 483 435 755 409 419 630 515 526 720 519 MID DLEFIELD RO A D W EBS TER STREET LYTTO N A VEN UE UNIVERSITY A VE N UE UNIVERSITY A V B YR O N STREET MID D LEFIELD R OA D FU LTON STREET MID DLEFIELD ROA D LYTTO N A VE N UE N U R-2 RM-40 M-30 P C-2 968 -1 P C-3753 PC-2649 RM-15 PC-4 PC- 3437 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages abc Building Roof Outline abc Easement abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts Tree Project Site 0' 115' 656 and 649 Lytton 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 chodgki, 2018-08-09 09:46:47 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) •,_I OR1GINAL ORDINANCE NO. 2649 ORDINANCE OF ·~HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AM.ENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 656 LYTTON AVENUE FROM R-3-P TO P-C SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: \' SECTION 1. Seqtion 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map II, is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certai'n :i;>°ioperty known as 656 Lytton Avenue from R-3;...p to P-C. ;1.,'-, Said property· is shoWn on a map attached hereto; incorporated het:ein by reference, and entitled "Change of District from R-3-P to P•C.11 SECTlON 2. The.diagrams attached hereto entitled "Developrnen:t Plan" are incorporated herein by reference. The Developme~t Plan is app_roved pursuant to Section 18.68.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code subject to the following conditions: A. Use: . tip to ~20 'd;,s'11~t:tg uni ts and related . facilities fpr low.to.moderate income; elderly a,nd disabled persqns finance,d pursuant to seq_tion 236' or. ' stiqt.:~ssofy' s~ctions of~. t-O~ National, Housing A_ct; provided however that.the applicant shaJ,.l·make, .·.·a good faith appl;i.qation t¢Cobtain· a :further sub"."." ·. sidy for. 40%. Of s\ich ·uili,ts pursut\rtt ·to ·the Relit s upplemeri t . Program· of tlu~ ~Na tiorial · Housing;· Act. The :.public 'ifltere~t; 'health°,. safety,· .morals~ peace I CQffifOrt: and general we.lfare i'equire that th~' p~_ese'nt1y 'existing zdhilig classification of R:-3-P.,{Residential-Prp:fessional Di~trict) is approi:;.Ciate except that_. th~ recommended p-..c ·(Plann~d-Cotntf!unity Dist~ict) -·. zonitig p~~s~ification make·s bettel". 9se of .the ·suoje,ct prope;ty··and pro.,... m(.):tes the p'U:Olic int~:test,: .·h1;?al th,,: s·qfeJ.y, Jn6rals, peace, cozt1fort·.aric1 general we_.l,:far~ inc:l\iding·an · ecfr..'>notnic mix of housing; the:c:"ifore / iii the eve,tlt-'' that constrtiction·is.riot started within the time · . pre~.cr.i.bed::by :this ord~~iince, the P-C:, (Plafinea~·,:, ·. Community 'Di&itricf), zoning shall la·o~e ·,and 'the.··.· ~ailing o{ fh~ ~\.lbjeC_t :property -sha'ii. automaticAl~Y-~ reyE:irt· to.· Rl.;,J..op . (Resio.ential-Professional Dj,~trict) as pr~vious ly: ~oned. 't<{? '~ · .. ,, ,10,·, ... - .. -'-~':'J-, r·- ~ ~-- ..... l .• . ?<':" ' ::~ ... ~ .. , i -- .. , \ / . -• \ ,-' :e B. Improvements: c. ... The building, parking, landscaping and all other im- provements 3hall be substantially as shown on the Development Plan except as follows: 1) Three (3) parallel off-Street parking spaces.and turnout on Lytton Avenue side of the project shall be provided. 2) Sixty-five (65) underground parking spaces shall be provided. 3) Not more than thirty-five (35} parking spaces shall be allotted to residents of the building and the management shall take such steps in application procedures as -it deems necessary to assure j:his condition. 1'· 4) There shall be no public eveiits occurring on the prop~rty between.a:oo·a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday,requiring visitor parkin9 in excess of the r~quired visitor parking spaces unless ap- propriate measures are taken by the management to obtain sufficient off-street parking for such guests. 5)". Studio apartments shall have.a floor.area of.not less than 308 square feet· an<l Oii.e'."'.'bedroom apartments shall have a floor area of not less than 518 square feet. 6) ~he configuration of the units on' Middlefield' Road shall be such as to in~ure the preseivation of the monumental bak tree tn that area. A cle:"arance of - riot less ·.than thirty..;.fi_ve (35) feet from the base of .. the oak tree ·to the base of the buildings shall be . - 'provided. 7) ' -There shal'l be appropr.iate indentationS: or other meaS:.ires ,, in the-· walkw<3.y;on the' University Avenue side of the property t.o p':r:eserve ttie ·existing:. ,·mel?tleuc?-trees' on that side of the property I' as shown 8) on thE! DeveJ,opment J?lan. " . , ' . The width of the walkway_ t'i-om .. l.Jniversity '.Avenue :to: .t:he -gate sh.all be such that ft'';i:s clea_r that it is not a'''"' n\~in entrance to .th.e ;~evelbpment ~rid shall not._ be used as such. -.. .•,• 9) · c6_1nnnmi:t'y ·aaus'ing, Inc. 1 shal1-~< either Ttseif or ·through.its ,~on tractors:. prov~P,e a ·bond to· ,prot:ect the trees proposed-to be preserved in the Development .~· .·',, -·~' r~· ..:,/>-:~-.· 'Plan, the bond to 'be suf fi'cien:t to·· replace or repair any tree de~troyed or · :;njure~f:during;.·,t~e ·ce>ursf# of constn1ct.i.pn. The form and 'stibSt"an~e o:f .. ~uch-bond shall.be' c;tpproved by·the city Attorney prior to the -issuance of: a use permit. ' 'Cotnpliance: . ~--. C6?nplia:n.be with· all appliq~le codes and. r~gulatiohs, _ including. :the.· requJ.r:emf3nts ·of ~the ·cityc:'of :Pald, Alto - Fire Departinent · a.n-,, ''the :; __ tate-O':f ·califotnia Admin1s::.. trative Codi!, 'l'itle 19, ·Ptiblic safety/-ls requ.fred. -2- . ': ~ ; ~ . :. -( ·-r~ ~ ; --~ -· . .,. .· .-- .. ·~·. . ..... ·' ·-:: ./ • SECTION 3. The Development Schedule for subject property ' .... · . . ~ f:;he:.11 be as·, fol loW!i : . > 1 ~:-/·Start of construction on or before December 1, ::< 1'~'73 ~" . . .. •. . "•\/( .. · ·?.. G.6;1pletion of all constr·uction and development .· .. _ 6h or before June 1, 1975. SECTION. 4. This ordinance shall be; fore effective upon the expiration of thirty days from its passage. INTRODUCED: March 20, 1972 PASSED: April 3, 1972 AYES: UNANIMOUS . NOES: NONg ABSENT: NORTON ATTEST: . ____/) . • ~!~.· City Clerv . ··. . APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~ftZ07 ~- ·:., · .. _. ~ .- ·:' _; ,. ._-: <.-· 1:)f'.:' : ~- .·-····· ••••• '.) ·:'. h'!·~_,;~~}s·.!. ~--!1'.\";:~;~;~,~'!K-; f, '':i .,;· . ,~~· j_~~ :t_L~t~: ··"' CHANGE . R-3. P TO P-C ! WEBSTER ZONE CHANG'E BOUNDARY EXISTING ZONE BOUNDARY . '-~ .,. ·,:, ; '~ ·,·' -·-'- . (-; .. ·._ .. ·' ~.- '_:- ", .. .. ( > '.; . , . ~-":.~-~ .. .. ~·.I • , ........ .,-,__; -: . ·.: .. ~'..'-: .· .. ·. / ·~), l , ·:· .. - ,-_ . ·> . '· .-.._r_ .-·:··= : . :_.-.,r- -;._: ·.·:. ·f.::. ·:·~-~?-.7~ ..... ,:.~ . ._ ...... --· ,,, ! i I I I I l: I I: --;-· ..:, -'· .' _-, . . ~ : . . _; -. ·--. --:_-... - " ---·-...... ----.... ____________ .,.-- :J ~: ; / -·· . .. l.' -:· 111=1 r- (QJ {\l}JJ ~ lQ) ©~ @~ r·-- . -·-~ .. ,! ~ ·. I .· .l ~-;: I -· i .. I If) I . z _} 0 .. .;.. (l 1 . ·- \!) ~ IJ I lfl (fl •• 7. :} ·IL 0 IV hl_ I() .J \.) . ' . . ... j m I- ) IL t.'1 \lr'. ll l r('j . , ~- .. .. , ... 1 I) -( '• -- .J lJ /. ·J (fl [)~ < \) H . 0 lY. 111 d\ ~ ~-· z -~ i \.) .. I < I . v._ .:l / I l . j /. ! ·1 I l ' 1. ····-··· ·---·- . ____ .... -----~------------ 0 t·-L.. :.1 -----·-------------~-~ . ~·' .~ ·z , ::I ·~ qi \I} (} -I d) 11 I ·::- () u n z -'( .J IL (.) J) tl' C"1 II J 10 0 0. Y. "' s tU \I) < ~ Ill -> (.\ u (\ -z < . I IL 0 .~ ul u < {L \\\· z. Ill Q. 0 LL 0 ~ . -'_. 0 w !!! > w (ll : '·•. .. )• ' ]· \. . \ -. ___ _,..;_:;:.;:;::,, ·-·-r ··--· -·-· ,_;.c ___ -- .-·\ .-'. ;-., :_ -. '. -:~-·~: :'.=-,: ~--.: -~r~-:.::~~-- ·-• ''"!';" .. __ ., -~ ··-:.- ..')-! .-· , ": '.. " / -~. - "·: •• .-c• "• . ' } ~- \ ' ' .~ ........... , \ . ·,- ./ . I .1 "' , -. •, ·) : ~ ·: . .......__ - ..... · . .···®)·· . . -. . ~. . . -~ --. · __ "I·-_. ' ·1 I ' . . f c ~ -o --:t -·.-·.-· ... -...· -·. :< ~-\. -·:.,.· . ~/ ..• -_. =·_-1.f •. -~ -. \ .. \ i-' . ' '· . -. : ·~ •.; :;--. ,·~1 ···"':' ' -~ ... : ·.• I I ,, " ., -~ T. :::I • < !~ ' . .I '1· .;.~ ,. i .\··--.. ··~ . ~-- : .. ~ ---... .. --:i. ,. ·\ ) .. -.~r " ' --~ .. ,_- .. -t )' t)_·· -. .-_ -· . J) ._~. '·' / ·'~ _J II) u : if. .· .... i ·L .. . ' ., ~-.· JI.' I. \ ti l z! ::> ~I '.J l ~1 ·-.\ I I . -~ ., ~ ;' ·. \ ., .. -r ., '· -~ ... '\> . . -~.:··;" -'·' ( : '(;:;,: .. : .. : ~ '# ;' ..... " . ~ '. ._ .. \ . ' fQ1 ~ [Q) I ~ I (g] l I I d j rnD I f i:::::J ~ l I , I I!l!J ' i d ' I [Q] I I I (QJ l t::::l -~- ·• ,-..·- '· .. ~~; . . ~. _-: -:; •. _! @; fOJ (Q) (~ t.;J [:'::1 !/D @\ l~J) fl-·1 u· r-·J f!r:r.l (01 (ri!; @11 ~ (Q) ~- Il .·@,Q). ~ ...• --•. ·.~~. · .. --.::!£w).~----.. : ·._·.,(C .. · .. · l:t--' ~-;.. ·'.>o:-.: ·~_::. >(g ·!f:i ff J -~-> .·~· ~·· --.. . . ·' t:: .--·~--- 0 il!~J filb @ ~~ ll 11~ t~ ·• .:~u · ~; -~;\ ~ @,, 7~ ---~ Jo\;1 .· '@ID :"• :-·-· .. -~ .-\ ·-~ , . ' '.i .\ -•, - .. . ;-" ,.,·. ;, ·_:. .,-. ,.,.-_. .~_:. . _.;_ . I ... I I ... l l . i}::i (Ql Jl!!D ~ "lQ] ~ rn\1 ~ . \ •n ' - z :.1 0 n ·.1 !-·- '° u. 0 ~ ... lf'! . ">- :1 ./ lfJ t - ;L 0 IV'. m I· / l IL () tt: . IU 4) . ' < . - \) l . Ul (Y- < \,) l'L Ill It\ . 1 <. I . 0 ·- f'l 11) 0 ~ < cY- {/_. < \) 0 t - ~- I.fl «) uJ 1!) < v. 111 '"7 . () u C'I .z < .. l Ii. 0 ,Q Q" t·· () UJ . lfl (.) u. Y. 11 I £ UI ll) < v.. Ul {) I..) (.) z < -I u' u < {i. \t\ "/.. \ll (l.. ·'-0 u.. o· ~ -l ..-l l \ ·· .. ·• _, ·- . " .., I I I' ! \ - .1 l \ I ., ... _ .... ,, : 1 " "ll _1_ .. _._. _________________ ---------~ ---------. ·--------·-------~------·------_;_----"-l -l~-~~~-·~· ----.....;:. i, _o·~'-:2.,.~; . . \ - ----..J.-... ~ -.......... -· ---'--""'"----____ ::..,_ ________ ~--' ; I . -<'--. I: ···t . . .. . '·-\ § [Rl l&lJ gjj-it .. k IM ©Jill. db A 4 . -{ ,)y~~1vl4~N~ NIVW :·p , ~1)t1~~r ~ ~, r-~,....~ -----===-~~----·rrir·~,J . ' ' '' \. 1,. •• . ,· ,.=-: 1 .,._1 .. -. ~ . ' ... ... ; . '· -~- .-.· i '-· @ Em---·.··-1 ::;_:·· :: . .. . . . . . --~ . ---~-----~· ---... -. - c-.::. ~ --~--m·---··· . ... _,··. _\--~ ·-.! ' · 1rn . "(flij' ·. . ~2 d (Q) ~ . -. ~ !'. ~ . '' ~·~----···'~ . .l..-~ ••• ~.;.:,~ l ·;1 ...... (' :1 _[inQ r-, ·:• f [] .. ' -,.· .; .. i~ ,,,,. ~ \\;) \,'0 N ~ \'\-. ·;· ·' ·,~ .. . ·. ~- ·-. •Ji ;_ .. -:• ' ,,'\ .I I , ·~ ~ "I ·'l f .t )1 I .{ ,~!ti c: tJ. ;·/ -. ··,· c ' . I -... i -~·-, ~\ .. ~-. . ·'' ,, j ' { Ill . :z j Ill u .. ;.c . 'Bl k- -/ ·:-·_,1-. '-"5 j I "I .. ; I. -wl. ,_ I ·-·~I ~1 ·~! i •'-. J j I l l i I .. r I t:·.:::i. -... l' . 1; "t:;;'.l @)) t.~ ~-1 ~ I~XJ c.:-=:i [}-~ r:..-=~ ~ {[j} ·~ ilAJJ. ~f~ [] fl······· 1. ; i )l \'-. J ir1p) t ,_ l i, I :.:·D ( i 1\ ' J i1JJ( \) i f.l . ! I .J l!rtJ i,, JI I --J T ; :(I it TI ., . J ./ l .. J ii -.i:-· .. t I ~ l " ~-:.;!) :/1 . i.:·J ~b] ':Y [L I t::-'·f (~Q) .5) [] d£ ·.I . ,·(iJ I I) I r1 ' . .. ., ;-·.._ tJ~i ;:1111 I: I -) I :1( . I : J fl~) •.. 1 lli::) !;ill lQJ L" ·1 •. Ht lJ lt;J @]~ (.::C>l !:.:'...-' \~(ol ··f~'. r~~ ~ iJ1uJ .· ·r -· . -. : tui • • o.. c_} .!. ,·;]· . C"-, (r'-1 . -·1_fh,1 ifotl ~{J) L;') f-' 1 [ln!} -11;tJ . l~11Jl \· .-:.: : .. ~ '. --~ - ··~ ~-. ·.'-..:--, '•·. ' .. c"'O-: ~-.. ' ~;:.: r-rj:i Me\'{ E.VeF.G.F.EEH mR c : i' "•"'"" ;) . ·,• . . '· """· .. ~ -~l::F-; .. ' eeec.M. . .: ,....e_.\V,.·,Y r;, '. A1-1i;:;' ~~o· cove:ia.. · · --.... _.,. . . . I . ·. Ot-le.l"-le.' I \· ) I I \. :. .. ,. ~. cGR!fEN i_ ___ - • ~MAME.r-ITAL. ~pi,ueee.1=\Y c '--._ . '\ . . ---------.. 't~Jt:t~ · :WCAM'Op;e . iC ~e.. ,.i.e.l"'.Oy 1!!;.D . •· . AW.': w:.I $!l E,Xl~TfH~ ~"IC..AJ--1.0f'le TO ?.E.MAIN . :.~·. ,M,,. lJ. I J . B r-+e.\v E.'{E?". C:> f I > I OP>~MEHTAL l l e.t:.i ~A,f\ !;>i-!UE>6E.P.Y co.ti:!:?>. mu d)· ~·· ~··· · .. ~:-~} · .. ~\'·· ..... ·~· "'''"Ji~ -~)~t-1. "·~ . . . . ' '. ·. -~ ': . _?@)' ~· .. J?.' fr= t '--t "·. ', I . :··~. f ·~·. ~ --~~,-.. _ ... -:·.. -. I ·r:-_ dJ·" I ' ' Ii 1 ..,_,......,.....,_. e.x, ~:nw.:o :!!Y." 'P:+"'ooo TOP..~IH •. f'llOH -tl~,~·f'U.p,~:L;i.F Pu..i ~ · ~~ ~r-:-=--:" a HE."(P.EDWClOP:. ' .... . ~· - /.'I ,-·,..' ,;'' ,;; b~Q\l©~ ~lQi%~IT3 ©~9F~ · GENcRl\L INFORT-'V\\\ON . . Ut1~ 0)14-~\.YlsE. t"-IOTED 1 ALL TPIEES AT El"'fTR)' . ~T Td PROJECT ~HO i"'\I CENT'FV\.L CC\JP-.1 ,A-..~E.A \V\LL 5E. 15. ~N ~ 5&:,'ZE. MINIMUM> \"llT\...I 6or---tE..'.-5f'ECiMEN "1"P.E'.E -&rz.e.s 1F 8UP6E.T f'EPM\TS. AU:.:arH~ TP,EE.& ~lLL SE .5 6AL.L.Ot-i c:,..A..N ~rz..E.1 . MINIMUM. QF-l-1AME.NTAL ~~ue~EA")' CO/Efll... .· . 1'T;0E.r"1T~;FOINT&'-"l"O -:~.c:t ~~;Ca-t'\PAL.:_. CQURT_. 'A~ ·~1µ. g,s~.~fj. ~ .. H._&l~~~ o~~"' .. -.. · ~LLON ~ &rz..e..~~1)(.ED'J'\S Se.et 't.A'i'O\h~"O~~Mrfll1E. ~~~'2!~~~,f?P.1::;ti·,~~·rr~t:...., ~ui:.e.e.P..Y cove.~ · . " \Vll..l. ~E. Cf"-IE.. ~1...LON O'-.H 'b~'-E. MIN\ MUM. G.ROllNO' · Co./EFP.. \,\t\LL SE. i::::rr..OM FLAT~ I !;)ET OU'T "T. 12 '4 .. G;C. MlHIMUM~ . . · ~i-5riBDeeEF\7 -cole.5---~------· ..6C1D · <2ROUND COVE.fl\ -~EtiT.AL. ~UJ!.BERy ~IE.N°nFlC N~ ~ \Vl\..L 1!.E..: , k°""'t:"'\_Qti NAME. 'P1H~ "-5EL\...._ HOP'5e1=.:o '3U6H c'SCALLO-·llA.. \V~ l..EA.F PR\ VE\ Ol..EJ'l..HO~F.. ~\-\01'\ H \A ~81fVo.. •. . . ,' " /\BEL.IA. '~D OOJC.Hip, ... +:Oc::bNA.EA V'-X.QQI"\ J'.:5CALL.Ot"tV\ "FR.i"'\De..51:- L\G-US.T~UM .JA'PC111Cilt'"1 Te:.XNiUM NE.P..lUM . C\;EJ\HDER. '\l/HtT.e'" PM.OT IN ii\·. FRA~~ RI .El1':T06FOBUM. ~IFO...tuM .'PtTrOOR:>RuM ~-~ . . Vt!SJJ.P.>NUM ~~M- ' )(y~·~~UM ~t't'DAN~\YA '-.f\e'.;.U?..IJUM ., 6\-\lHY XYt .. 05M.,"'- ,AC;\HTHl.15 MOLLI~ AUCUEA :JA.fO;\CA ~Tl~ f:AMe;J.~·. t"UJLTI~ 0CEAr-toT~ ~us. JUHIP~S:i &oa!HA. "TA~C.l~A . ~'EA IR\~ciceo ':Jot.4t160t1 't" PITI'OE>P'QP.UH 'i'O&lFV' __ -~FHIOLE'Ae> \H'D(C,... "CLAP-A" . 'll~U~NUM ·~V\Ptt . t'.GA?A.HTI-iUS"8fii.iCANU5 l"E>WE) AGAf"AHTHUS N='t=i'JC:~ ·~ f>t·f AR'CT061'AP'MYLO'$ vV/I.. -W~'E>l , JUr--!LP'E~U~ PROCUM~EN& 1""11~ i/\ ·.!<.)J 1rou UM COl'-1PN.."\ I'\ .. r.:'IHU~ NuGO MUG-t-"-.1~ , RA'PHIOL'e.Pt$. ll'jDiCJ'\ '?':tt:.W'\t-ITPe:-6' . GF.OUHD. COVEP.. 'VlLL l:!>E.: ~5 BP.EEC..H, ...JAP/\N.CC..;;.E. r'li<:UB." ~Mf!SO::j - · . ..: ft)INT fE.EY'=.5 -C.5AMOTuwe-· ~THlGoti'T LIL:>' .. \J'f\l~ TED . "'!tE>!P..A, .;: ft•40L"-t--I ~Jilo,.\Vll'"tOF;."""IE.. . ~VEE.T VlWRN(J;-1 LlLY QFT'4E.. MILE.' . 1?t{A°f(¢ ul_">1 ~ 'T\4E. Htt.£2 ;, .. · ·. K..11"1HICK.i i-4.H\C'""' ·, ..:AP\HEe (::;~ -JL.ii-.!?E~ ~EGO"'t ·G-RA..Pe. M.l..l(:n-iO PJMe · i1'4P\f\t--4 w.,e..,\\JTHOP:.~ ?.~·~-~~. XJN, ·:k -& ~v..:.r~~~.zt~c1) .. fr~· .AttE"A. • . !'U...\U~ '2-EP1:N-1S HE.DE.~ HELi~ HE.I:?~· HE.1.::))1 H.A.HH! HYPEJ:Z\CUM CJi..,L'fC\N UM PACHYSAHD"~ TE.~MIHALrS ve:.~e,~ PE~UVIANA (\'V\4.\TE.) TR'Af:HE~MUN·· ~INDIDE-$ CA.'?>PET S U&L.e EM(;,i...t'ON lvY .. Hl'.H~ 1'-''Y ~F~ .. BsA~ _v..w-..l'"'lesc. s:>u~&e.. .·~· .. ~ .... .I,. \ ~.[Q) 1 ~=,~!P~u~~{' '£-Aev 1~-rv~~~~.'t Ji\ -s~e; .. -•. ~£ET• r F61c:·. FiE;vE~r±· oF: M.!oPt.Ji.£~: '••', ·- ·.:-. \~ ,\.' . ::,.-;:: . '· ~1 0, U § n ~"1_·. ~. 1.rlJ \..: .J ' ~ . JJ Jj '\:J. ~ 5" .• 0 ...... =::,..i 1..1...,S t::J / """,~-... --.;..,..·:· -8 .2.J ~ --~ ;_; ....... ,..., --i ~ r-f ~'~ ··-,..._· -....:.:2 '. ,.:::,~ ·..:_,_.; _,...,,_:~Jt·C.)/"· ··~~~ ~-J.;...;~:.\::...:· . J : . -'tr~··~ ,. ··, ... ........ "-:=-. ~· --~ ~ ,,_. ,.-.... 9 T.:'.J fA:-.......... ~r-"°~ ,:.._,J. ·'» ~~ ·--.-~/-W ' · /',..:..\ ... ~'l"' .• ,_,, ' -:.J' i ; . ' ; ::;-' : '-·-" ' ~~ JJ \..:., '.~ \,I,· '.~ ""' .. i.t -.JJ .•...::.:=.: ~ ;J :::.:;,) ' ·;~: \_, _ .. I ' '.." l ':'.-:::"·"· ..... ',.;, l I I ---·iP.ataf...tt:.?-c.o.iE;lll!. -.. , ... -•' ,·, : ..:, •' •'·, ;··.:··. \< -: .... .......... .. ~ .. ·--· • _!.'. --.\\.:• . q , .. ;:,·~~'"··~-= -·::j.('"· ... ·"'"-. I -.... . . :. .·, I ~ N~-r~~ -~~~~~~~~ ...... -. ~ c.r ...: . ,. . .v ... "' ,. -o• ~'-'-· ... ~ ' 0·<·~-;\~-~ \:~_;\ '['ft:h1 .' I''" ' 1' ,,.· ,,., \' 1.J L~' •. ~· \ .,\\' L::.1 •• :;./ ..... •· ' I , ' , .. ., <> " ,c-1" \ ~ \\'.r\1\ "' " 1 ~ k \ . . . '"''O"-' ,. pl \;~'\\!\r, ;,~,~ \ '; .. :· '\' :·;,'"'-. ,,0\,,1,0~"'~~.-, \~L \ :· ...... ~ ~ . .. .. :: , ~: ___ ~~~-~ :: & IZ'E.VtS\O~S. /v\A~GH 2.7, 197'2.. '· ··-· -, ,. ~... --·-~ .... " . . ·_,,,, ' .. .. ·1 .. i. t;.: ,: l• ·~ : l .,. ::i. ·:: ~... . ::~ : .. 1,' w ., ., . ;.:j::: :J• ;·.:.: ;11"1·' ·1· : i• ;, ;I :ii '" .. ~~ / .. ' T~IHid VEiZ.S'E..'":t-' ... · ::i'"TA1il\ ...J.A~!l"il!. · •.' " ,,.. --i !~ Lr_; /y f ( ---::cc -2() ,'i, ' '.· \ .... '. ,_-.--· ' ._·, ~· Cl T.. g -\~ . ' ; ;._\ l ! ~ ~ ~ !! -~ ~ ll. ..I) L j.: 111 ~ '·' ·~ --· >~-; ' ~· . tC 0 uJ VJ ~ :> ~~ uJ 2' ~Ill ;d> ~~· ~ ,.. ~ -~ ;i ,.. ~ t~I ;£ UJ --1 lO ~ ~! rn ~ ., t; ~} -~ :t j J 7-°! _J ~ .J, ~ :l .. ' ,,,.,._; :L <! 1: ~~I ~ < ID wl r ._I\ .... l ~ 1y1.11 •. '"" <.)1 ·• !ii ~I B ~! -~· -· ;: .· ,,,,_, '. --__:.' .. " ; } -~< ~-•' . .·~ ~· ,; ~r. t---<··· ~r . ·-w ~i<;\, ~~/I I ·, -11. I' r •f . '\1 ·~ -·~ ~ .. ~ £ --~ ~~ :<-"7. ~ j ![) r. 'Sr ~2 ~-bf ~~-~-~ ~Ill 1 ~-~ -!. Wfl ill ~ l{J~ ~~ N~ •': . : .. ~·•..:.-_____________ _ -~ i p if) ~· ~ ~ . tJ ~. \.!If l'L·· ti.I % a'.i -~ -~ ~ w :z. tJ N I ~- i . r· I I I I . '?-. 4.. .J . /; .: ,,·r · .. ·~ "~. ··· l ~ Ng· gc <o I-I~ .;J ~~ \.'l .,!) I;r ·--'1)1--(I 6j-ti)Ul _._ -, ... ~ .. . ~ .· ., ·' -:. ·. ·~' -. ·._-_-)) .. err (, \..1 r .:-..J rk1 @:. [OJ r·-·-vC·~ ..... --·-·--r :. /' . / . (? 1 llilil : • «ff~ C--..,.1 // .·· .. c-S (p) f~ fd (' I ((ij {1>11 \1YJ. \) 0 i(j'j L.t) ( .... l L ·1 . ((~IJ . I \ . I.. . ; [J «~~) l !11f J nr ./I r:•.~ \ - l @~ ~ -~ fll1i] [1i1 @ 'J'i) r _ .1 o· l ~n ~/? l'~:J i_~ f I ...; (~~, CVI. f~~ !lih ll'lfJ 0?J \02) ·~ ·\{_Q) '(A ~ Ui!TI ~)) . l;). (. l . jhllJ fiil:J ~!j)) ,-·-- .. :' .. •. '· . -\ . : .· . _ .. -...... . -~ ' ' . 1 . . i ! . './ ·' '' \ ' ; '· • .:.•_"'!"--c_ .. ~ ,' ·-- /-. l J •1' ;, \> ,w .' __ § • •• . -~~ } I ,.• '. ·_; -. '·' .' ~ -~· -<;..: { ... -·,_ .' :. : .. ;~...,· I., ·' '-' . ~ ; / ~, -. 1. '' . · -!. -,.' .. ..,.,. "//. -~ I·. 1· •• 1111111i111111111111i1111·1·11·111111~ ...... ~ .................... 1111llil .. .... _' " ~ -;,"' \ .; I . ' . ... ; _/ I .. -~ . ; . ., . .-~ . \ \ . ' ' I j_ r· . .. ~ 1 \~ 11 )~.\~ .. -···._,. ' -\ , . '/ . -_ ... · I t . .. :· ·; ., f ' . ~~ . ~-: ' ' 'i ·.!. • '.:·· - i. ! ' ' ~ - l ·-_, 1 j I L-. T- l-. \' . l .!. ~. i t r t-t I I . t ~--t ~ -' . \. ; ; I f . - i i I i r<. t '{ !. ~ -. I I ~ . l:\;·. f:. [ l ~-j l 1· I I l 1- j ! ! i I _, .. I'. {i\ ._.· . . ' ' -· ' .-. . ij i -; ..... Ii ;,-- \ . ~· --. '-... .-.. ---- -~ ' -~ .. -. ~-... -1~----._~:-_;_.. __ ;-. _,,, ·.:. --~ - '.-' -'' : : '/ . ~. -. :--.---.; . '-'-··· -' ---~ : ·.:;;: .. · ... : .. { ) ·. \ '-:· <-:. ._, . -, . r '· -~ - ;) .. .... _, '~ -{ ' . . ,,,, t---, . -.. ,, -~-.. -._,, I, •_J. -·,. ,, ,, j [JJ :~ ~ {OJ ··~ w 00 j _., . . \·~-·---_---~ ; .·, ~ .' _·' ·(QJ• ~-.. ·_-__ -_---. ~ I .--~-' -. ~\ ' . . .• . ' . . ·.:-.·:____. _·: .d. ~4. (Q) (?@ ~ (QJ ~ ~ [P (::::::1 l}l~ @ @s @1 ~ ---~ c:::l . a ~ @ @2) ~ e5 ~ fl!!!] (iib @ --~ i=:!l --~ 6{. -~ -~- -~ . ·\!!ill @JV ~ :5l -~ ,. ... -. . ·, ~- •· ~ ~-. ·'-1 . ! .- ·;', !" j. • I I' I: ~ .. l ~ . i I f,. ' I t -. 1_ ; f 1, I' I! t '· ' -1 ' ,_ • .. '. : ; ·, .1 -'. ·:--. ' --~. /_ :~ ' - _·.··-' .. <· ,, .-{ I ' . '· ' .. · .. '•- ,, ' '' :_.-- -' ' , . -. . ' ... ~-!.· .. l - -I\," j ,-:,..·~ }'' ·_. -- . \ . '. ; . i I i I i I I i - . ..• \: . -~ r _ .. !' _, I _:,: ..... I I 1 .· ~ ·:, ;·. ''. ~-' i ·. !· ; l ·r ... { !'----... ··.-··---~'-·. - ' j r .. i ! l ' ~· ·.· -. ~ II ., ' .~ () ' \I .,_ !/. 0 I· u <ll 0 -·-,;,,<'I 'I W. 0 I u. II -, -··.1· ' --! - I I -! I .,--, . ll '\ ·; _, d'l ~\ ~!. i~ () _ \ I . I . t hi l? Ill Ill ti 1; ' • •'I ~· ;) ~ UI . ..,. >< 0 ) ,() ...!; < . :,·--. :';1 ; ~ ;1 _!t :.~··) ·~,' . .1.: .. • { J .• • -.r.J ') •. ~ ;; . • -~ : l . . ' ,\ I ••. .. , . ;; '] --' ~.'·, ._., i . -, ' ' -------,·9 ·- '-------- (-.I r-- 6' r- ('I ~ (l ~ ·,_., •_l" ~ ~ dl ~. ~. · .. -. -· -.:~ -' ,·_, .· ' .. ·-~ -~-' . .• . l ! _i ,-. ,. ,,.,·;. ' f ! : i ."t • _,··.: . ; '" ,. ;' • . -: .. , . . ' -~ .. ·' •_\ . . ,, .i ... :. ·/ .,· ---- · I . l . ~ I L I .· ; ' '· f ·.--:.--~~. . .-~ . l . j l ! ·. ~-' ;. . ! I : ,\ .-.. .. _:{ :_,~-~ . __ ,.,. ... l' ; ! ' " \'. ,. __ ./ IT fl~~ .. :] COJ ':K: 00 ~ n~ .~ . C::::J [)= ·····[Qb . ,., . -._ -i [j .. ··~· ·@n· ~'.-· (Qg @ ~£) ~ (QJ @b @Q) [? C"'..:J ·[kb ©J [~ f§b' -~· 0 . fQ) ~· a 0 @ ·~. ~ ~ a @R1 lW1 lP ~ t::::J @ @ (!el @'Rl -~ ~ ll!© @1:1 .· {QJ ~ 0 e!1 ·~· ~--- ~ @g rf!b' tJ _M!l ~ (?@ . d). < --~1··. .. ; l 1 •• . 1 i . ' j i d ,-~ l .J . ' i ·. ·i ,_-,., . · ... ··.'] -~:~ . ,, i .;.; l .. -. ~ :: =:-= . ,_; x~l •' <~, '· .. :·-__ ..;: -, -~· ~-~---·-·· .i.-u ., ~-- t I ~I ~-------·. -. • . --............ ' \ ---l ll ! ~~--·- ~ ....... _ .. ____ -~-----·-_. ~-------~-- --------··+-""---- .·.·I -·--f--·---- --_,..._ --: --··---- 1: ..____..,_____.,__ " .. ·v .,-"i ~ i# .: -~ ~ ·~ ' ____ ..__ _ __...; ~r--~·---'--. I ·---·-· . ---t------~ -1 -~----~.~ ---1·--···---·-..,.-.. .' \,·~ b --------.-. ---·-___ . t . rJ··· \ _\ ---·-·---·--·-· ------~-"--""------~---.-,- -'· ' ""· ..... ----~--.' ., J ,,.· ,-. .--.· ,, -..:_-. .-,-_-: ';: I ! ------~I i ! ... ; •._ ... "' I J . ~ I· I :-,·, t-· _, '-· . _:: . ·_, -:-.... ·-. ,, -',' 1_·_, ·\ ·-·. ,,; -"-= ,_ • ') . ;, _: .) ,, - . 2,9 ®~ --.;..- •\ •":) i ' .1 ... I \ \ I I \ .@' ··~ -~-·· ·. . -· . '@n1.· •:JJ [] ·~ ·'. -' _, .. _':. .... t- ' ! .. ··_, ("_:"- " ,, . i ; -i ( ; . ' ... -, ~ . . ) . ''"'' ., I I . -- ·, I ~--·-... _-,_- ~ '' . - l . ... , ~ -. ~, --t. -·--______ _:_, __ , .. - - ~_. ---:-rr--·__......-·---~-~~------........ __.~~-----_______ ... _ i . ; . -:1 I I ----·--···· -·· -.. -· ---I ··1 ···-··- -·-L---·--· ...... ~ -. -. ; i . ; ; t -. . J -' --l . l -..: ; -, _, - -\ . ._; -j_ -·--- -------'--··~------ i_} . -~-.. ·~· , ' -· f ~-\ : \ \ ---~ .-.. -.: -. '. ·I .·-'.·.::. ·.--·-~ ~ -. --_' - ., -. \ I - j -. ,-; :_ ... ! '- . '--.· -._: . j , . ~a=ulN:!J ~~w ~Jkn~~~~u[Ma=i\- ', '. - : - 1 ' '· ~ ·. -' '~-' - . , \ - -. . . -'' ~ .. -j 'I ;_y ·- . ,. ' . --: -_,., j ---_ . ---, . -.!'·-· .. ~ -. ---· I l ! I . ,. i i I I I - ] I I l ! I I I I : \ I :- 1 I -; ! --. . ~) . ._ ' -. ., / . I', "'-ci ~lID ~ rlr!D ~ C:-::-:::::J ~=~ ~- . [Q) · __ ([£;_ .... ·~ f(jo l!:dJ . ·@ l . ~ --~· ·ll!!J]- _ -@Jj @) -·-~ C:J - l1 -@?) \lnJ) l}:, rR '---'--t l:-::::1 L~ (QJ @RJ l~ -~- ~ fl!lJJ ~'\. -e.'::l (Q) JS-- t\ t1l ... ~ ~-,.-.l ·~'. --~ ~ IDb D --lliill --~ 00 :J) (@} ·-.: -s-.- :' 1-.,l: ... · -. , . i ; < L . l ' .. ·, ,. l --------~ _, :.• L ,. !I <~. .. ... tit. •. ~ . ,~ . ~ ....... • QRlGitJAL ,· ... _, .,. . ' .. I OPJliNAt~<r.E f Nl). ' ~~6.~., I ORDINANCE Of·. 'l."HE COUNCIL 'OF' THE CITY OF PALO AL'l'O ·.. . ru-mNoil~G SECTION. ·IlL os>oAo OF '!'HEr p:iLo ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THt: ZONJNG CLP~SSIF\r,CA'l'ION Of CER'XAIN .. PROPERTY KNQWN·.AS G45., 645, 651 t.'NlVERS't.TY AVENUE·· FROl·l R-3-P 1ro P-C, A~D.. TO ~,;!'iEND EXIS'J:'I~~ ~-C ZONING CLASSIFICATION. OF CER'l'AIN ;PROPERTY, KNO~m ~S 6 5~. LYTTON . . ·. AVlWUE_, 'suBJEC',r TO. CONDITI{)NS . ' · Th~ Qb\J_n!6i:i q.r;"t.he·'·_r.;ity of:.P9io 'Alto does 'tie.r'eby oRoAh~ as · follows. : · ···· · · · · · · .. ; . · ,r_., '/ . .::" \\\ \\,. . ·.,; ("• . . ... . ·: :, . .. . .. •.. . .. .. .. ·.:· " ,.. . . . . . . ·· ·· €_ECT!oLf. Af.l~tion l.a:.o·g~()46 p$: ·th~_~Pa~.o '~lto Munibipa~.·. .. .. ... Code; tli~ · n Zoning_.1-tap,". ,i.$ l';'{!rGby ·_aqr~n·g~e_li: by ,chang" ins. thf3 ~onin9 .. -.. ·. ··· ,rol'assi.fi¢ation of. c~rtair( prcpeJ;t~t ·K.hown· i'l£1'· :s~s; 6.45, 6'51 t.rniveJ:I!Iity · Avenue .from R-3~P t.o P•C ~'"ld ·amending. 'the· eY~etincg ~;~C development plan for .that certain property known as 656·. L}'ttqn Ave.nue as ..• here-' .inafter pr.·ovided. Said pro·pe:tt¥ is sho~m on ~ map a.ttaohed her~to as E?'h:i.bit 11 A'' and iricorp_oJ'."a·ted he.rein by. :this reference~ ' ' ••• .~,·.. ' .·· ' ,,,-;· 'i ~~; :11cT!Ol'.f. 2 •. / 'rhe dtive~opm~nt pl~n for. the, px;op\~rty known as · 656 Lytton Avenae adopt~d"by Ordinance No.·· 2649 ·.a..rid:.rur,ended 'by Resol.utions. No. 4880 an4 No.,· 4.905 i is he.reby amP.nded to accom-. rwdate deV'I'alopment of addi.tional 'units~ on·· the ptop(u.·ty known as 625,. 645;, 651 Univer~ity Avenu~ and at·tach~nt the:;~of to ~xisting stt"aC·tures at:· ·656. Lytton '1\V!E!nue as shown on the diagrams att'ached 1 . •,, , ' , . ,··. ,) I ,. ',,. •• '· .'' 'i ·'' · '' •f,'· •: " ' , t .... ,.. , ' ' • •,-, ' h.~re~o;:en:tl. t~eu. '':Oev~lopn:el'l,t }~JaJ! i ~-~-/'(lh~.ah i a?;~qr~. ~re: ipcorporat,~d he~el;.n~ l?Y th~~. ~'7'fe,;rence. , ~xc~R7 .a~. spec.1'£iq~J.ly p:r.ovl.g~d ~erein, · .alJ.. oth~r proVJ.Sl.ons ~o-~ ~~l.d orol.1.-..ari9e ~o. 29 49 .1~1;d ~es·olut.l\ ··1s · No .... 4 880 and No. 490!:)'i/ · sh·all .rem.;tl.Il :1..·n, f\1ll!·:fQ.rce. a.~:d effect. ,:' f~,\ I '", • I ·,' • '-..~-, ' .. · ·. §9!~0N ~·-. ,The_ l~DeV:fi'loBit~ftt. P+~i'l'~ ... ;(~,)}·e~;~'>:t·app:::oved;· pu;;-euapt to. S~c~l.OP.· ·fB,·.6S:~070 o~ ·~e.,P~l.-'6 Alto·M~.~li,C~·P.~.~c(;ode;i' supject· tQ. '· th~, .. ir:oll9t1;n~ ·co)ld:~tloi)• '#P'I?l~·eablel t.O. the. p_;rQpeitY,'·:·J<:tt9wn as ,625, . . 6"45 ( · 6.5~1' q11i·':re~~it:y ~V~I'l.~e: .) · :. , ·· · · · .· ;; ·· ' · .·· ·· · · > .. ,. > . ..:' ·,, ... . 1: •'' .. ,·~. ..·vee·: ···--·· -;\ ...... ·... ... .. ·:···· ··------'·. :: -~~; ._ :,, ,.-':;~,.··' ,(' '• '• ".'·I~ '•~ '~:~;~' ' ., ,' '",1" . : .:-:~· i • ' ' • ., '•::· .... ·• ·~:•'::.; ",:,' • ' ~ · 'l'b~ ).adQ.ition'."of .. lOO,: .. c.~O-"a.Ild -OJV!!" 'b·eat>oom uni·t$, :~d , .. , ;; ,_· : .. -, :-~'lat~d facil.i:1J;itf!,,i to· ~~·;""is;ti-~i' 2:J,J1 unit1, ~yttop ·.', ,, ".,>· ··· ,,., .. . ··, t)•' ~aJ.1:den:s: ~velopn;&nt i;.or· ftM: to-~~ta."·i:n~-, ela~~lf ;. ,,_. · -J~,~d· di-"$llbl•4··pe;~sontJ._~in~£!it~~-~.tci ~Ctio~, 2P2''.1 ,, .• • '·' 'c o:l.?· $UQQ&B~Q~8 .. $8Ct.i~-t~.f!, ~p· S~_~te;$,''1Jb:Uii~~hg 'Act·~ . • . . ~-: .. ,.... ·, • .· :. _i: .. •· .. :!(~~; \:~;:~;' ,:d>. ·. ·~,: .; .:1~)'~',, · .. :. _~,~~-' .. .. . )' ' . . .· ,· Th .. e,·:.,~~l. ·t~t._i-_._~~·re~t_ .. :~.;:he'~t-~·ff.·:~~fatr_-~·.•·_::·1(_~-.·~,. 1!peace,_ .. _· . . . .. · , ... · com~p~-t. llru;l· ,gene.:r;a:l.~/~t.~~~.;~re.·~:. ',.-.the pre~en~ .. ~xi.e.~~riq ·=~.i,~.g ·.cl·u-l'~*~iiDri o~ . ~~3-'l~ f~u;~ntial• · . ··'· .,. ·Prof~siort~~, .. ·,ote~r:tct~~,.;~pp;r~pri.~~e -·~'tha:.t, the Feaomman~. e~e ... Cl'~~a·.~~ ... ~triot) •()• . J~l,~••L.fi:,c;.~t:·iQn · ~·--~~t.ter .. ?iii· ~f ~(f suoj~rc~~pa_~tY ... a11Q __ p~.~~i;•~~t,;;t;be ,.P.~.~l,.~:,:~in~e;:e$tl· P,e·a;d~h# .. ··sef-.fft>~orals ~~pe:,.· ¢9n\f~t,,·'Md'' ctti~i'al. ·welf,a.ri '·in,<;~·l~~ing ,e·o9n'Qrnic .. ,, · . :riix :of ~c>us~n,q1 -~~r-ft?,;e., .ktij:"l:b:e ·event .'t;h.~t.>£~t:r.:Uction i; ·J"l~;t. et:ar~t)(\ 'With~ 1ih~_·, -~·,P~,.c::ribed :py ~1,1, , ·· .. , • . ;·o~a;i.nal.i¢e ,. the. ~.c _.·'.{~~£izlri~;~b~¥--~·l' .. ·t>is.tl'i~~¥. z<;~ning ·, . . fh .. ll·lapae M,4 .th:• z~i.ng df.:·. th!9i.~j~ J».~erty .... · : r'-• .· .. SIT.ll. •utomat.ieallY~· :rever:t to_. R...:'J:~I' .. (Reu;ld$lttial... . . \\1 ·: . Pr_ o_·f.e~~~ion_u·· _o. J_•tJ-_l._~~t_._ ).,·.: .. o;e_ .... ·-. i_;s __ ·.: ... --·_-~.q\1$ .... -.~-'i&·····.l.Em .. t, zqri ... a ·. :·._ .. ·. ;n_· ~he .. ') .,, ..• : .· _··., ev~n1; :a: n~~ &o~in~ .. o~~b~~c~\:lou;~~~:b:~' ad?p~a. __ ': ,, ... _.· ·· ·· .. ·.·. ·2·· :Inl;O~v~t .. s_,·: ' <:,.·. -·· ... · Y. • ........ •·-· ,,,. '•',, " • ~' I,, '" .. -• '•'-'<•"' • .• ,~·' /';• '.' ~~ I .,:; ,,, ••', ,t' -, 1\l ' ' :f· "·,, ' ": ~h~.<~-~ti'ciln;,, pule; in~, · .. _ia#d.~c,~tng. ~a: ~l.,,.o~B;' J~!fo~--.--.· .•. msnts ::,~•11 'b•·· •Ubs~t.ia]f:ly· atB sbown.:on ... t.f,le Develo~ll,t . . ··Plan •~<(9pt· .. ,~. fC41.9'f&._a · . .• .· ... · · ,· · ,, ~ .;,: .· ~-·, '· .. ·.: -.~·-·· ... "' , \ 1 ·_ .. I •,r I I I I I I \: ~ ·. ' ' . b. ;. ------,,, . ·Thirty-nine {39.) new under.gxcund'parki~g sp_acea : ... shal,l. be pr6vi¢led:. · · ·- ,_ '-'" ,. .:· ' .. · .. ,,. ,. ,· Not .. more· t.nat fift.y;;..one ·{5;1) .. ·of,, the·. tc;)~al pa:dti;l:g spaces .l.:tva.ilable. *'ill J:ne , projec~~, :!.ric.lufJ.irig existin9 .·_ · parfting spaces,-shall l:)e: .a~J.c.t-.teed· t? residents of · · · tb·e .. bui_ldin.sr .. c:mc.r .,.the.' i~n-~'lt shallr: ~~ke ... such . •tep$ il'l:. appl~~cat.ip:n.,,pt:oc::edt,;ees>a~ .. it 4~~llU3 ~ce~sary. to · · ~ssur~. this .c~riclit1:~.•.'· · Tb~ ·bal.ance ··o.t.>~.it;ty-thre~ --·-(53') pa;Jt.ing .. ~pao~~ shhl.l :be ~ a1"J'ai.l'able .. tQr ' --·-visitor$ • . . .· ·. J• ' ... ,,\, The· fin~l.land~CCl~ plan sha}l: O@ .submitted t•i- . th.e '\Archi't~'¢tural 'Review Bo.al,;d' for app·roval'~ . •• ,1 d. . Landscapit;g. 'she)L be installed .. · in acco:rda;nd; . · /~'li t.h. the a:pp:r,~cved plan and shalL be ri)aintained · and replacsd 9-s. necessary to assure normal· . • _/ ~rowth, health and groomed' i:~ppea.r.,~nc~'. e. .. f. g, " . ' .. Ro9k mulch shall b.~ instaJ,.led at \he b.ase 'of .. ·· . ·the major oa:k · tree ori .Midd'lefieid Road as . . ·RpeciLied :?n: the., original I;~c development plan .. for fl s 6 ··LYttqn ~~v-enue, li ·commUnity Hou~itl'g, I1~c.·1· e!:-.ull fil.~ appl,ication for a parcel map. f(.Jr X-i;!"Jcr$;iQn ts acreage to .· . , , .. · r:/ov~ the. int:.f::: ior prc)}?erty< lAne·s in:-4,he f>r.oj e'ct ~" '· cd~~m'}-ty Housing, .:r.nc ~ '· ~hali ~ ~-ither. i tsel.f ·or .. through. i t,s contractors., provicte :a bond to prott.:di _·.· .~e .,trees p~opos.ed to. be .P;~!S~:fve9·in ... the D~.uel~p~ · .. 'ic::"~nt. )?J::~ ~ . th_e boner. ~-· ~~ ·.s;t~.;~~eiit .. to ·~.~l?~a£.~: . qt. ;rep~!-; .. ~,-~~. ~t~oy_ea: .. c:i1?+~·j.~~~:::<:tur·;tpq·"· t);le couz:ose. .. ~f .. ~t.~on,.:,. ~oe ::or.,to:~a !iub~ .. $tall~· ·of au~~-~/.bb.llll. .be:. ap.p.rov·ed ~y· ·the_ Ci,'I-y .:· ~t.t~y .. ·m~9,;:: .. ~·~:>~~nm~~ce of a.u:se."'~~.t~'·· .3, ~~i~'*:~1~., :;;2'.; '~~ ·•····• ~· · ... ,; ·<· . '.: . ' : ,'· " ···· -'Co ... mpl,i ..• ~.ce· wi .. ·.tp',::~ ... }l:: ~ .. PJ?li.~l\~"'f ... ·. ;~d.~:·.,;e.gu;L. a~ ..... i ... _.q:n .. s-~ · . ,in.· el\ld ......... .ing·~="·,:t:~.·. ,, · --.·.··· .. ·ents ... ~f;iY4\, '. ~· '·Cit~.1·:. fj_.:~:. __ ··J? ... 'al.Cll. :-.A1'1:,o·_··.:. F. be ·· · · · tf· •. ~ .... ·: 'cit · ;:v.~ ·· ·· · ·'· · fr :til···""+-' u · ··' f ·· · .... l.re_· .... f ...... n· -~. : ... · ... ·. r·~ .. ~~.-.cm,_ .. · .. ·· .. a ... ~.~ ~() . < . . ·.: ... Ca'lifo¢l'ia.·Adltii~~str,:~).tiVe ··C.pde, Title/;·l~ { :·;pul:.dic···s~fety •... :': ·':. ,; ..... /(.1.•: . ,._t.~;,_·:,,··· .. , ,,,···<. ,:i ,' . : .•. ·;, ::,·-· .. ' ·.( .. ··.· , ,. I· • .All.·ptev~·~·,i.Q~-··,!if·~":~idi.nanc~ N·ol· 464·9,\;.as ~.nded ·by_~··. ·' •:Reso.l4~i~).:~aeo:~:·ii~·-:49o~:_.jh~ll. :remain~n· .force .ana· j 4 .•. ~::::=~=~rilS,~~~~ ";,:,·············.········ L ... .. <. . ...•.. '·.·· .......••.. a$ start. ~ontftru:c~..::icn·: ... wi.th~n o~~ year .. ,of City Coun·c.rrr b. approval~ I •• •••• , ' • 0 ' o;,_t:: ··: 0 :·. ' • •.. 0 .:•J .,\,!'; ·':•/'' complE!te al:1.:9bri!;~tiut::ti6~ ····ari~ .~'yelo~nt wit1lirF two year.s C)f sta~t .. of· .ao;lstructl,on. , . ' ·. •. . .. " . . . ·. . .·· --:-;-' ·:.·-----·. '-· ii.· . '< ·. .: ' . ': . •' '· ·SECT.:CON ·3.~:: .•;~he. CcU!lOil.' fjn(hf ~t ·.tl"..i:S, .pr¢.je_c~-.:..~i:l;t;·have nc;r ·L' · ·· signi!.!aant a'Ctvers~ . envit'~tal.:' iiziPact ~· . .. lo ./ ' \~: .. '., ~ ••. ' -· •' . \) '·' ,._,. ' ' .• '·' • ''.\". :· • i. '" , . ' .-,, ·. ,') ',.•. ·. .. ,, ·i:-7---· ,,, i''' ", .·· i:. '••_:.• I' o '·, ' r • , • i/ '• ~I I / '··,i SEl."TION commencement 4. o.f: ..... ~~ This. ordi~ sbaJ.l,-.,PeC.:~ $f.fec~ve .. up6n .the . ,.-, the .. thi.rty~.f,i_~,!J.,t·~~~~~:·#~r:;f.tle. d·at~ of~ tt•.· ~.a:e_s~~~ .. INTRODUCED: January 17, 1977 PASSED! Febr~,~ary 7 ~ ·t977 AYES: NOES: Beahr8, Beriiald, Clay, c61118tock.-.. ~/ ~SENT: Ca~; ABSTAINING: 1 ••• H , ' .~ : .. {, I 1 I I i I I I i I •• "1 ··, .. ' . ,-·:.~·-,: • ~ : ' \ ' :• -~~ ':~ I '"_._:·-~ . -· ,· .~ :.:_·, '•' ··,· :,' ,.·., ''•' I'·' ",,··11 ''\....- .-.. •,,' ,: ,, ,,•, ,, • 1 ·, , .. -3- ··' .. d /' •"' ' ~ :' . . .--i: • -. • ,.,.~ ·. ~ ·,: 'ol ---" ' , • • . -!~. '' ·' ·.~T ··S '• •. 'r. , .. ·; '•/ ' , .. - 17 .. ·· . " ' '·,,.;. 1: 1" - i . ' I . • ! . I ·-'C• • 1 .. .~ _-., r .• , I, -.--.-_.,--------;-- ''. '··· rt~ .. . ."! !!:' ~--~ .. ~-~- . -· . / ,· ,-fr.' .. I' // ' '· >' ,, •' 'I ~- ··', :.;· : ... ,: .. ;_··· ' •,' .. \~. ''· ·.· ... .!'·,. ,, I ,.···. .. ' ''•' .. ·,· .. ' . . . ' . ' •••;, •:, '· ., . , .. '• I I, I'• ' C·. ,"\. ,. 'l}' ',; .. I Y. :,'~ ·: \l ~. ,_ . -•' ·'·- •; . . ,., \) .' '' ) .')'I '·'·'''· '·' . ~-.· ,.,, . •,': 'I,,., •·'• •:-' / •• l', '·'' .. ,. . . ' ) -~-. :-.. ... <_~·. ·,··· ·.·._, ·,\' ·' . ··.·-· '·' ,-.:-·. ' ·· .. · ,··-:. I .J .. -. ,. " .. '(• .;, ; . ' . ,. ·~ ... ~ . •' :\. '· ,,., .. ., ., ... -,. .'~ i' ' ·" . ·,.,•.';,-_,... ,. ... ~ -~-~r ;:..r:~·~ ._·, ·.·· . ~ ... : ·,,·;_,,,·. .·, ·.;~, <;J ',· . ,, .·.:,.;,, -: I • I I' ....... I-I• •, \ \ .. I ) ---------· ----~---- -------~ ; ' I I ! '· l· I l ·I l i l ! I ! ; I ! . j- 1 -. i i I t . ' . ,\.1, •· ( ..-J I· r I ! I ,_, I ~· ! 'l I L I ~- 1 ·I . ;f._ l .... ·' I ,_ ' " ·-! ... . ,_ . . ' . . . -·---"'1-........ _..:__ ..................... ~.-.,_._,.:... .. _, .. _ ... __ ;:--...... ~~-~·.,.;., . ..} -.. , ,-,'1 . ), .. , ,•. ~I ,: , ...... ·I" j I ,· .. ·-~--- : ;:-. --1 \ ' i ' ... · ,. " ' _. t . '--------r -· ~ . I_ ··_;._: ·.: 'J l '·! ' I··' I 'I \ . , ( I I .I ! . I · .• 1 -I /:' ~ i .. ' . . . . . \ ,,._ .. ' :' ( :'l'.. . . ~--. ___ ,., __ '~ . _,----· -----.I . . I I l .. ' _., . '··' IC ' •.' zJ ( j _) -~ 0 - lU ~ I . ' . ' / I ' . \' I' • ~-'"" "' ' i' ! ;--• I J T i I ""I ~ I I I ~--------,.1. i l r-----~-----l ! I '----.J ---r I i i i ' I I .... r.~---- lh__-=-:: -·' r- 1 ! .1 I ... -·-· ...... I i I I I I• I / ',, r I • ~ ! I , --·--·~--. t . I j r--.. .J ' ... ....__,,, ""'·-----' - ~· r:. ,, .. ~·l f ·' ~~. ~ ' ~::;-!~.... i ,. /' /-' / I c i r-' ),,, i I I _I L: ~· --'· ; ~ .• ·-w l J r-·~· ! ·~,. ~0 r----- /-/ / / :• J. /, ... , ,, 1.• .I,. ,,,:.· ~- 1 f i ! ! I .. , ·--- 1 . -. L J ------·.--... ~~ .. ~- ,. ·• r·· ·-~. •. :~. ·.' . "'· ,:,::· .. ' ·- ·'r.· ' I I L ___ _ 1 . '·' ' . , -· • , . . lj '\ ......._..;_ ___________ _ '! ·, :.:• ,''' . "''' ...... .,;a;.__ . -~ . ·•·-. / I I j I I I . ~i·~e I NO~: Q!l&l'liD CQWJt ; Ajv. .. ~-r· ....... . I !ledera lleli# "tili'l'i"'..!:--~ali .! By~;r~•A!!f:. ::.~~-~···. -:1 ! Vinca 1!11.-r: · . .. · .. "f ·,.' .. . - -~. ' . , I .. . '( ,. ~ .. -· ~-·· .. . • i -. :·:- ~®in_•;•. ,_, ... : r .(·. . • -~. I ·,' •, . _,. __ _ -I ;I. .. : ,_,· ;; ._,_.;, -~-: J. ~·' . -. .......... -·· .,.._ ----·~ . ·_, .. -.,---1-~ ' . ·._,' ·. ("' ' t .. , .. -{ •' ._ ~- ! . :I I . 'I .. 'i ,_ ~,-:._< ' "-~ · ... -.' , .I _'; • " ; 1--'+-· i . i . ·.·. · .. ·.·,; .. ! ' .... . '~,. ·-; ,,, ' . t i I I .. ·_, .. . .·:.·t''---1;.· ..... __ _____ .. ----... y' ( ~)'1..--..--J_i t' / .• ': .· . ) . . )., J ~ _, . •',.- ' r; ~e:;;:> '. a::>~=~N7' .. ~~7~ . . . . . -r~:---1 ~u .. . , . .. ... / .· ' i.) ' -~ .. ··~· . ~---'--l I ,, ------- I 1 1 I I · I . l r....-1 l ' . . . i ' -1. I I ~~-4 r ' t i ' . I ·' 1 I l I I. i l • \-----1......_ ______ .. r------L·. ., !-~-------_J -_._:_..,. __ _ . . .... -~ ......... \ \ \ -. ) I ! I I•. -{ . ! i i . ' I, I ·._._ ~ j ' . ~-e.-:~~ -~ -·-4;; -~i? '5'-: i2'J05 '\.it:l. . . . '• ,-, -....: 'c'.~ , I/ ,. _, .. . .. .'r' ,. ·' ,. ~: 1 : J ' • ! : '. ·:; .; •r •.•·' . I. . ·' ) , : \' "' ,, '' ' :~', ,·', '\ ,\-' II • ,i '·· •r I . I I • I. II! II: 1_ ·-~~ .· . ~·· .. ·~ .· -~ .... · n , . 'u '. -_·" '·, • '> ',<· ~~~ ~...:::e--J-5 1 f, " "' ~,~~n;=lr 'f'"'--~·,I~T. ·~ . -~:--;- I';' " '·., . · '/1'·· · , , , I , ':·? .,., ,,,_,.' BII:&&IJ!IIIi -., •.. ,. --~/-' .. !!1; : ..1 / 0 .. -~ / ·, ••' .. -..... · ~ .~· ···/: _. ·' . __ :• ~~·~,.:j-~:7~.:-:~~~-~':''':,'"'~·:-... :~;-·."'~,...,..~~--.. !"" ...... _...., •• ..,,, . '~ .--.-., . -~-' . '•', 1!1 -~01~ / IS q .. ',•, ,. :~' . ,\ '~ : ~-- ----.. -~~1:~·-J ~- • .. \"'-~~~ . ,·.· : :·-;. ;(. ),·· -. ;::> ·, .,, '· I ... ~---~---·-·-.a.r#= I . I.-;.. \,v~-.-;- r..:J ~-;;.;J ~ ~ " i .I i L. rl l ' I L. I I • I L. ___ J, ' [ --_j . ---1 -· -.-_l, i --------• ..I . ~ ·-. ' U' :_~ .. ' __ ,., •') -----· . ,. . ,_, \: ' . ,......._. ' ....,._ - •• .... ( ' i•-·· __ .,....__~ :""'.. ~ e, =-~.. .-"Q::;. ~ "'7" i'CCC::> ~ -..;e_ee t~~ , . · E:r_ ::Oo"-8 ~~ f,..L'J~E> . <$:.. :::::>~ e~"':'?C-;::r.r-..~ .• -~~·.:::=t"-. . -e-<J~·~ :..--:-:-~ .,.:--;~:;1::-..j~' --~ . fu.:._ ' ' .. ----"} -..... ',: ,,. '· . ~· ~· Ill ~> ill -' < ' 0 o ' I r•·' ·, ' ' . ' . ' ' ' .~ ' , I ' 'I ,,, r >, 1 ~-1 -:~ ' ' : ~ ' ,1''" ··' '. ;'-· ·' i I '· i _ ....... I. ' ' '( ,-, ' . 1.--!:. .. L.t-.../JN6 rr:ooJ.F.""'~- \ _....__1,:/ ~-·-~ l'llOH!!;N-D.o,JNei . . .. . ''N-'T \-' I ,_..._ l 1 ' ~-- ·~·· / 1 ' -:-' ,'' ,, '·' '~ . . -·~ ' ,, • . ll.· l,:. I, :/ ,'-". : ~ ~ . / J ' ·-~n=;r-v 1 • ' ' .. ·' ' ..... ,:,. '(; ,. ~~~,~~~· _·_·?:r:~;:~~ .. t .. ~~\ ... ~:?'~:-r~.;_:~?~;::·, ~' ,_·.'. . . _, .. :-- -?:::-~-:~( ,-_~}_:lr~~:-~ :· -~-' '~ : . .... ,. . ·<: ·. ., ! -'t! .I ~-~~ i .. j.· '· ' T '· "' i· 'I' • 1 ~ •• GJ-,.N'' ., '. . I;. _, ., ' ~ae""l~_,-~rv,Ne-~ / / / f '1. 1', i· ·--~-~ .. ~--~-. je,'-,: __, "''-;'~··-'-"'f''ji'-· -~·- .. li' I 1 ,. ! I I I i _! .. . I L .-... J -~i:C.-~-uVI~ L: , i L::; ___ -·-l '-'•·' <~------.,.,·. ., ·-;. ?', ,, ~--- 1 ... t' d: -~ (), -· I I ¥---., .,. ···i ') ., ' '· ,, •>'>· .. ·· ·. \~':. ._,_. ---=--·---·o -1 ' ._._ ... __ I -If- ·' '-:: ) ~-' ~; • -:' ,I ,-.... , -- ;c..,~eN OIN • "''eJ' IU"-.. __ __, ,i " ' ._, .... ..-!J , .. J) :~~-, .. _, \' ,.,; ··----, [. :.~-.r--1 '~ ! • " ' ' -~· ' . -~ ...... -~ ;.. i', r- z _] · .. ~· ,. I I, ! ' I l ' !. ,, '' ~~·\ ..... ___ , __ -· 'I ' ,/· ··--· ·_,\ ... · . ·-··" .. -e:~ "r ' ·,. i~ , .• r .. , ,,. , .. ·-J' ·'' /' -.~J ' .. \ /. '·I', ./ ,. l . ~: ~ .•! : ·' \ I j ~--~.o.;.- ·-~ ,',, I' --._,. •'I,_. .· ' ·-"- / ·:_.· .. _,_. / '\. ' e'..eN~d;~-;cg"'',E"' ,-.,-jlt.r..-';-6 ('\r -~·· -/' .. ,_-. ~/~::~-:;_ --.:;--;"\, ~.:=~.7-:-:."'-'--,~ ·~~;~. il' ·. q" u -·,' i· -< ···': ,_,. " li'• . y;: . ·-? ,,·r -.' . _/;· .. · .... \\·• ,, ... ·- ., • r I l +---~·· ~r ~-<{-I .... -· .. ,;- =: >--····1 " ... .•: ,.'/' _,,·, ·.__._ ,.',' '· ·,I' ·•._, . .. . , ·_;-.· . -~ __ _.;.,,. __ ;. ·-:: ''·'-', ·-· 'I: I: ... / ~· . ~, ·• ! =-~ o' ,-; ~-.o-H., .. -,_ ' ----_.... . ..,._ ~ ' ., ! •i . ' : ., ;,.~~·~·~r;:;;....-..=...~~:..;-A. . ,.. * ---"' ........... .:.·~ . .·1p'. / . . ... J .. ., . ·-·~ . '> I fV"0 ---.:..:1_ ----~~"3 ' t·'"f;_ ~u:~q:r.-J!-tf-*.:~ .. "'----:!!*r+)': :,~,---- j . : I (• '-~-----------4 :.·:~,...1 ~~ . l . '-' .. . . --~-----------:·· r J ~'----------' ' ' L-f, -·-· • • J '" l I ...• 1 .~.:..:.--·~ ~-,_ .. ~ (,' ,-\.- .... "··._,·, .. ,. ,· I IU ' . I' \\ I" ~.I ,:/ J )\ r ' ' I ~t-J:::R.·f r~~~~~~~i [:-:..:;:_=.;;;-~~;_:,..:;.~ ~. -.~ ., .;i _-: --· t .. 7_-_ .. ; .... ,"'!". ~~-:--... "..-; ...... ·~~~-~--"!:""':'.6;--;-.• ... ; ""'-""-...__,_ . ...._ __ ~ --·-· ~--· -::• ......... ~ ~ .... ~ . ·-.. -:- ·" \ . ., j I i I I Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects 2. Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects” 3. Scroll to find “656 Lytton Avenue” and click the address link 4. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4334 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9406) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/16/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2609 Alma Street: Four Unit Condominium Project in RM-30 (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2609 Alma Street [18PLN- 00074]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of two Existing Residential Buildings and two Carports, and Construction of two Three-Story Buildings Comprised of Four (4) Condominiums, Including one (1) Below Market Rate Unit. Environmental Assessment: Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00253. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan, Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The current application is effectively a resubmittal of a previously approved development project (14PLN-00253) which was issued a Planning entitlement on September 16, 2015. However, the associated Building Permit was not pulled within 12 months of issuance of the aforementioned entitlement, nor a timely request for an extension made, resulting in the expiration of the original Planning entitlement per the stipulations of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section (PAMC) 18.77.090 (a). As such, the project is required to go through Major Architectural Review again and a de novo hearing is to be held. The current project proposes to demolish two City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 duplex units and construct four new condominium units (including a below market rate unit) to be located in two separate three-story buildings. An associated parcel map application (15PLN-00419) which merged the lots for condominium purposes (four units) was approved by the City and recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder’s Office in August 2016. This map approval remains in good standing. Background Project Information Owner: Joanna Lam Architect: Chris Kummerer, CKA Architects Property Information Address: 2609-2617 Alma Street Neighborhood: Midtown Lot Dimensions & Area: 60 feet x 134 feet 5.25 inches (8,066 sf/0.185 acres) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: Yes; California-Olive-Emerson groundwater plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Two (2) street trees in City planter strip Historic Resource(s): Not applicable Existing Improvement(s): Two structures totaling 2,232 sf; single-story residences; built in 1951 Existing Land Use(s): Two-Family Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Residential (R-1) West: Residential (RM-30) East: Residential (RM-30) South: Light Industrial & Manufacturing (GM & GM-AD) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source:GoogleMaps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-30) Comp. Plan Designation: Multi-Family (MF) Context-Based Design Criteria: Multiple-Family Context-Based Design Criteria (PAMC Chapter 18.13.060) and Performance Criteria (PAMC Section 18.23) Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Prior City Reviews & Action ARB: January 16, 2014: Preliminary Architectural Review; no formal action required City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 July 30, 2015: Major Architectural Review (14PLN-00253); ARB voted 4-0 to continue the item August 27, 2015: Major Architectural Review (14PLN-00253); ARB voted 4-0 to recommend approval with conditions Project Description The proposed project include demolition of two separate 1,116 square foot (sf) duplex apartment buildings and detached carports, and construct two new two-unit condominium buildings totaling 4,682 sf with four two-car garages and one additional uncovered guest parking space. A total of four housing units are proposed, including one below market rate (BMR) unit. The proposed project would provide a residential density of 21 units per acre as permitted. The subject lot measures 60 feet (width) x 134.5 feet (depth) for a total lot area of approximately 8,070 sf and is considered non-conforming due to the lot width being less than the standard 70 feet and the site being less than 8,500 sf in total area. The project is comprised of two, two-unit condominium buildings set 18 feet apart. A pedestrian entry to the units is located along the left side of the lot and would be accessed from the public sidewalk. Vehicle access to the lot is proposed along the right-side of the property off Alma Street. A large garage door would be automatically opened by residents to allow for access underneath one of the two units, which leads to a courtyard and provides access to the two, two-car garages. The street-facing portion of the building along Alma Street has been designed with a two-story façade to blend with the massing of the neighboring buildings. The third-story is setback approximately 20 feet from the two-story portion of the façade to help reduce the visual massing from street-level. In a similar manner, the two-story volume of rear building’s third- story is setback approximately 19.5 feet from the rear-facing two-story façade. The project has been designed to concentrate the bulk and mass of the building toward the center of the project, away from the street and neighboring properties to the rear. Both buildings are proposed as three-story buildings with Building A proposed at 32 feet 7.75 inches and Building B at 32 feet 11 inches, which are both under the maximum 35 foot height for the RM-30 zoning district. The total proposed gross floor area for the site would be 4,682 sf (58% FAR), below the maximum 4,842 sf (60% FAR) allowed for the site. The subject lot is less than 70 feet in width (60 feet) which allows for a less restrictive daylight plane (10 feet up at the property line and inward at 45 degree angle, terminating after the first 10 feet) requirement. A mix of natural wood and three colors of stucco are intended to break up the massing and stimulate visual interest. Dark aluminum windows and bronze colored steel accents are intended to add emphasis and blend with the earth tones of the stucco. The Alma Street facing façade employs simple forms and low-pitched roof lines that are conceptually consistent with the neighboring buildings. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Landscaping would include various ground cover and low plantings, on-site trees and street trees of predominantly native species. The project includes the protection of one tree and the removal of six trees. Tree removal is necessary because they are in poor health. The proposed design includes a new perimeter fence and landscape screening along the property line. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located at the southwest end of the Midtown neighborhood along the northbound lane of Alma Street. The site’s existing structures are comprised of two single-story duplex buildings each with detached carports located along the lot’s frontage. The subject site shares its rear property line with two lots, each with single-story residences located in the R-1 zoning district. The adjacent property to the south at 2619 Alma Street is 30 feet wide and 134.5 feet deep, which is considered non-conforming (i.e. lot width). The property immediately north of the site (2591-2599 Alma) has been merged to create a 60 foot wide and 134.5 feet deep parcel and many of the adjacent lots along Alma Street (2631-2639, 2643-2651 Alma Street) have been developed as similarly sized non-conforming parcels. The project site is located within the California Olive Emerson (COE) Study area, which is known to have contaminated ground water from offsite dumping of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). No below-grade excavation for basements or underground parking is proposed. However, Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the previous project and applicable to the current project outlines mitigation measures to avoid potential vapor migration. The complete MMRP can be found in Attachment D. 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Zoning Compliance2 The RM-30 district is intended to create, preserve and enhance neighborhoods for multiple- family housing with site development standards and visual characteristics intended to mitigate impacts on nearby lower density districts. Implementation of the project would not result in an increased housing density of the site. The Alma Street special setback for the two existing parcels is 24 feet as shown on the zoning map and regulated per PAMC Chapter 20.08. The parcels are located on a portion of Alma Street identified in the Comprehensive Plan (Map T-8 Circulation Map) as an expressway. In accordance with PAMC 18.13.040 (b)(1)(A), setbacks for lot lines adjacent to an expressway shall be a minimum of 25 feet. PAMC 18.13.040 (b)(1)(A) also states that lesser setbacks may be allowed or required by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the ARB, where prescribed by the context based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060. Given PAMC 18.13.040 (b)(1)(A), no variance or design exception is required for the project with respect to the proposed front setback of 24 feet. Staff would appreciate the ARB’s review of the proposed front setback to determine if 24 feet is appropriate in this location. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment E. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of 16 to 30 dwelling units per acre, or three to six units based on the subject lot’s dimensions. The project proposes a density of 21 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the intended multiple-family residential density. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Context-Based Design Criteria and Multiple-Family Performance Criteria 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Compliance with Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.13.060 and Performance Criteria set forth in PAMC Section 18.23 is required. The project proposes neutral tones and roof lines to be compatible with the surrounding properties which are predominantly older structures with muted colors and low-profile roof lines. The project presents predominantly simple horizontal eaves similar to the adjacent neighbors on Alma Street. This proposal creates a pedestrian friendly design by incorporating a walking path from Alma Street and eliminating parking in the front setback. The façade includes various projections, overhangs, screen walls, material and color to break up the mass. The building makes transitions in scale from two stories to three as viewed from Alma Street. The daylight plan provides a sufficient setback transition between the adjacent properties; the massing is concentrated toward the middle of the project, and high windows have been designed to minimize privacy conflicts with the adjacent neighbors. Detailed breakdowns of the project’s compliance with the stated context-based design criteria and performance criteria are provided in Attachment F & G. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site is not located along a designated Safe Routes to School route. However, Alma Street does feed directly into many suggested Walk and Roll routes serving nearby El Carmelo Elementary School and JLS Middle School and the sidewalks along Alma Street serve as a direct route to Palo Alto High School for those living close to the arterial road. In addition to the aforementioned school, the site is in close proximity to the California Avenue train station (apx. .25 miles) and to a number of parks (e.g. Jerry Bowden Park and Hoover Park) and the bike corridor on Bryant Street. Bike parking has been provided on site and a walking path has been shown to the building from the sidewalk. Consistency with Application Findings Overall, the design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the required Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Draft findings substantiating how the project satisfied each required finding is provided in Attachment B. Environmental Review An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared for the originally approved development application (14PLN-00253) given its location over the California-Olive-Emerson groundwater plume. Based upon the IS/MND, it was determined that the project would have no significant adverse impacts on the environment. The IS/MND was circulated for public review beginning July 10, 2015, with the review period ending on August 10, 2015, prior to the Director of Planning and Community Environment approving the project and adopting the MND on October 13, 2015. Historic City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 According to the Assessor's Office, the existing development was constructed in 1951. A records search indicates there are no previous historical designations or evaluations of the property, and it is not located within an identified historic district. There is no information in the City's files to indicate that it may possess historical or architectural significance. Based on a review of the property and available background information, it does not appear to have the potential to possess historical or architectural significance. Therefore, it is considered to be a non-historical resource, and no further review of potential impacts to a historical resource is required. Addendum Given the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts that had not been previously addressed and mitigated, an Addendum to the IS/MND has been prepared to provide supplemental site analysis regarding the historical significance of the existing structures. 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 August 3, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 6, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (JPG) Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (DOCX) Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment F: Multi-Family Context Based Criteria (PDF) Attachment G: Performance Criteria (PDF) Attachment H: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment I: Project Plans and Environmental Assessment (DOCX) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2609 Alma Street 18PLN-00074 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. The project is consistent with the zoning requirements for multi-family uses including, height, floor area ratio, setbacks, daylight planes and lot coverage. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the building is located within a multifamily zone district. The design is a reflection of its residential use. Individual entries and detailed materials reinforce a pedestrian scale. The forms are informal and varied reflecting a residential character. The design concentrates the bulk at the middle of the site. The stepping creates a harmonious transition between the street and the building and the single-family residence at the rear. The design is compatible with the sidewalks, roadway, utilities and other existing improvements. 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 Multi-Family Residential. The project continues the Multi-Family land use. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. The four unit condominium development is appropriately scaled and architecturally compatible within the surrounding neighborhood context. The proposed project’s use of high grade materials and finishes enhance the overall design, and serve to provide the immediate area and city overall with a quality residential development. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Goal L-3: Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools and/or other public gathering places. The project site is located within approximately .25 miles of the California Avenue train station, less than a mile from the California Avenue commercial district, and in close proximity to a number of schools (Palo Alto High School, JLS Middle School, and El Carmelo Elementary) and neighborhood parks (Jerry Bowden and Hoover Park). Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The pedestrian and vehicular entries are separated to provide for a clear relationship for access. A pedestrian entry to the units is located at the front left of the property and is accessed from the sidewalk. The vehicle entrance is the located in the front right of the property from Alma Street. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The project is designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by providing transitional design elements such as low- pitched roof that are consistent with the predominance of the Ranch and Mid-Century Modern architectural styles featured along Alma Street consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. The chosen materials are similar to those found on buildings within the vicinity but are generally more refined and will serve to enhance the look of the streetscape. The project proposes neutral tones and low roof-lines to enhance compatibility with the muted colors and low-profile roofs featured predominantly on the generally older buildings along Alma Street. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. The proposed project provides electric charging station in one of the two uncovered spaces. In addition, each garage will be EV- ready per California Green Building Code requirements. Policy T-1.4: Ensure that electric vehicle charging infrastructure, including infrastructure for charging e-bikes, is available citywide. 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: As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the finding in that the design incorporates features such as low roof lines to provide a better visual transition with the one- and two-story buildings immediately adjacent to and in close proximity to the subject site. The project provides the required setbacks and relief between the subject property and surrounding properties. As conditioned, internally, the project provides the appropriate transitions between properties and respects the setbacks. As conditioned, the project’s design is compatible with the surrounding residential development. The project is compliant with the Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria and Multiple Family Performance Criteria specified in PAMC Chapters 18.13 and 18.23; see Attachments F and G. 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 proposed project is consistent with the finding in that the design incorporates contemporary design that is conceptually compatible to the Mid-Century architectural aesthetic featured predominantly along Alma Street. The proposed mix of refined but subdued material choices results in an engaging visual presence from street view. Natural wood and varied shades of grey and beige stucco serve to help break-up the building volumes and mass at the upper floors. Dark bronze aluminum window and door treatments provide appropriate contrasting elements along the elevations of each building. While the proposed buildings are taller than the structures on the abutting lots, design considerations were given to create variation in the façades to reduce visual bulk. The buildings have been purposefully sited away from the less dense lots to the right and rear of the subject property and the mass of the proposed buildings are located toward the center of the lot. 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 proposed project is consistent with the finding in that the design fosters a sense of functional order that supports the buildings’ necessary operations. The two separate buildings are mirrored forms that embrace the vehicular court. The circulation for pedestrians is a clear path from the street. The resulting exterior spaces are clear in their functions. A gathering space can be found at the center of the project accessible by the occupants. The amount of open space exceeds the required amounts required in the RM-30 zoning; see Attachment E. Each unit provides a private balcony and access to a common open space. 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 as conditioned is consistent with the finding in that the proposed landscaping enhances the building design and its surroundings. Eight existing trees in poor to fair conditions are proposed for removal and the canopy loss will be partly replaced by five new trees to include a Gingko (street tree), two Arbutus Marina, and two Podocarpus. Urban Forestry has conditioned that the ten indicated shrubs (Sheet L-1) can be replaced with either trees or payment of in-lieu of planting can be made to the Forestry Fund. Drought tolerant landscaping is proposed throughout the project site and efficient irrigation systems are to be provided as reflected in the proposed irrigation plans. Natural features will not be displaced. Landscaping along the side property line softens views of the site from the adjacent residential units. 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, laundry to landscape diversion, other water efficiency and conservation measures and the use of low odor and off-gassing materials in construction and finishes. ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2609-2617 Alma Street 18PLN-00074 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2609-2617 Alma Street_Palo Alto, CA 94301_A.P.N. 132-25-037 & 132-25-038,” stamped as received by the City on July 24, 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 Architectural Review (AR) approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. 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. 5. 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 a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning of Planning and Community Environment. 7. AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT (OWNERSHIP PROJECT): This project is subject to the affordable housing requirements set forth in Section 16.65.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Code states that “for projects on sites of less than five acres, fifteen percent (15%) of the dwelling units in the project shall be made available at affordable sales price to very low, low, and moderate income households”. Therefore, the proposed project is required to contain no less than one (1) below market rate unit, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND AGREEMENT. An affordable housing agreement, reviewed and approved by the City of Palo Alto, shall be recorded against the property prior to approval of any building permit for the development project (PAMC 16.65.090). 9. 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. 10. FENCING. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. 11. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Given the proposed project includes the same number of residential units (i.e. four units) as the existing development, no additional impact fees are due. 12. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 13. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as 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: 14. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 15. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). 16. 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 landscape and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 17. 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. 18. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: 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 residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: 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. 23. 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. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. 24. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building permit plan set that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4 feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use. If less than 4 feet of sidewalk is available for pedestrians, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close the sidewalk.” 25. PAVEMENT: Alma Street was resurfaced in 2013 this street is 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 Alma Street 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. 26. It is unclear if Parcel Map for subject property has been recorded. Plans still show existing lot line and City’s records do not indicate lots have been merged. Please update plans and provide conformed copy of map as well as DXF files for City to update GIS with of recorded Parcel Map. Building permit cannot be issued until map has been recorded. 27. DEWATERING: Proposed excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL [Prior to Demolition, Building or Grading permit issuance] 28. On sheet L-1 the new street tree shall be planted in native soil within the planter strip (between the sidewalk and the curb), amended as directed by the Project Arborist (based on results of a lab analyzed soil test) with treatments such as aeration and the addition of compost. Engineered soil shall be installed under the new driveway approach and any new sidewalk so that tree roots for (existing and new) street trees may expand into these areas. Amend details and the tree disposition and protection plan (sheet AO.61) accordingly. The position shall be west of the gas line by a minimum distance of 2 feet or between the gas line and Alma Street. Afoot barrier shall be added to protect the gas line and other utilities from roots. The existing street tree may be removed and replaced with one 24” box Gingko (or species approved by the Urban Forestry Section) in the same alignment and with the same conditions as the newly planted tree. 29. The project must result in no net loss of canopy as required by the Urban Forest Master Plan, policy 1.G. The project currently proposes removal of eight trees of poor to fair condition. Discounting replacement ratio in consideration of condition to a minimum of 2:1 for those identified as poor and one canopy width category (from Table 3-1 in section 3-4 of the Tree Technical Manual) for those identified as fair, the required number of replacement trees is fifteen. Six trees are currently proposed to be planted including one Gingko, three Arbutus (one serving as a new street tree), and two Podocarpus. Ten shrubs can be changed to tree species or payment in lieu of planting can be made to the Forestry Fund for $650 for each tree, or $6500 if the current plan is not modified. 30. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with2-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. 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 35. 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. 36. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 37. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECYCLING 38. Each home shall have a space to house three (3) waste containers (garbage, recycle and compost) in either the garage or yard space. All yard gates shall be able to accommodate the largest cart size (96 gallon) dimensions (34.5” depth x 29.25” width x 46.75” height). PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION The following comments must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit: 39. Stormwater Treatment Clear, detailed maintenance agreement regarding driveways composed of pervious pavers. These measures, although not required, will be inspected by City staff once project is completed Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for pervious pavement specifications. 40. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay- Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bayfriendly- landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. 41. Stormwater Quality Protection Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 42. Five (5) backflow preventers shall be shown to scale with all required clearances met prior to submitting plans to WGW for review; adjust screen wall as needed. 43. Required clearance area for gas meters shall be met prior to submitting plans to WGW for review. 39. 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. 40. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way. 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. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 44. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 45. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 46. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 47. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 48. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 49. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters; lesser distances require a permanent impermeable root-barrier a minimum of 3ft horizontal from 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. MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 1 PROJECT NAME 2609-2617 Alma Street APPLICATION NUMBER 18PLN-00074 APPLICANT AGREEMENT [INSERT Signature] 7/23/2018 APPROVED BY [INSERT Signature] APPLICANT/OWNER Vivian Shao, 915 Sunbonnet Loop, San Jose, CA 95125 The Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project located at 2609-2617 Alma Street identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code: “... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an EIR. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. Exhibit A MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CUL-1: The project site is located within an archeologically-sensitive area, so subsurface cultural resources could be uncovered and disturbed during demolition/construction of the proposed project, resulting in a significant impact to archaeological materials. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the most likely descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native On-site construction contractor or designee During demolition, grading, and/or construction City of Palo Alto and the Native American Heritage Commission City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3 American representatives determined to be the most likely descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The applicant shall test the groundwater pumped during dewatering prior to discharge. If concentrations are lower than the State Maximum Contamination Level of 5 micrograms per liter (μg/L), the water may be discharged as usual. If concentrations exceed 5 μg/L, the water shall be treated with carbon to remove the trace levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) prior to discharge. Any discharge shall occur in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CAG912002, Order No. R2-2012-0012. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: In order to avoid the potential for vapor migration, the project shall include the following measures: Install a vapor barrier and water-proofing membrane below the building foundation. Place a geotextile fabric on the backfill to protect the barriers from backfill puncture. Seal slab penetrations with a water-tight sealant. Test the installation of the barriers in the field. Submit post-construction as-built drawings of the vapor barrier with the following: o Stamp and signature of a Professional Engineer (PE). o Written PE statement that the barrier Applicant or designee/ construction contractor, or consultant Construction contractor, consultant, or project engineer Prior to issuance of construction related permits During Construction CPA Public Works Engineering Team CPA Chief Building Official City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4 was properly installed. Operate the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system for occupied spaces under positive pressure to prevent garage air from entering occupied spaces. Operate garage ventilation fans to be triggered by carbon monoxide levels only. Implement engineering controls Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: The applicant shall prepare and implement a Soil Management Plan to be implemented during excavation. The Soil Management Plan shall include: Results of previous environmental investigations at the site. Anticipated contaminants of concern to be encountered (if any). Development plans. Likely disposal fate of excavated material based on excavation plan. Air monitoring during excavation. Dust control and soil stockpile management. Regulatory considerations. Health and safety plan Excavation and shoring plan Temporary groundwater dewatering plan, including NPDES permit Measures to demonstrate compliance with the NPDES Regional Permit for stormwater pollution prevention Planned procedures, notifications, and management measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: Prior to demolition, a survey of the existing building shall be conducted for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). Any demolition activities likely to Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Prior to issuance of building permit and during grading Prior to issuance of demolition permit CPA Public Works Engineering Team CPA Chief Building Official City of Palo Alto Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5 disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of properly. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5: Prior to demolition, the existing building shall be inspected by a qualified environmental specialist for the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and other hazardous building materials. If found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Prior to issuance of demolition permit CPA Public Works Environmental Control Program NOISE Impact NOI-2: The proposed project could result in indoor residential noise levels above 45 dBA and also create instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The buildings nearest to Alma Street should have glazing and doors with a rating of at least STC 37 for the second and third levels. The building furthest from Alma Street should have glazing and doors with a rating with at least STC 33 for the second and third floors. An acoustical consultant shall confirm these requirements on the building permit application plan set. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The proposed building shall have ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Construction contractor or consultant Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Prior to issuance of building permit Prior to issuance of building permit CPA Planning Department CPA Planning Department ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2609 Alma Street, 18PLN-00074 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 8,070 SF (substandard), 60 foot width (substandard), 134.5 foot depth 8,070 SF (substandard), 60 foot width (substandard), 134.5 foot depth Minimum Front Yard (2) 25 feet1 (may be reduced by Director) 20+ feet 24 feet Rear Yard 10 feet N/A 10 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet (for lots less than 70 feet in width) N/A ≥ 6 feet Special Setback 24 foot special front yard setback (Alma Street)1 N/A 24 feet Max. Building Height 35 feet N/A 32 feet 7 inches (Bldg. A); 32 feet 11 inches (Bldg. B) Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle (no daylight plane after 10 feet) N/A Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle N/A Complies Max. Site Coverage (+ 5% for patios, etc.) 40% (3,228 sf) + 5% (403 sf) = 3,629 sf N/A 2,449 sf (30.3%) + 740 sf (9%) = 3,189 sf (39.5%) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (4,842 sf) N/A 58% (4,682 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 30% (2,421 sf) N/A 30.3% (2,451 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 600 sf (150 sf x 4 units) N/A 1,627 sf Minimum Common Open Space 300 sf (75 sf x 4 units) N/A 568 sf Minimum Private Open Space 200 sf (50 sf x 4 units) N/A 1,057 sf 1 Per PAMC Chapter 20.08. However, PAMC Section 18.13.140 (b)(1)(A) states that setbacks for lot lines adjacent to an expressway (e.g. Alma Street) shall be a minimum of 25, however, lesser setbacks may be allowed or required by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the ARB, where prescribed by the context-based criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces x 4 units of two or more bedrooms = 8 spaces (4 of which must be covered); guest parking requirements: 1 + 10% of units = 1.4 or 1 space 8 covered (garage) spaces + 1 uncovered guest space Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) 2 foot x 6 foot area provided in each garage Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria 2609 Alma Street 18PLN-00074 Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Findings Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with the street(s). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed designs of each unit utilizes varying materials, colors, and articulation along the building facades to help distinguish volumes, scale and mass. The street- facing unit presents a low-profile roofline that helps compatibility of the building with the residences on the adjacent lots and the street-facing façade and garage door entry mimics the look of a low-density, single family development. 2. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower- scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed buildings are designed to be compatible with existing abutting properties. Each of the buildings place the majority of the massing and volume toward the center of the lot, away from properties to the side and rear. Both buildings’ third-stories are stepped back significantly (approximately 20 feet) from the outermost exterior walls of the north and south second-story walls. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed site design satisfies the open space requirements of the RM-30 zoning district, and providing more than twice the required usable space for the overall site. 4. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the site planning and proposed parking design work with the lot dimensions to provide efficient parking access for each unit while avoiding making it a visually dominating aspect of the overall design. A garage door providing vehicle access to the units shields views of the driveway, hardscape, and uncovered parking from street view. Low-profile landscaping is proposed in the area serving as the front yard for the development which helps to distract and soften the views of the residences and street-facing façade (at the ground-floor level). 5. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding is not applicable as the project site is .21 acres. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units, attached row houses/townhouse, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed development includes both one- and two- story detached condominiums designs that are transition compatibly with the existing adjacent neighboring developments. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design shall be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed development will be required to comply with the California Green Building Code and the City of Palo Alto’s local amendments; see PAMC Section 16.14. Attachment G Performance Criteria 2609-2617 Alma Street 18PLN-00074 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The required trash/recycling bins for each unit are located within each unit’s covered garage area, providing enough space to accommodate the minimum default level of service – one 32 gallon garbage cart, one 64 gallon recycling cart and one 96 gallon compost cart. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the outdoor sconces and ceiling lighting proposed on the first-floor level of each of the unit are downwardly lit, resulting in reduced light pollution to neighboring properties. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick- up. The stated performance criteria are not applicable to this residential development project. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed landscape plan provides adequate screening between properties as appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The stated performance criteria is not applicable to this residential development project as the subject lot is located in a residential zone (RM- 30)that does not abut an industrial or commercially zoned property. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed parking layouts are designed to make the required parking spaces secondary aspect to the overall visual impact of the homes. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed site design does not create or increase potential conflicts for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. Further, the project provides a dedicated pedestrian path connecting the sidewalk right-of-way to the residences in the development. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that it will provide mitigation measures such as the installation of vapor barrier(s), water-proofing membranes, water-tight sealants, and other measures to minimize or avoid the potential for vapor migration including the In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. The stated performance criteria are not applicable to this residential development project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials To: The City of Palo Alto Planning Department Re: 2609 – 2617 Alma Street Palo Alto PREFACE This project for four units on Alma street was previously approved by the ARB in 2015. It was subsequently approved for building permit issuance in 2016. The property has changed hands, and as a result of that sale, a miscommunication occurred between an Owner’s representative and the Development Center resulting in the lapse of the approval. As a result of this error, the project is back in front of the ARB for re-approval. Because of the project’s long history, it is our opinion that it has been thoroughly vetted by neighbors, interested City Departments and the ARB. It is our sincere hope that the ARB can acknowledge the effort put forth by Owners, Designers, Staff and Consultants and work to see this project forward to another approval and eventual construction. This project is important for as a harbinger of future improvement for a long neglected area of Palo Alto. CONTEXT DESCRIPTION According to the City of Palo Alto neighborhood map, the two properties at 2609-2617 Alma are located on the Southwestern end of the Midtown Neighborhood. This area of the Alma Street corridor is a part of a larger swath of land on the Northeast side of Alma that is consistently zoned multi-family (RM-15 or RM-30) from Embarcadero Road to East Meadow Drive. This property backs- up to single-family homes on Emerson Street in the R-1 zoning on the Northeast Side and the train tracks with office uses beyond to the Southwest across Alma Street. Alma Street itself is dominated by four lanes of high-speed traffic with a ‘suicide’ lane for turns in the middle and no bicycle lane. The train side of the street consists of wire fencing with vines or medium sized trees. The traffic and train noise is omnipresent. The developed side of the street has a consistently deep frontage with power poles and a sidewalk. The frontage is predominantly paved for vehicular access or landscaped with stones. Some of the better-kept properties are planted with juniper or other low hedges. The block between Colorado Ave and El Dorado Avenue, where the project is located, is characterized by low and mid-rise apartment buildings of the post-war era. The buildings are consistently Ranch style or Mid-Century Modern with simple forms, low roof pitches and a combination of painted stucco and wood sidings. In many cases the frontages are dominated by carports or open parking. The existing apartments generally are in poor condition characterized by deferred maintenance and low quality building materials. Mature trees of an average age of 50 years can be found as screening between properties. The street trees on this block are generally small to medium size. A stand of mature trees exists on the rear neighbor’s property screening the property from many of the Emerson Street neighbors. This block of Emerson Street is characterized by one and two-story Ranch Style and Mid-Century Modern homes that are generally well kept. SITE DESCRIPTION/ REGULATIONS The properties currently house two duplex apartments. The units are single- story with flat roofs and carports at the front. The frontage and front setback are dominated by paving. Mature trees exist along the left hand and rear property lines. The project site consists of two properties that are each 30 feet wide and 134.5 feet deep. The properties are zoned RM-30. The individual parcels are non-conforming in site area and width. This project proposes merging the two properties to create a single parcel that is 60’ wide and 134.5’ deep with a site area of 8,070 square feet. The resulting parcel is non-conforming in width (less than min. required 70’) and site area (less than min. required 8,500 square feet). Staff has determined that because the non-conformity is not increased, the lot merger would be supportable. Development standards require a residential type Daylight Plane (10’ up and 45° angle) at the rear because those adjoining properties contain two or fewer units. The left and right side properties abut developments with more than two units, resulting in a less restrictive Daylight Plane (10’ up and 45° angle for the first 10’ only). Maximum height per the development standards is 35’. Alma Street has a special 24’ setback while the side setbacks are 6’ and the rear is 10’. With a zoning of RM-30, the property would support a density of 5.6 units and a maximum floor area of 4,842 square feet. GENERAL LAYOUT The proposed project consists of two separate two-unit townhome buildings. The two buildings are separated by 18’-0”. A pedestrian entry to all of the units is located at the front left of the property and is accessed from the sidewalk. Mailboxes and a call-box to communicate with each of the units is proposed here. The automobile entry is located at the front right of the property. A generous garage door can be automatically opened by residents for access underneath one of the units that leads to a court with access to four two-car garages. The parking area is proposed with pavers. The portion of the building facing Alma Street has been designed with a two- story façade in order to blend with the massing of the neighboring buildings. A third story has been set back over 20’ from the front façade to minimize its bulk as seen from the street. The massing at the rear is similar. A two-story volume fronts the Emerson Street neighbors and the three-story volume is set back over 20’. This layout is aimed at concentrating the bulk and mass of the buildings at the center of the project, away from the street and the rear neighbors. The roof slopes reinforces this design. Unit #1 is all on the second story. It is two bedrooms and one bath. Unit #1 is 864 sf (not counting 460 sf of garage). Unit #2 (BMR) is on the second and third story. It is three bedrooms and two and a half baths. Unit #2 is 1,240 (not counting 460 sf of garage). Unit #3 is on the second and third story. It is three bedrooms and two and a half baths. Unit #3 is 1,218 sf (not counting 460 sf of garage). Unit #4 is on the first and second story. It is four bedrooms and two and a half baths. Unit #4 is 1,318 sf (not counting 460 sf of garage). ARCHITECTURAL / ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE The buildings have been designed to take advantage of passive solar strategies and mitigate potential conflicts with neighbors. Fenestration has been concentrated on the driveway side (Southeast) to take advantage of passive solar gain when the sun is desirable (morning and mid day). This provides efficient daylighting and possibility for heat storage in tile floors. The concentration of glass on the driveway side also aims to minimize privacy conflicts using the driveway as a buffer between the proposed project and the right side neighbor. The Alma Street façade (Southwest) is designed to present a balanced look to the street while minimizing unwanted openings. The fenestration on the Alma façade has been minimized to block traffic noise, train noise, pollution and unwanted Western sun. An acoustic study has been provided with recommendations for Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for the windows. A special effort has been made to emphasize the pedestrian entry at the left front of the project. A gate is located there with house addresses, mailboxes, call box and lighting. The pedestrian entry has been separated from the automobile entrance. These features are meant to emphasize a residential feel. A tile base, natural wood paneling at the mid level and stucco accents are meant to create interest and break down the mass of the façade. The left façade (Northwest) has been designed as the entryway to the units. A walkway leads to the individual stairs up to the first three units. Two types of railings (iron and wood) have been designed here for variation and interest. Large overhangs create deep shadows and shade windows below. The rear façade (Northeast) has been designed to employ high windows on the second story so as to minimize privacy conflicts with the single-family neighbors on Emerson. The use of the contemporary aesthetic is an attempt to employ a look that is stylistically compatible to the Mid-Century surroundings. The design attempts to employ finer materials than the existing buildings to upgrade the general look of the neighborhood. A mix of materials has been proposed. A plinth of large porcelain tiles creates a solid base for the building. A mix of natural wood and three colors of stucco at aim to create interest and break-up the mass. Dark aluminum windows and bronze colored steel accents are designed to add emphasis and blend well with the earth tones of the stucco. The Alma street façade employs simple forms and a low roof pitch that is conceptually consistent with the neighboring structures. Although the proposed building is taller than its neighbors, an effort has been made to concentrate the bulk at the center of the design. Design revisions were undertaken after the preliminary ARB review in order to minimize the bulk at the front and the rear and provide harmonious transitions in scale at the street and at the rear. The redesign also attempts to take advantage of the full width of the lot (as recommended by ARB members) so as to diminish the height. Low eaves at the front and the rear create shadow and minimize the apparent bulk. The pedestrian walkway at the left clearly separates pedestrians from car traffic. SOCIAL IMPACTS Because the construction of this proposal would be the first significant improvement on this block in over 50 years, an effort has been made to envision what the future redevelopment of the street could look like. The townhomes are designed to meet the unmet need for moderate cost housing while mitigating the challenges of traffic, pollution and train noise. The proximity to the California Avenue train station (.4 miles) makes this area appealing for commuting and the proximity to parks and schools makes it appealing to families. Although Alma is not pedestrian friendly, the property is a short walk to California Avenue commercial district, close to the bike corridor on Bryant and near Jerry Bowden Park. A separate walking entrance has been provided at the front left. A communal gathering space has been provided at the middle of the property in an effort to provide a private for occupants to gather. A space for temporary placement of garbage cans at collection time has been provided at the front right hand side of the property along a low fence. ARB FINDINGS 1. The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan promotes higher density residential development within the El Camino corridor and areas within .5 miles of the Caltrain stations. This project aims to meet an unmet need for moderately priced housing while providing a transition between the adjacent train corridor/ California Avenue Commercial District and the neighboring single-family residences. (Policy L11 – goal L2 ‘promoting increased compatibility, interdependence and support between commercial and mixed used centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods’). Additionally, this project meets the Comprehensive Plan’s stated goal of ‘promoting the rehabilitation of substandard housing using sustainable and energy conserving approaches’. 2. The use of the contemporary aesthetic is an attempt to employ a look that is stylistically compatible to the Mid-Century Modern buildings of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The design aims to be a reflection of its residential use. Individual entries and detailed materials reinforce a human scale. The volumes are informal and varied reflecting a residential character. 4. The use of the contemporary aesthetic is an attempt to employ a look that is stylistically compatible to the Mid-Century Modern buildings of the surrounding neighborhood. 5. The stepping of the forms concentrates the bulk at the middle of the site. This stepping is aimed at creating a harmonious transition between the street and the building and the building and the single-family residences at the rear. 6. The design is compatible with the sidewalks, roadway, telephone pole and other existing improvements. The plantings at the frontage are being upgraded to help enhance the existing improvements. 7. An internal sense of order is inherent in the design. The two separate buildings are mirrored forms that embrace the vehicular court. The circulation for pedestrians is a clear straight pathway at the left. The resulting exterior spaces are clear in their functions. A gathering space can be found at the center of the project easily accessed by occupants. 8. The amount of open space exceeds the required amounts prescribed in the RM-30 zoning. Each unit enjoys a private balcony and access to a common open space. The rear unit enjoys a private rear yard. 9. Sufficient ancillary functions have been provided to support the residential use. Storage for waste and recycling have been accommodated. An electric charging station has been incorporated. A turnaround area has been provided for safe entry to Alma street. 10. Access to the property is safe for pedestrians. A separate pedestrian entrance is located at the left. Vehicular access has been accommodated at the right. The turnaround allows for safe access onto Alma street. Fences at the front of the property are kept back to allow for views of oncoming traffic. Bicycle entry is easily accommodated through the pedestrian gate. 11. The existing street tree is being preserved. The existing development at the site has removed all other natural features. 12. The materials and colors are appropriate expression of the design and are compatible with the neighboring structures. The variety of stucco colors, tile base and natural wood siding are designed to be compatible with and an improvement upon the simple unarticulated forms of the neighboring structures. Earth tones are employed to blend the building with the draught tolerant landscape in the front setback. 13. The landscape design includes a wide variety of drought tolerant grasses and ground covers to create a varied and functional design. Layers of planting build from the street frontage to the building edge. Crepe Myrtle trees, Pittosporm and Calamagrostis help to minimize the bulk of the building while Deschampsia and Deer Grass provide texture at the street. The planting in the parking strip will set a new standard for the otherwise paved frontages on the block. 14. The landscape design includes: • low water use planting that require low water drip irrigation • the use of grasses to compliment the modern style of architecture • taller shrubs along the front building to soften the mass • perimeter screening hedges for privacy on neighboring lots • The majority of plants are low water use and require little maintenance. The grasses require yearly shearing. • The project is designed to direct water runoff to vegetated areas to minimize water use 15. The design is meant to be energy efficient. The front roofs face south and west for easy installation of photovoltaic panels. The openings on the east have been maximized to allow for passive heating in the morning when solar heat gain is desirable. Windows on the south have been minimized and windows on the west have been shaded to help keep out unwanted afternoon heat gain. Operable windows at the top of the stairs have of the third stories have been designed to open to create stack ventilation to naturally cool the units. Cross ventilation has also been accommodated within individual floors of the units. Energy efficient LED lighting is proposed throughout the project. 16. This development, while taller than some of the neighbors, shows predominantly as a two-story building. The masking of the top story is an attempt for this project to break new ground on the block in a humble way. This creates orderly development by creating more density while respecting the context. This development enhances desirability of investment in the city by being the first to renovate in an area that is otherwise run-down. The successful implementation of this project can spur further investment on the block. Smart growth necessitates that more density is achieved near public transportation. The proximity to the California Avenue train station makes moderate density residential the most desirable use for the site. The implementation of this development would enhance the desirability of living on this and other adjacent blocks of Alma Street. The design is of a high aesthetic quality that could be a model to other development on this stretch of Alma. MULTI FAMILY BASED DESIGN CRITERIA COMPATIBILITY: • proposed building presents a simple predominantly horizontal eave to Alma Street similar to neighbors • fenestration is minimized on Alma Street similar to neighbors • similar front setback to neighbors • simple, low slope roof forms are employed similar to neighbors • frontages of neighboring properties are dominated by parking. This proposal aims to create a more pedestrian friendly design by incorporating a walking path and eliminating parking in the front setback. • the proportions of windows facing Alma are horizontal, residential in scale and similar to neighbors • the width of the proposed design is similar to the width of the two neighboring developments to the south • minimizing the bulk of the top story by locating bulk at the middle of the development breaks up the mass • broad simple forms with low roof pitches are compatible with neighbors • rooflines accentuate the horizontal similar to neighbors • facades include various projections, overhangs, screen walls, material and color changes to further break down mass • pedestrian entry is the most prominent feature at the front of the development with a linear path leading to a gate that is the most visible element at the street • the pedestrian entry is modest reflecting the modest number of units in the design • this proposal includes windows facing Alma street that show a residential character. Almost all of the other buildings on this stretch of Alma have few or no windows facing the busy street. Adjacent buildings to the south are dominated by carports and blank second story walls. • all facades of the building have been designed with a similar character and quality • care has been taken to make a successful transition to neighboring single family development by stepping the massing and concentrating the third story at the middle of the property • balconies at the rear unit are screened from neighbors by a wood lattice • high windows are designed to minimize privacy conflicts (except for one egress window facing the rear) • parking has been hidden from the street to not overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the look (unlike neighboring properties) • a variety of unit types can be found in this proposed development • spaces between buildings provides for usable common space • orientation has been designed to account for daylighting, passive heating and cooling (see 15 above) • comfortable microclimates have been created by screening the common area from the busy, noisy and windy Alma corridor • durable materials (stucco, tile and wood siding) have been designed to look attractive and last in a sustainable fashion • easy pedestrian and bicycle access is accommodated on the entry walkway • healthy indoor environments are being created with the enhanced insulation and window specification by the acoustic consultant that reduce the affect of street noise on occupants • healthy indoor environments are provided by raising the front three units above the ground on a site that suffers from minor contamination of the OCE plume. A vapor barrier is being used underneath the slab of the rear unit to protect it from the potential affects of OCE plume. • permeable pavement and grass crete are designed to manage storm water and recharge the aquifer TREE DISCUSSION The existing pine trees along the left property line are scheduled for removal. A letter is attached from the neighboring property owner consenting to the removal – as the trees are straddling the property line and have been difficult for the property owners to maintain. A new arbutus marinii street tree is designed in the frontage to match the existing street tree. New Crepe Myrtles are shown in the front setback. CONCLUSION With the impending construction of the high speed rail line, the existing properties along Alma could continue to fall into disrepair because of the uncertainty that the High Speed Rail proposals have created. The success of a project like this could begin to reinvigorate an unsightly part of the City and provide an example for future development. Sincerely, Chris Kummerer Principal, CKA Architects 2089 Avy Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 650 233 0342 Attachment I Project Plans and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hardcopies of the project plans were provided to Board members. These plans and the initial study are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: http://bit.ly/PaloAltoPlanningProjects 2. Scroll down the center of the page and click “View pending projects” 3. Scroll to find “2609 Alma Street” and click the address link 4. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2725 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9470) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/16/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 429 University: Condition Compliance - West Wall, Landscaping, Materials (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review Consistent With Condition of Approval #3, for a Previously Approved Mixed-Use Building (14PLN-00222), Requiring Architectural Review Board Approval for the Proposed West Elevation Wall Design, Landscape Details, and Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsmanship. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning District: CD-C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m- group.us 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. Background The subject project was reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 6, 2017. Condition of Approval #3 in the attached Record of Land Use Action (Attachment G) requires the project to return to the ARB to evaluate three specific items. These items are: a. A decorative wall design treatment, feature or element, shall be applied to the exterior walls immediately adjacent to the southern property line (project’s south elevation) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 b. Landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. c. The exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship-related detailing associated with the project. The previous staff report from the February 6, 2017 hearing includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation against City Codes and Policies. The report, action minutes, transcript, and video of the meeting are available online: Document Link Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55707 Action Minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56154 Transcript https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56868 Video http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-115/ Additionally, the project returned to City Council on March 20, 2017 as an item on the consent calendar for adoption of the findings and the Record of Land Use Action (ROLUA). The report, action minutes, transcript and video of the meeting are available online: Document Link Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56356 Action Minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56839 Transcript https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57427 Video http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-120/ Additional history is available on the City’s project webpage at bit.ly/429University. A copy of the City Council staff report without prior attachments is available in Attachment D. The purpose of this report is to detail the applicant’s response to the condition of approval, as part of a Minor Architectural Review application. Other minor changes to the project are being reviewed through the building permit process, as is the City’s standard process. The analysis section below builds upon information contained in earlier reports and is modified to reflect recent project changes. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The following discussion presents an analysis of the three items that are required to be reviewed by the ARB. 1) Decorative Wall Treatment: The applicant proposes a treatment of the interior property line with chevron pattern lines, aluminum reveals, and exterior cement plaster assembly. The applicant notes that grey integral-colored stucco would be applied to the third and fourth level exterior with natural aluminum reveals. Vertical aluminum reveals are proposed to be three-inches while angular and horizontal reveals are proposed to be one-and-a-half inches. The lower level concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall would be treated with texcote paint where it is exposed above the adjacent building. Details of the proposed design are included in Attachment H. 2) Landscape Details: The applicant proposes to replace the existing street trees along Kipling, add five planters and a garden wall on the ground floor, one planter on the second floor, three planters on the third floor, and three planters on the fourth floor. All planters would be watered by a drip irrigation system controlled by battery operated timers attached to water sources available next to each planter. The five ground floor planters would be located around an open space area adjacent to the Lane 30 Alley and Kipling Street. Two rectangular planters, measuring three feet in length and four feet in length, are proposed at the rear corner of the site. Both planters are one-foot wide and one-foot tall. They are composed of fiberglass, metal, or fabricated on-site clad in 3-Form Chroma recycled acrylic sheet or equivalent. The applicant proposes California fuchsia or foothill penstemon plants in both planters. The three planters along the Alley would be 20 inches tall, 14 inches wide and 14 inches deep. The applicant proposes California grey rush in each of these three planters. The proposed garden wall planter would be four feet wide and seven feet tall, constructed with 3-Form Chroma recycled acrylic sheet or equivalent. The applicant proposes an "invisible wire" trellis built at the top of the garden wall with long nails and thin wires to hold the pink flowering California morning glory vine as it grows upwards. The second floor balcony would contain a single round planter measuring two-feet in diameter by 18 inches tall. The material would be lightweight fiberglass or metal clad in 3-Form Chroma recycled acrylic sheet. The planter is proposed to contain pink flowering, shade tolerant, western azalea for this planter The third floor would contain three round planters, measuring 18 inches in diameter and 22 inches tall. These planters would be located at the entrance to the hallway leading to the residential units. The applicant proposes shade tolerant sedge or giant chain fern. The fourth floor would contain two five-foot long by one-foot wide and one-foot high rectangular planters that border the alley and Kipling Street sides of the elevator. The applicant City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 proposes that the planters will contain pink flowering California morning glory vine. Mounted on the wall will be trellises to allow the vine to grow upwards. The applicant’s proposed landscape plan and information sheets are contained in Attachment H. The proposed plant pallet is mostly consistent with Architectural Review Finding, which requires native, indigenous, drought tolerant plant species. The California morning glory vine on the first and fourth floors is primarily native to rocky areas of coastal chaparral and coastal sage scrub. The California fuchsia, California grey rush (common rush), foothill penstemon, and western azalea are indigenous to the Bay Area and Palo Alto region. 3) Material Board: The applicant has supplied a color and material board and notes that that the materials are composed of integral colored concrete. The building would be composed of two colors – sandstone and silversmoke. These are a light tan and grey color. The applicant notes that the concrete is the same concrete that the Board previously reviewed. It is 70% slag, a bi-product of the iron extraction process. The windows are framed with natural anodized aluminum frames and the glass has clear glazing. On the fourth floor, the applicant proposes to use an exterior cement plaster assembly over a metal stud wall with gray and tan colors similar to the colored concrete. The materials along the interior property line elevation are different from the remainder of the building. The applicant proposes a concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall with texcote paint where the wall is not obscured by the adjacent building. The applicant proposes a standard CMU wall where the adjacent buildings obscure the first two floors. 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. On February 6, 2017, the City Council approved the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project, which is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49897 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 August 3, 2018 which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 3, 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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 Adam Petersen, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 106 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval (DOCX) Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: February 6, 2017 City Council Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment E: February 6, 2017 City Council Action Minutes (PDF) Attachment F: February 6, 2017 City Council Transcript (PDF) Attachment G: Signed Record of Land Use Action and MMRP for Previous Project (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 77 7 7 7 7 Se n i o r Ce n t e r All S a i n t s _ E p i s c o p a l C h u r c h Po s t O f f i c e 94 3 0 1 7-11 Ala i n P i n e l R e a l t o r Gy m Gar d e n C o u r t _ H o t e l 200. 0 ' 50.0' 200. 0 ' 50.0 ' 200. 0 ' 50.0' 200 . 0 ' 50.0' 130. 0 ' 50.0' 130. 0 ' 50.0' 135. 0 ' 218.0 ' 15. 0 ' 7.0' 150. 0 ' 7.0' 25.0'7.0' 125. 0 ' 100.0 ' 100. 0 ' 12.5 ' 50.0 ' 112.5 ' 278. 0 ' 220.0 ' 278. 0 ' 220.0 ' 50.0 ' 100.0 ' 50.0' 100.0 ' 100. 0 ' 49.3' 100. 0 ' 49.3' 100. 0 ' 60.7' 100. 0 ' 60.7' 100. 0 ' 70.0' 100. 0 ' 70.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 25.0' 100. 0 ' 25.0' 100. 0 ' 75.0' 100 . 0 ' 75.0' 60.0' 221.0 ' 60.0' 221.0 ' 125. 0 ' 100.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 100.0 ' 125. 0 ' 64.0' 125. 0 ' 64.0' 125. 0 ' 64.0' 125. 0 ' 64.0 ' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95. 0 ' 25.0' 95.0' 25.0'100. 0 ' 25.0' 100. 0 ' 25.0'100. 0 ' 25.0' 100. 0 ' 25.0'100. 0 ' 25.5' 100. 0 ' 25.5' 100. 0 ' 74.5' 100. 0 ' 74.5 ' 50.0' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112. 5 ' 93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 75.0'93.0' 75.0' 135. 0 ' 100. 0 ' 135 . 0 ' 100. 0 ' 135 . 0 ' 25.0' 135. 0 ' 25.0' 150. 0 ' 112.5 ' 150. 0 ' 112.5 ' 45. 0 ' 112.5 ' 45.0' 112.5 ' 135. 0 ' 25.0' 135. 0 ' 25.0' 135. 0 ' 50.0' 135. 0 ' 50.0' 43.0 ' 79.0' 43.0' 79.0' 43.0' 33.5 ' 43.0' 33.5' 45.0' 105.5 ' 45. 0 ' 105.5 ' 50.0 ' 105.5 ' 50.0' 105.5 ' 50. 0 ' 105.5 ' 50. 0 ' 105.5 ' 93. 0 ' 105.5 ' 93.0 ' 105.5 ' 37. 5 ' 105.5 ' 37.5 ' 105.5 ' 37.5' 105.5 ' 37. 5 ' 105.5 ' 93.0' 105.5 ' 93. 0 ' 105. 5 ' 168 . 0 ' 112.5 ' 168. 0 ' 112.5 ' 50.0' 57.0' 50.0' 57.0 ' 71.5 ' 43.0'50.0' 30. 4 ' 21.5' 21.5' 21.5' 30 . 4 ' 57.0' 43.0' 100.0 ' 50.0 ' 112. 5 ' 50. 0 ' 112.5 ' 50. 0 ' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112. 5 ' 50.0' 112.5 ' 88. 0 ' 125.0 ' 93.0' 12.5' 25.0' 37.5 ' 30. 0 ' 75.0' 37.5' 150. 0 ' 37. 5 ' 150.0 ' 143. 0 ' 100.0 ' 43.0' 50.0' 67. 0 ' 50.0' 33.0 ' 100.0 ' 43.0' 50.0'43. 0 ' 50.0' 110. 0 ' 50.0 ' 110. 0 ' 50.0' 37.5' 100.0 ' 33.0 ' 100. 0 ' 110. 0 ' 50.0' 193. 0 ' 100. 0 ' 12. 5 ' 150.0 ' 95.0' 20.0' 55.0' 37 . 7 ' 58.0' 185. 0 ' 92.0' 185. 0 ' 50.0 ' 185. 0 ' 50.0' 50.0' 123.0 ' 50.0' 123. 0 ' 50.0' 150.0 ' 50.0' 343.0 ' 193 . 0 ' 343.0 ' 93.0 ' 150. 0 ' 70.0' 193.0 ' 70.0' 193.0 ' 150. 0 ' 218.0 ' 150. 0 ' 218.0 ' 50.0 ' 105.5 ' 50.0' 105.5 ' 50. 0 ' 105.5 ' 50. 0 ' 105.5 ' 50.0' 105.5 ' 50.0' 105.5 ' 50. 0 ' 105. 5 ' 50.0 ' 105.5 ' 150. 0 ' 112.5 ' 150. 0 ' 112. 5 ' 150. 0 ' 218.0 ' 150. 0 ' 218.0 ' 100 . 0 ' 204.8 ' 200. 0 ' 68.8 ' 51 . 7 ' 150. 0 ' 123.0 ' 200 . 0 ' 158.0 ' 200. 0 ' 158.1 ' 80.0' 123.1 ' 80. 0 ' 123.1 ' 60. 0 ' 123.1 ' 60.0' 123.1 ' 60.0' 80.1' 34.0' 30.5' 3.5 ' 23.5' 47.1' 23.5' 3.5 ' 30.5' 34.0' 43.0' 60.0 ' 76.0' 40.0 ' 112.5 ' 40. 0 ' 112.5 ' 50.0 ' 112.5 ' 50. 0 ' 112.5 ' 50. 0 ' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112.5 ' 36. 0 ' 95.0' 36. 0 ' 95.0 ' 39. 0 ' 37.5 ' 18. 0 ' 75.0' 57. 0 ' 112.5 ' 107. 0 ' 50.0' 107 . 0 ' 50.0' 107. 0 ' 25.0' 107 . 0 ' 25.0' 20. 0 ' 50.0' 130. 0 ' 100.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 37.5' 25. 0 ' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112.5 ' 14. 0 ' 17.5' 36. 0 ' 130.0 ' 130. 0 ' 50.0' 130. 0 ' 50.0' 75. 0 ' 43.0' 15. 0 ' 150.0 ' 90.0 ' 107.0 ' 102. 5 ' 43.0' 11.5 ' 107.0 '114. 0 ' 150.0 ' 50.0' 218.0 ' 50.0' 218.0 ' 45. 0 ' 112.5 ' 45. 0 ' 112.5 ' 45.0' 105.5 ' 45. 0 ' 105.5 ' 110. 0 ' 75.0' 110. 0 ' 75.0' 110. 0 ' 25.0' 110. 0 ' 25.0' 110. 0 ' 25.0' 110. 0 ' 25.0 ' 110. 0 ' 50.0' 110. 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 135. 0 ' 25.0 ' 135. 0 ' 25.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95. 0 ' 50.0' 95. 0 ' 25.0' 95.0 ' 25.0' 95.0 ' 25.0' 95. 0 ' 25.0' 95. 0 ' 30.0' 95.0' 30.0'40.0' 123.0 ' 33.0 ' 9.9 ' 116.0 ' 50.0' 123.0 ' 50.0 ' 123. 0 ' 50. 0 ' 123.0 ' 50.0' 123.0 ' 72.5 ' 130.0 ' 72.5 ' 130.0 ' 72.5 ' 75.0 ' 72. 5 ' 75.0' 72. 5 ' 5.0' 127. 5 ' 150.0 ' 120. 0 ' 115.0 ' 80.0' 30.0 ' 80.0' 85.0' 80.0' 85.0' 80.0' 30.0' 70. 0 ' 25.0' 150. 0 ' 55.0' 80.0' 125.0 ' 80.0' 125.0 ' 127 . 5 ' 200.0 ' 127. 5 ' 200.0 ' 59.0' 107.0 ' 41.0' 93.0 ' 93. 0 ' 50.0' 93.0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 300. 0 ' 41.0 ' 107.0 ' 41. 0 ' 107.0 ' 93.0' 100.0 ' 93.0' 100.0 ' 93.0' 50.0 ' 93. 0 ' 50.0 ' 93. 0 ' 50.0' 93. 0 ' 50.0' 93.0 ' 50.0' 93.0 ' 50.0' 193. 0 ' 193. 0 ' 193. 0 ' 193.0 ' 50.0 ' 143.0 ' 50.0' 143.0 ' 70.0' 118.0 ' 70. 0 ' 118. 0 ' 10.0' 50.0' 10.0' 50.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 130. 0 ' 143.0 ' 90. 0 ' 150.0 ' 90.0' 150.0 ' 105. 0 ' 55.0' 105 . 0 ' 55.0' 43.0' 125.0 ' 43.0' 125.0 ' 43.0 ' 25.0' 43. 0 ' 25.0' 50. 0 ' 150.0 ' 50.0' 150.0 ' 100 . 0 ' 75.0 ' 100. 0 ' 75.0 ' 50. 0 ' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112.5 '37.5 ' 112.5 ' 37. 5 ' 112.5 ' 37.5' 112.5 ' 37.5 ' 112.5 ' 30. 0 ' 75.0' 30. 0 ' 75.0' 100. 0 ' 27.0'30.0'23.0' 70.0 ' 50.0' 30.0 ' 73.0' 30.0' 73.0' 50.0' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112.5 ' 97. 0 ' 6.0' 3.0' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 56.0' 28.0' 112.5 ' 25. 0 ' 50.0' 3.0' 62.5' 50.0' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112.5 '40.0' 112.5 ' 40.0' 112.5 '60.0' 112.5 ' 60. 0 ' 112.5 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 60.0' 112.5 ' 60. 0 ' 112.5 ' 60.0' 112.5 ' 60. 0 ' 112.5 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100.0'50.0'100.0'50.0'100.0' 12.5'3.0' 56.5' 97. 0 ' 69.0'25.0'112.5' 25.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5 ' 50.0' 112.5' 56.0'70.5'56.0'70.5' 35. 0 ' 62.5' 35.0' 62.5' 83.0' 62.5' 83.0 ' 62.5 ' 118 . 0 ' 62.5' 118. 0 ' 62.5' 118. 0 ' 100.0 ' 118. 0 ' 100.0 ' 100. 0 ' 112. 5 ' 100. 0 ' 112.5 ' 125.0' 112.5 '125. 0 ' 112.5'50.0'112.5'50.0'112.5'35.0'100.0'35.0'100.0' 262. 5 ' 225.0 '262. 5 ' 225.0 ' 130.5' 225.0 ' 130. 5 ' 225.0 ' 63.0' 112. 5 ' 63. 0 ' 112.5 ' 30. 0 ' 112.5 ' 30.0' 112.5 ' 100. 0 ' 112.5 ' 100. 0 ' 112.5 '53.0' 112.5 ' 53. 0 ' 112.5 ' 50.0'130.0'50.0'130.0'140.0' 65.0' 140. 0 ' 65.0'140.0' 65.0' 140.0'65.0'190.0'50.0'190.0'50.0' 100. 0 ' 112. 5 ' 100. 0 ' 112.5 ' 100. 0 ' 112. 5 ' 100. 0 ' 112.5 ' 100. 0 ' 112. 5 ' 100. 0 ' 112.5 ' 100. 0 ' 112. 5 ' 100. 0 ' 112.5 ' 100. 0 ' 112. 5 ' 100. 0 ' 112.5 ' 100. 0 ' 112. 5 ' 100. 0 ' 112.5 ' 130.5' 225.0 ' 130. 5 ' 225.0 ' 130.5' 225.0 ' 130. 5 ' 225.0 ' 130.5' 225.0 ' 130. 5 ' 225.0 ' 102. 5 ' 50.0' 102. 5 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 45.0' 100. 0 ' 45.0' 100. 0 ' 45.0' 100. 0 ' 45.0 ' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100 . 0 ' 100.0 ' 100. 0 ' 100.0 ' 100. 0 ' 75.0' 100. 0 ' 75.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 100. 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 8.0' 100. 0 ' 12.5' 25.0 ' 20.5'125.0' 92.0' 125. 0 ' 92.0'50.0'112.5'50.0'112.5' 75. 0 ' 75. 0 ' 107.0 ' 107.0 ' 427 - 4 5 3 450 514 278 27 4 251 485 255 271 281 30 0 31 0 301 259 - 26 7 337 339 32 3 317 400 420 332 330 314 35 3 355 36 7 418 431 401 366 436 426 369 390 375 373- 377 416- 424 31 4 338 340 560 34 5 325 529 636 628 38 0 555 541- 5 4 9 533 535- 539 31 8 32 0 322 324 326 352 425 439- 4 4 1 435 429 425 415 40 5 403 453 461 383 460 502 510 526 520 540 499 467 459 43 9 425 555 400 436 - 45 2 45 6 379 370 - 3 7 4 376 38 0 - 3 8 2 384 - 3 9 6 550- 5 5 2 364 360 431 440- 4 4 4 423 417 419 499 47 5 421- 4 2 3 431- 4 3 3 432 428 460 - 47 6 450 635 653 -68 1 683685 482 48 6 496 610 400 47 0 302- 316 379 320 328 332 340 43 7 325 327 333 407 401 385 41 1 45 2 344- 3 4 8 41 8 420 328 456 321 325 330460 474472 333 335- 337 351 457 451 465 463 489 - 499 360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451 443 437 411 405 419 405 401 441 480 - 498 347 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 56 8 500 50 8 516 564 550 546 540530 B 530 53 0 A 52 8 531- 5 3 5 541 50 5 520 579 567 555 581 408 412 440 435 445 328 425 44 7 565 27 6 516 515 558 435 433 421 375 530 415 423 305 -313 405 484 508 482 330 349 312 651 443 445 447 335 640- 6 4 6 506 327 469 32 1319 411 - 4 1 9 BR Y A N T S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T FL O R E N C E S T R E E T KI P L I N G S T R E E T LYT T O N A V E N U E W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T EVE R E T T A V E N U E LYT T O N A V E N U E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E N U E CO W P E R S T R E E T KI P L I N G S T R E E T UNIV E R S I T Y A V E N U E UNIV E R S I T Y A V E N U E CO W P E R S T R E E T W A V E R L E Y S T R E E T HAM I L T O N A V E N U E COWPER ST R E E T TA S S O S T R E E T LAN E 2 0 E A S T LAN E 3 0 LAN E 2 0 W E S T LAN E 2 1 PAU L S E N L A N E PF PF CD-C (P) PC- 3 9 7 4 PC - 4 1 9 5 CD-C(GF)(P)CD-C (P)PF PC-4611 RMD (NP) PC- 4 0 5 2 PF PC-3995 CD-C (P) PC - 4 2 9 6 PC- 4 4 3 6 Lo t D Lot G Lot H Lot F Lot T Lot W C Br y a n t / L y t t o n Pa r k i n g G a r a g e C V S P h a r m a c y Un i o n B a n k Lot S CogswellPlaza This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages Park School abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits: Palo Alto City Boundary Tree Project Site 0'148' 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240] CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RAT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto apeters, 2018-07-24 12:25:00 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 429 University Avenue 18PLN-00240 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 Regional/Community Commercial The project proposes landscaping, materials and color board, and decorative wall design treatment to a previously approved building that is consistent with the Regional/Community Commercial designation 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 compact mixed-use development along University Avenue. It contributes to an attractive neighborhood through the use of long lasting materials with similar colors as surrounding buildings, and a decorative design to the interior property line wall. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The building is compatible with its surroundings because it uses similar materials and muted earth tone colors, similar to the surrounding buildings. Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of community with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of The project uses native indigenous landscaping and drip irrigation systems that represent sustainable principles of design. sustainability. Policy L-4.7: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. The project consists of a quality designed building by treating the west wall elevation with a pattern that breaks up the façade, employs long lasting materials in the form of concrete, and strategically places landscaping in key open space areas of the building. 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: As conditioned, the proposed project is consistent with the finding in that the area is comprised of various uses with landscaping strategically placed to enhance the senses of entry to each specific use. Landscaping creates an internal sense of order and a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the community because it is generally located at the entrance of each floor. This positioning balances and softens the man-made environment with natural organic features. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides a variety of architecture with differing visual elements. The west wall design provides appropriate visual attention that is also provided to the other sides of the building. The proposed project has been reviewed with respect to the Context-Based Design Criteria set forth in PAMC 18.18.110. Section 18.18.110 notes that the project shall be: Responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design (where “responsible to context” is not a desire to replicate surroundings, but provide appropriate transitions to surroundings), and Compatible with adjacent development, when apparent scale and mass is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so the visual unit of the street is maintained. Pursuant to PAMC 18.18.110(b), the following additional findings have been made in the affirmative: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project supports pedestrian environment by placing landscaping along the Lane 30 alley; (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed street facades are designed to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity. The proposed placement and orientation of landscape elements are appropriate to create strong and direct relationships with the streets. Upper floors are setback and designed to provide a varied visual environment along University Avenue, and to fit in with the context of the neighborhood; (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. The project does not included components relative to massing and setbacks. However, this finding was made in the affirmative in that the project when it was approved, and the project would continue to incorporate a design with a series of recessed terraces and interchange in materials to break down the scale of building and provide visual interest; (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. Although the parcels abutting the project site along Kipling Street have a commercial zoning designation, most of the built forms have a low density residential appearance. The addition of landscaping along the Lane 30 behind the alley softens the transition from the adjacent buildings to the proposed project; (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. The design of the project has been approved with this finding made in the affirmative. The approval noted that the project provides open space with wider sidewalks, balconies, and a roof-top terrace. The proposed project incorporates landscaping elements in the project open space, which is visible to residents, workers, visitors and the public; (6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding does not apply because the project consists of a review of landscaping, building materials, and the treatment of the west wall elevation; (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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project would comply with the City’s green building ordinance, and the design includes overhangs, recesses, and other shading devices and techniques to reduce the solar heat gain and energy consumption related to the cooling of the building. Design is easy for pedestrian, bicycle and transit access. The project incorporates high efficiency LED light fixtures, low-flow plumbing fixtures and high efficiency HVAC equipment for efficiency energy and water use. Green building features will be incorporated to achieve CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the commercial portion and Green Point rated standards for the residential portion. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the landscaping elements, materials, and west wall design respect the adjacent lots’ yards and respect the privacy of neighboring development. Further, the project is consistent with Finding #2 because the addition of landscaping elements enhances the living conditions on the site and the proposed west wall design contributes to an aesthetically pleasing environment in downtown Palo Alto. 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 project has a high aesthetic quality, materials, construction techniques, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The buildings surrounding the site are comprised of concrete, stone, glass, brick, and metal and range in height from two to four stories along University Avenue. Along Kipling Street, buildings consist of cement, stucco, glass and brick structures. The proposed structure is comprised of high quality glass, concrete and steel design which is similar and representative of the materials found in the surrounding environment. Further, the materials, textures, and attention to detail in the structure is consistent throughout each visible portion of the elevations, which represents a high quality aesthetic design. Therefore, the project is consistent with Finding #3 because it consists of a high quality aesthetic design with integrated materials, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with the surrounding environment. 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 project is consistent with this finding because landscaping is located in functional locations. Proposed landscaping will not impede pedestrian and bicycle traffic along Lane 30 because it is located on the project property. Further, landscaping is located in planters throughout the building that will also not interfere with pedestrian movement. Therefore, the proposed landscaping supports the building’s necessary operations for commercial, office and residential uses. 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 is consistent with the finding because it preserves existing street trees along University Avenue and replaces trees along Kipling Street. The project’s landscaping includes drought tolerant species and a variety of trees, shrubs and perennials suitable to the site. The plantings focus on the most logical locations in the building that consist of open circulation areas, and along areas accessible to the public, such as along the Lane 30 alley. 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 to preserve water including using drip irrigation and proposing landscaping that is drought tolerant and is less than 500 square feet in size. The small area of landscaping and compliance with CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2will achieve sustainable principles related to energy efficiency and water conservation. ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 429 University Avenue 18PLN-00240 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development of said landscaping, materials, and west wall elevation shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Condition of Approval Project Plan Set,” stamped as received by the City on July 30, 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. 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. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. This project approval shall be valid until February 6, 2019, at which time approval for a new building at this location (RLUA No. 2017-2) will also expire. 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. 6. 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. 7. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees were assessed with 14PLN-00222, and per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 8. 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, Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION Include in plans submitted for a building permit: 1. The permit application shall be accompanied by all plans and related documents necessary to construct a complete project. 2. Separate submittals and permits are required for the following systems and components if utilized: E.V., P.V., and Solar Hot Water systems. 3. Deferred submittals shall be limited to as few items as possible. 4. A written outline/plan needs to be provide prior to building permit issuance to demonstrate compliance with CBC Section 3302 (Construction Safeguards) and Section 3306 (Protection of Pedestrians) during construction. 5. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing building on site. 6. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. City of Palo Alto (ID # 7376) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 429 University Avenue: Appeal of Mixed Use Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: To Consider a Continued Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-foot, Four Story, Mixed use Building With Parking Facilities on two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-foot Site. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated on November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P). The Council Previously Considered this Appeal on November 30, 2015 and Remanded it to the Architectural Review Board for Redesign and Further Review Based on Council’s Direction From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council direct staff to prepare a Record of Land Use Action to either: 1) deny the appeal, approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachments F-H) and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Attachment I) and approve a modified project (Option 1, 2, or 3) with or without conditions, directing staff to return with written findings for adoption; Or 2) uphold the appeal and deny a modified project (Option 1, 2, and 3) based on the Architectural Review Board’s recommendation of October 20, 2016 and a finding that proposed project modifications have not addressed the Council’s previous concerns, directing staff to return with written findings for adoption. [Note: Option 1 is similar to that reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on September 1, City of Palo Alto Page 2 2016 and was revised and resubmitted by the Applicant on October 26, 2016 to address the Board’s comments. Staff believes that with the adjustments discussed below Option 1 best addresses the Council’s previous concerns. Option 2 was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board on October 20, 2016 and recommended for denial. Option 3 is a middle option submitted by the Applicant on December 8, 2016. All of these options can be considered for approval (with or without additional conditions) or denial based on required architectural review findings.] Executive Summary: The applicant is proposing redevelopment of three properties at the southwest corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. The director’s decision on the project was appealed and the Council remanded the project to the Historic Resources and Architectural Review Boards to address several specific design issues. It has been 18 months since the Council’s initial appeal hearing and 12 months since the Council’s second appeal hearing. In the elapsed time, the applicant has changed architects – and designs – several times, submitting revised project plans and extending the review time required to address Council direction and comments from the HRB and ARB. Most recently, the ARB reviewed the iteration of the project referred to here as Option 2 (Attachment M) on October 20, 2016, and recommended the Council uphold the appeal and deny the project due to an inability to make the required findings. Prior to this recommendation, the ARB had reviewed a set of schematic drawings that reduced the proposed building mass at the fourth floor and resulted in about 3,000 square feet in less building area at a study session on September 1, 2016. Staff believes these plans (referenced in this report as Option 1 and available as Attachment L) were more responsive to Council and Board member comments. However, the applicant did not develop this schematic drawing further until after the ARB’s October 20, 2016 meeting and recommendation. Following ARB’s recommendation, the applicant elected to submit additional information about Option 1, including some of the changes requested by the ARB at their study session. Rather than send the matter back to ARB, staff previously made this supplemental information available to the appellant and, through this report, to the public with the calendaring of this public hearing in front of the Council. Staff continues to have concerns with some elements of the design, which it believes can be remedied through the conditions discussed below, but on balance, the design presented here as Option 1 appears most responsive, compared to all other iterations, to earlier Council comments. Attachment D contains a link to these comments from the City Council meeting on November 30, 2015. A third option (Option 3) was submitted by the applicant in December. According to the applicant, this design is essentially the September 1, 2016 study session proposal with the fourth floor from an earlier submission (discussed by the ARB on August 4, 2016). A summary of the square footages of the three options is provided below: Table 1. Summary of Current Design Options - 429 University Ave. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Option Non Res. Square Footage Res. Square Footage Total Square Footage Res. Dwelling Units Parking Spaces On Site Notes Option 1 20,407 8,140 28,547 3 34 Discussed at ARB Study Session 9/1/16 and subsequently modified to address comments. Option 2 20,407 11,000 31,407 5 38 Recommended for denial by the ARB 10/20/16. Option 3 20,407 10,750 31,157 4 34 Further modification submitted by the applicant 12/8/16 to address ARB and Council concerns. Note: See Attachment E for a more detailed comparison of all three options with code requirements. Source: Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment, January 2017 Background: The subject project has been an active application since its filing in June 2014. The project as approved by the Director in February 2015 complied with the development standards of the code, but was appealed based on compliance with required findings. On November 30, 2015 the Council on 9-0 vote agreed that further refinement was needed to address a variety of concerns related to the project’s mass and scale, transition to other buildings (contextual setting) and nearby historic properties, parking and loading, and other issues. The project takes advantage of provisions in the code that allow a transfer of floor area, or development rights, to this building. Additionally, the project is located in the parking district and relies on parking in downtown garages due to the property owner’s contributions to the parking district. Another concern raised with this project is the lack of an on-site loading space. Consistent with prior downtown approvals, including Council approved projects on appeal, the loading space is not provided on site and relies instead on other loading zone opportunities downtown and the alley immediately behind the building. Council has since directed staff to make changes to the code to clarify conditions when on-site loading is required; the Planning and Transportation Commission recently completed its review of a draft ordinance and the matter will be presented to the City Council in February. Attached to this report (Attachment D) is a chronology of the project from the filing of the application to this appeal hearing. There are links provided within the chronology to all prior staff reports, minutes and videos available. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The architectural review findings and context-based criteria that apply to this project are included for the Council’s reference as Attachments A and B, respectively.1 The city’s downtown urban design guidelines are available online at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514; these guidelines may be informative to the Council’s review. A compliance review of the project (Options 1 and 2 and 3) to code development standards is also provided (Attachment E). Finally, to re-familiarize the Council with the project, a detailed project description is included that also reflects the project revisions and various interactions over time (Attachment C). It should be noted that there have been 14 hearings before the ARB, HRB and Council, including the subject hearing, on this project. The applicant has also engaged four architects over the last 18 months, which has complicated reviews and extended the application processing timelines. Additionally, despite the various plan modifications over time, on balance, the project designs have not significantly deviated from the overall mass and size as first reviewed by the City Council in May 2015. Changes have been incremental and not responsive to the volume of information provided in the administrative record. Notwithstanding the above, staff believes there is one conceptual plan concept (Option 1) that was presented to the ARB in September 2016 that, among the various iterations, best responds to Council concerns. Discussion: The City Council last reviewed the project on November 30, 2015. At that time, the Council requested the applicant explore project revisions with the ARB to advance the specific findings and criteria listed below. While the applicant’s proposal has generally been consistent with the Code’s objective development standards, the appellant’s objections have focused on the equally applicable subjective design standards contained in the Code. Due to the applicant’s proposed lot consolidation of two parcels, the University Avenue facing side of the lot serves as a gateway to a vibrant downtown consisting of modestly scaled, but architecturally and historically significant buildings. On the other hand, the Kipling facing side of the building anchors an eclectic grouping of Victorian homes, at least one of which is still in residential use. The Council’s earlier focus on the architectural findings and context-based design criteria summarized below provided guidance on how the proposal could be modified to address this design challenge. Architectural Review Findings: Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.76.020(d) 1 Please note that on December 12, 2016, the City Council adopted an ordinance which consolidated and clarified the City’s Architectural Review findings without making major, substantive changes. This ordinance became effective on January 12, 2017. While the revised findings will be applicable to the project at 429 University and will be cited in the final Record of Land Use Action, the findings in place at the time of the prior City Council and ARB reviews of this project have been used in this report. Both versions of the findings are included in Attachment A for the Council’s reference. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Finding 4: Architectural Review Findings in relation to design’s compatibility with areas as having a unified design character or historic character Finding 12: Architectural Review Findings in relation to compatibility and appropriateness in materials, textures, colors, details of construction and plant materials to the project’s function and to adjacent structures, landscape elements and functions Context-Based Design Criteria to Consider: PAMC Chapter 18.18.110 (a)(1)(B): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria – Context: to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response. (a)(2)(B)(i): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria – Compatibility goal in relation to siting, scale, massing and materials (a)(2)(B)(iii): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria – Compatibility goal in relation to pattern of roof lines and projections (b)(2)(B): Context-based Design Considerations and Findings – Street building facades in relation to eaves, overhang, porches and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass Option 1 has been the most responsive to concerns about the overall building mass and provides better transitions to neighboring properties than others. Nearly all commercial buildings in the immediate area have flat roof designs with false mansards/parapets facing the street, including the commercial property across Lane 30 on Kipling Street. Most of the commercial buildings have two story volumes or greater in height; the building across the alley being a notable exception. The character for the balance of properties north on Kipling Street has decidedly different architectural styles and building volumes that represent the residential origins of these structures. The pattern of the commercial areas on University Avenue at times and within this area, have a rhythmic 25 foot (approximately) storefront design that contributes to a positive pedestrian experience. However, there are exceptions to this design feature as well. The Option 1 plans attempt to reflect this pattern of development with doorway and glazing spaced roughly 25 feet in width. It has a two-story volume adjacent to both streets and sets back the third floor five feet from both streets. One exception to this statement, however, is the stairway and elevator area adjacent to Kipling Street, which is at the property line. The stairway/elevator has been a repeated concern from Council from the outset and there has been limited adjustment of this design feature, except at the fourth floor. Regarding the fourth floor, the Option 1 plan shows the fourth floor office area as setback between 37 and 40 feet from Kipling Street and University Avenue, respectively. There is the City of Palo Alto Page 6 elevator shaft setback eleven feet from Kipling Street; bathrooms six feet from the adjacent building at University Avenue (but all approximately 55 feet from University Avenue); and, the rear setback at this floor level is close to nineteen feet from the alley. A refinement between the Option 1 plan submitted to the ARB and now presented to the City Council is the addition of a library at the third floor street corner. This is further addressed below along with other recommended conditions of approval for Council consideration, if there is interest in approving this design solution. A challenge for this project is the massing dictated by its modern architectural style and development program. Unlike other older buildings in the area, which have more traditional design features, ornamentation and detailing, the proposal relies on a more modern expression. There has been a lot change on University Avenue and many buildings reflect the historic character of the street, but not all, including some in close proximity to the project site. As previously noted by Council, compliance with the architectural finding regarding the project’s design compatibility with areas having a unified design character remains a discussion point. Approval or denial of the project may suggest there is or is not a unified design character along this portion of University Avenue. Consideration should also be given to the unified design and historic character of Kipling Street and to the extent that character should influence building design on University Avenue. The Historical Resources Board reviewed the project on September 10, 2015, and found that there are no offsite historical resources that would be affected by the project. Additional information, including the staff report and minutes, are linked in Attachment D. Recommended Conditions of Approval Should the Council’s deliberation on this matter conclude that Option 1 warrants approval, staff recommends, in addition to typical conditions of approval, that the following conditions be added: Applicant shall submit detailed plans that demonstrate compliance with floor area and other applicable development standards The purpose for this condition is to ensure project compliance with development standards. This design solution evolved recently and staff has not had sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive review. The fourth floor guardrails and planters shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the edge of the third floor roofline (all elevations), as modified by these conditions. The purpose for this condition is to reduce the building mass at that fourth floor. City of Palo Alto Page 7 The ‘library’ shown on the third floor, floor plans, at the street corner, shall be removed. The purpose for this condition is to reduce building mass at the street corner and third floor, provide building articulation and be consistent with the conceptual plans reviewed by the ARB and staff in September 2016. The third floor roofline above the removed ‘library’ area shall be setback to follow the third floor building footprint; reducing the building mass at the street corner. The purpose for this condition is to reduce building mass at the street corner and third floor, provide building articulation. A decorative wall design treatment, feature or element, shall be applied to the exterior walls immediately adjacent to the southern property line (project’s south elevation) starting at an elevation equivalent to the building height of the adjacent structure and extending to the roofline of the proposed building, subject to review by the Architectural Review Board. The purpose for this condition is to address the blank wall that will be visible when approaching the site from University Avenue. The intent of this condition is to provide visual interest and minimize the appearance of mass with the understanding that a future development on the adjacent property may someday obscure this design feature. One way to comply with this provision may be to set the building back a couple of inches to create visual relief. Staff proposes that any lost floor area specifically related to this condition, up to 100 square feet, be relocated to the fourth floor to maximize a creative solution without reducing the proposed square footage. The elevator adjacent to Kipling Street, inclusive of any associated mechanical equipment, shall not exceed fifty feet (50') in height. The purpose for this condition is to reduce building mass and provide a better transition to properties along Kipling Street. The applicant shall return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. City of Palo Alto Page 8 The project uses landscaping to provide visual interest; however, these have been conceptually discussed and a more focused discussion and review is needed to ensure these concepts can be successfully implemented. The applicant shall return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship-related detailing associated with the project. The ARB reviewed only a schematic drawing of Option 1. The intent of this condition is to ensure the ARB reviews the exterior materials and colors and architectural details to improve design linkages, while still preserving the applicant’s intent to construct a contemporary building. The above are staff recommended conditions should the Council find the project (Option 1) compliant with applicable findings, guidelines and other criteria. The City Council may augment or modify the above list as appropriate. One additional condition the Council may want to consider has to do with recessed pedestrian entries. The ARB has consistently sought to improve the pedestrian experience of this building, but there has been little refinement of this feature over the different iterations. In addition, it should be noted that all of the options discussed in this report will be subject to more detailed review for code compliance at the building permit stage, if/when a single design option has been advanced. Options 2 & 3 For the purpose of this appeal hearing, staff agrees with the ARB that the project plans, identified in this report as Option 2, do not meet the required findings, based on the previously stated Council concerns. This plan set is provided to the Council for review and consideration in case there is a different perspective from staff and the ARB. As noted earlier, Option 3 was submitted by the applicant on December 8, 2016 with the intention of reflecting the September 1, 2016 study session version (similar to Option 1), with a fourth floor similar to an earlier design reviewed by the ARB on August 4, 2106. Option 3 plans are included in Attachment N, and links to meeting minutes from the respective hearings are provided in Attachment D. Due to the lateness of the submittal the ARB has not reviewed the plans, nor has staff performed a detailed analysis other than to evaluate the project for code compliance. However, it is noted that the most substantive change between the staff supported Option 1 and Option 3 appears to be the addition of 2,610 square feet of floor area primarily at the upper floor level to accommodate an additional housing unit. The mass and scale of this option is similar to (and 250 square feet less than) Option 2, which was previously reviewed by the ARB. If the City Council is interested in exploring Option 3 further, staff City of Palo Alto Page 9 recommends the Council evaluate the proposal without referring the matter back to the ARB due to the limited progress made and extensive amount of staff time required to process this application. Moreover, this project has experienced an unusually protracted appeal hearing process due in large part to the incremental modifications and applicant-caused delays. Next Steps: Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a record of land use action to either approve or deny the project. Further remanding the project to the ARB, which has only three board members to deliberate on this matter due to two recusals, is not viewed by staff to be particularly constructive at this time, particularly in light of the progress made over the last eighteen months. Moreover, staff does not anticipate further continuances to generate a significant project design changes. Accordingly, staff anticipates returning to the City Council in March with a document to memorialize the Council’s action this evening. 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. Pursuant to Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects for which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Therefore, no CEQA action may be required if the Council denies the project. However, if the Council elects to approve the project, the Council will have to approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which has previously been prepared for the project and is attached to this report. Pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated along with the required 20-day public review. The public comment period for this project was from November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been updated to include the findings of additional analyses, including the historic resources memorandum, shadow study and the traffic operations study (Attachments F through K). The plan revisions did not result in any additional impacts nor require additional mitigation measures. The original mitigation monitoring program remains the same (Attachment I). Attachments: Attachment A - Architectural Review Findings (DOCX) Attachment B - Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX) Attachment C - Project Descriptions and Plan Modifications Overtime (PDF) Attachment D - Public Hearing Chronology (DOCX) Attachment E - Development Standards Preliminary Compliance Matrix (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 10 Attachment F - CEQA 1 Updated - 429 University Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration - 8-15-16 (PDF) Attachment G - CEQA 2 429 University appendicies A-E (PDF) Attachment H - CEQA 3 429 University appendicies F-I (PDF) Attachment I - CEQA 4 Mitigation Monitoring Program (PDF) Attachment J - Landscape Report (PDF) Attachment K - Shadow Study (PDF) Attachment L - Architectural Drawings: Option 1 (DOCX) Attachment M - Architectural Drawings: Option 2 (DOCX) Attachment N - Architectural Drawings: Option 3 (DOCX) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 6 Special Meeting February 6, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:05 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman arrived at 5:08 P.M., Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach arrived at 5:13 P.M. Absent: Kniss Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS This item will not be heard this evening and will be rescheduled. 1A. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Govt. Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant/Respondent) 429 University Avenue; Appeal of Director of Planning and Community Environment's Architectural Review Approval of a Development Application. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Kniss, Wolbach absent Council went into Closed Session at 5:09 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:51 P.M. Study Session 2. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE END OF THE AGENDA. ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 2/6/17 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Fine to continue Agenda Item Number 12- PUBLIC HEARING: Review and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning)… to March 6, 2017. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Minutes Approval 3. Approval of Action Minutes for the January 23, 2017 Council Meeting. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to approve the Action Minutes for the January 23, 2017 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Consent Calendar MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-9 including changes to Agenda Item Number 8- Fiscal Year 2017 Mid-year Budget Review… as outlined in the Staff Memorandum. 4. Review and Acceptance of the Annual Report on Development Impact Fees for Fiscal Year 2016. 5. Adoption of a Budget Amendment Closing the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget and Capital Projects, and Approval of the Fiscal Year 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 6. Resolution 9665 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Continue the Palo Alto CLEAN Program: (1) for Local Non-solar Resources, at a Price of 8.4 ¢/kWh to 8.5 ¢/kWh With no Capacity Limit; and (2) for Local Solar Resources, at a 16.5 ¢/kWh Price That Drops to Avoided Cost at 3 MW; and Approval of Associated Program Rules and Agreements.” 7. 203 Forest Avenue [14PLN-00472]: Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Denial of an Architectural Review ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 2/6/17 Application for a 4,996 Square Foot Residential Addition Above an Existing 4,626 Square Foot Commercial Building. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Pursuant to Section 15270, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Does not Apply to Disapproved Projects. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) District. 8. Fiscal Year 2017 Mid-year Budget Review, Approval of Budget Amendments in Various Funds and Approval of Amendments to Three Salary Schedules. 9. Approval to Issue a Contract Change Order to Contract Number C16163847 With Wadsworth Golf Construction Company in the Amount of $198,850 for the Construction of a Prefabricated On-course Restroom at the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Action Items 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 9666 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated.” Public Hearing opened at 8:04 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 8:07 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to adopt a Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent 11. PUBLIC HEARING: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: To Consider a Continued Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-foot, Four Story, Mixed use Building With Parking Facilities on two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-foot Site. Environmental Assessment: the Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P). The Council Previously Considered This Appeal on November ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 2/6/17 30, 2015 and Remanded it to the Architectural Review Board for Redesign and Further Review Based on Council’s Direction. Public Hearing opened at 8:20 P.M. Public Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to: A. Deny the Appeal; and B. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan; and C. Approve a modified project (Option 1) with conditions included in the Staff Report, Pages 6-8; and D. Direct Staff to return with written findings for adoption. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to deny the Project due to the inability to make Architectural Review Findings as part of the Council’s prior review from Staff Report, Pages 4-5 and the Architectural Review Board recommendation to deny the Project. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-5 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes, Kniss absent AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “that the height of the prominent First Floor concrete elements be lowered to be consistent with the prevailing street pattern.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “this approval is subject to the actual Project matching Option 1 as described by Staff.” (New Part E) ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 2/6/17 MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to: A. Deny the Appeal; and B. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan; and C. Approve a modified project (Option 1) with conditions included in the Staff Report, Packet Pages 527-528; and D. Direct Staff to return with written findings for adoption; and E. This approval is subject to the actual Project matching Option 1 as described by Staff. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-3 DuBois, Holman, Kou no, Kniss absent 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Review and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Update Code Sections Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 6, 2017. Study Session 2. Update on Stanford University's General Use Plan (GUP) Application to Santa Clara County. This Agenda Item continued to February 27, 2017. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Holman requested Council reconsider the placement of Programs within the Comprehensive Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. ACTION MINUTES Page 6 of 6 City Council Meeting Action Minutes: 2/6/17 Council Member DuBois voiced his support of this reconsideration proposal. Council Member Holman suggested that her statement be considered a Colleagues Memorandum. Molly Stump, City Attorney advised that Colleagues Memorandum are typically submitted in writing to allow for Staff review and feedback. She also noted that Staff intends to return to Council for further direction regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update. Council Member Holman shared her understanding that Staff plans to return with further discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update based on Council’s previous direction. She clarified that her request is for reconsideration of the Council’s direction pertaining to the placement of Programs in the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Scharff advised that this request appears to be a Motion for Reconsideration, which is not an option during Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements pursuant to the City Council Procedures and Protocols. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 P.M. CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL TRANSCRIPT Page 1 of 78 Special Meeting February 6, 2017 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:05 P.M. Present: DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Holman arrived at 5:08 P.M., Kou, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach arrived at 5:13 P.M. Absent: Kniss Closed Session 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS This Item will not be heard this evening and will be rescheduled. 1A. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Govt. Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant/Respondent) 429 University Avenue; Appeal of Director of Planning and Community Environment's Architectural Review Approval of a Development Application. Mayor Scharff: Now, we have a Closed Session, which is a conference with City Attorney regarding potential litigation, significant exposure to litigation under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2). One potential case is defendant/respondent, 429 University Avenue, appeal of Director of Planning and Community Environment's Architectural Review approval of the development application. Do we have any public speakers? Beth Minor, City Clerk: Yes. You have a card there. Mayor Scharff: Yes, I do. Herb Borock. Herb Borock: Thank you, Mayor Scharff. First, I noticed on the Agenda that Vice Mayor Kniss might be participating. Mayor Scharff: She won't be. I'll just … TRANSCRIPT Page 27 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 schedule a contractor to perform the abatement. If we then still have to actually perform the abatement, it's the cost of the abatement plus $434 to cover our costs because I'm here tonight as I am in several other jurisdictions. There is a lot of work involved in what we have to do to ensure that we're, one, dealing with the correct property owner, which is part of what I said we would take care of, making sure we weren't in the wrong spot, and to run through the process of being able to help people in case, like I said, there could be a misunderstanding or any of those things that we would like to address and make sure that we're accurate. Council Member Kou: Thank you. Mayor Scharff: With that, seeing no further lights, I will move the Staff recommendation which is to adopt the attached Resolution, Attachment A, ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. Council Member Holman: Second. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to adopt a Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. Mayor Scharff: Second by Council Member Holman. If we could vote on the board. That passes unanimously with Vice Mayor Kniss absent. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Mayor Scharff: I forgot to mention that Vice Mayor Kniss wanted me to say that the reason she is absent is she has a family emergency that she needed to take care of. That's why she's not here tonight. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: To Consider a Continued Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 Square-foot, Four Story, Mixed use Building With Parking Facilities on two Subterranean Levels on an 11,000 Square-foot Site. Environmental Assessment: the Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P). The Council Previously Considered This Appeal on November 30, 2015 and Remanded it to the Architectural Review Board for Redesign and Further Review Based on Council’s Direction. Mayor Scharff: Now, we're moving onto Item Number 11. We are approximately 30 minutes behind schedule already. Does Staff have—let me go through a couple of things first. I knew we had something. A couple of TRANSCRIPT Page 28 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 things. This is a public hearing on 429 University Avenue, to consider a continued appeal of the Director's Architectural Review approval of a four- story mixed-use building. The Council previously considered this appeal on November 30th, 2015, and remanded it to the Architectural Review Board for redesign and further review based on the Council's direction. I wanted to review a little bit the procedure so everyone understands what we're doing tonight and everyone has a clear concept. The first thing is we'll do Council disclosures. Then, we're going to have a Staff presentation. Then, the appellant will have 10 minutes to present, and then the applicant will have 10 minutes to present. Then, we'll take public comment. It's going to be three minutes per speaker. Don't feel you have to use all three minutes. After public comments, the appellant and the applicant will each have three minutes for rebuttal. After we close the public comments, we'll do a round of Council questions and comments before we move onto general Council motions. First, we'll start with the Council disclosures of any ex parte communications. I, first of all, see Council Member Tanaka's light on. Council Member Tanaka: The first question is actually for the City Attorney. As the City Attorney knows, I have received a donation from the applicant. Is there any legal reason that I need to recuse myself from this meeting? Molly Stump, City Attorney: Based on that fact, there's not a legal requirement for recusal in this matter. Council Member Tanaka: I do have some disclosures. Even though I'm not legally required to recuse myself, I decided because of the proximity of time of when I received the donation that I would return it. I did contact the applicant to return the donation. I talked to also the appellant, Michael Harbour. I spoke to him for about maybe 40 minutes, maybe almost an hour. What I learned in the meeting was that he opposed the project because he said it has too much square footage. The project was too large. That was his primary reason for opposing this project. I subsequently had an email exchange with Molly Stump copied on it where he was asking to meet with me in person. I told him that I would follow the policy I did on the PTC, which was that I would only meet with him if he would also meet with the applicant at the same time. He basically declined to do that and basically said that—he basically compared it to having a rape victim meet their rapist, which I didn't quite understand, but that was his comment. Those are the only disclosures I have. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I had a short, probably about 10-minute, phone call with the appellant over a week ago. He notified me that Option 3 in the TRANSCRIPT Page 29 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Packet was submitted after the last ARB meeting. He asked about recusals, and I pointed him to the public internet where there are descriptions of conflict of interest. Other than that, I did not learn anything that's not in the public record. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Thank you. I have met the applicant at social gatherings, I believe, at the Rotary Club, where she indicated she wanted a fair hearing. I responded to the appellant, and we did set up a meeting. After seeing where this was going, I canceled that meeting. I didn't learn anything from either of them outside of the record, just that both of them want a fair hearing. I appreciate them reaching out. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I had a couple of brief exchanges with the appellant. There was a message left for me, looking for contact information for, as I recall it, a couple of Council Members for whom contact information he was not able to find. By the time I could get back to him, he found them in other ways. The other communication I had from him, when I did speak with him, was that he contacted me regarding meeting procedures for appellants, was it required that the appellant, the applicant and the City Attorney all be present for a meeting with a Council Member regarding a project as had been requested of him. I indicated I was not aware of any such requirements. That would be something new to me. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I'm not sure if it's required at this point, but I may as well just mention that prior to, I think, our last discussion about this project back in 2015, I spoke with the applicant and also met with the appellant and did a site tour with the appellant. Nothing new since that time. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: I had a phone call with the appellant. He just wanted to catch me up and find out if I was up-to-date on this project. I told him I was. Mayor Scharff: Seeing no other lights except my own, I also had a short phone call with the appellant, Michael Harbour. Mr. Harbour informed me— we spoke about 10 minutes—about his opposition to the project. He thought it was incompatible with the Victorians on Kipling Street. That was basically TRANSCRIPT Page 30 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 the substance of the call. I did receive a voice mail from the applicant, talking about procedural issues regarding whether or not—why she did not want to put this matter off to a later date. With that, I think I'll now open the public hearing and first invite the Staff presentation. Public Hearing opened at 8:20 P.M. Jonathan Lait, Planning and Community Environment Assistant Director: Thank you, Mayor, and good evening, City Council. My name is Jonathan Lait. I'm the Assistant Director to the Planning and Community Environment Department. I'm joined by Director Hillary Gitelman and Mr. Petersen from M Group. He's our consulting planner, who has assisted us with this project. The Item that is before you this evening is an appeal of an Architectural Review Board approval for a proposed four-story, mixed-use project located at 429 University. The project includes two levels of subterranean parking, ground-floor retail and office and residential above that. The project was filed about—it was filed in June 2014 formally. The project received three formal hearings before the Architectural Review Board before the Director's decision was rendered in February 2015. An appeal was filed. City Council had pulled the Item off of Consent and scheduled it for a hearing. It had a hearing in May. At the hearing in May, the City Council had a number of questions that were asked, and the Council had remanded the matter to the Historic Resources Board and to the Architectural Review Board. At that meeting, the Council had discussed a number of issues related to the project, project findings, parking, loading zone requirements, the transfer of development rights, historic resources, and some other issues. The next couple of meetings before the HRB and the Architectural Review Board vetted out some of those issues. It returned to the City Council on November 30, 2015. Eleven months since that time, the applicant proceeded with modifying the project in an effort to respond to those comments and direction. In September last year, the applicant submitted a schematic drawing of a design scheme that Staff believed was heading in the right direction in terms of being responsive to the Council Members' comments. The Architectural Review Board also was supportive of the project; although, they did have some critical comments that they had asked the applicant to follow up on. At the subsequent meeting in October, the applicant had chosen to go a different path according to comments from individual Board Members, who felt that the project was actually now taking a step backwards. It was on this October 20th meeting that the Architectural Review Board recommended that the City Council uphold the appeal and deny the project. Following that action, the applicant submitted a refined version of that September 1 plan, which Staff is calling Option 1. Staff believes that that is the option that is most responsive to Council Member comments. In December, two months later, the applicant had TRANSCRIPT Page 31 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 submitted a third version, the third being an iteration of Option 1 that added another approximately 2,600 square feet of additional floor area at the fourth floor. Option 2 in our discussion is going to be the plan that the Architectural Review Board recommended denial on. That takes us to the meeting that we're having here this evening. Just to reorient or familiarize those unfamiliar with the project site, it is located at the corner of Kipling Street and University Avenue at 429 University. This is a photograph, the first one, looking southwest down University. The project site is toward the right, in the center-right of that photograph. The bottom photograph is taken from Kipling Street and down Lane 30. This is the area behind the subject project site. It's looking at the subject property; it's the rear property line. On November 30th, the City Council gave Staff clear direction—we should say that the comments that the City Council had offered at that point were focused on the context and design compatibility. The City Council gave specific comments with respect to four Context Based Design Criteria, which are set forth in the Municipal Code that the Council felt the project needed to respond to and additional Architectural Review Board findings. With respect to the Context Based Design Criteria, the Council was concerned that the proposed project—the contextual and compatible criteria set forth in the Code regarding the siting, scale, and mass of the project still needed some work; that the compatibility goal in relation to the pattern of rooflines and projections still needed to be evaluated; and that the proposed design, the street building facades needed some additional work to address the human scale and help break up the building mass. With respect to direction from the Council regarding Architectural Review Board findings, the Council expressed concern about the compatibility and appropriateness of the materials and textures; felt that the design's compatibility with the area as having a unified design character had not been achieved; that the design's compatibility with the immediate environment still needed to be addressed. With respect to that last point, this is a line diagram. The top part of the slide is showing the proposed project in relationship to the adjacent one and two-story buildings along University Avenue. The below photograph is a street view of those properties to the southwest or left of that project site. As viewed from Kipling, the proposed project separated by an alley from the one-story building on Kipling. As you continue down Kipling, there is the Victorian architecture that exists on both sides of the street. The photograph below is the street view of that one-story building looking toward the subject project site. Here's a summary of the three options that are presented to the City Council. Again, Option 1 is the one that Staff believes is most responsive to prior comments and direction. It has three residential dwelling units. Option 2 is the one that was rejected by the Architectural Review Board. That had five residential units. Option 3 is the plan that was submitted in December by the applicant. This is their plan that they are putting forth as TRANSCRIPT Page 32 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 their project. That's the one that they would like to have an action on. Some renderings of the different options. This is Option 1 as viewed from University Avenue. We don't have a rendering from Kipling Street as the applicant chose not to further develop that rendering for Kipling on this design. However, there is—the rendering for Option 3 is very similar to Option 1. You'll see that in just a moment. This is the Option 2 plan that was reviewed by the Board on October 20th and recommended for denial. Again, just to go back on Option 1 for a moment. The Architectural Review Board did review a schematic drawing of Option 1 on September 1. That plan was refined a little bit after the Architectural Review Board made its decision on this project. This is Option 2 from Kipling. Option 3, the design that was submitted in December, from University Avenue you can see there's additional building mass on the roof toward the left of the project. It also extends further toward the rear property line toward the alley. This is the view of Option 3 from Kipling Street. This same perspective is very similar to what we believe to be the Option 1 rendering as viewed from this perspective. As you shift further down Kipling, you would get a different perspective of the proposed Option 3 versus Option 1, but that's revealed in the line drawings. We can walk the Council through that if you're interested. Here's a collection of the three different options as viewed from University and viewed from Kipling. Again, we're suggesting that Option 1 and 3 from this perspective look similar. As I stated previously, Staff believes that Option 1 is the one that is most responsive to comments from the Council regarding building mass and transitions. If the Council is interested in pursuing this option or, frankly, any of the options—actually I would say Option 1 or Option 3—there are some conditions that Staff has considered. We've included those in the Staff Report; we can address these specifically if there's any interest in that. Again, the Architectural Review Board's recommending rejection of Option 2. The applicant's proposed alternative, Option 3, is included with this Packet for the Council's consideration. With that, Staff recommends that the Council direct the Staff to prepare a Record of Land Use Action to deny the appeal, approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program, and approve either Options 1, 2 or 3 with or without conditions. Alternatively, the Council could choose to uphold the appeal and deny a modified project, Options 1, 2 and 3, based on the ARB's October 20th recommendation and a finding that the design modifications have not addressed the Council's previous concerns. Staff would return at a future date with that Record of Land Use Action to memorialize the Council's action. With that, I will turn it back to the Mayor. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. With that, we now go to the appellant. Dr. Harbour, are you here? You'll have 10 minutes. TRANSCRIPT Page 33 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Michael Harbour, Appellant: Thank you, City Council Members and Mr. Mayor. Congratulations on your new appointments here, to be sure. These five buildings are the buildings that are slated to be torn down and the new development put there. Listed here are all the appellants; I'm representing the appellants here this evening. I want to remind people why we are here. On May 4, 2015, the Council spent a great deal of time making a Motion to the applicant about what the new plans should entail going forward. I've summarized these five points. Specifically, the project, number one, should have design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of both University and—this is important— Kipling Street are maintained. The plans were to be resubmitted to the ARB, and the ARB was specifically to look at the compatibility of the immediate environment; ensure design articulation and setbacks that minimize massing; to look at the roof, entries, setbacks, mass, and scale; and that they must conform to the Context Based Design Criteria. The building's façade shall have greater reinforcement of the relationship of the street. The upper floors shall have setbacks. Specifically I've highlighted there was an option of either third or fourth floors approved if they are visually compatible from the streets and had articulation and setback both from University and Kipling. The HRB had weighed in on this previously and unanimously, 5-0, rejected this plan. Most recently, the ARB 3-0 unanimously rejected the plans as well. Shadow studies and traffic studies were also indicated. What I want to let you know is that this appeal is rooted in violation of the Municipal Palo Alto Codes. The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires harmonious transition in scale and character and that are considerate of each other, in the Codes listed there. The design should follow the Context Based Design Criteria. In addition, the building should be responsive to the context and compatible with adjacent buildings, should have appropriate transitions, and have visible unity on the street. My argument has never been on size or square footage alone, as Council Member Tanaka incorrectly said. The appeal is also rooted in violation of the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Development Guidelines. This massive building discourages the use of Downtown alleyways for pedestrian and bicycle only use and prevents shops from opening onto the alleyway. That's listed in the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Development Guidelines very specifically. Just as Centennial Alleyway has been developed to open up businesses there, this alleyway has been requested to do the same thing. Finally, Kipling Street is designated a secondary business district. There should be recognition and consideration for this as well, which has been ignored. Again, that's part of the Downtown Design Guidelines. We've seen many, many renditions. The applicant is on the fourth or fifth architect. The first design was deemed not compatible. It showed no shared characteristics or design linkages with the neighboring buildings. You can see the big white structure there. It was large and massive and detracted TRANSCRIPT Page 34 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 from pedestrian-oriented design. The next design was not compatible as well. The architect just moved the third and fourth floors back to the rear of the building, just stacking up all the massing at the rear of the building. It worsened the mass effect from Kipling Street and the alleyway. Today, you are miraculously being given three different designs with which to choose from. None of these—I want to point out this. This is so important. None of these in their exact form have been vetted or approved or even viewed by the ARB. Option 1, the original was rejected, and this is a modification of that. The ARB has not seen this or discussed this at all. Option 2 was seen and rejected. Option 3 has never been seen. If you view and approve Option 3, this has not even been seen by the ARB. I think it's inappropriate for you to be acting as architects here and approving a building that's never been seen by them. This is the scale of mass of this building. The size and mass is not compatible with the neighboring buildings. This is the view from Kipling Street. It's a four-plus-story structure. You need to know it's four stories plus an additional 15 feet for HVAC and elevator shafts. Parts of the building are 55—excuse me, 65 feet tall. This is the one-story building next door to it. It just hovers over it. There's no transition. The four-plus-story building overwhelms its one-story neighbors. Inappropriate size and massing, it's a massive building that will shadow Kipling Street and the alleyway. Then, unfortunately it turns the alleyway into a busy one-way street to service the in-and-out garage. This is the secondary business district that's listed in the Downtown Design Guidelines. Whether they are going to be adhered to or even recognized or given a nod, this is what it states there, that the Varsity Theatre, which is a mission revival designed building, is worthy of being consulted and looked at as part of whatever's across the street. Peet's Coffee is a Spanish mission-style building. It states right in the Guidelines that the new buildings should have tie-ins to the Varsity Theatre, which this building does not. I want to show you just how purposely—I'm saying purposely—misleading the view from the alleyway is to—the view of this building is from the alleyway. The architect has designed this brick-layered street, looking like it's a wide promenade with trees in the alleyway and flowers. The alleyway has no trees, no flowers at all. It's making this look like this is something that's being viewed from the front side. It's hard to see, but this corner is directly across the street from one of the residences on Kipling Street. It's a stairwell. It's a stairwell and elevator shaft. It's not a pedestrian or business-friendly corner, and it's not visibly appealing from those across at the residences. How would you like to look out your front door and see a stairwell or an elevator shaft? The other thing is this big alcove right here. An alleyway that has a big alcove (inaudible) people to hide in there. People will be scared walking down the street. It's just not appropriate, has not been well thought out. Here's the traffic on Kipling Street as it currently is. These are recent photos. This photo on the right was given to me by the owners just TRANSCRIPT Page 35 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 this week of Vino Locale, who are also one of the appellants here. This is standing on the front steps of Vino Locale, showing that cars can barely get by one another. The owner of Vino Locale, JC Andrade, told me that if he just stands out there long enough these cars keep hitting their side mirrors against each other. It's just a demolition derby all day long. Putting a big building with in-and-out traffic on the corner will just make this worse. Michaela Dieffenbach who has also appeared here before you is against this building. She says that it's going to—the traffic will destroy her business here as well as the construction. She owns Stapleton Flowers or Michaela's Flowers. Then, we have the big, massive wall that will be right across the street from Yoga Works. The peaceful entrance of Yoga Works destroyed by the 4 1/2-story, massed building along the alleyway and the in-and-out traffic. I will save the rest of my short presentation for the summary. What I'd like to do is have you ask me questions. I've been dealing with this for 2 1/2 years. I know it backwards and forwards. I've become an expert in Municipal Code, Downtown Development Guidelines, things that I never thought that I would have to learn before. Again, what we'll talk about in the summary is some of the ways forward hopefully. I don't think this is the appropriate way with which to deal with this. Unfortunately the applicants have stonewalled every attempt of working together. I have attended every ARB meeting for the past 2 1/2 years. I've attended every meeting with the architect, and I've met with the applicant multiple times. It is true I asked not to meet with the applicant again because I've been so harassed and harangued, been called names, that I did not want to go through that again. That was my reason that I told Council Member Tanaka that I did not want to go through that again. Thank you very much for your time. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, we'll go to the applicant. Applicant's team will have 10 minutes. Timothy Kassouni, Attorney for the Applicant: Good evening, Honorable Mayor Scharff and fellow City Council Members. My name is Timothy Kassouni of the firm Kassouni Law. I represent the project applicant, Kipling Post LP. My full comments are contained in my two letters from January 30th and my most recent letter of February 2nd. As will be explained, the appeal should be denied and Option 3 of the project approved. My comments will be followed by those of the project architect wherein the specific details of the design will be explained. As you can see here, there's four primary legal aspects to be considered by the City Council. The first is a taking, which I'll get into a moment. Second is the City has illegally granted the appellant de facto veto power over the project's design. What you'll see here on the bottom is the original, approved design by the ARB. On the top is the Option 3 before the City Council right now. The question that anybody of a reasonable mind might ask is why is the top project being TRANSCRIPT Page 36 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 denied and the bottom one was approved by the ARB. Frankly, there is no reason other than pure politics. This project has a long history. To me in reviewing the record, it became very apparent that every step of the way the appellant simply liked the Victorian design and has used every conceivable, purely subjective excuse to impede approval. While it is appropriate for this City Council to consider the input of the appellant, that consideration has transmogrified into flat-out veto power in contravention of State law and the due process rights of Kipling Post. I have a few examples in my prior correspondence. Here's a few that bear repeating. In email dated August 31, 2016 between the City's Manager of Current Planning, Jodie Gerhardt, and the appellant, Ms. Gerhardt seeks the guidance and approval of the appellant regarding design changes. "If you can also describe what a compatible building would look like, that would be helpful. Should it only be two stories next to a one-story, existing building and step- up from there? Is three stories okay if the roofline is minimized?" In a November 22, 2016 email to me personally, Planning Director Hillary Gitelman wrote, "I hope that your client will preview her new plans with appellant to see if she can resolve his ongoing concerns." Not the concerns of the ARB, the appellant's concerns. At the March 17, 2016 ARB hearing regarding one of the numerous design revisions, Chair Gooyer stated, "I think we're in a situation. We've heard from the person who appealed it to the City Council. If we recommend a building like this, he'll just appeal it again." That the City's Architectural Review Board perceives itself as being held hostage to the whims of the appellant is an abrogation of its role as a neutral body, and that abrogation and undue deference has unfortunately permeated the Planning Department. As the Court of Appeal held in Ross versus City of Yorba Linda in 1991, "In restricting individual rights by exercise of the police power, neither a municipal corporation nor the State Legislature itself can deprive an individual of property rights by a plebiscite of neighbors. Such action is arbitrary and unlawful. In short, an exercise of approval power cannot be made to depend upon a count of noses." I want to reserve five minutes for the architectural team. If I could get maybe— where am I now, four minutes? Mayor Scharff: Five minutes and (inaudible) seconds. Mr. Kassouni: I'll just wrap up. This segues into a related constitutional defect in the City's Code, which imposes so many vague, ambiguous, and entirely subjective design criteria as to render them unworkable and meaningless on their face and as applied to Kipling Post. The project conforms to every objective design criteria. In this case, the vague Codes have been latched onto by the appellant as the only means by which to criticize the project. There is no explicit, textual limitations on the City's discretion. Unbridled discretionary grounds are inherent in phrases such as TRANSCRIPT Page 37 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 harmonious transitions, rhythmic patterns, design linkages. In its August 4th ARB hearing, one ARB Board Member felt that the project feels mysterious. These kinds of vague and unworkable standards should be rejected. There are also equal protection concerns and taking concerns under the Fifth Amendment, particularly with respect to the Kipling Post transferrable development rights. I encourage the City Council to review those letters. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Joseph Bellomo, Project Architect: Good evening. My name's Joseph Bellomo. I'm the architect for the project. I apologize; I'm not feeling well. I came down with the flu, but it's important that I'm here. I've lived and worked on Kipling and University Avenue for 35 years, so I'm familiar with the fabric of the Downtown. I designed the parking structure for the City of Palo Alto, the buildings on the circle, 116 and 102 University Avenue, served on the ARB, served on the Planning Commission here, worked on Johnson Park design. I love Palo Alto. I'm definitely here to stay. The project that you're seeing today is eclectic in nature. It's expresses the structural systems much like the project at 102 University Avenue. It's a sustainable concrete we've developed. It's a proprietary mix. The building here at 429 has a combination of steel, glass, honest materials expressing the structure and minimal layering. We'll approach LEED with a platinum here, for sure. A scale model would be helpful, to bring it up there. You guys want to see it? You guys okay? There's a (inaudible) in here. It's a 55-foot building here. Again, I apologize. I'll introduce Pratima Shah, and she'll take it from here. Thank you. Pratima Shah, Bellomo Architects: I guess I have only two or three minutes left. I will quickly … Mayor Scharff: Two. Ms. Shah: Two. I will quickly summarize. We have two levels of basement parking for 17 cars each, first floor retail, second floor commercial, third floor residential, three residences, and fourth floor one commercial and one residential unit. This is the program we are proposing for Council's review. This is the first-floor plan with retail space. We have kept the 20-foot storefront rhythm that we tried to maintain here. Second floor has 10-foot setback from the alley side, which can be used as a breakout space for offices. Third floor has seven-foot eight-inches setback from both Kipling Street and University Street and 10-foot setback from the alley. Fourth floor has a maximum setback of 37-foot from the Kipling Street, approximately 20-foot from University Avenue and 10-foot from the alley. This is the TRANSCRIPT Page 38 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 elevation from the Kipling side. As you see, the fourth floor is minimally visible. This is a sustainability slide which explains what we tried to achieve, basically honest building materials with exposed structure. This is a pedestrian-oriented design. What we tried to achieve is zero front and side line setbacks, building of varied architectural styles which is the eclectic style of Palo Alto Downtown, attractive street-facing window displays, and porticoes which demarcate the building entries. As per Municipal Code, we tried to use the overhangs which protect the openings of the buildings. This is a view of the alley and Kipling. As you see, we tried to minimize the massing on the corner of the Kipling and the alley. We have totally eliminated the mass which was earlier approved and proposed by earlier revisions. Done? Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Ms. Shah: Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Now we'll return to the public. Our first speaker is Beth Bunnenberg, to be followed by Ray Hing. Beth Bunnenberg: Hello, members of the City Council. I'm Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street in Palo Alto. I'm speaking tonight as an individual to review with you a little bit of the history of 429 University. News reports from September of 2015, in those I was quoted as saying that the new plans for this building changed the whole landscape of that section of University Avenue. It went on to say that there were several nearby buildings designed by Birge Clark, who really has been the, in some ways, architect of Palo Alto. They all have decorative fronts, often tile. Now, right across Kipling from this proposed building was the Swain Music Company building, but it probably is better known as the first Apple store. Who can forget the Apple store with Post-Its? When Steve Jobs died, all those windows were filled with comments. This is an important building in town. Across University Avenue, there's several small Birge Clark buildings that are fairly close to the Varsity Theatre. They also have some tile front. Some of them might be one building, but it appears to have two fronts. The HRB comments included the fact that the mass and scale of the building would be a very negative impact. The HRB voted in early September that the building plans were not compatible. I ask you to look at these new plans and keep in mind the concepts that the HRB was working for. Thank you very much. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Ray Hing to be followed by Amy Sung. Yungluy (Ray) Hing: The Honorable Mayor, Council Members, this is my first time to participate in the City of Palo Alto Council meeting. Officially, my name is Ray Hing. My official name is Yungluy Hing. Officially I become a TRANSCRIPT Page 39 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 resident in February 2016. When I came over here, I met with a group of Chinese community, group of Chinese living in Palo Alto. They told me two things. I need to get involved and involved quickly. One is the election in 2016. One is 429 University Avenue. I did study; I did read this thick of the email. I find out the majority of people that against the building is because it's massive. It was a different architectural design. If Palo Alto's going to be the international favorite city for innovation and for going forward in the future, it's going to have change whatever the environment, the architect. After looking into it, after talking to (inaudible) Chinese New Year, last Saturday I believe—I attended so many Chinese New Year party I don't remember what it is. I come to the conclusion that after two—somebody said two, somebody said three, somebody four—four years of reviewing all this, after the changing from Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, one starts wondering why this is continuing to be delay on deny. Our community recommend that we go ahead and approve the building and move forward, looking for the better Palo Alto so all the public including the City can benefit from this development. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Amy Sung to be followed by Cheryl Lilienstein. Amy Sung: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members, Staff. My name is Amy Sung, and I live in Palo Alto. I'm a realtor, but tonight I'm here standing before you as somebody who's really interested in the future of Palo Alto. I'm here to seek and urge you to—I'm here to support the 429 University project. I urge you to grant it the permit that it seeks. Let me start by saying that this project really is good for Palo Alto's bottom line while it helps Palo Alto to achieve the goals that it wishes to achieve. First and foremost is that it will help with our goal of S/CAP and that is Sustainability and the Climate Action Plan. A new building is going to reduce the energy requirement and energy use. In addition to that, it will have to meet all the Green Building Codes. That will substantially reduce the energy use. That really fulfills the goal that Palo Alto is seeking. Number Two, this is a mixed- use building that encompasses retail spaces, offices and some housing units. If for nothing else, this could serve as a model to make a Downtown hub of living, working, and entertainment. This is the model, the lifestyle change that we're seeing everywhere. If for nothing else, for this four residential units that it proposes, we hope to remove four cars that occupies our busy streets and parking lot. Number three, it will help with Affordable Housing Fund. Because it is a new building, I don't know how much it will cost. I (inaudible) it cost a lot. The impact fees that it will contribute to the Affordable Housing Fund which, I think, is a good thing. That also will help us to achieve our goal for affordable housing. Finally, when the building is finally completed, it will really, really help our County for this tax reassessment. It will really help our bottom line to collect more property TRANSCRIPT Page 40 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 tax. That will in turn help our City coffer, our schools, and our park. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Cheryl Lilienstein to be followed by Vita Borgunova. Cheryl Lilienstein: In looking through the Staff Report, there is direction that says where new projects are built abutting existing, lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties through transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible with lower-intensity, surrounding uses. Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller-scale buildings including setbacks and daylight planes, etc. Respecting privacy of neighboring structures with windows and upper-floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties. Minimizing sightlines into and from neighboring properties. Limit sun and shade impacts on abutting properties. In looking at the Shadow Study that was produced by—who was that? Something ending with E-K. I forget. You can see that on the left here that's what it looks like today. That's the shadow. With the building proposed going in, that shadow is certainly going to be a lot different. Michael, can you get me to the shadow slides? The proposal shows the upper part. The upper schematic is what the situation would be at the winter solstice at 3:00 p.m., given the present condition. That's where the shadow is. The lower slide shows where the shadow will be if this building is allowed to be built as is. It certainly intrudes all the way over the yoga studio and also into the front yards and the front faces and the roofs, although it doesn't show it, of the buildings across Kipling. This is at 9:00 a.m. What does it do at 9:00 a.m.? Again, the upper slide shows where the building casts a shadow today and where that shadow would be cast if the building is allowed to be built. This is obviously not taking into consideration the quality of life for the people, the alleyway, the pedestrians, and the residents who are living alongside. It's really not compatible. I would like this to be sent back to the ARB. I wish that the requirements that the City Council established in 2016 were something that the applicant had responded to instead of just giving you another version of the same thing. Thank you. Council Member Filseth: Thank you very much. The next speaker will be Vita Borgunova, to be followed by Mark Mollineaux. Vita Borgunova: Hello again. I'm resident of Everett Avenue, about three blocks from the proposed project. I'm here to support an appeal of TRANSCRIPT Page 41 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Mr. Harbour and urge you to deny proposed development plans. To my surprise, this project made it back to the Council. No changes were made, and concerns the Council had a year ago are not addressed. The building is still a huge brick taking over half the block and replacing three distinctly separate buildings. It's still utterly incompatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Airbnb actually says so. Developer just haphazardly slopped some architectural elements taken from already-approved buildings in Palo Alto and just played for time, waiting for the new Council to take over and hoping to influence you with donations. Now, they present it to us with a set of alternative facts. Honestly speaking, there is no alternative facts. There is facts of life. I see (inaudible) interest in it. They're getting five times square footage they have now and more than six times actually, if you count underground. I don't see what's in it for Palo Alto. It will worsen our parking problem Downtown. It will worsen our office/housing imbalance. It will definitely not going to be an architectural gem. Nothing to be proud of. All of that on top of not following City's rules and guidelines. Honestly speaking, this project reminds me of the Cinderella inside out. It's like the stepmother is forcing ugly daughter's shoe on Cinderella. It's still size 13, like nothing what you do. It doesn't (inaudible). Developer wasted already Staff time, resources, now wasting my taxes, my time and your time too. Please deny the project. Developer apparently has no intention to work with the City on making this project and have no regard for City's resources and for good of the community. It's not true there is no other way to build it here. Walk along University Avenue and you will see plenty of modern architecture buildings which are working with the old neighbors. Somehow the owners, I guess, were not that greedy. All the reason you need to deny is imagining the University Avenue full of those projects of the same buildings. Here I am. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Mark Mollineaux to be followed by Rita Vrhel. Mark Mollineaux: Hi there. My name is Mark Mollineaux. I graduated from Stanford, and I currently live in Redwood City. I live in a warehouse in Redwood City. Just this week, I learned that my landlord has sold the warehouse, so I am not going to be living there very soon. All us equal, I would like to live in Palo Alto. It's very close to Stanford University, and I do work at Stanford University. However, rents all through the Peninsula, especially in Palo Alto, are really not very affordable. Buying a place around here is just impossible. Let's be frank about it. The question is why is this the case. It's a matter of supply; there's just not enough supply for all the renters and all the homeowners to be able to live on this limited amount of land. One small part of this is the approval process. Here in the Palo Alto City Council, it has arbitrary standards. It can find any reason to deny something, inconsistent massing, design linkages, unharmonious transitions. TRANSCRIPT Page 42 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 You can make anything up to say why something shouldn't be approved. It's clear how this reflects a broken system. Homeowners, landowners in the area shielded from the effects of the limited supply through Prop 13 have every incentive to deny every single project. Why would they? Why would you allow a project? You don't really have any effect to you. You might make up any perceived slight to just shoot it down because there's really no balance to counteract it. In a more perfect world, residents who want to have a lower density living, they would pay for it with higher taxes. Prop 13 made this not the case. In any case, my tax dollars go to Palo Alto for its infrastructure, so I feel like I'm not getting my money's worth (inaudible) finding a place where I might be able to live. Anyway, the failure of Palo Alto to make an approval system that will actually supply this housing is catching the attention of Sacramento more and more every day. It's really up to Palo Alto to either solve its housing problem or have Sacramento try to solve it for them. I think Palo Alto has the potential to make it happen. Downtown Palo Alto, this is supposed to be the low-hanging fruit. You need to add housing. Three to five units in this place has become this massive train wreck of this approval process. How are you going to get any housing built if this blows up this way? You need to figure out big picture—what's your plan here? The problem's not going away. This is just one more example of how this is just kind of a wreck. Thanks very much for your time. Mayor Scharff: Rita Vrhel to be followed by Neilson Buchanan. Rita Vrhel: I have so much to say. I feel like we've seen this pig before. It keeps coming back, and it's got a little new dress on, but it's still the same fat pig that doesn't fit Downtown. I remember last year, Mayor Scharff, when you said when the applicant came back, "Why are you here?" The answer was that she couldn't get her way at the ARB. You said to her, "You need to follow the Codes." You actually shook your finger at her and said— do you remember this? I do. It was wonderful. You said, "We can take a very long, long time to approve your project." Why is this project back here again? You have the ARB, which apparently hasn't even seen some of these designs, and you're going to approve something. I think the attorney was a little disingenuous. I can see why Dr. Harbour feels like he has been slammed. I heard some very veiled threats on if you don't approve this project. To the young man who would like to live in Palo Alto, who spoke before me, these are luxury apartments. These are large, luxury apartments. All that the Planning and Transportation Commission and the ARB did was ask the applicant to reduce the size. I feel like this applicant is wasting your time, our time. Obviously it doesn't have the approval from most of the community. This is not a Chinese community versus the rest of us situation. This is an ugly building which is going to be replacing a very TRANSCRIPT Page 43 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 charming building next to a charming street. I really hope that you will send all of this back to the ARB with clear directions to follow the rules, the Codes and what you had previously said. Thank you very much. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Neilson Buchanan to be followed by Sam Arsan. Neilson Buchanan: Good evening, Council. I would like to put a little bit different twist on the comments that have been made. A couple of voices have been echoing in my head for the last couple of weeks, thinking about this evening. One of those voices is Roxy Rapp. Several years ago when I first started hanging out in City Hall, Roxy made several presentations about the maximum use of the side streets that are perpendicular to University Avenue. I can't go through what he said, but basically he was saying those are treasures, and we should be developing those to draw people down the small streets for special places. I got confirmation of that in a course I'm taking at Stanford about Paris. Believe me, I'm not standing in front of you saying I've gone to four lectures, and I have the foggiest grasp of Paris. I do know, having learned a little about 300 or 400 years of Paris, that it's constantly changing, and that they really have paid great attention to special places. They recommended that you walk around town in daylight, prime hours, and evening hours at head level and take a look at the streets. I did that on the streets that radiate from Downtown North to University Avenue. I walked both ways and all the streets. I could rate the streets, but it really doesn't matter. Kipling is a very special opportunity. Anything that's built on Kipling should be special because it radiates from University Avenue like in Paris all the way to the park in Downtown North. That should be a very special pedestrian walkway. I don't think this building enhances it. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Sam Arsan to be followed by Jared Bernstein. Sam Arsan: Good evening. My name is Sam Arsan. I represent several landlords and tenants in Downtown Palo Alto. I also manage and lease several buildings in the Downtown area. I've been working in Downtown Palo Alto for over 20 years now. I think this building is very well designed, and it's very attractive. It's a welcome addition to this part of University Avenue. I have several tenants and landlords that are concerned about the delays that we've been having with this. The building is unfortunately in need of a lot of repairs, and it needs to be redeveloped and replaced. I'm hoping that you will approve this project. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Jared Bernstein to be followed by Karin Alana. Jared Bernstein: Hello. I'm Jared Bernstein, 1330 Tasso Street. I'm coming out of the blue because I wanted to talk to you guys for the last six months TRANSCRIPT Page 44 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 on this topic, but I didn't know it was so fraught. It's really amazing. I didn't expect this level of emotion on the topic. Maybe eight, nine years ago, I was planning to build a house. I went through the Building Code at the same time Elizabeth Wong was. I was reading about it in the newspaper. The neighbors didn't want Elizabeth Wong to build this building. I wondered why. If she's got the approval and she meets all the requirements, why can't she just build her house? It's a house on Webster somewhere. Never met Elizabeth Wong. Then, I saw this thing. It's like there's all of a sudden a building that's completely okay and conforms with all the rules. For some reason, it got stopped. This was maybe two years ago because I read the newspaper every week cover to cover. Recently, I figured out it's Elizabeth Wong again. Just recently, I met Elizabeth Wong somewhere. She had a nametag. I said, "You're Elizabeth Wong." I'm like, "Why is it that people are stopping you from building a building which apparently was originally perfectly approved?" The first time it was okay, and then somebody opposed it. For some reason, the tail is wagging the dog. If I own a property and I want to build a building and I follow all the rules, it ought to be okay. I think the same thing for every other person. We're trying to be a City of laws and not a City of people, if you know what I mean. All I'm saying is I think it should be approved somehow. I don't know which one, and I don't know all the details. The building is not too ugly; it's not too pretty; it's okay. Just a newspaper reader following it, I was puzzled. I said somebody is stopping this for who knows what reason. At any rate, thank you. You guys really put up with a lot of stuff. It's tough. You have my sympathy. Mayor Scharff: Karin Alana to be followed by Jake Lowenheim. Karim Allana: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Council Members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I live on 611 Webster, which is also in the Downtown area and own a business here as well. I own an architectural engineering company, Allana Buick and Bers in Palo Alto. We employ about 120 employees. I'm very happy to see this building go up. I think that it's a very sustainable building, which is my specialty. It's built out of concrete. It has very efficient daylighting and light and glass that is necessary today in energy efficiency. I'm also pleased to see that a building within the FAR allowable ratio and the zoning is what is allowed here. It's a mixed-use project, which is great, accommodates both people living and working, which is exactly what we need to cut down traffic and people. I also think the building is energy efficient and elegant in construction and architecture. What I am puzzled by is the opposition, especially Mr. Harbour's view. Why would a project that meets all of the City's zoning requirements, all of the FAR requirements face this type of scrutiny from a person that doesn't want it in his neighborhood? This is a NIMBY(Not in my TRANSCRIPT Page 45 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 back yard) issue. As much as I love Downtown Palo Alto, there are parts of it that I don't like. I don't want to be surrounded by tall buildings. I don't want to have a commercial building across my street either, but I take the good with the bad. This is where we live. This is Downtown Palo Alto. We've got to accept what the City allows us to build here. If we just arbitrarily allow people, individuals to put up a fight and listen to them and not allow construction to happen, it's going to be a bad thing. It's going to be bad for businesses like mine. I'm an architectural engineering firm. I depend on construction; I depend on development. I want to see sustainable things built. I want to see laws being followed. If people are following the rules and they're following the laws and they're building within the City guidelines, I just don't get it. I don't see why the City would allow an individual who disagrees with the development, for them to put up such a fight that the developer has to go through this many submissions and this many Architectural Review Board hearings. I thank you for your time. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Karim Allana to be followed by Jake Lowenheim. Jake Lowenheim: You're off by one. I'm Jake. Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I am. They haven't changed it there. They're supposed to have. Mr. Lowenheim: I'm here, and I want to echo the words we just heard. I'm a little bit new to this. I realize there is a lot of you that have quite a lot of passionate feelings about this. For me—many of you may not know this. I was involved in some of the civic projects down here, especially the one that is always everyone's favorite, which is parking. From both sides, I was involved in it because a I'm resident of the neighborhood, but also there's parking and monitoring and other things that I initially got started here in the City. It made me very conscious of what goes on here in terms of pain points that the City has. I want to speak in favor of this project just very quickly because I like the idea that a building that's there at the moment, that is used for office space and other purposes, which does not have its own parking, now has built-in parking if this building goes there. I also like the idea that it's a green and sustainable building that's proposed to be built here. I'm not sure if everyone's aware, but the other pieces of property that are in that block, in between Waverley and Kipling, there's a lot of it that's at the moment under construction because there's earthquake-proof things being done. Actually, it's quite a painful process, so I like the idea of something new coming in. To echo also whatever one else says, I think it's fair as long as you are putting something in the footprint of what exists, and you're actually upgrading to what's going on and not expanding past it, and TRANSCRIPT Page 46 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 following the rules. It should be something that should be allowed. That's pretty much all I have to say about it. Thanks for your time. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Meredith Slaughter to be followed by Nikoo Namazian. Meredith Slaughter: Good evening. My name is Meredith Slaughter, and I'm a resident of Downtown Palo Alto. I want to make three points tonight. The first has to do with the project site's close proximity to public transit, both the Caltrain station and the Lytton Avenue bus route. These close proximities make the project and other sites along University as well ideal for mixed-use design and to high-density uses. By building up and varying the land uses within a single project site, we are going to decrease the reliance on the automobile. The second thing I want to talk about tonight or to suggest to the Council is that, when you're considering the compatibility and context-based criteria under the Plan or the Code, the most appropriate application considers not only the existing uses of the immediate environment or the adjacent properties or the abutting properties, depending on the provision that applies, but also the potential uses under the Code. The project site is in the Downtown commercial district. Under the General Plan, it is in the regional center. It is considered a prime area for this type of development. Moreover, Kipling Street, as the appellant has made clear many times, is apparently the narrowest street in Downtown Palo Alto. That makes it even more compatible with a mixed-use, high- density design because narrower streets are inevitably more pedestrian- friendly because they encourage fewer automobiles to come down their travel way. The last thing I want to say tonight is that I hope the Council will consider the implications for future projects, not just this one but future projects that are proposed in the area if you deny this one and the limitations it will place on the City's development. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Nikoo Namazian to be followed by Simone Sadri. Nikoo Namazian: Hi. My name Nikoo Namazian. I've been resident of Palo Alto for last 30 years. I live on East Crescent Drive. I like to make it a little personal here. When we, my husband and I, graduated from college, we lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, around Harvard and MIT and so on. We thought that we live in Cambridge, Massachusetts, forever. When the opportunity to came up and we moved to Silicon Valley and then we chose Palo Alto as our residence, we thought we would miss Cambridge, but we didn't. We never missed that place. This City has a unique and beautiful character. It has been great community to raise my daughter, my only child. This new wave of generation is trying to get to Palo Alto, rent TRANSCRIPT Page 47 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 somewhere, buy something and start up their company and then take it to public and bring a lot of money as taxpayers. When I heard about the proposal, building on 429 University, I was curious. I looked at the plan, and I looked at the architectural drawings. I truly believe that the proposed building is designed tastefully and complements its surroundings. I was very careful when I look at the detail of this project, and I didn't see anything wrong with it. I also believe that, knowing this great City, it keeps Palo Alto's character as diverse as possible. You see modern and traditional, and it's been in-between all over. I'm sure this plan is in benefit of our City too. It's going to bring a lot of tax money after it's built. Why are we waiting? What's the reason behind all these delays? I'd like the City Council approve this. Thank you for your time. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Simone Sadri to be followed by Henie Faghani. Simone Sadri: Good evening. My name is Simone Sadri. I live on 1416 Hamilton Avenue. I'm in favor of this project, and I'm here to urge you to approve the project as it meets the building and Code requirements. It also provides a mix of retail, office and much needed residential units that would contribute to the vitality and vibrancy of a beautiful Palo Alto. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Henie Faghani to be followed by Herb Borock. Henie Faghani: Hi. My name is Henie Faghani. I work in Palo Alto; also I do live in Old Palo Alto. I am pro this project. I do think it's time for us to approve it, since it has met all the Building Code and requirements. The mass and scale has been addressed. It will improve retail, office, residential shortage plus this building has addressed the parking. Thank you for your time. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Herb Borock to be followed by Richard Brand. Herb Borock: Mayor Scharff and Council Members, I urge you to uphold the appeal and to deny the project. The Council over a year ago on November 30, 2015, instead of denying the project sent it back to the Architectural Review Board and directed the applicant to make changes so that the project could be in a form that could be approved by the Council. However, I attended those ARB meetings and, from one meeting to the next, the ARB was prepared to say that the applicant hasn't responded appropriately to the Council's direction. They were ready to send it back to the Council and say they haven't done what you requested. The applicant repeatedly kept asking for more time to change it and sometimes made it worse compared to what the Council was asking the applicant to do. The only thing they've accomplished is to get a different City Council to review the project this evening than the one they had before. I've presented TRANSCRIPT Page 48 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 information based on substantial evidence that the project is larger than it is entitled to be because it is claiming to use bonus square footage from a demolished building and calling it seismic upgrade square footage. When you're presented a fair argument based on substantial evidence, as defined in the environmental law in this case, and it's not mitigated, you have to have an Environmental Impact Report if you want to proceed with the project. Perhaps you might think, "What we should do is direct the applicant to redesign the project after subtracting that amount of square footage." If you did that, you already know what the applicant's going to do. The applicant is not going to do that and will keep asking for more time, while you keep getting more revisions over and over again. Maybe after two years, there will be another Council that the applicant can try to convince what to do. I believe this has been going on too long. The only one who has kept it going this long is the applicant. Rather than following the direction that the Council had previously given the applicant and continuing to ask for more time and hoping that somehow she'll get approval for something that is worse than you saw before. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. I'm just going to interrupt for a second. It's now 9:35. In five minutes, we're supposed to be starting the Stanford GUP. We're clearly behind. We've talked to Stanford, and they're willing to move their presentation to the next Council meeting on February 27th, I think it is. I think we're just going to go with that and do this tonight and not get to the Stanford Item. If you're here for the Stanford Item, we're going to do it on February 27th. Thank you. Richard, go ahead. Richard Brand: Good evening, Council Members. Good to see everybody tonight. Mayor Scharff, it's interesting you're bringing this up because my issue here is policy and procedures. I'm really concerned about you taking your very precious time to deal with a project that should be at the ARB and being adjudicated and redone and looked at all the rules and regulation issue it brings up in the ARB. That said, I'm very concerned about this project. According to the Comp Plan, it's under-parked. You know my sensitivity about parking. One of the things that really concerns me about this is it's a very aggressive proposal. You've seen my note. My brother-in-law's picture is up there, Kirke Comstock. He died last year. He was a Mayor, worked a lot of time. Ethics was a big issue for him. He really felt that this Council was the epitome of how government should be run on a local basis. I'm concerned with the money being spent to push and influence potentially a project of this level on one of our most lovely streets in the City. I will say one thing about this. The appellant had mentioned about the shadow effect. We all love, at least I do, the Palo Alto Celebrates the Arts. In the afternoon in the summertime, if you walk along University Avenue for Palo Alto Celebrates the Arts, big buildings shadow that part of the celebration that TRANSCRIPT Page 49 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 goes on, on a weekend in August. If you have been to the area down east where we call the Bank of America building, the tall building there, that's a shadow area, and it's very cold in the summertime at Palo Alto Celebrates the Arts. This big building is oversized in massing in terms of what it does with the adjacent buildings. While it may meet the rules and regulations, what it doesn't do is meet the look and feel of what our City should be. It has some housing. I know the fellow was talking about housing in Palo Alto. Yes, we need that, but these are luxury apartments. I encourage you to turn this back to the ARB and reject it tonight. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Bill Lou to be followed by Rene Wood. Bill Lou: Good evening. Many words have been said before, so I found out the best way is talk about yourself and personal experience. I've been living here with my family for 18 years, worked at CalTech for a few years. I also lived in Europe for eight years, mainly in Zurich. In Palo Alto, I thought it was good thing to be a builder with watching my kids here. A few years ago, I decided to better use my intelligence, going back to renewable energy. Today's meeting made me feel like I did the right thing. I've been here a few times. ARB processes have not changed. I think today three things. Take away number one, it's still about people not about a Code, which is sad. Second thing, change is inevitable. It's very hard to do it here. Third thing is no brainer to me. The design came from the same architect group who has built here. The initial denial two years ago was clearly a mistake. I've been through that process a few years ago. I'm in support of both Elizabeth and Jaime. The architecture is a natural—it's good stuff. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Rene Wood to be followed by Andrew Gottlieb. Rene Wood: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Rene Wood, and I'm not a resident of Palo Alto, but I visit here frequently and follow your politics intensely. The thing that I'm hearing tonight was an excellent presentation by City Staff, whereby they went through point-by- point the history on this project and pointed out very clearly to those who were listening what the ARB has asked for this design, Option Number 1. They were also very clear in pointing out that Option Number 2 and Option Number 3 have not been reviewed by the ARB, which is your process. The attorney and the architect for Ms. Wong came up, and there was a lot of hocus pocus in my view. There's a lot of shell-shifting going on. They did not address the points that were made by the City Staff. In fact, they basically insulted the City Staff by saying that selected emails which sought to bring together various people on this project, which every City TRANSCRIPT Page 50 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 department should try to do. Should I stop until the matter is cleared up back there? Mayor Scharff: We can hear you just fine. Ms. Wood: Thank you. I really take offense at the attorney and the architect and their comments. There's nothing wrong with a neighbor and a group of people who become very involved in City politics. This is there home. As we've heard multiple times, homes here are very, very expensive. They're just looking out for what they feel is their investment in Palo Alto as well as conforming to what the Planning Department said. I would urge you to not be taken in by this appeal and to realize that what it is, is an attempt to go around your clearly defined process, which is for your ARB to review these matters. I am struck, as someone who has been over 15 years in my hometown politics, at the patience with which this Council has given this matter and the basic disrespect that has been given to your process, in particular your ARB. For what it is worth, I would go with those people who have recommended that you deny this and send it back to the ARB. If it cannot be worked out, kill this matter because you have an applicant who is not respecting you, this town, its residents, or your process. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Andrew Gottlieb to be followed by David Lieberman. Andrew Gottlieb: Good evening. My name is Andrew Gottlieb. I'm a longtime resident of Downtown Palo Alto. Mr. Buchanan's comments struck me earlier as being very applicable. Kipling Street is a special street. In looking at and approving a building to go up on that street, the special nature of it should be taken into consider. I think the Architectural Review Board was doing that. I think they were doing their job. I believe at this point they should continue to be able to do their job to either accept or reject this project and not circumvent the Council. I'd encourage the Council to allow them to do their job and not be influenced by other types of discussions going on tonight. Specifically the attorney for the applicant, I think they are denigrating the process in suggesting that a resident is taking over the process and not allowing a project to go forward. I think what's simply happening is a resident is exercising his right to object to a project and express the concerns of himself and apparently other members of the community. I'd encourage you to listen to that, listen to the appellant and the objections before the Council, and not be discouraged by the side conversation about an appellant taking over the process. It's simply not happening; he's encouraging it. He's just making sure the rules are being followed. Just following on that, there are reasons why the project has been delayed for several years based on objections because the applicant has not TRANSCRIPT Page 51 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 followed the suggestions of the ARB, has not followed the rules, and has not taken into consideration the concerns of the community. Finally, I'd like to say in this day and age, respect for the process and the public's confidence in the process is critical in local government and Federal government. Listening to Council Member Tanaka's expression of explaining why he's not recusing himself is a concern. I think even the appearance of impropriety is discouraging. I would encourage you to recuse yourself from this process based on the campaign contribution. Even though you refunded it, I think it creates a cloud and appearance of impropriety, which would undermine the public's confidence in the process if you didn't recuse yourself. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. David Lieberman. David Lieberman: Hi. This project was first presented to the City in 2013. It was approved by the Planning Staff in 2015. It meets all building and Code requirements and requires no variances or exceptions. Yet, four years later here we are. Is Palo Alto governed by law or by ad hoc decisions based on individual whims? As a resident of Palo Alto, I am required to obey all municipal laws and regulations whether I like them or not, and frequently I don't. There is no exception to that requirement for Council Members. You members of the City Council have the ability to change the law, but you don't have the right to ignore it. Do the right thing. Obey the law. Approve this project. I'd just like to add one thing. If the nine of you went into a room and designed the site, designed a building, you would come out and you would vote it down. Mayor Scharff: Now, we return to the appellant, who will have three minutes in rebuttal. Mr. Harbour: I thought you said the applicant was first. Mayor Scharff: Let me look at my thing here. I get that confused. Does the applicant object to going first? Nope, then the applicant can go first. Jaime Wong, Applicant: Good evening. My name's Jaime Wong. I want to start by saying an earlier speaker talked about Birge Clark, and we're trying to honor Birge Clark. In fact, the American Institute of Architects elected to give the Birge Clark award for sustained architectural excellence to Joe Bellomo, my architect. People have tried to brand me as a developer. I don't object to that, but it's not a bad thing. I'm also your neighbor; I live here. I've raised my family here. I vote here. I shop here. Yes, I invest here. Everything for me is Palo Alto. I care about this town. I'd better because my whole future and the future of my family depends on it. We have seen the tactic of fearmongering here. People talk about ignoring the professionals who have said shadow studies, no impact. No, no, no, TRANSCRIPT Page 52 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 shadows are—nuclear winter is coming. Traffic and parking, no impact. Yet, we're supposed to stand there and watch cars ram into each other on Kipling Street. I don't believe that. Pictures opposing my project show flat elevations because we're required by City Code to present flat elevations. That puts the building in its worst light because nobody looks at a building that way. You look at it in 3-D. The Comprehensive Plan, you can find quotes in the Comprehensive Plan that oppose it, and the appellant has found many. I have found many that support it, and I've enclosed those in a letter to Council including quotes from the Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design Guide. This project is good for Palo Alto; it's good for me. The Architectural Review Board has seen every page on that project except for the one with the sizes because the numbers changed a little bit, so I had to redo a new page. If you liked Option 1, you will love Option 3. All the pages are the same, and the ARB has seen all those drawings. The ARB went on record to say, "We need approval of the appellant or else the appellant will appeal again." I don't think that's right. To continue on with the presentation from earlier, here is a view of what it looks like from the alley right now. It's a service alley. It has dumpsters, and the garbage trucks come every day and pickup garbage from there, and cars park there. That's it. It's hardly used by pedestrians as the Traffic Study that we presented to the City shows. We have some slides about compatibility to show that Palo Alto is really a diverse collection of tall buildings, small buildings, modern buildings, older buildings. They take design cues from each other, but it's all diverse. This building does the same. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, Michael Harbour. Mr. Harbour: I wanted to summarize here and thank you again. This is a colossal building on the narrowest street in Downtown Palo Alto. I want to point out in terms of some metrics Bryant Street is 49 feet wide versus Kipling at 29. It's about 70 percent larger. That same four-story building, which would be allowed on Bryant, is going to appear much larger and have much greater impact on that narrow Kipling Street. We've heard many people come up and tell you emphatically that this building meets all the Code requirements, the FAR, the square footage. Code requirements do include FAR and square footage, but they also include the Municipal Codes about context and compatibility. Those are just as important, the Codes, as just the square footage alone. The only reason why we are at almost a 3.0 FAR is because of a transfer of development right, which the City has admitted probably would not be granted in this day and age. It doesn't mean that the applicant gets to use all of it. You have to look at the receptor site for this area. Don't feel sorry for the applicants here. The applicant went to the media. The front page of the newspaper in August, the applicant has agreed to reduce the size of the Downtown project. It was TRANSCRIPT Page 53 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 a bait and switch. She actually made the building smaller before she made it bigger and changed everything around and has gotten everybody confused. The options that you've seen here before are not her little, small project or smaller project. Please don't feel sorry for them. The applicant willfully did not address the issues outlined by the May 4th City Council Motion. There have been multiple violations that still exist with regard to size and massing. The Staff Report states the applicant has only partially been responsive and ignored other repeated requests. The total size and mass of the building is as large as it was when we filed our original appeal. The applicant and the architect have ignored repeated suggestions by the ARB to bring this project into compliance. Board Member Lew, who's here tonight, actually gave two separate slide presentations with photos— something I've never seen—demonstrating what success would be like. He brought these photos and showed how other applicants have done this. Again, deaf ears. I personally have met with every architect, applicant, attended every ARB meeting. The applicant has made the massing worse by enlarging the top floors. I want to make this very clear. This appeal is not meant to prevent the applicant from developing this piece of property. I am not against that. I actually come from a family of developers. One of the things that we do is actually work with the community to make sure that the needs are being met. This has not happened at all. Again, I've mentioned these here before. The only decision now is to reject the current plan. It's the only decision. The ARB hasn't even seen the existing plans of all three options and weighed in on them. Thank you very much. Public Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Now, we return to Council for questions and comments. I'm going to close the public hearing at this point as well. I just want to reiterate that for Council to take any action, it's going to take five votes. Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I actually just want to make a couple of comments about the process and the kinds of things that we focus on tonight in response to some of the things we've heard from members of the public. First, on the question of who should be participating in this, we've heard a lot of discussion about this around other issues as well. There's no obligation for anybody to recuse themselves from this decision. There's no legal obligation. There was not even a legal obligation for anybody on Council to return any checks. The one person who saw that that might create the appearance of impropriety returned the check to remove that appearance of impropriety. Personally, I never took any money from developers when I was running for office, but everybody's able to make their own choices. When issues of Castilleja come back, I'm not going to TRANSCRIPT Page 54 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 encourage anybody to recuse themselves, because I think the accusations are ridiculous. I think the same thing applies here. I think the people can make informed, reasonable decisions regardless of what kinds of donations they took. This is, again, coming from somebody who decided not to take those donations myself. I just think that we should be fair to the process, and we should be honest, and we should be consistent. There's been a lot of accusations thrown around over the last year regarding the idea that just because somebody took a donation from somebody that influences their decision-making. Again, in this case it's not relevant. We've heard, frankly, from both sides of this discussion a lot of ad hominem attacks. I find that dismaying as well. This isn't a question of whether we feel some personal affinity for either the applicant or the appellant or we find their attitude to be in any manner offensive to our personal sensibilities. That's not the question in front of us. It's unfortunate that the acrimony is quite severe around this project. It would have been great if everybody had a kumbaya moment, but we're going to have disagreements. That's okay. I'm actually going to reserve—I'm actually not going to make a Motion. I want to listen to my Colleagues … Mayor Scharff: You can't make the Motion. So we're clear, it's supposed to be comments and questions. Council Member Wolbach: Excellent. I'm not planning on making one. Whatever decision we make tonight, it should be very, very clear. We should focus on those issues that have not been resolved. Obviously, one of my biggest concerns previously was around the historic impact on neighboring buildings. HRB looked at it, said they were unable to come to a finding. We talked about this the last time it came before us. That issue wasn't a primary issue. The major questions here are around mass and scale and things like that and whether this project sufficiently meets the findings necessarily. I'm going to leave it to my Colleagues to weigh in on those. I'll be listening attentively. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: A quick question to Staff. I know we talked about this in the last meeting. A couple of people brought up the issue of the applicability of TDRs. Can Staff comment briefly on that? Mr. Lait: The Municipal Code sets forth the requirements and standards for having potential floor area transferred from one development site to another. There's a variety of requirements for that. Applicant has initiated that effort, has secured the Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) for the 429 University site. The area of conflict or concern that the community member TRANSCRIPT Page 55 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 was speaking to was that the new Apple store was one of the sites for which TDRs were granted. The Code's interest is to remove seismically vulnerable buildings and shore them up and replace them with buildings that meet the current standards. In the process of the building permit construction, it turned out that the existing walls that were to be retained couldn't be retained, and they were removed. The site was essentially demolished and built anew. That's not inconsistent with how some other projects in the City have been previously reviewed with respect to TDRs, but it did raise the conversation that the Council did talk about and directed Staff with respect to seismic upgrades of buildings where the Council had expressed an interest that Staff no longer allow complete demolition to be a means for meeting that standard. Now, you do have to retain and actually rehabilitate the existing structure. That was a conversation that happened subsequent to the City granting the TDRs for that site. Council Member Filseth: Where does that leave this project? You're saying it was okay under the old rules but not the new rules. Did I understand that right? Mr. Lait: We're saying that this project was evaluated consistent with City practice, and we believe that the TDRs are valid for this development site. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: If it's all right with the Mayor, I see a member of the ARB. I wanted to ask a couple of questions. Mayor Scharff: Sure, go right ahead. That's what you get for coming. Council Member DuBois: I have two questions for you. The first one was— Option 3 has been described as highly similar to designs that you guys looked at. Do you agree with that? Alexander Lew, Architectural Review Board Chair: I do want to be clear that normally when a representative for the Board comes here, we represent the whole Board's opinion. The Board has not seen Option 3, so I can't tell you what the Board thinks about Option 3. You're actually asking is Option 3 similar to Option 1. The Board only saw a preliminary drawing set of Option 1. It was like a pencil drawing set. Not all the drawings were included. We didn't have perspective renderings from different sides or whatnot. Option 1 really has not been thoroughly reviewed by the ARB. Council Member DuBois: The second question is—in November of 2015 Council made a specific Motion to ask the ARB to evaluate the project on six specific findings. What was the result of that review? TRANSCRIPT Page 56 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Mr. Lew: We did review those particular findings on one of the earlier schemes. I think that was in the second architect on the project. We're on the fourth architect now. I personally did go through all the context based findings in my last review of the project. The two other Board Members who reviewed the project said they may or may not agree with what I had said, but they didn't specifically cite where they would have a differing opinion. I couldn't give you something specific. If you looked at this last Staff Report, I did highlight areas where the Staff did not think that the context based criteria were met. Council Member DuBois: Thank you. Mr. Lait: Excuse me, Mayor. If I may supplement that. I concur with Chair Lew's response to that. I would note that the Motion that was made on October 20th was a reference to draft findings that were included in the Staff Report. The Motion stated to accept the draft findings that were included in the Report. That speaks to the findings that were made. I can quickly just summarize a few of those if that would be helpful for the … Council Member DuBois: This is against which option? Mr. Lait: This would have been against Option 2. The findings that the ARB adopted, one had to do with the—we had a conversation of the old ARB findings. Finding 1, that the design was not consistent or compatible with the applicable elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Finding 16, that the design is not consistent with the purpose of architectural review, which has to promote orderly and harmonious development in the City, enhance the desirability of residential or investment in the City. It goes on to cite a couple of different components. Specifically with respect to those findings, the Board found that the building's size, scale, and mass would not enhance the pedestrian environment, that it would conflict with the following goals, and it listed, in policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Goal L-1, Policy L-5, to avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale; Goal L-4 speaks to pedestrian scale; Policy L-20 speaks to reinforcing street corners or that form corner plazas; Policy L-23, promote the quality of design that recognizes the regional and historic importance of the area and reinforces the pedestrian character; Policy L-24, Goal L-6, creating well-designed buildings that create a coherent development pattern, enhance City streets and public spaces. It goes on. Finding 2, Finding 4, Finding 5 and 6 of the old findings were not supported with explanations as to why. Then, it went on to the design compatibility standards, which I can elaborate on further, but there's a whole set of findings that the Board found for Option 2 was not supportable. TRANSCRIPT Page 57 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Council Member DuBois: Just a couple of quick comments. This project has been to Council twice. My impression is the applicant really hasn't been responsive to Council direction. I did ask the City Clerk—I think she did it— to provide the verbatims from our previous meetings. I hope my Colleagues got a chance to look through those or at least watch the videos. We've had very extensive discussion. I don't think we need to repeat that discussion tonight. Just quickly, I do think the issue with the loading dock remains. I think that's going to be addressed. The scale on the first floor and the eaves and the entryways, I think, does make the building appear to tower over its neighbors. The visual mass and scale along Kipling remains an issue. Just to clarify for some of the speakers that came—I think somebody else already said this earlier—the quantitative zoning is not a right to the maximum amount. It's up to that amount. It's not the starting point, and it's not the minimum. We did have extensive experience about Ordinance 18.18.110, which is our Compatibility Ordinance. Again, when I look at those conditions, it still appears that they have not been met. Thank you. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Thank you. It's always dangerous when you make a comment in the presence of somebody who's been around for a long time. Just to clarify the record, not that it's something that we're considering tonight but just to clarify the record because I think it's important to do so. TDRs for seismic improvement many years ago were allowed for demolition, but also a good number of years ago, probably—this I would have to guestimate—a good 12 years ago, 10, 12 years ago, that practice was assured to the Planning Commission and the public that that practice would no longer continue because it seemed to be contradictory to the purpose of the seismic TDR Ordinance. To my knowledge, this is the only project in the recent past that has gotten seismic TDRs for a demolition. That said and understanding that's not in front of us, I just wanted to try to correct the record. As Council Member DuBois said, there are a couple of members of the ARB here. I know Board Member Lew has had a lot of experience with this. I'd like to ask you a question, if I could please. Mayor Scharff: You may. Council Member Holman: Thank you. Other cities—I know you do work in a lot of other cities—have more than just the numerical standards for project review and approval. Not to put you on the spot here, but I know San Francisco being one that you work in a fair amount. Can you describe what criteria they have that are not numerical or how they might relate to our findings that are required in our Context Based Design Criteria? We're not unusual in this, correct? TRANSCRIPT Page 58 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Mr. Lew: No. I think I mentioned this in one of the ARB meetings about this project. Just as an example, in San Francisco for what they call their pedestrian areas, which are their neighborhood shopping areas, just for example, they would restrict lot mergers to a prescribed size. That's actually a numerical issue. The intent is to keep the pedestrian street attractive and variable. They actually discourage putting fake fronts, multiple storefronts on one big building in an attempt to mask it to make it look smaller. That's why they restrict the lot size, lot mergers. Also, they would require driveway curb cuts or garage entrances to be on an alley side and not facing any pedestrian street. They have requirements for clear glazing along pedestrian frontages. Is there something in particular that you're looking for? Council Member Holman: I'm not familiar with San Francisco's Code, but I just use them because I know you are familiar with them. Is there any just quick thing that you want to describe about how they might deal with street rhythm? Mr. Lew: That's one I was getting at … Council Member Holman: I know about the lot mergers, but … Mr. Lew: … the first thing with the lot size. They prescribe a dimension for each street, each pedestrian street. Market Street, which is a big commercial street, has a larger dimension. Some of the more neighborhood-oriented streets would have a smaller dimension, say 50 or 60 feet; whereas, Market Street might have a maximum building frontage of 125 feet or 150 feet wide. That's to make the buildings scaled to the neighborhood to ensure new buildings are scaled to the neighborhood. They also have restrictions against chain stores. We've talked about this a little bit with the (inaudible) of California Avenue to try to keep the character of an established street. Council Member Holman: Thank you very much. Just a couple of comments. I and, I would imagine, at least the Colleagues who have been here for a while and seen this project before think it unfortunate that this project is still coming before us and not having a particularly successful or popular response. You can pick any one of these sets of plans. I'll look at Option 3, for instance. Our Context Based Design Criteria and various other aspects of the non-numerical findings that have to be made talk about the rhythm of the street. The rhythm of the street is described as 25-foot storefronts and the differentiation. If you look at—it's in the Staff presentation. Slide 10 is actually not a bad representation of that. If you look at the other storefronts, they are differentiated by either different TRANSCRIPT Page 59 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 window treatments, different street-level window heights or a little bit of entry heights. On the second level, the same thing. They're all finer grained. If you look then at what is being proposed in either Option 1, 2 or 3, you have very dominant and prominent concrete features that step forward, that are as single units larger than the whole of an articulated building front adjacent to or down that block. If you look on the Kipling side, that's true not for the storefronts particularly, but that kind of larger-scale rhythm is very inconsistent with the rhythm of the houses on the street. That's of great concern. These proposals for the most part—depending on which one you look at, it's either more or less the case. This building has very strong horizontal elements that run the length of the project. There's not an attempt to break up the mass and scale of this building. There have been a lot of comments made about the size of the building. As I've said recently, it's not the square footage; it's how the square footage is expressed. If you look at a building that often gets referenced because it's so successful, if you look at what used to be the University Art Building, how a lot of people still think of it, where Shinola is now. That building is a very large building and adjacent to someone and two-story buildings. What it does to make itself presented to the public as a pedestrian-scale building is it has very much differentiated storefronts. The elements of the building— it's all one building. People don't even realize that sometimes when looking at it. The elements of the building have differentiated roof angles, roof shapes, roof heights, different window treatments. Those make for a very much more smaller-grained, fine-grained, more compatible building that is much more likely to be compatible with the surroundings. It's not about style. It's not at all about style. I want to be clear about that. It's about the design, which is not the same as style. This building, I think, does not respond to those transitions, does not respond to the rhythm of the street. The height of the first floor, I would have to say, also—again, these are very dominant, concrete, forward-setting elements. Those projections are about a story and a half tall. How I look at this. I think of it as, if you go through a neighborhood that's in a floodplain—if there's a replacement building and the replacement house has to be raised the three feet or sometimes three- feet-plus, it's how that house has a very negative impact on the other houses on that block or in that neighborhood. It stands out considerably. This building does that same thing. I'll stop there. Those are some of my comments. Mayor Scharff: I have a couple of comments on this. First of all, I'd say that for me the issue is Kipling Street. University Avenue has no unified architectural feel to it. There's a 50-foot building virtually across the street from this building. It really comes down to how this interacts with Kipling Street for me. The Staff Report does a really good job really starting on Packet Page 526 when it talks about Option 1 being the most responsive to TRANSCRIPT Page 60 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 concerns about the overall building mass and provides better transitions to neighboring properties. As the Staff Report points out, most of the commercial buildings have two-story volumes, are greater in height on University, and the buildings across the alley are the ones in the exception. That's Kipling Street. The character of the buildings on North Kipling Street are Victorian homes. That's really the compatibility issue I think the community is struggling with. There's a stark transition between this building and Kipling Street. Whereas, on University Avenue, I don't think there's that issue at all, frankly. University Avenue is eclectic with many different styles of architecture, some 50-foot buildings, some 80-foot buildings, some much taller buildings, 525 University down the street. When we look at University Avenue, I don't think that's the issue in any way. I actually think that Option 1 works well as a three-story building. One of the frustrations for me in this is what seems to be important is the Kipling-facing rendering and what it looks like from Kipling Street. The applicant, frankly, hasn't provided that. The fact that the stairway and elevator goes up to 56 feet—I think the Staff Report is correct that that would need to be brought down. If we move forward on something similar to Option 1, we would need to bring it down. The problem I have with Option 1 is that I can't really tell on the pop-up residential there what the effect of the massing is and what that looks like from Kipling Street. For me, this should be a three-story building. That takes away the transition issues on Kipling Street, and that feels comfortable and, I think, meets the Architectural Review findings, which we have frankly in Attachment A. It's really Packet Page 533 and 532. As a three-story building, I think it meets the Architectural Review findings. As a four-story building, I don't think the design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. I don't think it's compatible with the character of Kipling Street, which would really be Number 4. There's no harmonious transition in scale and character as a four-story building. As a three-story building, I think there is. I'm a little bit stuck on the issue that I can't see how this looks with the pop-up residential. That tends to make me feel that we should approve this, frankly, simply as a three-story building and bring the elevator height down as well to be in that same range as the three-story height. It could pop up a little bit over that three-story like we do normally in our Code on the three-story height, but not on the four-story height. That becomes a real problem. Option 1 has a lot of really good features in terms of moving us forward in that direction. I'm just primarily concerned about that transition to Kipling Street and how we make that transition work. I think as a three-story building it works. Thanks. Now, I see no further lights. Does anyone want to speak further or should we just move to Council Member motions and further comments and questions? Council Member Fine. TRANSCRIPT Page 61 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Council Member Fine: This is actually following up on your question about the eclectic nature of Downtown. Given we have two members of the ARB here, I was wondering if you have any advice on whether the Downtown area does have a unified design character. If so or if not, how does that relate to the Downtown North neighborhood and how does that transition out along Kipling? If you could just give us some thoughts on that, if the Mayor will allow it. Mayor Scharff: Yeah, I'll allow it. Mr. Lew. Council Member Fine: I know it's an open, wide question. Mr. Lew: You're going to put me on the spot, and I'm not speaking—I'm speaking off the cuff and not on behalf of the rest of the Board. I would just say that because of this project, I've started working on a Downtown map of all buildings. I'm actually going back in history too, back to like 1925. I think we just have to acknowledge a couple of things, because we have—this whole area, like Kipling Street and Lytton and Hamilton, was originally all Victorian houses. The zoning was changed, and they are intended to be— they're all in the commercial district. The City was doubling in size, and the City was trying to make room for growth Downtown. The original pattern of Downtown was based on the 25-foot module, which Karen and the Staff Report have mentioned. What is not quite correct, though, is that a lot of the storefronts, like around the Varsity Theatre, are actually only 15 feet wide. They're really narrow. They're actually narrower than any commercial developer would put in a new development. Typically a chain store would want something at least 20-feet or really in a shopping mall it would be at least 25-feet wide. It is diverse. Things have changed over time, but there is in that block, I believe, a unified pattern of narrow storefronts, low storefronts with balconies on the second floor. It's stronger, I would argue, than any of the other blocks Downtown. I could make an argument that—I think people are trying to make the argument that there are other big buildings Downtown, and there are. They're at 3.0 floor area Downtown. We don't get complaints about them. They're very attractive. It's entirely conceivable to me that a 3.0 floor area building could work on this site if it were designed to meet our Codes. My personal take is this one does not. Council Member Fine: That's actually very helpful, especially the history there. Thank you. Mr. Lew: We have another Board Member too. He's here if he wants to weigh in. Mr. Lait: Council, just to advise you. The other Board Member who is here was actually conflicted on the hearing of the Item. I don't know if there's a TRANSCRIPT Page 62 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 perspective from a resident, but speaking for the Board I would discourage that engagement at this point. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: I'm looking over here at the Packet that the applicant had submitted in terms of some of the other buildings that are here in Downtown. I'm looking at this, and I think one of the best examples is 626 Waverley Street, with its massive, tall building. The thing is Waverley is actually a wider street. You're putting a building of that mass and that size on a much smaller street. While it fronts University, which is also wider, there is also Kipling that is much more narrow. I think the diagrams that we've received show the lanes to be wider, so it takes it off—even these diagrams up here, you can see that the streets appear to be much wider, and there's a lot more room. When I drove down Kipling, I agree with JC Andrade. There were cars coming at me, and I thought I was going to lose my mirror also. It is not as wide as it looks over here. I do have a great concern in terms of the mass of this building and how it transitions to the rest of the street over there. I was actually looking at it from Lytton, looking down towards University. If this building goes up, it's just this big wall when you're looking down the street. I really can't see this as a good transition or harmonious to the neighborhood or even fitting with the Victorian homes that are on that street. It is a narrow street, and it is a very pretty street. I love walking down it and looking at the homes. It's a very different building. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: Just really briefly, I think there's been some discussion gravitating toward Option 1 being in the direction that we had discussed some months ago. I just want to comment briefly on Options 2 and 3. Most of the discussion that we're really having, in fact that we had in the last meeting, was about harmonious transition, scale, and massing, and context. To me, again these things, as has been pointed out, have an element of subjectiveness to them. To me, Options 3 and 2, which are basically four-story buildings, the transitions are obviously pretty sharp. To me, that one obviously fails. Option 2 fails on Kipling, and Option 3 fails on University. I'll stop there. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: Just a couple of things I hope we'll keep in mind here. Our alleyways are important connectors in our Downtown area. The City's actually looking to activate a number of alleyways in the very near future and recognize the importance of our alleyways. Again, if we're going to make a good environment and a pedestrian-friendly environment, we TRANSCRIPT Page 63 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 shouldn't overlook the alleyway either. Kipling especially at night is a street of very strong character, and it's very obvious. During the daytime, it is. At night time, it especially is. When looking at compatibility, rhythm, transition, and scale, we're not looking at 429 University Avenue in comparison to 525 University Avenue. We're looking at the building in its context of the more immediate vicinity, the more immediate environment. I would point to the recent Citizens Survey. What it seems to me is that when we have projects that don't comply with, aren't consistent with our Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and our Context Based Design Criteria and our ARB findings, projects are either appealed or they're very unpopular as we see and hear comments. The Citizens Survey has given us a declining score on development the last several years. I think it's really important that we pay attention to these matters. While they're not numerical, they are just as important. Board Member Lew has brought forward and I've mentioned too there are ways that buildings—not to repeat what I said earlier—there are ways that even this building could make itself more compatible and more transitional. I don't know why the applicant has been resistant to making those changes. To this point, they seem to have done that in ways that I've described previously and other Council Members have spoken to and members of the public. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Tanaka. Council Member Tanaka: I have a few questions for Staff. A lot of the public speakers and a lot of the emails that we got had concern around three topics. One was traffic; another was parking, and then the third was the idea of mass or square footage or FAR. I want to take each of these Items one-by-one. For traffic, with the studies that Staff has done, is there an issue with traffic here at this project? Mr. Lait: Thank you, Council Member. We did do a Traffic Study. In fact, we also did a—what did we call it? We did a TIA, but then we also did the residential one, the traffic index—some other study that we don't typically require because of the concerns that we heard expressed about this issue. This was in support and concurrence with the applicant. The results of that showed that this did not trigger any threshold for significance in terms of traffic impacts related to this project. Council Member Tanaka: What about parking? Mr. Lait: Parking is a function of meeting Code. The project meets the development standards with respect to the parking. It is located within the Parking Assessment District. The property owner has been assessed parking spaces for contribution to the parking lot. There's a, I'll say, credit for those TRANSCRIPT Page 64 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 spaces not having to be provided on site. Some of the TDRs that we've talked about this evening were parking exempt TDRs, which is not a current standard that we allow in Code, but the applicant did have an opportunity to use that. The parking that is provided onsite assumes the Parking Assessment, the parking-exempt TDRs, and the balance is provided onsite in the two subterranean structures. Council Member Tanaka: Is the accusation that the project is under-parked true or not according to your findings? Mr. Lait: I guess what I can tell you is that the parking as required by the Municipal Code is met with the designs. Council Member Tanaka: What about square footage and FAR? Is it within the limits of that? I've heard from some of the members of the public in letters that say it's way too much and it's not compliant. What is the truth there? Mr. Lait: A mixed-use project is allowed to have up to a 1.0 FAR for commercial development and up to 1.0 for the residential development. With the transfer of development rights, the applicant is available to take up to another 1.0 FAR. In no instance shall the site exceed a 3.0 FAR. That would take it to—I think the collective parcels are 11,000 square feet. A 3.0 FAR would take it to 33,000 square feet, which they are compliant with. Council Member Tanaka: Really we're left with the architectural aspects in terms of the compatibility. Mr. Lait: I would refer the Council to the findings, the Architectural Review Board findings and the context compatibility findings. Council Member Tanaka: When I looked at it, the rules did look very arbitrary, so it's kind of hard to know what the—exactly how do you compare. Let me give you an example. Let's say, for instance, adjacent to the building was a vacant lot. There's nothing; it was just vacant land. Is that (inaudible) compare against, a vacant lot, or would you compare it against other nearby buildings? I guess I'm trying to understand how close to the—what is the basis of comparison? A lot of the buildings next to it, I assume, could be built taller. Is that right or not? Mr. Lait: What I would do is refer the Council to the different findings that are made and are required pursuant to the Code. One of the findings that the project is subject to is that it is compatible with the immediate environment of the site, that it is compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures. That's the guidance that's provided in the Code. TRANSCRIPT Page 65 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Council Member Tanaka: What I'm wondering about is two things. Is it what's there right now or what could be there? What I'm wondering is—let's say, for instance, it was a vacant lot. That means it has to be compared to a vacant lot or you compare it against a one-story building, which could actually be two stories? I'm just trying to understand how does this work. Mr. Lait: Again, I would refer you to the finding language itself. It doesn't put forth that scenario. It just refers you to the neighborhood character and the context of the neighborhood setting. Council Member Tanaka: How immediate is immediate? Does that mean next door or does it mean one block down? What does immediate mean? Mr. Lait: I think that's a discussion that the Council has been having over the course of this project. There's certainly examples that the Council and the community members have drawn from, that are immediate to the subject site and then also drawn from other properties that are nearby. Council Member Tanaka: This is kind of a technical question. Kipling is a very narrow street. I can't quite tell by looking at the picture on plan A.82. From Kipling, if I stood on Kipling, on the sidewalk across the street from the project, and looked up, could I see the fourth floor? Mr. Lait: On Option 1 or … Council Member Tanaka: Three. Mr. Lait: Three. Council Member Tanaka: It's such a narrow street you can't—the picture in this plan looks like you're like—I don't know—pretty far from the project. I'm not even sure if I could see—how much I could see given such a narrow street? Mr. Lait: I don't have the exact information about the perspective angle that this is taken from. Typically, it's taken from about a six-foot elevation. Kipling is narrow at 29 feet, I believe is the right-of-way. I think this is representative of what one might see out there, but I couldn't tell you for certain what the specific dimension of that would be. Council Member Tanaka: Does maybe the applicant know or does anyone know can we see the fourth floor from the other side of Kipling if this was built? Mr. Lait: I would direct that through the Mayor to see if that's something that you wanted to open up. TRANSCRIPT Page 66 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Mayor Scharff: The question is you want to ask the applicant on Option 3 … Council Member Tanaka: Yeah. If we stood on Kipling, on the other side of the street from this project, on the sidewalk at ground level, could we see the fourth floor? Mayor Scharff: I will allow the applicant to answer the question. Elizabeth Wong, Applicant: That answer can be—we can estimate by looking at the real model. I also want to tell you on Options 1 and 3 the building is three stories high. There's no way to see the fourth story, because the fourth story is 39 feet from the property line on Kipling Street. The only thing that you see from Kipling Street is the elevator, and the glass structure next to the elevator is the landing from the third floor to the fourth floor, which we moved from the corner back 11 feet so that it would be less visible to the passerby. Basically, the Options 1 and 3 are identical on Kipling Street. The difference, if I could say only difference maybe with a little range of error, is that the difference from Option 1 and Option 3 is that we added the residential square footage on the fourth floor on the west side of the building. We cannot make that building any shorter. It is three stories on Kipling. This was done in deference to the appellant. We also made the structure for the elevator glass because the approved version was concrete, and he complained that the concrete was too much in his face. We moved the building on the alley side 10 feet away from the alley at that corner, again, to give him relief as he walked south on Kipling Street. Basically, the only way to get rid of the elevator to make it truly three-stories high is to get rid of the elevator. I'm not really sure that by Code you're allowed to have a floor where you cannot access by handicap rules. I'm pretty sure that you cannot eliminate the elevator to that floor, because then there would be—handicapped people cannot get to that floor. If you're going to have a fourth floor, then you're going to need the elevator. We did not pursue Option 1 because, after giving up 3,000 square feet of residential/office space, the appellant wrote to Jodie Gerhardt that is that all she's doing. If that's all she's doing, then let's put the square footage back, and let's put it away from Kipling so that he would not be able to see it. Mayor Scharff: Thank you. Council Member Tanaka: I just wanted to ask Staff. I'm not an architect … Male: Could I be recognized just one moment? I was a resident on Kipling … Mayor Scharff: Nope, nope, nope. TRANSCRIPT Page 67 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Council Member Tanaka: I just wanted to ask Staff. This is the applicant's point of view. Is this true that you could only really probably see the elevator from the sidewalk on the other side or is … Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director: Thank you, Council Member Tanaka. Hillary Gitelman, the Planning Director. In our view, Option 1 and Option 3 are very similar from Kipling. From right across the street, we don't think very much would be visible at all. We would further enhance Option 1 with the condition we've suggested to bring the height of the elevator down, so it doesn't exceed 50 feet. You are going to be able to see the elevator and that other piece behind it, depending on where you are on Kipling, because you'll see it at an angle. It has to a large extent addressed what some of the other schemes had as a much more prominent fourth-floor mass on Kipling. The elevator and the stair tower were much more prominent. We do think that Option 1 and Option 3 are going in the right direction on the Kipling side. Mayor Scharff: Are you done? One more. Go ahead. Council Member Tanaka: Can you go back to the Code which says immediate. What I'm interested in knowing from Staff's experience is when we say immediate environment, for previous projects that's come before Staff, what did immediate environment mean? Ms. Gitelman: Thank you, Council Member Tanaka. I think we shouldn't take one of these findings out of the context of all the other findings about context. It really takes some interpretation and thought when looking at these Architectural Review findings and the Context Based Design Criteria. While you could probably parse them and find some of them that are applicable to just the building right next door, I think as a whole they allow you to read projects and the site in a larger setting, both the immediately adjacent buildings and then the general vicinity, how these buildings are experienced on the street. Council Member Tanaka: I see. You're saying that we should look at the larger picture, and there's actually a little bit of leeway. It's not just immediate, adjacent building. Ms. Gitelman: Yes. Council Member Tanaka: Thank you. Mayor Scharff: I think Option 1 meets what we're looking for, for the most part, with what Staff has put forward on Packet Page 527 under recommended Conditions of Approval. I think it brings down the elevator TRANSCRIPT Page 68 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 adjacent to Kipling Street inclusive of any associated mechanical equipment shall not exceed the 50-foot height limit. With all of that, I think we would be good on Kipling Street. With that, I wanted to say that Staff has done a really good job on this project in terms of outlining Option 1 and how it moves us forward to be responsive to what Council suggested. I actually appreciate the applicant putting forth Option 1 on this process as we go through it. With that, I'll move that we do Option 1 with all of the recommended Conditions of Approval, which are on Packet Page 527 and Packet Page 528 and partly on Packet Page 529. Council Member Filseth: I'll second. MOTION: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to: A. Deny the Appeal; and B. Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan; and C. Approve a modified project (Option 1) with conditions included in the Staff Report, Pages 6-8; and D. Direct Staff to return with written findings for adoption. Mayor Scharff: Let's first get the Motion up there. While we're doing that, I'll speak to my Motion. This has been a long road in the community. It's been a long road for the appellant and everyone. It's time to basically put this issue behind us. I think by going with Option 1, we're being responsive to the concerns on Kipling Street. We're being responsive to the concerns of the community, and we are putting this process forward for Mrs. Wong, who actually ends up with a project. She is entitled to have a project. By going through it in this way, I think Staff did a really good job on the Conditions of Approval. I hope you'll support it. Council Member Filseth. Council Member Filseth: Thanks very much. I think there's been a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of this building with respect to the community. All of that stuff kind of isn't relevant for what we're talking about here. Just on that subject, because the public's talked about it, not because it's covered in the appeal, this makes our housing crunch worse, not better. It's bad for sustainability, not good for sustainability. It gets rid of 1,500 square feet of retail and so forth. That's not really what we're here to discuss. We're really here to discuss the applicant's property rights in the context of our Codes. The Codes include the compatibility and Context Based Design Criteria, and that's what we're looking at here. It's pretty obvious to me that Options 2 and 3 don't meet the compatibility criteria. It's TRANSCRIPT Page 69 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 not completely obvious to me that a three-story building does, but I can't be certain it doesn't, so I think we should support going forward. I think I concur with the Mayor that Staff's done a very good job on this. We've worked through our process, and I think it's going to produce an outcome which is consistent with our Codes. That's what's important here. Thanks. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Mayor Scharff: You want to pass. Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: I'm going to offer a Substitute Motion. My Motion is to deny the project due to inability to make the findings recorded as part of the Council's prior review of this project, found on Pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report, and consistent with the ARB denial. I'll speak to the Motion after hopefully getting a second. Council Member Kou: I'll second it. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Kou to deny the Project due to the inability to make Architectural Review Findings as part of the Council’s prior review from Staff Report Pages 4-5 and the Architectural Review Board recommendation to deny the Project. Mayor Scharff: Speak to your Motion. Council Member Holman: Several things. Some of this is a repeat of some of the things I've said earlier, and some of it is not. This building continues to be prominently one design for the length of the University Avenue frontage. It's not broken down into matching the rhythm that's on the street. The same design elements that are larger in scale than other buildings in the vicinity continue to be prominent and dominant. The most forward of the concrete, large box design are not consistent with the pattern of the street, and they are the dominant elements. That's true whether it is the former Apple store across the street, across the corner, or whether it is the buildings on the same block on University Avenue. It's also true when looking at the Varsity Theatre. There aren't shared—I'm not talking about style here. Again, I'm talking about design. There aren't any shared criteria, no rhythm on the street, no pedestrian-scale elements that you find in the Varsity Theatre, which is the terminus of Kipling Street. On the Kipling side, it's very hard to see what we're going to get because that rendering was not provided along with the plans for Option 1. I'm not sure how clear it is what we would be adjusting or how it is or isn't compatible. Just looking at the line drawings, it looks like it suffers the same failings that it does on University Avenue. That's what it seems to be. Just as a TRANSCRIPT Page 70 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 comment, I actually don't find that Options 3, 2 and 1 are that similar. I think there are pretty significant differences among them. For instance, Option 3 differs in mass, scale, FAR, setback, design features including on the University Avenue side of the project nearest Kipling, and the number of parking places. That's a lot of differences if we're saying that they're similar. I don't see how we could actually say that. I will stop there. Again, focusing on the Council's prior review of this project and those findings that we could not make then on Pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report and also on the ARB findings that they could not make as well in making the denial recommendation for the project. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Kou. Council Member Kou: I'll go back to my earlier comments. This is a massive building. The mass and the scale of it is very large. I brought up the 636 Waverley property. That's what I fear will be on that corner of Kipling and University. With Kipling being a narrow street, I just don't see a three-story with that kind of mass and scale as something that would be considered as compatible. Council Member Holman has mentioned the other parts of it. I still think that it is not compatible. Just going back for modified projects, it's looking at a building that's going to be there for 50-plus years, that is going to be an impact on the other houses on Kipling Street. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: I've been listening to my Colleagues and looking at these various options. I've heard Option 1 referred to as a three-story building. Just to clarify, it is a four-story building. Correct? I still cannot make the findings that are consistent with our earlier meetings on Pages 4 and 5, particularly 18.18.110. I keep looking at these findings. I find that I will support the Substitute Motion because I don't believe I can make these findings. Mayor Scharff: Seeing no further lights, let's vote on the Substitute Motion. The Substitute Motion fails on a 5-3 vote with Council Members DuBois, Kou, and Holman voting yes. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 3-5 DuBois, Holman, Kou yes, Kniss absent Mayor Scharff: Now, let's vote on the—I see no lights, so now let's vote on the—you want to put your light on? Council Member Holman: I don't think anybody's spoken to the main Motion except for the maker and seconder, I think. TRANSCRIPT Page 71 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Mayor Scharff: Feel free to speak; I just saw no lights. I'm not … Council Member Holman: I think there are some basic design changes that we could recommend for this. It's not like you really want to design from the dais. That's not what's particularly a good thing to do. I strongly suggest that we incorporate into the Motion that the height of the, as I've referred to them, dominant and prominent first-floor concrete elements be lowered to be more consistent with what the first-floor pattern is on the street. That doesn't change the interior ceiling heights. It brings the exterior visual effect down to be more consistent with the street pattern. Mayor Scharff: That's your (inaudible). I'd have to ask Staff. I noticed that the Staff Report talks about that the Option 1 plans reflect the pattern of development of doorway and glazing space, roughly 25 feet in width. I just ask Staff about that, about the … Council Member Holman: Can I comment first? If I could. Mayor Scharff: Sure. Council Member Holman: The reason that the 25-foot—it's hard to tell because dimensions weren't really well provided for this. I appreciate that the entrances are, in theory at least, at 25-foot intervals, but that's not the experience that one is going to have on the street. The experience one is going to have of this building is again these prominent and dominant concrete elements that are forward of the entrances, especially because they're lighter in color. The light's going to hit them. The doorways are recessed, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The way that they're recessed here behind these sections, it's not the experience that you're going to have on the street. Mayor Scharff: I'm waiting for Staff to respond. Ms. Gitelman: Thank you. Through the Mayor, just quickly I'm not sure that I completely understand what the Council Member is suggesting in terms of design changes. We do have a condition that we're suggesting, that's been incorporated into the Motion, that the applicant would return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendations of exterior building materials, colors, and craftsmanship. While that wouldn't create room for a total redesign, some of these finish and design choices on the exterior could be addressed in that context. Council Member Holman: This isn't materials or finishes. This is literally the design. It's literally design. TRANSCRIPT Page 72 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Ms. Gitelman: I guess I'm having trouble understanding exactly what kind of changes you would be requesting. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman, I'm not going to accept it. I think it's a little scary to be designing it from the dais, especially when Staff seems unclear on it. If there's a clearer sense—I guess I'm just not going to accept it. If you get a second. Council Member Holman: Is there a laser I can point on the screen to what I'm talking about? Mayor Scharff: I will allow, if there is such a thing, for you to explain if you want to. Council Member Holman: Is there a laser anywhere? Can anybody see that? I'm talking about that element right there, that runs the—except for the one interruption in the sort of middle. That element, if it were lowered to be—if I can do this—if that element were lowered—I can't even find it now. Here we go. If this element, this design feature here—how do I get rid of that—was lowered down to about here so that it provides more of a cover and a pedestrian-scale cover over the entrances and is more consistent with what you see in the other buildings on the block like here— right now this is about at a story and a half when compared to the buildings next door. This goes half way up the parapet of the building next door. Mayor Scharff: Would it satisfy you if we made that up to the discretion of the ARB? Council Member Holman: Except that it's not in the Motion because the discretion of the ARB does not include design. Ms. Gitelman: I'm afraid that that sounds like really a structural change to the building that would take—I don't think it's something we can do right here. I think it would require consultation with the architectural design team to determine whether that request could be accommodated. Mayor Scharff: No, I can't accept that then. Council Member Holman: How could we give some kind of guidance to the ARB? Again, I agree. It's not good to be sitting here and trying to design a project. I'm trying to point out things that are reasons that I can't make findings and trying to get the project closer to being able to make the findings, which is difficult given where we're starting here. Staff is being mum on how we can go about doing that. TRANSCRIPT Page 73 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Mayor Scharff: Council Member Holman, I think we need to move on, unless you can get a second. Council Member Holman, are you done? Council Member Holman: Yeah. I'm not hearing a second. AMENDMENT: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member XX to add to the Motion, “that the height of the prominent First Floor concrete elements be lowered to be consistent with the prevailing street pattern.” AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Scharff: Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Just very quickly. Being a newbie here on the Council, I'm still learning. It's very clear that this process did not work well on this project, whether we talk about Council, ARB, the applicant. In fact, I would commend you, Mr. Harbour. In many ways you've provided a very professional interaction here, presented good evidence around this issue and helped shape this project. Everything else, I think, has not been that professional. That said, I am going to support the Motion. I do believe Option 1 is compatible with our Downtown, which is a mixed area. As some others have mentioned here, property owners do have rights, which our City has a responsibility to uphold. While this isn't perfect, it is what it is. I will be supporting the original Motion. Mayor Scharff: Council Member Wolbach. Council Member Wolbach: I think I'm going to support the Motion, especially because it has the additional conditions that Staff took the time to stipulate. Those kind of seal the deal for me. Do I love the building? No, but that's not the question. The law is the law. The law doesn't say everybody must love the building. I certainly don't; it's not my favorite style. There's a limit to what we've allowed ourselves to do through the law. I do feel that it does meet the conditions barely, but I think it does. The impact on Kipling, there will be some. I'm not going to say that there's not going to be an impact. The question is whether it's compatible enough that we can allow the applicant to move forward. I just, again, want to commend Staff and the ARB and the applicant and the appellant for a tremendous amount of patience through a very long process. I'm just going to throw out a couple of things to think about. I don't want to get too deep into them because they're not exactly what's on our Agenda right now. A couple of things to think about as far as improving our process. We're talking about this gray area and this question and uncertainty about how many stories can you have next to X number of stories that are present. Our neighboring city TRANSCRIPT Page 74 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 of Mountain View, I know, has some step-down requirements. I don't know the details of how that works in Mountain View. I'd heard it works well to have—they have some clear rules maybe that we might want to look at about based on the surrounding buildings how high can you build next to that or across from that. Something to think about. It's also another example of why we should look at having mixed-use zoning that is more housing, more homes, and smaller unit homes over retail. As Council Member Filseth pointed out, this makes the jobs/housing imbalance worse, not better. That's what our zoning is. When this project started, the calls for more housing in the community weren't as strong as they are now. It just kind of reinforces the discussions that have been happening around the need to change the zoning priorities to be housing over retail. It's also a good example of where we might want to think about a future of having coordinated area plans as a more regular zoning tool. This kind of complex intersection of styles, not just streets, and the complexity of this area, I wish we'd had a better process, but it's the process that we have. I wish we had better zoning and better Codes, but they're the zoning and the Codes that we have. I'm not super thrilled with this, but I am going to support it reluctantly. Mayor Scharff: Council Member DuBois. Council Member DuBois: Staff talks about this would be subject to more detailed Code review when it comes to a building stage. If we're approving Option 1 here, do we have sufficient detail to know that Option 1 is what gets submitted? Ms. Gitelman: I think we're going to have to make sure that what we get matches the Council's Motion here. We're committing to do that. Council Member DuBois: I'd offer a friendly Amendment, "E," that this approval is subject to the actual project matching Option 1. Just because we've had so many variations, I think we need to be very clear that's what we're approving. Mayor Scharff: That's fine. From what I understand, Council Member DuBois' Motion is that the approval is subject to the project actually matching Option 1 as described by Staff. Is that—I see no downside to that. Council Member DuBois: Is that accepted then? Mayor Scharff: Unless Staff has some objection, forever hold your peace. TRANSCRIPT Page 75 of 78 City Council Meeting Transcript: 2/6/17 Ms. Gitelman: That would be how we would implement this Motion. I guess with the reiteration we would come back to you if we felt like the plan set we got was trending off in another direction. Mayor Scharff: That's fine. Council Member DuBois: That's what I'm asking for. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion, “this approval is subject to the actual Project matching Option 1 as described by Staff.” (New Part E) MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to: A.Deny the Appeal; and B.Approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan; and C.Approve a modified project (Option 1) with conditions included in the Staff Report, Packet Pages 527-528; and D.Direct Staff to return with written findings for adoption; and E.This approval is subject to the actual Project matching Option 1 as described by Staff. Mayor Scharff: I see no further lights. If we could vote on the board. That passes on a 5-3 vote with Council Members DuBois, Kou, and Holman voting no. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-3 DuBois, Holman, Kou no, Kniss absent Mayor Scharff: Thank you all for coming tonight. Congratulations on your approval. 12.PUBLIC HEARING: Review and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Update Code Sections Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO MARCH 6, 2017. APPROVAL NO. 2017- 2 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 425 AND 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATION [14PLN-0022] On February 6, 2017, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto considered an appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director’s decision to approve a Major Architectural Review for the development of a four-story, 50-foot tall, 28,547 square-foot, mixed-use project at 429 University Avenue and directed staff to return to Council with the following findings, determinations and declarations to support their decision to adopt a modified project design: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The project site is comprised of two lots, 425 and 429 University Avenue (APN Nos. 120-15- 029 and 120-15-028, respectively) of approximately 11,000 square feet. The site contains two commercial structures bordered by University Avenue to the southeast, Lane 30 E to the northwest, and Kipling Street to the northeast. Single-story businesses border the site to the northeast along Kipling Street, and one and two story buildings border the project site along University Avenue. B. On June 19, 2014, Kipling Post LP applied for a Major Architectural Review for the development of a mixed-use project on an 11,000 square foot parcel (“The Project”). C. On February 25, 2015, the Planning and Community Environment Director approved the Major Architectural Review. D. On March 11, 2015, a timely appeal was filed by Dr. Michael Harbour (“the Appellant”) stating concerns related to parking, traffic and circulation concerns and safety issues, impacts to historical resources, and the size and massing of the project E. On May 4, 2015, the City Council remanded the project to the Historic Resource Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) for further review and requested project revisions to address issues of scale and compatibility. Specifically, the Council requested that the applicant redesign the project and return to the HRB and ARB to address a variety of concerns. The HRB was asked to review and comment on the historic resource evaluation report as it relates to the project’s potential impact to other historic resources in the area; the applicable ‘area of potential affect’ pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the potential impact of the project’s mass, scale and compatibility to existing historic properties; and whether the proposed building would change the setting of the historic properties on Kipling Street or University Avenue and have an impact under CEQA. The Council directed the ARB to evaluate the project’s compatibility with the immediate environment of the site; neighborhood character; other buildings in the area; consistency with the roof lines, entries, setbacks, mass and scale with context based design criteria; shadow patterns; vehicular access to the site, including possible impacts to Lane 30 (alley) circulation; and, to provide direction on the design linkages with the overall pattern of development in the area. On September 10 and 17, 2015, the HRB and ARB, respectively, considered project revisions presented by the applicant. Their respective comments are available in the administrative record and meeting minutes. The HRB members expressed concern with various aspects of the project, notably related to the mass and scale of the proposed building and expressed concerns regarding the project’s compatibility to nearby designed Birge Clark buildings and the Victorian-style structures on Kipling Street. The ARB had a variety of comments regarding the project, including expressing concerns with project compatibility when viewed from Kipling Street and encouraged further architectural DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F refinement to address other concerns expressed by Council. On November 30, 2015, the City Council remanded the project to ARB for further review and consideration as it relates to the following specific Architectural Review Findings and Context-Based Design Criteria: PAMC chapter 18.76.020(d): • (1): Architectural Review Findings in relation to design’s consistency and compatibility with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan • (2): Architectural Review Findings in relation to design’s compatibility with the immediate environment of the site • (4): Architectural Review Findings in relation to design’s compatibility with areas as having a unified design character or historic character • (12): Architectural Review Findings in relation to compatibility and appropriateness in materials, textures, colors, details of construction and plant materials to the project’s function and to adjacent structures, landscape elements and functions And PAMC Section 18.18.110 (a)(2)(B)(i): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria – Compatibility goal in relation to siting, scale, massing and materials (a)(2)(B)(iii): Contextual and Compatibility Criteria – Compatibility goal in relation to pattern of roof lines and projections (b)(2)(B): Context-based Design Considerations and Findings – Street building facades in relation to eaves, overhang, porches and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass F. On March 17, 2016 the applicant returned to the ARB with a revised project, consisting of two options prepared by Topos Architecture. The ARB preferred Option B with recommended changes to better reduce building scale and mass, and continued the project to May 19, 2016. G. On August 4 the applicant returned to the ARB with a revised project prepared by Jo Bellomo and Associates, the fourth design professional known to the City to be engaged by the applicant to prepare plans and make presentations regarding the project. Based on the administrative record, including meeting minutes, the ARB expressed concern that this latest iteration was not responsive to earlier ARB or City Council comments and requested staff prepare recommended findings to deny the project. H. On September 1, 2016, at the applicant’s request, the ARB conducted a study session of a project that closely resembled Option 1. While ARB members continued to express concerns, the Board commented that this design concept showed progress toward addressing previously stated concerns regarding the project’s compatibility to adjacent structures and neighborhood character. I. The ARB reviewed a project on October 20, 2016 (described as Option 2 in the February 6, 2017 City Council report). This design included changes that increased the mass of the building at the street corner on the third floor and additional mass on the fourth floor that was previously removed from the plans reviewed on September 1, 2016. The ARB forwarded a recommendation of denial of the project to the City Council. J. The Applicant submitted revised plans on October 26, 2016 (described as Option 1 in the February 6, 2017 City Council report), which was a refined version of the plans presented at a study session of the ARB on September 1, 2016, which addressed many of the Board’s comments. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F K. The Applicant submitted revised plans on December 8, 2016 (described as Option 3 in on the February 6, 2017 City Council report), which represented another iteration of the Option 1 design, but included concepts previously reviewed by the ARB on August 4, 2016. L. The City Council reviewed Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3 of the project on February 6, 2017 and approved Option 1 based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval included below. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An initial study was prepared for the project in 2014 and was updated in August of 2015 and it was determined that, with the implementation of conditions of approval, and mitigation measures no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020(d), neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that the project is consistent with certain adopted findings. At the time that the project application was filed and appealed to Council, the findings presented in this section were in use, and the Council finds that the project is consistent with them as follows: Comprehensive Plan and Purpose of ARB: Finding #1: The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Finding #16: The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review, which is to: Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. The project is consistent with Findings #1 and #16 because: On balance, the project is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The project is compatible with the surrounding development based on the building’s size, scale and mass. The project reflects a similar massing and rhythm to other properties along University Avenue and includes building articulate and setbacks at the third and fourth floors that provide for an appropriate transition, particularly along Kipling Street, to the lower profile buildings nearby. Some of the goals and policies the project is in compliance with include the following: Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F provide focal points and community gathering places for the City’s residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Policy L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Policy T-21: Support the use of Downtown alleyways for pedestrian- and bicycle-only use. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Option 1, as presented to the City Council on February 6, 2017, provides a transition in scale and character along University Avenue. The building’s modern design blends and transitions with the surrounding buildings through similar materials and horizontal rooflines. The building reinforces the pedestrian character of University Avenue as required by Policy L-23 and Policy L-24 because it provides a widened sidewalk for pedestrians with sheltered entrances. These same pedestrian features are extended to Kipling Street as well, and the seating area at the rear of the building activates a pedestrian space in the alley. Conditions of Approval Nos. 2b, 2c, 2d, and 2e all reduce the massing and visual prominence of the building along Kipling Street, creating the appearance of a three-story structure. This design provides a smoother transition from the single and two-story structures along Kipling Street. The proposed project incorporates similar pedestrian and human friendly features found in other buildings along University Avenue. The first floor plate height reflects the plate height of the buildings to the west along University Avenue. The surrounding buildings contain sidewalk dining areas, recessed entries, and are predominantly two-story structures, with a low first floor plate height to relate to a human and pedestrian scale. The project incorporates similar features with designated pedestrian areas at the entryways and natural building overhangs along University Avenue and Kipling Street. These design features create a project that is pedestrian friendly and designed at a human scale on elevations fronting rights-of-way. Condition of Approval No. 2e requires that the elevator tower height not exceed 54.5 feet and Condition of Approval No. 2b requires the fourth floor guardrails to be setback from the edge of the terrace along all streetscapes. These conditions reduce the visual prominence of the structure along Kipling Street, and they create the appearance of a three story building. The appearance of a three-story building helps the project achieve an orderly and harmonious design along Kipling Street, which has lower profile buildings. Compatibility and Character: DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Finding #2: The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Finding #4: This finding of compatibility with unified or historic character is not applicable to the project (there is no unified design or historic character). Finding #5: The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. Finding #6: The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. The project is consistent with Findings #2, #4, #5 and #6 because: The project is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Buildings located to the southwest of the site along University Avenue consist of two-story buildings. The first two floors of the project are consistent with the height of these buildings, while the third floor is setback approximately eight-feet. The fourth floor is setback approximately 40-feet. These features result in a gradual transition in scale thereby increasing the compatibility and character of the project with its immediate environment. Further, the design obscures the fourth floor from views along University Avenue. The setbacks along Kipling Street and Lane 30 also promote a design that is compatible with the immediate environment of the site and offer harmonious transitions. The setbacks on the fourth floor along Kipling Street obscure views of the building features above the third floor from many vantage points, thereby reducing the building scale and improving compatibility with smaller structures nearby. To accomplish this result, the conditions of approval require that the elevator tower height be reduced to a maximum of 54.5 feet and the elevator shaft is setback 11 feet from Kipling Street, while the stairs and office are setback approximately 20 feet and 37 feet, respectively. This condition and these design features will obscure views of the fourth floor and result in a building with a three-story appearance from vantage points that are close to the site on Kipling Street. This results in a harmonious transition from the two story structures along Kipling Street to the proposed project because it effectively only increases the height of the project by one story from the structure at the corner of Kipling and University and two stories from the business at Kipling Street and Lane 30. Conditions of approval for the project also ensure that the design of the building will be compatible with the immediate environment of the site. Conditions No. 3b and 3c require that the applicant return to the ARB for approval of the materials, colors, craftsmanship and landscaping, and Condition No. 3a requires a decorative wall treatment, feature or element along the southern elevation of the building. These requirements will ensure that design features are compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The design of the building offers a harmoniously compatible transition with the design character of the streetscape along University Avenue. The design of the project transitions from the mid-century designs found along University Avenue to a more modern looking building that defines the street corner. The project consists of rectilinear features in a glass and concrete style building. These features are consistent with the character of the surrounding buildings to the east of the site along University Avenue and the building located at the corner of Kipling Street and University Avenue. The Historic Resources Memorandum notes that the historic character of the area has been compromised by intrusions including incompatible materials, height, massing and architectural features. features. Because the area has not been recognized as having a unified design or historic character, this finding is not applicable. Functionality and Open Space: Finding #3: The design is appropriate to the function of the project. Finding #7: The planning and siting of the building on the site creates an internal sense of order and provides a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. Finding #8: The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F structures. The project is consistent with Findings #3, #7, and #8 because: The design and arrangement of the open space is appropriate for the function of the project. The project proposes a seating area off the alley at the back of the project. The Comprehensive Plan encourages these spaces such as these to activate alley spaces for pedestrian use. Further, the project incorporates terraced areas around the third floor for the residential users and on the fourth floor for the office use. These areas serve as a functional open space for residents and tenants of the project and are easily accessible to the building users. Therefore, the design, amount, arrangement and planning of open space is appropriate and creates a sense of order for the project. The planning and siting of the building on the site creates a sense of order and provides a desirable environment for visitors, occupants and the general community. The siting of the building is located along the back of the sidewalk, consistent with other buildings along University Avenue streetscape and forms an edge along Kipling Street consistent with the existing buildings along both streets. Vehicle access to the building from the alley provides convenient and safe accessibility that minimizes vehicle interactions along Kipling Street and University Avenue. Internally, stairs and elevators provide access to each floor, and these are conveniently reached from the street or the subterranean parking. The floorplans create individualized floors that separates the residents and commercial and office tenants. Occupants, visitors and the community are provided with a desirable environment because of this ease of access to the individualized uses on each floor. Therefore, the siting and floor plan create a sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general public. Circulation and Traffic: Finding #9: Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept. Finding #10: Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The project is consistent with Findings #9 and #10 because: The project contains sufficient ancillary functions to support the main functions. Access to the property and circulation thereon is convenient for cyclists because it provides long-term and short-term bicycle parking. The short term parking is easily accessible from the street and the long term parking is located in the garage where it is screened from public view. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for all users. The alley provides a dedicated, separate access point to the project from the street. This will minimize vehicle interactions with other vehicles as well as pedestrians and cyclists. Further, the traffic study has determined that there is adequate site distance for exiting the alley onto Kipling Street. The project will incorporate mirrored installations at the parking garage ingress and egress to improve visibility and reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists. The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide one main drive aisle that would lead to an underground parking structure. Parking is shown at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. This drive aisle makes several 90 degree turns to spiral down to the farthest parking spaces. The City parking facility design standards specify a minimum width of 16 feet for two-way underground ramps; 25 feet for two-way drive aisles lined with 8.5 foot wide, 90 degree spaces; and maximum slope of 2% adjacent to accessible parking spaces. The proposed project DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F meets these standards. Further, the project was also found to meet the applicable parking requirements of the PAMC. Therefore, these features ensure access and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for all users. The project is subject to the loading area requirements in the City’s Zoning Code because it is a mixed-use project with commercial, office and residential uses. Consistent with past practice, the staff has recommended approval of an off-site loading area near the building rather than on the project site itself. There is a loading zone at Kipling Street and the alley provides sufficient loading space for the project and service alleys throughout downtown have historically been used for the purpose of shared loading and access. Using the alley is consistent with prior projects reviewed by the City and with previous iterations of the project design, and meets the intent of the City’s Code requirement. Landscaping and Plant Materials: Finding #11: Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. Finding #12: The materials, textures and colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression to the design and function and compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions. Finding #13: The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment on the site and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unit with the various buildings on the site. Finding #14: Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The project is consistent with Findings #11- #14 because: The project will preserve existing street trees along University Avenue and will replace two perimeter trees along Kipling Street with ginkgo biloba. Two other street trees along Kipling Street will be retained. The project proposes appropriate, drought tolerant, sustainable landscaping in key open space areas that will complement and enhance the design of these spaces. The landscaping will form a soft edge and perimeter around the ground floor and terrace area on the third floor. Further, as conditioned, the project is required to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. Therefore, the landscape design is appropriate and compatible for the project. The proposed project is consistent with the above finding because it corporates materials, textures, colors and details that are compatible with adjacent structures and functions. Adjacent structures employ brick, stucco and glass windows with a rough texture and organic colors. The proposed structure consists of concrete, glass windows, and metal mesh screens. These features compliment the adjacent buildings and the third and fourth floor consist of a similarly colored concrete as nearby buildings. Further, as conditioned, the project is required to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship-related detailing associated with the project. Therefore, the project is compatible with the materials, colors and textures of adjacent buildings. Sustainability: Finding #15: The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Careful building orientation to optimize daylight to interiors High performance, low-emissivity glazing Cool roof and roof insulation beyond Code minimum Solar ready roof Use of energy efficient LED lighting Low-flow plumbing and shower fixtures Below grade parking to allow for increased landscape and stormwater treatment areas The project is consistent with Finding #15 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings. Revised Architectural Review Findings were adopted by ordinance of the City Council on November 14, 2016 (second reading December 12, 2016) and became effective on January 12, 2017. The Council finds that the project as modified is consistent with these findings and the Context- Based Design Criteria in PAMC 18.18.110 as follows: 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 proposed project, as modified by the conditions of approval, is generally consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, including the following goals and policies: Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City’s residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Policy L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Policy T-21: Support the use of Downtown alleyways for pedestrian- and bicycle-only use. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. More specifically, the project is consistent with Policy L-5, which seeks to maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. As conditioned, the approved project reduces the scale and visual prominence of the building along University Avenue and Kipling Street, creating the appearance of a three-story structure. This design provides a smoother transition from the single and two-story structures along University Avenue and Kipling Street, thereby maintaining the scale of the blocks. The building’s modern design blends and transitions with the surrounding buildings and other buildings in the City through use of similar materials, design features, massing, and character. The project is further consistent with Goals L-4 and Policies L-20, L-23 and L-24 and L-49, in that the project provides ground floor commercial space at a prominent intersection that serves as a focal point for a variety of retail uses that could occupy the space. The rhythmic position of the doors along University Avenue and Kipling Street also enhance retail vitality of the streets by locating retail uses immediately adjacent to the sidewalk and reflects the pattern of development along University Avenue. The project is consistent with Policy L-23 as it provides a mixture of commercial, office and residential uses comprised in a quality designed building. The project is consistent with Policies L-24, L-49, T-21 and T-23 because it provides a widened sidewalk for pedestrians with sheltered entrances. These same pedestrian features are extended to Kipling Street as well, and the seating area at the rear of the building activates a pedestrian space in the alley. The project is consistent with Goal L-6 and Policies L-48 and L-49 because the project is well designed, creates a coherent development pattern, is of high quality, and creative design that is compatible with surrounding development. Conditions of Approval Nos. 2b, 2c, 2d, 3b, 3c ensure that materials, landscaping and colors will be of high quality; reduce the massing and scale of the building to make it compatible with the surrounding buildings by limiting the elevator tower height, removing the library from the third floor, and reducing the projection of the eyebrow on the building; and setting back the guardrails and planters on the fourth floor to further reduce the massing and scale and enhance the buildings compatibility with the surrounding environment. The project has also been reviewed to the objective development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. The project is consistent with the Downtown Urban Design plan. The project is located in the Commercial Core and more specifically the University Avenue District. The Urban Design plan notes that the alley from Kipling Street is designated for opportunities for pedestrian friendly use. The project satisfies this design requirement by providing a courtyard area with tables for pedestrians to use at the rear of the project site. The alley façade also incorporates a green wall which provides a sense of life to the alleyway. Other relevant goals in the plan include reinforcing University Avenue as the retail core by maintaining ground floor retail space, develop and enhance the qualities of University Avenue which make it an exciting outdoor and pedestrian environment with eclectic architecture, outdoor food, and entertainment and public amenities. The project maintains commercial uses along University Avenue by designating the ground floor area of the building for commercial spaces. The design of the project generates interests on the side streets. The clear glass windows allow pedestrians to see through the corner of the building which strengthens the pedestrian experience. The project provides pedestrian spaces through the recessed entries and widened sidewalk. The building is designed with attention to all facades. Kipling Street and University Avenue have the same attention to detail as the alley and southern elevation. The attention to detail in the alley is exhibited through the use of a green wall planter. Further, as conditioned, the southern elevation is required to incorporate a decorative wall treatment, feature or element. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Therefore, the project is conditioned and incorporates attention to detail on each façade. The ground floor of the project is primarily comprised of glass which is consistent with the plan’s requirement for ground floor treatments that allow for easier pedestrian views of displays and merchandise. Further, the project is located in the Kipling Street secondary district. The plan calls for Kipling Street between Lytton and University Avenue to retain older single family structures and the architectural character they provide. The project is not subject to this requirement because it does not propose to convert a single-family structure, and therefore its architecture, on Kipling Street. The project would convert commercial structures. The plan also calls for the terminus of Kipling Street and University Avenue to be enhanced through tie-ins to the Varsity Theater. The project would tie-in to the Varsity Theater by providing a structure that is of similar height and massing, located at the street front. The project is not subject to any coordinated area plans. 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 project has a unified and coherent design and creates an internal sense of order in that each use of the building is separated onto a specific floor. Each use also has access to own open space and the floor plans facilitate the proposed uses through appropriate layouts and configurations of the internal spaces. Internal spaces are provided with direct access and circulation routes and amenities like kitchen spaces for the commercial and office uses. The project is designed to preserve, respect and integrate natural features. Natural features for this project consist of street trees along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The project site will preserve the existing street trees along University Avenue and will replace the ginkgo biloba trees along Kipling Street with new gingko biloba trees. The building respect the street trees by maintain setbacks from the vegetation and Condition of Approval No. 3b ensures that vegetation from the project will integrate with the street trees. Because the area has not been recognized as having a unified design or historic character, the finding for historic character is not applicable Therefore, the project will preserve, respect and integrate natural features that contribute positively to the site. The project is consistent with the context-based design criteria for the applicable zone district: The design and architecture of the proposed project has been reviewed with respect to the Context-Based Design Criteria set forth in PAM 18.18.110. Section 18.18.110 notes that the project shall be: Responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design (where “responsible to context” is not a desire to replicate surroundings, but provide appropriate transitions to surroundings), and DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Compatible with adjacent development, when apparent scale and mass is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so the visual unit of the street is maintained. Pursuant to PAMC 18.18.110(b), the following additional findings have been made in the affirmative: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project supports widen sidewalk with recessed entries on primary pedestrian routes, at-grade bicycle racks near the building entrances, secured bicycle facility at ground level and within the underground parking garage. (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed street facades are designed to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity. The building façade facing University Avenue preserves the existing storefront pattern with distinguish architectural elements to break up building mass. Entries are clearly defined and have a scale that is in proportion to the building functions. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, and balconies are visible to people on the street. Proposed placement and orientation of doorways, windows and landscape elements are appropriate to create strong and direct relationships with the streets. Upper floors are setback, width of overhang is reduced and elevator shaft is oriented inward to reduce building mass and to fit in with the context of the neighborhood; (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates design with a series of recessed terraces and interchange in materials to break down the scale of building and provide visual interest. Variation in massing and materials create a façade with two distinctive frontages, which respect the existing storefront patterns and rhythms on University Avenue. Proposed design incorporates columns framework and tall display windows to reinforce the street corner. With the intent to minimize massing and ensure greater setback, proposed design has reduced the height of stairway tower and setback roofline for upper floor terrace at the corner of Lane 30 and Kipling Street; (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. Although the parcels abutting the project site along Kipling Street have a commercial zoning designation, most of the built forms have a low density residential appearance. While the height is taller than most of the buildings in the neighborhood, the proposed building height of 50 feet is compliant with the height limit in the Downtown Commercial District. Proposed design includes at least a 10 feet setback with open terraces at the second and third floors to reduce the impact of the building height on to adjacent lower density neighborhood. Potential privacy concern is at a less than significant level as the buildings behind the project site are mostly one-story with commercial/office uses and mature trees along Kipling Street would provide some degree of screening. Proposed design includes storefront glass on both frontages to introduce a daylight source on the ground level. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F space with wider sidewalks, balconies, and a roof-top terrace. The balconies are accessible by residents on the site and are located on four sides of the building that encourage ‘eyes on the street’. Proposed roof-top terrace is for office tenants and would provide ample solar exposure; (6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is located within the below-grade garage and does not detract from pedestrian environment. The project includes a well-integrated garage entry, four feet setback, and mirrors that aid traffic and improve visibility on Lane 30. In addition, the project incorporates landscaping element to soften the exit of Lane 30. The intent is to enhance the character of pedestrian environment, while maintaining traffic visibility with low profile plant materials; (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. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project would comply with the City’s green building ordinance, and the design includes overhangs, recesses, and other shading devices and techniques to reduce the solar heat gain and energy consumption related to the cooling of the building. Design is easy for pedestrian, bicycle and transit access. The project incorporates high efficiency LED light fixtures, low-flow plumbing fixtures and high efficiency HVAC equipment for efficiency energy and water use. Green building features will be incorporated to achieve CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the commercial portion and Green Point rated standards for the residential portion. Condition of Approval No. 2e requires that the elevator tower height not exceed 54.5 feet and Condition of Approval No. 2b requires the fourth floor guard rails to be setback from the edge of the terrace along all streetscapes. These conditions reduce the visual prominence of the structure along Kipling Street, and they create the appearance of a three story building. Along Kipling Street and University Avenue, the project would constitute a one to two-story increase in height from the adjacent structures. Additionally, the second and third floors are setback 10-feet from the alley way, and the third floor is setback approximately seven-feet off of Kipling Street and University Avenue. Condition Nos. 2c and 2d requires the library to be removed from the third floor at the intersection of Kipling Street and University Avenue and for the third floor roofline to follow the fourth floor plan, which further reduces the mass and scale of the building. These conditions and design feature help the project achieve a harmonious transition in scale and mass between adjacent land uses along Kipling Street and University Avenue. Further, the project is consistent with Finding #2 because it enhances the living conditions on the site by providing residential units in downtown. The project enhances the adjacent residential areas because it provides space for employment and commerce that residences can access easily from surrounding areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project has a high aesthetic quality, materials, construction techniques, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The buildings surrounding the site are comprised of concrete, stone, glass, brick, and metal and range in height from two to four stories along University Avenue. Along Kipling Street, buildings consist of cement, stucco, glass and brick structures. The proposed structure is comprised of high quality glass, concrete and steel design which is similar and representative of the materials found in the surrounding environment. Further, the materials, textures, and attention to detail in the structure is consistent throughout each elevation which represents a high quality aesthetic design. Lastly, the project, will have high quality materials, textures, colors and finishes because it is conditioned to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment of exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship-related detailing associated with the project. Therefore, the project is consistent with Finding #3 because it consists of a high quality aesthetic design with integrated materials, textures, colors and other details that are compatible with the surrounding environment. 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: Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for all users. The alley provides a dedicated, separate access point to the project from the street. This will minimize vehicle interactions with other vehicles as well as pedestrians and cyclists. Further, the traffic study has determined that there is adequate site distance for exiting the alley onto Kipling Street. The project will incorporate mirrored installations at the parking garage ingress and egress to improve visibility and reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists. The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide one main drive aisle that would lead to an underground parking structure. Parking is shown at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. This drive aisle makes several 90 degree turns to spiral down to the farthest parking spaces. The City parking facility design standards specify a minimum width of 16 feet for two-way underground ramps; 25 feet for two-way drive aisles lined with 8.5 foot wide, 90 degree spaces; and maximum slope of 2% adjacent to accessible parking spaces. The proposed project meets these standards. Further, the project was also found to meet the applicable parking requirements of the PAMC. Therefore, these features ensure access and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for all users. 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 will preserve existing street trees along University Avenue and will replace two perimeter trees along Kipling Street with ginkgo biloba. Two other street trees along Kipling Street will be retained. The project proposes appropriate, drought tolerant, sustainable landscaping in key open space areas that will complement and enhance the design of these spaces. The landscaping will form a soft edge and perimeter around the ground floor and terrace area on the third floor. Further, as conditioned, the project is required to return to the Architectural Review Board for review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Environment for landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. Therefore, the landscape design is appropriate and compatible for the project. 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. SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. The following conditions of approval shall be implemented as part of the modified project approved by this Record of Land Use Action. Condition numbers 2 and 3 are those specifically adopted by the City Council to ensure that the modified project is consistent with all applicable findings. Planning Division 1. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE. The plans submitted for a Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received on October 26, 2016, hereby labeled as Option 1, containing 24 pages, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval, including Exhibit A (MMRP), shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Applicant shall submit detailed plans that demonstrate compliance with floor area and other applicable development standards. b. The fourth floor guardrails and planters shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the edge of the third floor roofline (all elevations), as modified by these conditions. c. The ‘library’ shown on the third floor, floor plans, at the street corner, shall be removed. d. The third floor roofline above the removed ‘library’ area shall be removed, except to allow a three-foot overhang. e. The elevator adjacent to Kipling Street, inclusive of any associated mechanical equipment, shall not exceed fifty-four and one-half feet (54.5') in height. 3. BOARD LEVEL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. A decorative wall design treatment, feature or element, shall be applied to the exterior walls immediately adjacent to the southern property line (project’s south elevation) starting at an DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F elevation equivalent to the building height of the adjacent structure and extending to the roofline of the proposed building. b. Landscape details and plans for all proposed planting, including individual planters, the greenwall, and landscaping near the rooftop elevator. c. The exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship-related detailing associated with the project. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate how interior and exterior lighting sources will be reduced after operating hours or when the use of the facility is reduced. This may require the use of timing devices for exterior and interior lights in order to minimize light glare at night without jeopardizing security of employees/residents. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $312,634.85 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 7. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with Ordinance No. 5226, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received final approval of the art plan , or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to issuance of a Building permit. All required artwork shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit. The Public Art requirements Application information and documents can be found at www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicart under the “policies and documents” tab. 8. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 9. 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. 10. MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP). The MMRP associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. 11. PLANNING 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, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner at 650-329-2441 x0 to schedule this inspection. 12. 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 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. Building Division 13. The permit application shall be accompanied by all plans and related documents necessary to construct the complete project. 14. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing building(s) on site. 15. The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shall not be phased under multiple permits. 16. Separate submittals and permits are required for the following systems: E.V., P.V. and Solar Hot Water. 17. Design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be “deferred” shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 18. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. 19. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include allowable floor area calculations that relate the proposed occupancies to type of construction. This includes possible future installation of assembly occupancies such as large conference rooms or cafeterias, for example. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 20. An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report’s recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Section 1207. Green Building 21. Green Building Ordinance: a. Commercial Portion - CALGreen Tier 2: The project must meet the California Green Building Code Tier 2 requirements. Due to the size of the project, the team must engage a commissioning agent and fulfil on the commissioning requirements. Additional information may be found at the following link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. The new Energy California Energy Code contains significant changes and Palo Alto is currently enforcing code minimum for the energy code. The details can be found at the following link. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ b. Residential Portion- Green Point Rated: The project is required to achieve Green Point Rated Certification through Build It Green. The project team must engage a Green Point Rater. The required minimum points value is 70. The required prerequisite and points associated with exceeding the code shall be excused. Additional information may be found at the following linkhttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp 22. EV Parking Ordinance: The project is subject to meet the new Electric Vehicle Parking Ordinance that requires but is not limited to: a. Multi-family: One EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed per unit. For guest parking, either conduit only, EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed shall be provided for 25% of the parking. A minimum of 1 EVSE Installed for multi-family guest parking shall be provided. b. Commercial: For commercial parking, either conduit only, EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed shall be provided for 25% of the parking. A minimum of 1 EVSE Installed for commercial parking shall be provided. Urban Forestry 23. STREET TREES: City street trees approved to remain shall be maintained and protected during construction per City of Palo Alto standard requirements as further described in the City’s Tree Technical Manual and below: a. UNIVERSITY AVENUE: Two regulated street trees (London Plane) on University Ave frontage are to be retained and protected. Protection shall consist of Modified Type III for the entire trunk and will include primary branches on the building side. Prior to any clearance/pruning, the project applicant shall: i. Submit a written Tree Care Application to Dorothy.dale@cityofpaloalto.org, ii. Receive approval of said Tree Care Application, and iii. Shall coordinate with Urban Forestry for direct supervision by staff of private tree contractor. b. KIPLING STREET: Four trees in the right of way are approved for removal. Four replacement trees shall be installed, Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’, Maidenhair, 36-inch box size, in 5’x5’ Kiva tree grates, two irrigation bubblers per tree (PW Standard Detail # 603a and 513). A certified arborist for the applicant shall evaluate/select matching trees DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F for quality. Contractor shall coordinate an Urban Forestry inspection of the new trees, before they are planted in the ground. i. SIDEWALK BASE MEDIUM: As a root growing medium between the curb and building face, Silva Cell technology or approved equal, shall be designed as a suspended sidewalk element and provide low compaction area for long term root growth. A certified arborist for the applicant shall calculate how many cubic feet of soil and Silva cell material will be needed for each tree, for approval by the Urban Forester. 24. All landscape material shall be well maintained for the life of the project and replaced if it fails. Public Works Engineering Department PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT AND GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT SUBMITTAL: 25. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: The applicant has revised the project description to indicate that she is no longer pursuing the development of condominiums. Since the project site is located within two parcels 120-15-029 and 120-15-028 a certificate of compliance for a lot merger is required. Applicant shall apply for a certificate of compliance and provide the necessary documents. Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building or grading and excavation permit. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT: 26. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: construction fence, construction entrance, stockpile areas, office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. Plan shall also indicate if the bus stop will need to be relocated. 27. Applicant shall schedule a meeting with Public Works Engineering and Transportation Division to discuss the existing building demolition, excavation and building construction logistics. Construction fence shall be located at the building property line, travel lane closures will not be permitted. Applicant shall propose a logistics plan that shows how pedestrian access is maintained and eliminating the least number of parking spaces during construction. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 28. GRADING PERMIT: An Excavation and Grading Permit is 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 29. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 30. BASEMENT SHORING: Provide shoring plans for the basement excavation, clearly including tiebacks (if any). Tieback shall not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City’s right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. During the ARB process and via email dated 9/25/14 the applicant indicated that the tiebacks will extend into the adjacent private property. As such provide a letter from the neighboring property owner to allow the encroachment of permanent tiebacks into their property. In addition the shoring plans shall clearly show the property line and the dimension between the outside edge of the soldier piles and the property line for City records. Also provide notes on the Shoring Plans for the “Contractor to cut-off the shoring 6-feet below the sidewalk elevation.” AND “Contractor shall submit and obtain a permanent encroachment permit from Public Works for the tiebacks and shoring located within public right-of-way. 31. DEWATERING: Basement 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 an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work 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 street work permit prior to dewatering. The street work permit to dewater must be obtained in August to allow ample to time to dewater and complete the dewatering by October 31st. 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: DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp The following links are included to assist the applicant with dewatering requirements: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30978 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51366 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47388. 32. WATER FILLING STATION: Applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of- way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 33. GROUNDWATER USE PLAN: A Groundwater Use Plan (GWUP) shall be submitted for review for any project which requires dewatering. The GWUP, a narrative that shall be included in or accompany the Dewatering Plan, must demonstrate the highest beneficial use practicable of the pumped groundwater. The GWUP shall also state that all onsite, non-potable water needs such as dust control shall be met by using the pumped groundwater. Delays in submitting the GWUP can result in delays in the issuance of your discharge permit as Public Works requires sufficient review time which shall be expected by the applicant. 34. 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 a note on the Rough Grading Plan that includes the comment above as a note. 35. GAS METERS: In-ground gas meters are not typically allowed by Public Works Utilities. If in-ground gas meters are not allowed, the above ground gas meter shall be located complete within private property. Plot and label the proposed location. If in-ground gas meters are permitted, applicant shall submit an email from Utilities that indicates in-ground gas meters are acceptable for this project. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 36. MAPPING: Applicant has revised the project description to indicate that she is no longer pursuing the development of condominiums. If at any point the applicant intends to sell portions of the building a Minor or Major Subdivision Application will be required. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map requirements. 37. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Prior to submittal of Building and/or Grading permit applicant shall meet with Public Works to discuss off-site improvements. These may include but are not limited to new concrete or asphalt work, utility upgrades or relocations, and/or street resurfacing. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 38. The following items were not addressed through the final ARB submittal and shall be shown on the plans. a. Explain how all of the site runoff will drain directly into the media filter. The media filter shall be located complete with the private property as shown on the approve ARB plans. The details provided indicate that the media filter is to be installed below ground and discharge would need to be pumped to the surface. However that is not reflected on the Utility Plan. b. Plot and label the total the number of disconnected downspouts. The civil has indicated that the downspouts runoff will drain into the media filter, but it’s not clear on the plans how this will be accomplished. c. The site plan shall demonstrate how the runoff from the MFS flows by gravity into the gutter, provide pipe inverts and flowline grades. If a new separate structure is required to allow runoff to flow by gravity into the gutter or reduce the velocity, then the structure shall be located completely within the private property. The 4th and 5th resubmittal ARB plans show a junction box within the public right of way, this box shall be located completely within the private property. d. The 5th submittal shows a planter box adjacent to the alley and the MFS has been relocated to be within this planter boxes. The plans submitted lack information, show how the roof runoff is directed into the mechanical treatment facility. Plot and label the pump, drain lines, downspouts. Show how all of the site runoff is treated by the proposed MFS. e. It’s not clear if the planter box is intended to provide C3 treatment. If LID treatment is proposed provide the surface drainage areas and calculations. f. Resize the new planter box to allow the junction box to be within the private property and behind the Kipling Street sidewalk. The planter box and planting material shall be revised to meet the 4-ft by 6-ft clear site distance and height clearance. In addition the planter box shall be located 1-foot minimum away from the adjacent alley. 39. GRADING AND 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 at every at grade door entrance, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.28 Adjacent grades must slope away from the building foundation at 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. 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 or connected directly to the City’s infrastructure, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscape and other pervious areas of the site. Plan shall also include a drainage system as required for all uncovered exterior basement-level spaces such as lightwell, stairwells or driveway ramps. 40. 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, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 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. 41. 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. 42. 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 43. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, 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 building permit 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 approval of the building permit 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. 44. UTILITY PLAN: shall be provided with the Building Permit that demonstrates how the site’s drainage flows by gravity into the City’s system and is not pumped. Public Works generally does not allow downspout rainwater to be collected, piped and discharged directly into the street gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure. The utility plan shall indicate that downspouts are disconnected, daylight at grade, and are directed to landscaped and other pervious areas onsite. Downspouts shall daylight away from the foundation. If pumps are required, plot and label where the pumps will be located on-site, storm water runoff from pumped system shall daylight onto onsite landscaped areas and be allow to infiltrate and flow by gravity DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F to the public storm drain line. Storm water runoff that is pumped shall not be directly piped into the public storm drain line. 45. TRANSFORMER AND UTILITIES: Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. The backflow preventer, and above grade meters shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly if a transformer upgrade or a grease interceptor is required it shall also be located within the private property. 46. 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. This project may be required to replace the driveway approach the sidewalk associated with the existing driveway may be required to replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. 47. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2013 California Building Code Chapter 32 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway. The contractor must apply to Public Works for an encroachment permit to close or occupy the sidewalk(s) or lane.” 48. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all of the existing sidewalks, ramps, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Applicant shall be responsible for replacing the two ramps immediately across the street from the project site. Applicant shall meet with Public Works and Transportation to discuss the potential for adding a bulb-out along the University Avenue side to widen the sidewalk. If construction of the new ramps and/or sidewalk results in a conflict with utilities or traffic signal than applicant will be responsible for adjusting to grade or relocating conflict and to bring the improvements to current designs standards. The site plan and grading and drainage plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. Provide references to the specific City’s Standard Drawings and Specification. 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. 49. RESURFACING: The applicant is required to resurface (grind and overlay) the entire width of the street on University Avenue and Kipling Street frontages adjacent to the project. In addition this project is required to resurface the full width of the Lane along the project frontage. Note that the base material for these 3 streets varies. Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will be required after resurfacing. Include an off-site plan that shows the existing signage and striping that is to be replaces as part of this project and for the contractor’s use. 50. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650- 496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 51. 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). 52. GARBAGE/TRASH RECEPTACLES: The plans provided for preliminary review do not include the existing garbage/trash receptacle along University Avenue. This shall be shown on the Building permit plans and remain in its location for as long as possible during construction. If construction activities require the temporary removal of the receptacle, the contractor may remove during that construction activity but must place it back as soon as those activities have been completed. Prior to doing so, the contractor must notify the public works department to determine if Public Works Operations should pick it up for storage during that time. 53. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie-backs for the basement or construction access provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties 54. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to San Franscisquito Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Similar medallions shall be installed near the catch basins that are proposed to be relocated. Provide notes on the plans to reference that medallions and stencils. 55. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR: Parking garage floor drains on interior levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be located within private property. 56. GREASE INTERCEPTOR: If a commercial kitchen is proposed requiring the installation of a grease interceptor, the grease separator shall be installed and located within private property. In no case shall the City of Palo Alto allow the right-of-way (ROW) to be used to satisfy this requirement. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL: 57. STORM WATER TREATMENT: At the time of installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, a third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 58. 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 currently a $381 (FY 2015) C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 59. Contractor and/or Applicant shall prepare and submit an electronic (pdf) copy of the Off-Site Improvements As-Built set of plans to Public Works for the City’s records. The as-built set shall include all the improvements within the public road right-of-way and include items such as: shoring piles, tiebacks, public storm drain improvements, traffic signs, street trees, location of any vaults or boxes, and any other item that was installed as part of this project. 60. Contractor shall submit and obtain an Encroachment permit for the permanent structures (shoring and tiebacks) that were installed within the public road right-of-way. Fire Department 61. Residential sprinklers to be designed per NFPA 13. Fire sprinklers and fire alarm systems and standpipes required in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA14, NFPA 24, NFPA 72 and State and local standards. Sprinkler, fire alarm and underground fire supply installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 62. Sprinkler main drain must be coordinated with plumbing design so that 200 gpm can be flowed for annual main drain testing for 90 seconds without overflowing the collection sump, and the Utilities Department approved ejector pumps will be the maximum flow rate to sanitary sewer. 63. Applicant shall work with Utilities Department to provide acceptable backflow prevention configuration. 64. All floor levels in multi-story buildings must be served by an elevator capable of accommodating a 24 x 84 inch gurney without lifting or manipulating the gurney. 65. All welding or other hot work during construction shall be under a permit obtained from the Palo Alto Fire Department with proper notification and documentation of procedures followed and work conducted. 66. Low-E glass and underground parking areas can interfere with portable radios used by emergency responders. Please provide an RF Engineering analysis to determine if additional devices or equipment will be needed to maintain operability of emergency responder portable radios throughout 97% of the multi-family buildings in accordance with the Fire Code Appendix J as adopted by the City of Palo Alto. A written report to the Fire Marshal shall be provided prior to final inspection. Utilities Electrical Engineering DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F GENERAL: 67. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 68. 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. 69. 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. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE: 70. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 71. 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. 72. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 73. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 74. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 75. 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. 76. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 77. 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. 78. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 79. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct 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. 80. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 81. 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. 82. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned an 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. 83. 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. 84. 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. DURING CONSTRUCTION: 85. 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. 86. 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 check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 87. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site 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 National 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. 88. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 89. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 90. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 91. 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. 92. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 93. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 94. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION: 95. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT: 96. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 97. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 98. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 99. The following conditions apply to three-phase service and any service over 400 amperes: a. A padmount transformer is required. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F b. The Utilities Director, or his/her designee, may authorize the installation of submersible or vault installed facilities if in their opinion, padmounted equipment would not be feasible or practical. c. Submersible or vault installed facilities shall be considered Special Facilities as described in Rule and Regulation 20, and all costs associated with the installation, including continuing ownership and maintenance, will be borne by the applicant (see Rule and Regulation 3 for details). d. The customer must provide adequate space for installation, or reimburse the Utility for additional costs to locate the transformer outside the property boundaries. All service equipment must be located above grade level unless otherwise approved by Electric Engineering. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Department PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT: 100. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 101. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT: 102. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas-wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. 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 existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 103. 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. 104. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 105. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 106. The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on- site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak floor demands. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 107. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities’ record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 108. 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. 109. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 110. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 111. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 112. Existing wastewater main is 5.4” PE on Kipling Street. (sewer lateral to be 4”) 113. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 114. 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. 115. 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. 116. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 117. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connection of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 118. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage may require. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 119. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a copy of the plans for fire system including all Fire Department’s requirements. Please see a fire/domestic combination service connection for your provide- see City of Palo Alto standard WD-11. 120. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. Gas meter to be installed above ground. 121. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. 122. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 123. 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. 124. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 125. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 126. All WGW utilities work on University Avenue is 1.5 times the stated fee due to traffic; existing conditions require the work to be done outside of regular work hours. Zero Waste/ Solid Waste PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 127. Provide a garbage and recycling chute for the residential unit with either an additional chute or a bin space for compostables on the residential floor. 128. SERVICE LEVELS: Without a restaurant: the enclosure should be sized for 3-yard garbage bin, 4-yard recycling bin, 1-yard compostables bin; with a restaurant: With a restaurant: 3-yard garbage bin, 4-yard recycling bin, 2-yard compostables bin. 129. TRASH DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING (PAMC 18.23.020): (A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) 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. 130. RECYCLING STORAGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (PAMC 5.20.120): The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080, 18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code. 131. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS: (a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access. (b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is used. (c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply. (d) Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs”. 132. GARBAGE, RECYCLING, AND YARD WASTE/COMPOSTABLES CART/ BIN LOCATION AND SIZING: DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F a. Office Building: The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling container space1. Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling containers. i. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables. ii. Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. iii. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. iv. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. b. Restaurants and Food Service Establishments: Please contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894 to maximize the collection of compostables in food preparation areas and customer areas. For more information about compostable food service products, please contact City of Palo Alto Zero Waste at (650) 496-5910. c. Multi-family Residential: The proposed multi-family development must follow the requirements for recycling container space2. All residential developments, where central garbage, recycling, and compostables containers will serve five or more dwelling units, must have space for the storage and collection of recyclables and compostables. This includes the provision of recycling chutes where garbage chutes are provided. Project plans must show the placement of recycling and compostables containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. i. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables. ii. Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. iii. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. iv. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce wear-and-tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. 133. COVERED DUMPSTERS, RECYCLING AND TALLOW BIN AREAS (PAMC 16.09.075(q)(2)): 1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 2 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F a. Newly constructed and remodeled Food Service Establishments (FSEs) shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. b. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. c. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a Grease Control Device (GCD). d. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. e. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal). The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. 134. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS (CDD) (PAMC 5.24.030): a. Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In addition, all debris generated by a covered project must haul 100 percent of the debris not salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter. b. Contact the City of Palo Alto’s Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on where to conveniently recycle the material. Public Works Water Quality Control 135. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): 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. 136. UNPOLLUTED WATER (PAMC 16.09.055): Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (e.g. uncovered ramp to garage area). DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 137. COVERED PARKING (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9)): If installed, drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system. 138. DUMPSTERS FOR NEW AND REMODELED FACILITATIES (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10)): New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 139. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER PAMC (16.09.180(b)(14)): 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. 140. LOADING DOCKS (PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2)): (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. 141. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5)): Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 142. SILVER PROCESSING (e.g. photoprocessing retail) (PAMC 16.09.215): Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-329-2421. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 143. COPPER PIPING (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b)): 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. 144. MERCURY SWITCHES (PAMC 16.09.180(12)): Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 145. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS AND HEAT EXCHANGERS (PAMC 16.09.205(a)): It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 146. UNDESIGNATED RETAIL SPACE (PAMC 16.09): Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met, in addition to other applicable codes: Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075; Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075; Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2); Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B). PASSED: 5-3-1 AYES: Filseth, Fine, Scharff, Tanaka, Wolbach NOES: DuBois, Holman, Kou, ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Kniss ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Jo Bellomo Associates titled “429 University Avenue”, consisting of 24 pages, dated October 26, 2016. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program INTRODUCTION Section 15097 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 429 University Avenue project. This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities, as necessary, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the 429 University Avenue Project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing monitoring requirements; and 4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in the Initial Study prepared for the 429 University Avenue Project (Dudek 2014). 429 University Avenue Project Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program January 2015 Exhibit A DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 2 January 2015 No mitigation measures are required for the following resources: Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Agricultural Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Air Quality Land Use and Planning Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Mineral Resources Implementation Monitoring Mitigation Measure Responsibility Responsibility Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Utilities and Service Systems Performance Timing Evaluation Criteria BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. Applicant City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Group/Planning Division Arborist Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and building permits During demolition, excavation, and construction Approved site plans reflect applicable conditions Field inspections conducted to verify adherence to conditions DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 3 January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to Applicant City of Palo Alto Prior to and during earth disturbance Training materials provided to construction contractors Field inspections conducted to verify compliance DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 4 January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos- related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of demolition permit and during demolition Building survey report submitted LCMs and ACMs handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the California Occupational Health and Safety’s DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 5 January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. PCBs, mercury and other hazardous building materials handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations as identified. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include window sound transmission ratings and interior noise levels verification from a qualified acoustical consultant. DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program Page 6 January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include details of the residential ventilation system. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound- attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include garage exhaust fan manufacturer’s information regarding equipment noise levels and noise attenuation details TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors DocuSign Envelope ID: 930BD357-2B99-4569-91C1-1551728AD75F Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 930BD3572B99456991C11551728AD75F Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: 429 University ROLUA FINAL.docx Source Envelope: Document Pages: 42 Signatures: 4 Envelope Originator: Supplemental Document Pages: 0 Initials: 0 Yolanda Cervantes Certificate Pages: 2 AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) Payments: 0 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Record Tracking Status: Original 4/21/2017 3:24:37 PM Holder: Yolanda Cervantes Yolanda.Cervantes@CityofPaloAlto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Jonathan Lait Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org Asst. Director Planning and Comm Environment City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 12.220.157.20 Sent: 4/21/2017 3:27:20 PM Resent: 4/21/2017 3:33:33 PM Viewed: 4/21/2017 3:33:56 PM Signed: 4/21/2017 3:34:13 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Albert Yang Albert.yang@cityofpaloalto.org Senior Deputy City Attorney City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 73.254.101.222 Sent: 4/21/2017 3:34:17 PM Viewed: 4/24/2017 8:55:46 AM Signed: 4/24/2017 8:56:17 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Greg Scharff greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org Mayor City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 71.198.25.55 Signed using mobile Sent: 4/24/2017 8:56:20 AM Resent: 4/25/2017 10:47:36 AM Viewed: 4/24/2017 3:32:28 PM Signed: 4/25/2017 8:27:28 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Beth Minor beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org City Clerk City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 97.84.91.30 Signed using mobile Sent: 4/25/2017 8:27:32 PM Viewed: 4/25/2017 9:37:47 PM Signed: 4/25/2017 9:39:10 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/25/2017 8:27:32 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 4/25/2017 9:37:47 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 4/25/2017 9:39:10 PM Completed Security Checked 4/25/2017 9:39:10 PM Payment Events Status Timestamps Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “429 University Avenue” and click the address link 3. 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=2725 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Alexander Lew, Robert Gooyer, Osma Thompson. Absent: None. Chair Furth: Good morning. Thank you, that's very responsive. Good morning, and welcome to the July 5th -- this is the dedicated board, let me say -- 2018 meeting of the Architectural Review Board in the city of Palo Alto. Could we have the roll call, please. [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on an item that's not on the agenda, but is within the Architectural Review Board? I have no speaker cards, and seeing no one, we'll continue. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Staff? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes. Chair Furth: A little hard to change a one-item agenda. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: This is attendance and future agenda. Okay. I need to say that I am going to be gone on the 16th of August. Could you tell us what you're thinking we might have for the next two meetings? Or three? Ms. Gerhardt: If I could do them at the end of the meeting. Chair Furth: Certainly. Just remind me. I think that's the first time I've not forgotten one of the first four items. Action Items ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: July 5, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3223 Hanover Street [17PLN-00225]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new two-Story 67,200 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From June 28, 2018 to July 30, 2018. Zoning District: RP (Research Park) and RP(L) (Research Park with Landscape Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: Action items. Public hearing, quasi-judicial, on 3223 Hanover Street. This is a major architectural review to allow construction of a new two-story 67,000 square foot office/research and development building. We have an initial study that was circulated for public comment, is being circulated for public comment. The public comment period won't conclude until July 30th. The zoning district is Research Park with Landscape Combining District. The planner is Graham Owen. Mr. Owen? Graham Owen, Project Planner: Thank you, Chair Furth. Yes, as you mentioned, this is 3223 Hanover Street. It's a major architectural review application for a new office building, 67,000 square feet, plus an additional couple thousand square feet for traffic-mitigating amenity space. The Board had previously reviewed this. Just as a bit of background, the Board had previously reviewed and recommended approval of a building on this site in March of last year, and it was approved by the Planning Director in April. This application was filed in July of last year. It's in the Research Park zoning district and there's a Landscape Combining District that runs along the rear of the property, which is adjacent to some R1 residential homes. The Board had their first hearing on this phase of the project on March 15 of this year. As you mentioned, we have prepared a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to look at the environmental impacts of the project. Just to frame the background for you, this initial study, we had done one for Phase 1, as we're calling it now, but we did do a separate initial study for Phase 2. However, when applicable, we have looked at the cumulative impacts of both Phase 1 and Phase 2, those in particular for transportation, air quality, etc. With the mitigation measures that are identified in the initial study, all of the impacts to the environment would be mitigated down to the less-than-significant level. This is the site plan showing Phase 1, which is the lighter color to the southern side of the site. And then, the darker-shaded yellow is the Phase 2 building, which would sit on top of the garage. Since the first hearing, the applicant has re-designed a portion of the parking lot to add additional landscaping and some seating. This is identified in the area just slightly below the center of the parking lot. This lines up with the grand staircase, as they call it, which is the approach from the parking lot that takes you up a staircase to the upper platform and the courtyard area of the buildings. This is the site axiomatic. This is showing the changes to the plan with the increased green space, which is essentially replacing one of the parking modules. Key considerations. Staff is looking in particular at Finding #4 and how it relates to the project. Finding #4 looks at the design from a functionality standpoint for circulation for pedestrians and cyclists, ensuring that the buildings and the site planning is arranged in such a way that it's optimized for those two modes in particular. Related to this is the design of the parking lot, which has had a lot of discussions with staff and the applicant, but also with the Board, as well. Pedestrian circulation both for the parking lot and the proposed garden pathway, which would now link the upper module and the lower module as it comes closer to Hanover Street. There's a new connection to essentially link the two sides of the site. Also related to this -- and this is further outlined in the staff report -- the applicant is proposing some proffered improvements to the bicycle path, which runs along the northern section of the site. This would open up the landscaping in that area, add some seating, as well as some beautification elements. One of the things in particular, we actually got some new information from the applicant recently about this, is that a portion of the Bol Park bicycle path runs along two lease areas, so half of the bicycle path is essentially controlled by this applicant. The other half is controlled by the adjacent lessee, which is, I believe Coulee [phonetic]. We didn't have an understanding until recently that there would be, essentially, some sort of arrangement so that both sides of that easement area or area that are controlled by two separate entities would be able to undergo beautification. We've gotten a little bit of clarity on that very recently. As it relates to the site planning, staff is still concerned about the number of parking lot intersections. As you can see, there is a main drive aisle that takes you from Hanover Street to the back of the site, but City of Palo Alto Page 3 with the parking lot that's proposed, this is essentially a reflection of the way that the site sits now. It wouldn't be a re-use of the parking lot due to the grading that's proposed with Phase 2. Essentially, you'd be going from a lower level when you're closer to Hanover Street, and it would slope up and grade up as you get closer to the back. It's not a reuse; it's a complete regrading of the site in that area, despite the similar appearance between the existing condition as it is on the ground today and the proposed condition. We think there's room for improvement in this particular area, given that this is an older design, older concept that's essentially been on the site since the 1950s when the buildings that were previously there were built, back in the 1950s. With this, we have this understanding that the Comprehensive Plan supports parking lots that utilize green space to the degree possible, and also work for both pedestrians and cyclists. We think there is room for improvement. One of the things that we've discussed in the previous ARB meeting for this phase of the project was the possibility of re-orienting the parking module so that they are rotated 90 degrees. That's just one option. It's not necessarily the be-all, end-all, but it's one way of essentially increasing the amount of green space and the amount of shading in the parking lot, which has a number of benefits from a heat island standpoint, from a beautification standpoint, and also from a pedestrian circulation standpoint. This is a render, essentially, of the applicant's study of reorienting the parking lot that they presented at the first ARB meeting, so this is something that they considered. When they did their analysis, they found that they came up slightly short in terms of the number of parking stalls that would be on the site. We think that this concept warrants a little more study. We are in support of the overall idea of reorienting and adding additional greenspace, and we think that there are ways in which the additional parking spaces that they come up short would be able to be found somewhere else on the site. I've got three examples, briefly, from other sites in the Research Park where this sort of concept has been executed. When you're looking at these aerial photographs, they don't necessarily show the amount of green space that we're hoping to achieve, but in concept in terms of the design, this is more or less what we are going for or supporting. This is from adjacent to 3181 Porter Drive, which is currently under construction, but is the Stanford Genome Center. As you can see, there are five modules of parking, and you have a pedestrian half way that kind of splits the middle. This is from 1450 Page Mill, which was recently finalled [sic], as well as the site that's adjacent to it, where you can see the concept on a smaller scale. And then, I forget the building that we're looking at here, but this is on Cal Ave, so kind of on the western end of the Research Park. Cal Ave is this section right here, so you've got the homes that are adjacent to it. You can kind of see this curving path that actually goes all the way through the entire site. With that, the purpose of this meeting... Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Owen: These right here, these are a couple of Comprehensive Plan policies that support the idea of additional green space in parking lots and designing parking lots in a way that really benefits and provides amenities for pedestrians and cyclists. Additionally, looking at alternative to surface parking lots, such as underground parking, for example. Staff's recommendation right now is to, first, conduct a public hearing to receive testimony on the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, but then, to continue the item to a date uncertain so that the applicant can provide additional information and additional changes to the site plan, so that, in particular, Finding #4 can be met. That's the end of my presentation. Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff before we open the public hearing? I have one. This is a Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it doesn't contain mitigation measures because the needed changes have been agreed to by the applicant? It says? Mr. Owen: I'm not sure I understand the question. Chair Furth: Often when we get a Mitigated Negative Declaration, there's a list of mitigation measures and a mitigation and monitoring report. This doesn't have those. And it says that you find the project could have a significant impact, but it won't because of revisions to the project made to or agreed to by the project proponent. I was just wondering what those were. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Mr. Owen: Sure. Mitigation measures need to be agreed to by the applicant. It's part of CEQA. It needs to be a voluntary thing where the applicant acknowledges and understands the mitigation measures and agrees to them. In terms of the MMRP that you referenced, we didn't put it together in time. But, with the final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, we certainly would. But all the mitigation measures are included in that document. Chair Furth: Okay. I was just not finding them easily sorted out. Mr. Owen: I apologize for that. Chair Furth: I could read the entire thing more carefully and that would work. All right. Any other questions? Essentially, they are the standard tree protection, etc. There's nothing particularly...? Mr. Owen: Some of them are. Some of the tree protection, for example, the need to do a bird nesting survey. Some of them are specific to the project, and as I mentioned, kind of the cumulative impact of Phase 1 and Phase 2. For example, air quality was something that was studied thoroughly to ensure that there wasn't a significant impact to sensitive receptors in particular, based on the phasing of the project. Some of them are your more standard mitigation measures, but a lot of them are specific to what we're dealing with across two phases. Chair Furth: The air quality issue is dust control during construction, or other things? Mr. Owen: It's more about diesel, diesel emissions from construction and construction vehicles. Chair Furth: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: For your information, we do have on page 30, are the mitigation measures for the air quality. Chair Furth: Right. I saw those. Ms. Gerhardt: And then, on page 42 is mitigation measures for trees and other biological impacts. They're just at the end of each chapter, you would find the mitigation measures. Chair Furth: I see them. What about traffic? Do we have anything? Where are they? Under Traffic, I'm sure. Mr. Owen: From a transportation standpoint, no mitigation measures. There were no potentially significant impacts to transportation. One thing to keep in mind, the Phase 1 building, when we were doing the study for that, there are relatively few new trips associated with Phase 1 because it was a replacement of square footage. But even with those included in the background of the analysis, which has been done with this project in Phase 2, nothing gets triggered in terms of your LOS or other thresholds. Chair Furth: Right. And then, I had one other question about the traffic analysis, which talks about trips and projected trips. Is a trip in and out, or just in or out? Mr. Owen: I can look that up real quick. Hang on one second. Chair Furth: They talk about gross daily trips on page 108. Ms. Gerhardt: The traffic analysis is looking at both directions because there is the AM and PM peak hours. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Furth: But, I mean, if I'm counting trips to and from the site, if I drive there and leave there, is that two or one? Ms. Gerhardt: I don't know if it's one continuous trip or not, but it is certainly counted both directions. Chair Furth: Okay, so, if they say...I'm just doing very rough arithmetic. If they say 741 gross daily trips, that means 370 vehicles going in and off the site every day. Mr. Owen: My understanding is that each direction is a trip. Because you have a work-based trip, somebody going from home to work, and you could have somebody that's going from work during lunch to, you know, to lunch, essentially, and that's another trip. And it's another trip when they go home. Chair Furth: Got it. Yeah, because not all of these are peak hour trips. Okay, thank you. In fact, 205 of them are peak hour trips. All right. Shall we let the applicant speak now? And you will have 10 minutes. Good morning. John Marx, Form4 Architecture: Good morning. I'm John Marx. I'd like to thank Chair Furth and the members of the ARB for coming here this morning to listen to our story. Chair Furth: Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I did get the first four items, but I forgot the disclosure section. It says this is a quasi-judicial hearing. We need to disclose outside communications. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to disclose that I did meet with Architect Marx and his partner, Bob Geanola [phonetic], prior to this meeting, just to discuss the project. I did not discover or learn anything different than what's presented. Chair Furth: I did, too. I had the same meeting, and again, I don't believe I learned anything that we have not already discussed. All right. And we've all visited the site. Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Thompson: I have not. I did not get time to visit the site. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Thompson: But I looked at it digitally (inaudible). Chair Furth: Four of us have seen the site on site and all of us have carefully looked at the various graphic representations of it. Thank you. Mr. Marx: Great. Chair Furth: And just for the record, you need to spell your name because our transcriber will do what she thinks best, otherwise. Mr. Marx: I'm John Marx. [spells name] I'm here filling in for Bob Giannini, who is traveling in Africa. But I’m also the design partner and personally designed the project itself. Bob's kind of the front man. He gets to come and wax poetic about the project. One thing just really quick before I start in is we'd like to mention that we believe there's no significant traffic impact, but we also, to the comment earlier, RTMs do reduce peak hour traffic by 30 percent. Just as a little side note to that. What I'd like to do is recap the project, and then, also, update what we've done with the surface parking concept. As you know, here's the project location, Stanford Research Park, adjacent to Barron Park on Hanover. This is what was entitled in 2017, which was Building #1 with two levels of underground parking and an access road. What we've done is we've added, as you know, Building #2, and a parking lot on the lower level. We have then created the same style of architecture. This is something that we're quite happy with. It's got a City of Palo Alto Page 6 delicate human scale to it. We see it kind of as a jewel in the forest, and we've done this through a number of different measures. We've got setbacks and overhangs and balconies, and there's these pavilions that run on a butterfly theme that give us kind of a special, unique and memorable character. And, of course, we're trying to create something that's poetic, as well. And, between the two buildings then, the street and courtyard graze a line, and there's a one-acre park that's got a 145-foot width to it. And we think it has a generous scale. Now, one thing to point out is that we are missing...You can see the buildings and the way the pavilions work. We're missing the big heritage oak tree that's in there, and also basically the wall of trees that exist. Otherwise, all you would see are the trees and you wouldn't see the building, so we took those out of the rendering. It won't be that sort of sparse from the street standpoint. What we did was...I'd like to recap the discussion items from the first hearing. Most of the project parking is below grade and the remaining surface parking yielded a landscape ratio of 66 percent, which is above Palo Alto's 50 percent requirement. And then, also, the project is offered to upgrade the City's Bol bike path. Then, we were encouraged to consider the following, which is extend the project's landscape concept into the parking area; add landscape people areas and bench seating; and also, to compartmentalize so it didn't seem like one big parking lot. That's then the response that we had, that you've seen, which is to create this green space at the end. This illustrates it really well. What happens is down in the parking lot itself, we've created a 60-foot wide by, I think it's maybe 100 or 120 feet long, landscape space. It's a significant space. It's got two areas to it. One area is a natural area, which is a bit of a habitat area, which is a bit of a, a little bit of a wild area landscape-wise on the right, and on the left there is the seating area. What the seating area does then is tie you into special paving that marks this connection across the access roadway, and then, up the grand stair, then under the walkway under the building, and then, to the main courtyard. These are some of the landscape images. You can see on the upper left, there's the paved area that's going to have bench seating and some of the different kinds of seating arrangements, and then, on the bottom row is the natural area feeling to the right. So, in the end, we get a composition of elements, which is very nice, where you do get a continuation from the upper courtyard, through the drop-off area, down the grand stair, and into the landscape area. At this point, though, we'd also like to point out, in response to the neighbors' comments from Barron Park that recently came up, is the...all of the elements that we had in to mitigate the impact of the building to the residents are all being installed in Phase 1, in essence. We don't believe that there is anything additional that we will need to do because, in a sense, it's already been done. And, there are five elements to that. The first is the landscape element that goes along...let's see the mouse...Anyway, that goes along the eastern property line. That consists of a line of large and mature hedges that are put in from Day 1 and Phase 1. And then, also, there is a 200-foot long concrete wall, along with berms. These are to mitigate the lights of the cars as they come up, and also somewhat the sound of the cars as they come up. In addition, we had regraded originally from a 15 percent grade down to around a three percent that goes up to about 7 1/2 percent, that takes you around from the lower level to the upper level, to mitigate the idea of the engine noise as the cars go up an incline. Also, Building 1 is about 90 feet back from the property line. The requirement is 50, and as you know, we've turned that building at an angle to mitigate the impact of it, as well. The new building, though, which the short end is what faces the residential area, is 235 feet back from the property line, so it's a substantial distance back, which diminishes the scale of it, which you may not be able to see anyway due to the trees and the hedges and the wall. But, in addition, we've also in that Phase 2 building, have automated mechanical night shades. On that eastern elevation at night, those shades will come down and they will moderate the light inside the building. We believe those things that have already been approved should address any concerns, I think, that the neighbors might have. I think the last thing is also to talk about the trail head and the Bol bike path. What we've done is all along that edge, it's kind of like the last part of the landscape, we've created the trail head on both ends of it. This the existing conditions, which is a bit nasty sort of feeling, kind of neglected, I think, from the previous property owner. What we would do is we would open this up, we would take down the fence, we would make it feel like it's just part of this wonderful landscape, rather than fenced off and feels like it's being protected or keeping you out. We would create these little landscape areas at the beginning that have boulders in them for seating, just kind of a place to pause for a moment. Also, we would develop a new lighting scheme, so at night, it's not going to be as harsh. It will be friendlier, kind of low-key, with bollards to give it that more friendly landscape lighting. I think with that, that's our talk. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Furth: Do we have questions of the architect before we go further? Osma. Board Member Thompson: I actually had a question on your elevation. I was going through your drawing set and noticed that you have two types of glass frit. You have a linear glass frit and a polka dot glass frit. Mr. Marx: Oh, yes. Yes. Board Member Thompson: I couldn't identify in your elevations where the polka dot glass frit is happening. Mr. Marx: Oh, yeah, sure. Okay, so, if you imagine in the office building, people might put their desks up against the perimeter glass. Those areas, in order to mitigate the look you would see from the outside of the desk being pushed up to the outside, from 30 inches down to the floor, there is a dot frit. What that does is moderate clutter that you might see that may or may not...I mean, these days with benching and all this kind of stuff, people tend to keep their desks and things away from the windows. But, you never know. It could happen. That's the dot frit. And then, it's a little hard to see, but on the outside, we've got these glass spandrel bands, and on the second floor at the top and the bottom. Those things... Actually, I think, actually at the end, we've got a...There it is. Okay. At the top and the bottom...Up here, and down here, if you can see that, which would be up here and down here, all along the building that you see from the street, this would be the horizontal frit. We wanted to change the pattern. The horizontal frit is a much more pretty and part of the design theme, where the dot frit tends to just go away. We wanted the horizontal frit to be, sort of this ethereal glass scale element that gave it character. Board Member Thompson: Does the dot frit only happen where the windows open, or...? Mr. Marx: No, the dot frit would be all along the perimeter on the second and the first floor, where people might put their desks or furniture up against the wall. Board Member Thompson: Oh, so it sort of wraps around. Mr. Marx: It wraps around the whole building, yeah. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And then there's these big windows that open on the second floor, right? Mr. Marx: None of the glass is operable, but there are doors on the upper level and the lower level. But, those would not have the dot frit on them, the doors. In essence, when you look at the elevation, I would say that 95 percent of it would have this dot frit from zero to 30 inches from the floor. Again, that's to mitigate clutter. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Marx: Because it is so transparent, the buildings. Board Member Thompson: Okay. That makes sense. This elevation really looks like the window is open, though. Mr. Marx: Oh, yeah. Well, part of that is on the front, the front that faces Hanover, we created, we call them little bowtie bay windows. Those are the ones that have wood trim around them and they come off at a little angle. It's a little bit like the butterfly theme and a little bit like a bowtie. In the elevation, the rendering, they look like they open, but they don't actually open. Unfortunately, in modern buildings, the mechanical engineers prefer that the building be ventilated with mechanical systems. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Thompson: And then, I had one more question. Is there roof access in this? It sort of looks like there is a railing at the top. Mr. Marx: There is limited access for... There's no public access. There is limited access for maintenance and things like that. Board Member Thompson: Is that using the glass, the linear glass frit, or is that a different kind of railing...? Mr. Marx: No, what we did on the front, what we did is we've got that kind of overhang corniche that's there, that's decorative. We wanted to keep the front very decorative and use little metal pieces to make it look pretty. The glass band itself is below that. It's down here. And then, this is just a metal system to make it look attractive. There is a guard rail up there. Board Member Thompson: It's a metal guardrail... Mr. Marx: Metal guard rail. Yeah. Board Member Thompson: Is it, like, steel cable and (inaudible)? Mr. Marx: Yes. It would have a solid top and cable rails. It's just a little, delicate thing. It's not a heavy thing. It's just trying to add a little gracefulness and it complements this kind of canopy/corniche element that we have on the Hanover elevation. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And just to clarify, that's the same kind of railing that you're using at the balconies that pop up? Mr. Marx: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Sorry. Thank you. Mr. Marx: Yeah, sure. Chair Furth: Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Hi. On a different track. About the bicycle path, my understanding is that half of that bicycle path is on a neighboring property, so to speak. What are your plans to ensure that the path can be built on both properties? Mr. Marx: I don't know. That's... Allison Koo, Sand Hill Property Company: I'm Allison Koo with the applicant. [spells name] Thank you again for having us today. I actually just secured a couple days ago an agreement with the neighboring property that has been signed by them, so that we can ensure, at our cost and our design fees, etc., that we would work with them. All of our landscaping. They have a wall in place, so that wall will remain, but the landscaping edge and the lighting, etc., will all be coordinated and designed, integrated into our site and our design. They are agreeing to that, and we will work with them to make sure that they are part of the design and understand what's happening. That's now in place, so there's no uncertainty about working with the neighbor. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Robert, no questions? Board Member Gooyer: No. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: [no audible response] Chair Furth: All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Marx: Thank you. Chair Furth: All right. Who would like to start? Staff? Mr. Owen: Quick, I don't believe we've done the public comment period. Chair Furth: Sorry, yep. (inaudible) comment cards, but I have a public comment person. Ann Marie Macrae: I'm one of the residents, and I wanted to just say a couple of things. First of all, thank you to Allison and the architects. They've been very helpful. Thank you to you all for looking after our interests. I feel like I rely on your expertise. Our issues have been to try and mitigate noise and light, and to preserve the look and the landscaping. I've been here previously, and your comments have been very helpful. I just wanted to say two things specifically, looking at the map, the plans and the diagrams. Thank you for agreeing Phase 1 that we'd have automated shades, and for putting that in for Phase 2. I thought it was worth perhaps logging that I had suggested there are shades, and shades, and if we could, at the relevant time, specify that they be some sort of black-out shade, because not all shades are going to serve the purpose of stopping light leakages effectively. The other thing is, I think it specified a moment that there would be...One of the faces of the building would have shades. But, looking at the angle of the building, different residents see different sides of the buildings. Just to specify, for example, east side or west side doesn't necessarily help all the neighbors. I just wanted to flag that up, that where a façade faces the residents' side, perhaps that could be taken into account and expanded. I don't think there is an issue with that, but just put it out there. And then, the other thing is, I thought it might be helpful, because the bike path has come up today, for you to be aware -- and perhaps I could help link this together -- that there's a Bol Park bike committee. I happen to be on that committee, and we're working with the City. I come to meetings on that. That's an ongoing process. I'm not chairing it. I've chaired a subcommittee of that. But that would probably be a helpful thing because I know there's ongoing discussions about landscaping, and so-on. So, it would seem to make some sense to me to try and tie in what's going on in this with that. I don't know how that is dealt with, but just so you're aware, because I know sometimes there are so many fingers in a pie that you could be trying to landscape your bit, and other people are on it. Almost to be aware that there is a Bol Park bike path committee. I just thought I'd let you know. I'll certainly flag this, you know, what was being said up to the chair of that, but I know they are working with Palo Alto City on it anyway. That's what I really wanted to say. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Last year, we spelled your surname Macray. Is that right? Ms. Macrae: No. [spells name]. Macrae. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Macrae: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions? All right. Now is it time for us to deliberate? Who would like to start? Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Good morning. Thank you for the presentations. I had a lot of time yesterday, so I could really put my thoughts together. This design is beautiful, interesting and engaging. Unfortunately, the core issue of haphazard site planning remains. It makes it very difficult for me to make the necessary findings for approval. Taken as a whole -- that is, considering how the Phase 2 project before us impacts and is impacted by the previously-approved Phase 1 project -- the entire development would be better -- City of Palo Alto Page 10 much better -- with the new Phase 2 building located either at the lower parking level area, or at least situated farther from the Phase 1 building and configured so that the outdoor plaza between the buildings is a more coherent, positive space shaped by the buildings and landscaping around it. The location and configuration of the central roadway creates a significant site planning problem as it separates the buildings from the surface parking and creates the difficulties in parking lot layout. The applicant is correct in that the drive aisles are best oriented in the direction of pedestrian travel, yet the Planning staff is also correct, in that the parking lot layout as presented requires numerous and potentially hazardous pedestrian and vehicular intersections. The crux of the issue is that the central roadway is in the wrong place relative to the new buildings. The development would be much more functional if the new building and its associated parking were on the other side of the drive aisle, in the location of the proposed surface parking. Alternatively, if the objective is to create a campus-like arrangement with both buildings oriented towards and accessed from a central plaza, the main roadway could be located closer to the eastern edge of the site -- that's where the bike path is -- and the below- grade parking expanded to be entirely below the upper plaza. While some might say that the cost of expanding the subterranean parking are too high, the existing topography, which actually inspired the Phase 1 parking and planning arrangement, needs to be changed dramatically just to build this new parking garage. The overall work involved in expanding the underground parking will not be unreasonable given the scope of the entire project. You might even find that some of the excavation spoils from the parking structure can be used to regrade, that build up the eastern side of the site where the surface parking is proposed, restoring the natural topography and reducing off-falling. In fact, the upward sloping central roadway, which is a clever site planning arrangement because it eliminates the need for internal ramping in the parking structure, is a design technique best located at the edge of a development, rather than at the center where you have many pedestrian and vehicular crossings. As lovely as these renderings are, I believe that they show the new building as if it were set in a large parkland. They are, in reality, much closer to each other, especially for structures of this size. The Phase 1 building was originally designed and approved -- at least to my understanding -- in part because it could be seen, experienced and understood from an approaching distance across a landscaped plaza. Placing the Phase 2 building in its proposed location negates this effect. The Phase 1 building is something of a bejeweled butterfly, with its walls of glass and wing-like eves meant to be seen across a sea of wildflowers. The proposed Phase 2 building is similar, yet its location is derived from the orthogonality of the parking structure below, and it doesn't work together with its neighbor to create a coherent and delightful outdoor space. Simply put, again, the new building is just in the wrong place. I appreciate the effort, time and expense that has gone into this proposal and understand the applicant's frustration with the planning staff's recalcitrance regarding the surface parking layout. However, we are creating buildings and campuses to last for decades and generations. We owe it to ourselves, to our community, to future scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs who will occupy this building, to get the design right. The building is just in the wrong place. Thank you. Chair Furth: Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Actually, that made my job a whole lot easier because I was thinking of the same thing. The initial design worked with the entire site. I liked the architecture, the initial design. I also like the design of the second building, but the two of them don't work together. It's obvious it was a Phase 1 and a Phase 2, not that when you get done, you won't really know whether it was all built at one time, or it was done phased. Unfortunately, the ideal situation with a Phase 1, Phase 2, is that when you get done, they all work together. These really don't. The Phase 2 building literally is just placed in a convenient location over the existing parking garage. I agree that the underground parking garage should be expanded. It's a little different taking an existing site and having to dig down via shoring and everything else two or three levels, but this basically is a matter of building a garage, and then covering it with dirt, so to speak. I mean, that's a very simplistic way to put it. The initial higher area was developed because of the parking structure, and I think it should be increased and not this ocean of hardscape next to it. Other than that, I really have to pretty much agree with my fellow board member, that I like the design, but I don't like the planning of it. Chair Furth: Alex? City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Lew: Okay. I disagree with my fellow board members. I think that the applicant was up front about Phase 2 from the very beginning, and my recollection is that the Board members -- the Board collectively -- wanted to see sketches of Phase 2, to make sure that they understood the larger picture. We demanded that, and the applicant provided it, and it was all very clear. The parking lot was shown, is my recollection, so my take on it is that the decision was made by the Board, and I do stand by that decision. I do not support putting a Phase 2 building down near the bike path. I think it's actually much better having it up above the garage. That's for the bike path users. It makes it much more open. It doesn't shade the bike path. It's much more compact, much smaller footprint. And in terms of having a campus, I can't imagine one tenant is going to want to have the different user groups going up and down the stairs all day. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If the Board wanted all the parking underground from the very beginning, I think we should have said so. And I think something has changed, I will acknowledge something has changed, in that I think our comp plan does sort of encourage underground parking in all districts, where it didn't really use to do that before. It was more, like, downtown, and some of our urban districts did that. We really didn't have a lot of bad lines with regards to the Stanford Research Park. I will acknowledge that that has changed. I think the architecture is handsome with all the deep overhangs, balconies, the bay windows. I think that's all good. An issue that has come up before on another project in the Research Park is bird-friendly glazing. Our comp plan has changed. Our comp plan calls for developing guidelines for bird-friendly glazing, and we don't have our own code for that, or guidelines for that. There are other guidelines from other cities, and we have some references provided to us by, like the Audubon Society, but they're not really implemented yet. Generally, I think they recommend fritted glass everywhere, and I can imagine that that's an issue with the architect and prospective tenants. That's my understanding, is that they want everything covered. The shading can help, is my understanding, and also, colored glazing. Not having clear glass can also help. I'll leave it to staff to see what, just for consistency, that we apply the same logic that we've been using on other projects in the research park. With regard to the landscape design, I'm curious for a few more details. I did review the planting list and have looked at the diaromatic planting plans. The thing I'm curious about is the, I think there is a hedge being proposed along the edge of the parking lot near the bike path, and I'm curious as to the height. I'm thinking just to screen the cars, but not have, like, a 10-foot-high walled hedge. I think that would be better. In the staff report, there were comments about the bike path lighting, and I think there were recommendations by the lighting designer about that, recommending bollards. I did look at all the bike paths from this site, all the way down to Los Altos. There's Bol Park around Gunn, and then, there's the Hetch Hetchy trail that crosses into Los Altos. And as I say, it's completely inconsistent. There's a little bit of everything, and a lot of places where there's nothing. In a lot of other bike paths in Palo Alto, they're using a bell-shaped, pole-mounted light so that it doesn't cast light into back yards. I would imagine that's not quite such an issue on this particular site. I've seen bollard lighting in other cities, and I think that that can work. It seems a little inconsistent coming from the other bike paths that we have in Palo Alto, just in terms of maintenance of fixtures. That might be an issue. I know in the past, the City has tried to keep the number of different types of fixtures down to a minimum, if possible. I do welcome the changes, the upgrades to the bike path. I'm also curious as to the fence, if you’re proposing to keep the chain link fence. Okay. That would be great. Excellent. We were proposing to move it. On the parking reserve -- Chair Furth: Excuse me, Alex. Did you say they are proposing to remove it, or that they are not? Board Member Lew: The applicant is... Chair Furth: You're in favor of it being removed. Board Member Lew: I'm in favor of removing the chain link fence. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: The bike path further down is much more open, and I think other parts of the bike path are a lot nicer than this particular section. And then, for staff, I was wondering if maybe we could use a different word for the parking reserve. They're proposing additional spaces above the City of Palo Alto Page 12 recommendation, and I'm thinking maybe we should just call it, like a design alternate, or something. An approved alternate plan that they could implement. Because parking reserve is in our code, and it means something very specific, meaning that you're not building all of the required parking. I'd like to keep that separate from the option here. On the parking lot, I think I do agree with the applicant that having the parking aisles to the building is better. If any of us go to a grocery store, that's how parking lots are arranged. You walk down the aisle to the building. I think the difference on your scheme is that once you walk down an aisle, and then you want to walk to, like, the building entrance, that's where I think your layout is different than a conventional suburban building, and I think that's maybe the weak point. My recommendation would be to strengthen and simplify the walkways along the main aisle. As you have it now, they're crossing the aisle. And then, the other one closer to the building is sort of zig-zagging around the parking. I think you only need one. I don't think you need two. I would think that the one next to the building would be the one I would focus on and just let the other one be landscape. And then, with the parking count and what-not, I would, if you need more parking spaces, I would be inclined to put them in the main -- what do we call it? -- in your feature area, the area that terminates the grand staircase. Like your bench seating, and the landscape. If you need more parking spaces, I would be inclined to put them there and remove spaces between...You have in your parking reserve, right? In between the garage entrances, you have some parking spaces? My inclination would be to keep that, try to keep that free of future parking. (inaudible) for site lines. Cars sort of pop out of garages really fast, and I would rather keep that, have a clear site line and keep that all open. I think it would be a nicer experience if, as you're coming into the building, that you get a nice, clean view of the building and the landscape. I just don't see why it should be cluttered up there if you have other areas for parking. In my mind, this is a minor revision. I'm not looking for a major building change on this particular scheme. Chair Furth: Anything else? Board Member Lew: That's it for now. Chair Furth: Thank you. Osma. Board Member Thompson: All right. Hi there. This is my first time taking a look at this project. I did do a lot of research. I read the meeting minutes from March 15th of this year. In general, I was hoping to request that...The elevations in general were a little hard to read in terms of the material, but also the difference between existing and new. I think the way that you have shown them graphically have them sort of blending together, and it's sort of hard to pick apart. I understand that because this previous building was approved, that maybe the architectural nuances of this new building wasn't brought to the forefront as much because it was assumed that it would have this direct relationship to the existing. But, even some things like the rhythm of the butterfly eaves is different. It's wider in this new one, and it's just a little unclear what that middle element is that's not a butterfly. That's sort of relating to the butterfly on the other side. I think you know what I'm talking about. Across the courtyard. I guess I just wondered, that change in rhythm, I just wanted to see that more, and maybe understand spatially what's happening in your courtyard. In general, just having a little difficulty understanding those architectural details, like how the balconies interface with these fritted glass shades, and corner details of the glass shade, and the metal. Those are hard to understand. I did read that all elements that are glazed are in shade, but it's a piece of clear glass that's getting shaded by a piece of fritted glass. It was hard to believe that all elements would be in shade, so maybe more documentation of how this building is shaded. I am going to talk about building stuff first, before I get to site stuff. And also, the windows. I thought they were operable; it turns out they are not. I understand mechanical engineers can be pushy about that, but we should push back. I'm assuming this Phase 1 building project is also completely enclosed in, but maybe there's an opportunity in the second building to have parts that are more naturally passively ventilated, that you can sort of get your mechanically to give some back. And look at life cycle costs. There are benefits to these things that can benefit the project and the building. I would encourage that. I also agree with the member of the public that discussed the blackout shades from multiple angles. I think that is really important, not just for neighbors, but also light pollution at nighttime. I agree with that. Moving on to the site planning. It's funny because, yeah, I did see the existing plan, which was actually looking at the Phase 1 plan that showed no parking, so I understand City of Palo Alto Page 13 that there's this, sort of balance here. Our Comprehensive Plan does encourage to put all parking underground and out of sight, and I tend to agree with that, whether it's in downtown or in Stanford Research Park. I would be a proponent for that, changing that up. Bird-friendly glazing...Sorry, I made a note here that I also agree that at least we would need to look at that because there is a lot of glazing in this project, and there's a lot of products that can mitigate that. Sorry, going back to the site planning. I think a lot of my Board members have said a lot of stuff, and I agree with Board Member Baltay and Board Member Gooyer in most parts because I think it would benefit the site to remove that surface parking and use it for more landscape. In terms of the location of the building, I could go either way, but I really take main issue with the parking and how it affects the site. Those are all my comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for your presentations, thank you for your diplomacy with the adjacent property owner. I think it would be a tremendous benefit to the community and the city. It may not be particularly lovely, but that is an intensively-used place to walk. It's a recreational facility for the Research Park, and you see lots of people using it at lunchtime to walk, as well as people using it, of course, to get from one place to another. That's commendable. I'm sorry that a neighbor is not yet willing to tear down that wall because it would be lovelier, but I think you could do a lot. I look forward to seeing more details on how you would interact with that wall with the very large lighting, (inaudible) light or lighting fixtures glued to it here and there. And certainly a good idea to consult before we get this back again. I hope staff will consult with the Bol Park bicycle path committee, the Bol Park committee, and I'm sure the applicant will, too. I went back, you know, you gave us a very beautiful site plan with your first application. I'm looking at Sheet MP21 dated January 27, 2017, and we spent a lot of time talking about -- this came unglued here -- this big landscape space. It is quite true that we knew that this was not the full FAR for the site. I noticed that the minutes keep referring to it as the RAF as in Royal Air Force rather than Floor Area Ratio, which makes it hard to read the minutes. It's a little confusing. But I don't agree...Minutes miss a lot. I did not go back and look at the tape, and my colleagues' graphic memories tend to be better than mine, but I’m pretty good at words. On page 22 of our minutes from last time, Mr. Giannini is speaking, he says [reading, not verbatim, from minutes of 3/2/17 meeting] There are no future plans to develop. We don't have a tenant at this point. Asking us to provide additional FAR, so at this point, the application is for just the replacement square footage. We seriously thought about it. So, for example, in the upper tier, the garage is being designed so that it can handle the weight of another building, and this is possible. Then you'd have a small campus with two buildings and a courtyard in the center. There would be landscaping left...blah, blah, blah. I think the challenge for us would be to show that when we do increase the FAR from 25 percent to 40 percent -- i.e. build the second building --the project wouldn't suffer. The building could go on the lower meadow or could go on the upper terrace. We honestly don't know that yet. So, I do not see this thing as a done deal. I don't think we specifically approved the location in any particular space. Having said that, my concern is about having two acres-plus of asphalt on this site. That is a big deal. I should indicate that I have spent some time researching over the last few years urban heat islands, and I think at least we can agree that they are a phenomenon. That by having...probably all have the experience, by having parking lots made of asphalt or having parking lots generally, you get undesirable local, and commutatively, larger than local effects on temperature at a time when we really don't want to increase it. Highly reflective cars may change that eventually, but they haven't yet. And there's all the time when there isn't parking there. That's one strand. That strikes me as too much of the site to be developed with this material. Secondly, I'd like staff to tell us a little more before we come back about the functional parking needs of this site. I know we have our code, and I know we have our new comp plan, and I know that we have a good TDM, which is anticipated to significantly reduce peak hour traffic. Well, peak hour traffic is mostly commute traffic as I understand it, which is a serious parking demand. And if that's the case, then the parking that we're requiring would seem to be excessive, and I would be in favor of a modification, an evidence-based modification of that, which our code allows for. So, on the first level, I would not be willing to approve the existing dedication of this much space to an asphalt surface parking lot, and as I understand it, so- called cool surface parking lots don't do much better. I'm essentially saying I think more of the parking either needs to be reduced overall, or more of it needs to be underground, and I don't have an opinion as to which is better. I think it's a site design issue. And it's interesting to me that of late, of course, every site is different, and when we have somebody with a smaller site, what they are saying to us is, here is our hexagon study that went out and did parking surveys and showed a bunch of empty parking City of Palo Alto Page 14 lots. Yours is a different project. It's a different set of users. But, I am concerned that we are requiring too much parking, and I'd like staff's opinion on that. I'm certainly not in favor of approving a parking reserve for additional parking beyond the code minimum. That seems to me to fly in the face of what we're trying to do, both in terms of transportation and land use in this city at this time. I think that the building is too close. I think that it needs to be moved over to preserve what you've done, and to have something that truly makes a campus that's integrated, as opposed to putting the building on behalf of a previously-approved and designed garage. I am hopeful that by extending it towards the bay, you could get a better design, we could get less asphalt, you could have a quite spectacular green space, and you could have a significant plaza area that would let you really look at the beautiful building that you designed in Phase 1. That's where I am. And it might well be better if the building was down at the edge. I do think it needs to continue to be up towards Hanover, as you said in your original discussion of this, to keep it away from the neighborhood, to keep it close to the street. Both of those things make sense on this site. I don't think the site plan works. For me, the focus of how it doesn't work is way too much asphalt. I think in total, it might be about 2 1/2 acres, which on a 10-acre site is way too much. There are other approaches. Oh, I wanted to ask, what's the...? I believe you told us last time, and I've forgotten, what's the solar generation plan for this site? Is there a proposal to generate electricity on site, or not? If you could come to the... Ms. Koo: This project will be achieving LEEDS Silver, but we don't have solar panels on it at this time. Chair Furth: And is that because this design really wouldn't support them, or it makes no economic sense, or you are opposed to the concept? Ms. Koo: We haven't looked at it with solar in mind because we were able to achieve so much other efficiencies around the building design. In this particular building, this size, we just felt that the way the building was designed with efficiencies of light and all the other things we're going to achieve, to be able to achieve LEEDS Silver, we didn't have that plan in mind yet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Because one of the other ways to prevent an asphalt parking lot from being a heat sink is to make it a power plant. And if you looked at some of the parking lots that Graham showed us in the illustrations, that's what they were. They have big solar canopies. Those present their own interesting aesthetic issues. Personally, I think solar cells always look fairly beautiful except on City buildings when they are badly designed, but we don't do that anymore. But, I would not be apt to approve a plan that has this much asphalt. I know that after 15 years, we expect 50 percent shade, but you're still leaving better than an acre of asphalt absorbing heat in an area where we have long, warm summers. We're at... Board Member Gooyer: Just a couple of things on the parking, as we talked about. I don't think any of us is saying that it has to be all underground. I think it's just the way the approach was done on this one. Having been around the business for a long time, and in the 70s and 80s, having done a lot of shopping centers, the perpendicular aisles to the store was basically so somebody could zip in, run straight down directly to the store, back out again. The intent wasn't safety, anything else, it was strictly to get from Point A to Point B as quickly as possible. If you're going to be in this building, working all day, I don't think taking two minutes longer to get from your care to the building is that big a deal, and I think the parking lot ought to be rearranged. There is a safety issue the way it is done right now. It encourages people to walk right down the middle of the drive aisles to the building. Also, when you're sitting inside the building and you look out, rather than seeing green, you see the perpendicular aisles of all the parking spaces, so you're forced to look at a parking lot in its worst situation. You're not really helping the occupant of the buildings' vision, either. I think that parking lot, no matter what it is, needs to be redesigned completely. I think doing that will automatically eliminate the sort of heat sink, and I think will reduce the amount of hardscape. Also, the fact that it's just...I mean, it's nice, or it used to be the whole idea is, if you were required to have 200 parking spaces, you put in 300 parking spaces, everybody was happy. I'd rather have it to the point where if you have to put in 200, I'd say you don't put in more than 200, and hopefully you put in 180 and you save 20 parking spaces, make it landscaping, and see if sometime in the future, just like we did on a previous application, especially if you don't have a tenant City of Palo Alto Page 15 yet, if you tell somebody, okay, here is the building, you've got 180 parking spaces, nobody is going to go, you know, I would have taken this space but I really do need those extra 20 parking spaces. Somebody is going to go, okay, I have 180 parking spaces, I'll just have to see what I can do. I mean, you know, we now have the TDM process and everything going, with the specific intent of lowering the amount of parking spaces to facilitate a greener environment. Like I said, they don't have to be all underground, but the way you're approaching it is not the way we want the future of Palo Alto parking to be. Secondly, as far as...I said it the first time when we were here, that I couldn't imagine that you had no clue whether you were going to put a second building on that area, or not. If these two buildings had been designed at the same time, they would have never been laid out the way they are right now. This is definitely a well thought-out design, and an also. That's the part I don't like. I can't imagine that from a planning concept, you didn't come up with various designs that said, if we did this all at one time, we would do it like this, and then, design it accordingly in a Phase 1, Phase 2, which I don't think was done. Like I said, I have a hard time approving it the way it is right now. Chair Furth: Osma, did you want to say something? Board Member Thompson: Oh, yeah. I just wanted to bring up the garden stair option because we haven't really talked about that at all. I actually had a question on it that I forgot to ask. On the conceptual plan, it doesn't have it shown. It has... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, which sheet are you on, Osma? Board Member Thompson: Sorry. I'm on L0.02D. [Others locating document] Board Member Thompson: I'm also looking at this conceptual site plan, where it doesn't exist. The curb type is different, I guess because the sidewalk has lengthened. I just wanted to ask about, you know, in the old one, we have, like, a triangle curb, where you can just go straight and up, but in this new version, it's sort of one of those curbs that has a wall, and you have to go in and out to the right and left, which I know works in terms of an accessibility standpoint. But, it seems like in terms of flow, it might be less desirable. But, yeah, I think I'd just like to know more about that stair. Mr. Marx: Where is it that you're...? What page is that? Board Member Thompson: It's L0.02D. [Others locating document] Ms. Koo: This was put in to address a staff point about trying to create the most efficient way for people to get from the bus stop -- which we're relocating to be closer to the site -- to the building in the most efficient manner. The way the site is sloped and the way the heritage trees are in place right now along that landscape area close to Hanover, there's so many trees, and the root systems, we've looked at this extensively and we've done, actually a couple of very extensive studies on it. The root system in the trees are in such a place that you actually cannot get a ramp in there without disturbing or affecting those trees. In order to put a stairway, or something, a pathway, it...Is that what we're talking about? What? Mr. Marx: You flipped your... Ms. Koo: Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. So, in order to get a pathway that's there that doesn't trigger ADA issues, because that's the whole point of, you can't get that in there, we've designed a really nice, meandering landscape pathway that's not necessarily an ADA trigger. But, it's something that people can still effectively use to get from the bus stop to the building, because there's no way to get all the pathways that you would need to get in with that sort of landscape issue right now. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Furth: Are you telling me...? I'm confused. Are you saying that the path as designed both accommodates existing trees and provides access for most people from the bus stop, but does not have to meet ADA standards? Ms. Koo: It's a landscape issue. Chair Furth: Okay. Ms. Koo: It's a landscape addition. Chair Furth: Because it has steps, it's defined as a non ADA... Ms. Koo: Yeah. It's integrated... [crosstalk] Ms. Koo: ...and designed as a landscape feature. Chair Furth: Got it. Ms. Koo: We've looked at it in every possible way. It's just impossible to actually put... Chair Furth: Full-scale ADA. Ms. Koo: Yeah, there's no way to do it in that way. But, the whole point is that, actually, if you go back into our circulation plan, there's actually very easy...The site is designed circulation-wise to address how somebody would get efficiently from walking from the bus stop to the building, because actually, the most logical way is that a pedestrian would hit the driveway and enter right straight into the first garage opening because that's at grade, versus climbing up that...The hill is very steep, so instead of going up the steep to that other opening in the middle of the courtyard, they would actually walk down the created pathway through the first garage entrance, a straight path. And if you recall, the garage was designed with a beautiful porte-cochere entrance in that garage area that takes you straight up via an elevator to the courtyard. Chair Furth: That's what I would do if I were using a wheelchair, or otherwise had difficulties walking. Ms. Koo: Absolutely. Yeah. And it's designed that way. That's the logical way that people wouldn't have to strenuously go up slopes. Chair Furth: Unless they were racers, right. Okay. Any other questions? Osma, did you have any additional questions? Board Member Thompson: No, I'm okay. Thanks. Thank you. Chair Furth: As far as I can tell at the moment, I don't think there is support for parking beyond, I don't think there's majority support for parking beyond the code requirements. Is that right? Anybody disagree with that? Board Member Gooyer: Right. It should be no more than that. Chair Furth: Are you okay with that, Alex? Board Member Lew: Not necessarily. Chair Furth: Okay, so Alex might support additional parking. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Lew: I'll explain why. Chair Furth: Sure. Board Member Lew: If you hear from the so-called parking experts, they say that, I think their prediction is that office density -- people -- is actually going to increase. They also think that other uses will decrease, so there very well could be a need for more parking, even though we have TDMs and other programs to reduce the parking requirement. Chair Furth: Thanks, Alex. Alex, when you say other uses will decrease, what do you mean by that? Board Member Lew: Like retail. Other land use types. Chair Furth: (inaudible-crosstalk] Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: Okay. Then I will not attempt to summarize much beyond that. Peter, did you have any questions? Vice Chair Baltay: Not really, no questions. I think I was very clear that I just don't think the building is in the right place. As an example, the reason you can't get the ADA ramp you were talking about, that staff was asking, coming in from the corner into the building, up to the plaza, is because the building is in the wrong place. It's too close there and doesn't leave you enough room. You have two really beautiful oak trees there, and you put the building in the parking lot right there. Of course you can't fit the ramp anymore. But, when you say it's just not possible, it's not possible because the building is in the wrong place. I feel like a broken record, but that's really my big take on it. Chair Furth: All right. I think it's probably helpful to the applicant to understand where we are at the moment, based on what we know today. Alex is ready to approve the project with additional tweaks that would not be a big deal. Peter is not. Peter believes the building needs to be relocated to have a site plan that would meet our code. Osma, do you want to summarize where you are? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. I'm not ready to approve the project at the moment. I think the large amount of asphalt is my main issue. And then, I'd really like to see more detail on the architecture and how it relates to the existing building. I need those two things. And then, also, the sustainability measures, like bird-friendly glazing, pushing your mechanical engineer to give you some passive ventilation, and so on. Shades. Chair Furth: Robert? Board Member Gooyer: With me, it's the same sort of thing as Peter indicated. In today's world, I think any walkway coming up to this building, no matter where it's coming and where it's going through, ought to be accessible and not say, well, this one is, this one isn't, because we couldn't get it to work. Not in a site that was a virginal site and you started from scratch. I don't want to hear that. To me, any walkway, to go back to what the law says in the first place, is that you're allowing anybody who has a disability to be able to enter the building from any walkway. I don't see it. And as he indicated, one of the reasons is the placement of that building. Now, I may not go as far as Peter as far as the location of the building, but there's no way I could accept this today the way the parking lot is designed. That alone I think will not do it, but if you're going to do some redesign anyway, I think placement of the building is necessary. And again, it doesn't all need to be underground; that's not the point. It's just a matter of the way it's done now is, it looks like an afterthought, and that really bothers me, considering you only came for the original application a year ago. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Vice Chair Baltay: I want to be clear that my thought initially had been that the building should be where the lower parking lot is, and that's based on the idea that you have two separate facilities, users, tenants, etc. And if the objective is to have one continuous campus, obviously that doesn't work, and I don't want to be seen as pushing for something that doesn't meet your needs. That's not our objective here. As I've looked at this over the past week, it strikes me that if you just took the new building and moved it further towards the surface parking lot and expanded the underground parking underneath it accordingly, it's not actually that big of a deal to do that. You're already digging up the entire site. You're already building a new road. It doesn't have to be in the same location as the current roadway. All these things, you don't have to stick to the existing topography that strongly. That would solve so many problems. It would give so much more ease to the whole project if you could just shift it a little bit to get your parking underneath, or most of it underneath. And I don't want to be designing the building from up here, but when I look at it as an architect, I would be saying, why couldn't you push it around a little more? It feels so much that you just designed this in a series of steps that, each one led you to a difficult conclusion than the next one. Again, you could move the building a little bit, expand the parking underneath it a little bit, and probably make it all work. Chair Furth: And I tend to think, as a layperson, that if you could separate it out by extending the garage so that more of the parking is underground, a lot of things would fall together. I think my thinking is informed by a project that we really struggled with on Park, which was a fairly large parcel for -- nothing as big as yours, but significantly large for this city, outside of the Research Park. And we struggled, and struggled, and struggled to make it work, and it didn't. Finally, the applicant flipped it and put the parking underground, and all of a sudden, their project became spectacular, and I think they believe still a good investment for them and their tenants. Again, I don't think all the parking needs to be underground, but I do think there needs to be significantly more green space, and the way you get that is to put more parking underground and less on the surface. Anything else we would like the applicant or staff to be able to talk to us about the next time we hear this? Okay. Board Member Thompson: I think that summarizes it. Chair Furth: All right. I guess there were a lot of people comfortable with the idea of wanting blackout- style screens. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I don't think that's an issue. Chair Furth: Okay. All right. They seem to be. So, yes, we need a motion to continue this item to a date uncertain. MOTION Chair Furth: Would anybody care to make that motion? You can just say so moved. Board Member Gooyer: I move we continue this project to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Hearing none, the motion passes 5-0. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you for your time and your information and your hard work. [Short pause] I'm sorry, is there anything you'd like to say to us in addition, after hearing our discussion? We're happy to? Ms. Koo: (inaudible) City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: Okay, we'll strike our previous motion, we'll do this informally, and please come speak if you'd like to. Ms. Koo: I do appreciate the comments. We are talking to a tenant right now and they are looking at the whole site. We do appreciate the consideration and the thought that this would be looked at for one group and not necessarily be split between two. Hopefully that will be something to be taken into consideration when we come back with our revisions based on your comments. We do want a campus- like design, and I think having far-apart buildings doesn't necessarily work for tenants. We will take your comments into consideration, but we do need to hopefully design for this one group that we are working with right now. The only other thing I wanted to consider, I understand the comment about the asphalt. We do have right now over 60, almost 63 or 64 percent of the parking is covered underground because that amount is included in the underground that currently exists. Only 30-some percent is actually above ground. Hopefully that is taken into consideration as well. I do appreciate your comments on the solar, so maybe there's an option that we can come up with some solar solutions to create less heat in that area. I mean, I think that's a lot of comments for us to absorb today, and we'll hopefully be able to come back to address those. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else anybody wants to say since we un-continued the matter? All right, we'll consider the motion re-made, unless there's any objection. Thank you. Could have gone through the whole song and dance, but I think we're good. Nobody left. No harm, no foul. Study Session [not addressed] Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 17, 2018. Chair Furth: Approval of minutes, draft minutes from May 17, 2018. Any comments, corrections? Board Member Lew: I have some minor comments that I will forward to the staff. Chair Furth: Clerical errors? Fine. Would somebody care to make a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of May 17, 2018? Board Member Lew: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for May 17, 2018. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: I'll second. Chair Furth: Motion by Alex, second by Robert. I forget to say that for the transcriber. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Carries unanimously. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: There are no subcommittee items today. Do we have any scheduled, still? I can't remember. Is anybody on any subcommittees, except somebody who's going to report back to us about some planning issue? Ms. Gerhardt: We don't believe we have any subcommittee items at this moment. We were going to go back over the future agendas, if you'd like. Chair Furth: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Ms. Gerhardt: You have in your packet July 19th. The last address there should be 3406 Hillview Avenue. All three of those items were continued items, so you'll be hearing them. They were at the middle of June, is when they were heard last. And then, for August 2nd, it looks like we potentially have the Public Safety Building coming back, 250 Sherman. Also, 2609 Alma Street is a four-unit project that expired, so we are redoing that application. And then, 656 Lytton Avenue is a prelim project that would be coming to you in August. Chair Furth: Not a trivial agenda. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Any comments, questions or announcements for Board members? Vice Chair Baltay: I think I'm going to be gone September 6th. I just connected that that's a Thursday. I'm not sure what my flight information is. I was thinking the other day that it would be really neat if we could get the architecture board to organize a public symposium. We get one project that has been approved, and been built, and it's in the public eye, and it's visible, and has a cooperating architect, where we could all go to the building, invite members of City Council, Planning Commission, general public, Planning staff, and get perhaps the architect and maybe the architecture board to discuss how the process went to get it approved, to look at the initial drawings, the final approved drawings to build structure. Just sort of go through what we do in a public way to show everybody, but also to learn from it and see how the process went. If you organize this to happen, say, once a year, it might be interesting for everybody, and positive, and also feel good and give architects a chance to do something. Board Member Gooyer: I think it's a great idea, but trying to get all those people together in one spot is probably going to be... Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I mentioned this to Bob Giannini when he came over to talk about this building we just discussed. He was very enthusiastic regarding his new building on the corner. It's 500...I always forget the address. On the corner of University and Waverly. It's a very interesting building, and it would be really neat to see where it started. Especially that building. They started with a very Victorian type approach to it based on his clients, and I wasn't... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ...arts and craft. Arts and crafts style. It changed dramatically. Vice Chair Baltay: And I think it's ... Board Member Lew: And the Board got a lot of criticism about requiring that change. But I think actually everything worked out for the best on that project. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: And I think a lot of people don't understand how drastically some of these buildings change from the first time we see them to what actually gets built. They just automatically assume that we just sit up here and pretty much let anything go through. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, well, that's part of what I'm saying. If you put this out as a Saturday morning at 10 o'clock thing, or a five o'clock on a Thursday, and we get some City Council who would want to go, and make a little bit of PR about it...I bet we could get the applicant. Bob Giannini could do the legwork of getting the staff arranged, and the building, and do all that part of it. It just struck me as an interesting idea to come...I don't know. I don't have anything beyond that. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: [crosstalk] having Peter work with staff and somebody on a proposal like this. You proposed it. Anybody want to work with him on (inaudible)? Board Member Gooyer: Why don't we get it started (inaudible). Chair Furth: Well, no, we're going to have to start it. I don't think staff has a whole lot of extra energy at the moment, or extra time. Vice Chair Baltay: I think the first thing to do, if we want to do this, is to decide that, yes, this is something the architecture board supports and thinks is a good idea. Chair Furth: I support it. Vice Chair Baltay: Secondly, it might be just to decide what building or which project we think is the right candidate for it. Chair Furth: Why don't we ask staff to put this on our agenda, maybe not for the...I guess the next meeting is not too overwhelming, is it? The one after that gets a little heavy. Ms. Gerhardt: The next agenda is the continued items. Chair Furth: Right, so, if you could add this, talk to Peter about what an appropriate title for the agenda item is, and we can do some leg work. Happy to work with you on this. Ms. Gerhardt: And it sounds like for the agenda, we would be, you know, discussion about creating a committee for this type of thing, and maybe what projects might want to be discussed. Chair Furth: I think the agenda item would be something like that. We'll talk. But enough to let us talk about the specifics, not just (inaudible). Enough to let us talk about specific proposals, not just creating a committee. We won't do any more today since it's not an agenda item. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, staff. Board Member Lew: I have an item. Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Lew: The North Ventura... Chair Furth: Oh, thank you. Board Member Lew: ...study has been pushed to September. Chair Furth: This is becoming your standard progress report. Look forward to seeing how it goes. I know it's not a simple project. Board Member Gooyer: Shall we adjourn? Chair Furth: Anything else? All right. We are adjourned. Thank you. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew and Robert Gooyer. Absent: Osma Thompson. Chair Furth: Good morning, and welcome to the July 19th meeting of the Architectural Review Board in the city of Palo Alto. Would you please call the roll? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: This is the time for oral communications. Anybody wishing to talk to the Board about a matter not on the agenda but within our purview is welcome to do so. I have no speaker cards. Does anybody wish to speak? Hearing nobody. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Any changes, additions or deletions? Oh, we have a speaker card. For number 2. Hearing nothing on that. A little hard to change a one-item agenda. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City official reports? Schedule transmittal? Staff? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Yes. We have the calendar here. I did hear from Board Member Furth, that you would be absent on August 16th, and Board Member Baltay would be absent on September 6th. I haven't heard from anyone else, so we should still have a quorum on those dates. We also have the future agenda. It looks like for August 2nd, we are just going to have the Public Safety building, and the other two items would move off to August 16th. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any comments? Great. It will be good to have those projects back, or that project back. All right. Action Items Chair Furth: We have three action items today. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: July 19, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 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. Chair Furth: The first one is a public hearing. It's quasi-judicial, so we will disclose any conversations we may have had since the last hearing relevant to it. It's a request for approval of an architectural review application for a five-level, 50-foot tall parking structure with one below-grade parking level, providing 325 parking spaces and approximately 2,000 square feet of retail space, fronting on Waverley Street. A draft Environmental Impact Report was published and circulated for comment. May we have the staff report? Oh, are there any disclosures? Any conversations? None. And we have all visited the site. Staff? Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you. We have today the third hearing for the downtown garage and retail project. On the screen I have a couple circles around some areas to look at, chiefly on these images, because there have been quite a few changes there. There's some additional changes that the architect will go over. A few more images here. The architect today is actually here, which is great, and presented last time. We have a response to the ARB and are requesting to get a recommendation from the ARB to City Council. We have already scheduled a hearing for Council in September, I believe, so we are looking forward to that. In the process, we've had the CEQA, which was last year scoping. We went through pre-screening. We had preliminary reviews for this project in 2017, and then, we had our formal reviews by the ARB -- there's a few images -- starting with February 15th here, moving to June 21st, where we had three members, and then, today's hearing, July 19th. Back in early June, the Council adopted the Public Facilities' own changes that allow us to move this forward to the Council for their action to approve the setback modifications. That's September 17th. They would be taking action on the final EIR, which is being prepared. The final EIR has not been published, but will soon be. It does contain responses to the ARB comments on the draft EIR, and several of the sections on building, landscaping, cultural sections. There has been some responses regarding the historic post office, noting that we do have these 12-foot sidewalks that are sympathetic to the post office, providing that public realm. We have notes about the metal work, and a nod to metal work on Spanish revival buildings. We have notes about the heights, and we have the emphasis on the cyclist circulation and provisions, as well as the deletion of the tree...These were comments from the last meeting that three of you were at, at that hearing, and their comments on the EIR that were folded into the final. Key issues. This was pretty much presented at the last hearing, but we're just going to quickly go through this. Looking at the pedestrian path with the higher ceiling through the garage, so there's better pathways from Hamilton through to CVS, where at that store, we have increased bike and stroller parking, and now, a protective walkway down the lower right image for that bicycle storage area. Again, the three-foot setback, the four-foot encroachment, that was increased in the last rendition and maintained here. We have a better alignment with the AT&T building. It does reduce the parking count in the garage. We have corner enhancements. The architect will show you today some of the seating ideas there on the corner. We have a few modifications in the architecture with this new cap at the top. We also have a concept for a modified concrete treatment that the artist has put forward, so that is considered at this time. And, that is in addition to the tapestry that was proposed. In the last rendition, you had seen enclosure of the stair at the corner, as well as over the vehicle entrance on Hamilton. That has been approved by the Public Art Commission. The content of the art is not in the ARB's purview, but certainly placement on the building is within the purview. There was some discussion last time about where the plantings were, and there was a letter that talks about the viability of the landscaping. And I believe we have our landscape architect today to provide answers if you have questions. As far as the adjacent property owner and the operations, we've been corresponding with the adjacent property owners. There are some items there that were brought up and discussed in letters. We do have a formal parking space in the garage for 550 Waverley, which is per the downtown parking assessment. It cites one space. And, we are going to have a Waverley Street loading zone, and that's likely to be put in prior to completion of this project, to get the City of Palo Alto Page 3 ball rolling on that pattern of delivery. That's the conclusion of my presentation. The architect is here to present, and Holly Boyd is the project manager, and may have additional comments. Holly Boyd, Senior Engineer, Public Works: Good morning. My name is Holly Boyd, I'm a senior engineer in Public Works, and I'm the project manager for this garage. We have a consultant design team here, including the landscape architect, designer and their architect. I don't have any additional comments, but I’m going to introduce Ken Hayes, who is the architect for the project. He has our presentation. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Hayes? Good morning. You have 10 minutes. Once we get everything organized. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning, Chairwoman Furth, members of the Board. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'm joined today by the design team, Watry Design, with Michelle Wendler and Gordon Knowles; the landscape architect with Merrill Morris, John Potis, is also here in case you have questions for him. And then, Terry Murphy from my office is also here, who has worked on the majority of the documents in front of us. I know that Member Lew was not present at the last hearing, so I have a little bit of a review, and then we'll get into the changes. The program, the downtown garage is Lot D. We're familiar with that. Five levels above grade, one level below. We have reduced it to 325 spaces from the 338 formerly, but we were able to add 50 bike spaces as a result of that. The retail space has decreased a little bit per some modifications that we've made, down to 1955 from the 2188. And then, we are showing the future...Did I do that? I did. Back up. Solar photovoltaic system. I get another five seconds. Project site is at... Chair Furth: It's an important project. Don’t rush. Mr. Hayes: Okay, thank you. The project site is a 29,000 square foot surface parking lot currently, on the corner of Waverley and Hamilton. The site is zoned PF. The AT&T building next door is also zoned PF, and so is the historic post office across the street. The other sites that are adjacent on Waverley are zoned CDC Ground Floor, P. The project is responding to the ground floor component, as well as the pedestrian overlay component. We have lane 21 at the rear, which is a one-way alley headed to Bryant Street. That serves as an exit for the project. You can also enter there. I want to point out that the sidewalks, both frontages are being expanded. The sidewalk on Waverley is going from about 10 feet to 16 feet, and the sidewalk on Hamilton is going from about 10 to 12, depending on how you count the benches that we have located on that side of the building. And, of course, the historic Category 1 post office is across Hamilton. At the February hearing, we heard some comments about some of the concerns on the site planning, the building edge at Hamilton Avenue, and how the building responded to the seven-foot special setback. We all know now that special setback has been eradicated for PF buildings, so that's not a requirement any longer. However, we are responding to it. Board members were questioning why we needed to have this pedestrian alleyway, so I have some comments on that. This was an awkward way through the garage, so you asked us to look at that a little more closely. And then, if there was a way to increase the bicycle parking, that would be something that would be very positive. We have responded to all of these at the June hearing, and I believe our response was well received. The setback along Hamilton, we've moved the building in three feet to better align with the AT&T building. That is about as tight as we can go because of the requirements for the parking stalls. We're at minimum on some of these parking stalls, but allows for the pedestrian alley. The pedestrian alley, Board Member Lew, is needed because of constructability issues, to avoid underpinning of the Thai Pan building, to allow our joint trench utilities to come in that way, and we need it for light, air, ventilation, in order to propose this naturally-ventilated parking garage, so we don't have to have mechanical ventilation for the floors above grade. And I contend that it's also a great way to give people choice on moving through the community when they come down the stair, which is at the intersection. You know where the intersection is. The pedestrian pathway through the building. The whole second floor has been raised a foot, so a little bit more light when you come in. This left-hand side is essentially all committed to bikes and bike signage and stroller parking. And then, a more deliberate pathway across the garage that is aligned with the pedestrian alley. That then also is coupled with the stair that comes down from the floors above, is also in that corner, and you can either decide to go in the alley behind Thai Pan and Congdon & Chrome City of Palo Alto Page 4 and Prolific Oven, or you can decide to walk straight out to Waverley Street through the pedestrian pathway. And then, this is the expansion of the bike area. It's increased by about 50 percent. Those changes were all well received in June. However, there were some comments on the elevations that I just wanted to go through and show the changes that we've made. On the Hamilton Elevation, we have this pattern of vertical fins that provide a varying view into the building as you walk past it because it will change. There was some thought that maybe they're a little too dominate, so we were asked to investigate ways to lessen the impact, maybe, of those fins. Make the pedestrian entrance, which is down in this area here, a little more prominent or inviting, and add amenities at this corner sidewalk and plaza there along Hamilton. I'm going to go to the large scale because I can't see it this far away. I apologize. The changes are, on the ground floor, we have added an additional bench, so we have shifted the entire built-in planter toward the stairwell, so now the planter goes to here, and that allowed us to pick up a bench right here. Now there are four benches along the frontage. We've reduced the fins at the upper floor in this center part here -- this cursor is not working real well. Anyway, you know where. And we've introduced metalwork railings that would be reminiscent of the metal work railings we have on the ground floor behind all the benches and the built-in planters. At the bike entrance, we've taken the board-formed concrete around to the bike entrance, and we've introduced open rails -- this is on the far left-hand side of the drawing -- open rails on the levels above to make it a little bit more transparent. And then, we've introduced a graphic and perforated metal, basically, that symbolizes bikes. So, there's an image of a bike there, and that image continues as you move through the building. At the plaza area, we've incorporated another bench into the stair as it comes down to the plaza. And then, we think any other seating opportunities there -- and this is in conference with the landscape architect -- would really need to be something that's promoted by the tenant that's in that space, and if they have tables and chairs they want to pull out there, perhaps that's a way to animate that space. Waverley façade, same thing. Look at the fins and add some amenities in the plaza. Again, I'm going to go to the large-scale elevation. I've already discussed the amenity in the plaza, which is the bench that we've added. In a similar way, we've reduced the fins down and created this railing that starts to form a cap to the building. We also no longer are wrapping the two corners with fins. If you'll recall before, we were wrapping the two corners with the fins. Now, we're not. The fins are merely infill and reduced in height? Lastly, this wasn't something that the Board commented on, but we've added a horizontal mullion at the retail transom, just to give it a little bit different scale and to increase the horizontality of that façade, with the canopy above. On the pedestrian alley side in the back of the building, really, it was a matter of, what's the selection on the plant material? I think we looked at a lilac vine, and we looked at the California grape, which I'm told is not going to attract winemakers, right? But, it might attract birds. The fruit is very small on the California vines, so I thought I would just preempt that question. There's really no change to that, although the planters are all now consistently drawn at the same height. The planters in the pedestrian way at the back of the building and the alleyway behind Tai Pan and Prolific Oven are all now at 36 inches, approximately. Those are all seed-free, drain-free type planters, as well. We have some new images right off the press from yesterday morning that are not in your set. This is a view from the, in front of the building, basically, on Waverley. We have the board-formed concrete at the lower levels. We have the terracotta-colored fins, the bronze metalwork, and the clear glass at the retail. You can look down the alley. This is from, obviously, across the street. It shows the corner stair element where, again, we have the bronze perforated metal that has tapestry on it, which is the public art. Tapestry has already been approved by the Public Art Commission and is an abstract representation of, not the flatlands, but the foothills that surround Palo Alto. It creates an interesting graphic on that screen. We have it at this location, and we have it at the far end, which you will see in a minute. This is a close-up of the stair. We incorporated a bench here, and then extended the planter over on this side, in front of the elevator. And then, the railings for the stair descend down and provide a backdrop to that bench so that no one falls into the stair that then descends down to the garage level. Showing some idea of furniture that could possibly be out there. And then, a photographic representation of the building from down Waverley Street, giving an idea of what it would like in the context. You don't really see the post office because of the trees. And then, on Hamilton Avenue looking the other direction. It's broken up quite nicely I think. It's a big building, but it integrates well. And then, this is the other location of the perforated panel and the, you know, this horizontal line here is picked up in that horizontal canopy that we have on Hamilton. This is just our rendering, showing you how that additional bench would look and how those benches occur there, with the metalwork behind. That metalwork then would match the City of Palo Alto Page 5 railings above. If you have a bicycle, you would enter here. Here's the perforated graphic of the bike and the entrance. As you come in, you'd be entering on the left-hand side, and this is sort of the drive-aisle side. You'd see this pattern of images of bikes, basically, that would be in this perforated screen to provide a secure bike area, but communicate what's going on there. We're thinking of a bright color in there, so that when you're in the alley coming from Waverly looking down, you can, actually, in the distance, can see the color in the garage. And then, the screen of the perf'd metal in front of the bike storage area. And then, this is looking the other way. You see the festoon lighting in the alleyway, the plant material, the special paving. The paving won't be contrasting like that. I think that's a shadow thing going on here, so the paving is more consistent. I apologize for that. More like that. This is the back alleyway, again, with an opportunity for a bench. There was a discussion, should this bench be moveable? Right now, we're showing it more fixed in this rendering. And then, the very rear. And I believe that's...This is just an explanation of tapestry. I think we covered that probably last time. That's my presentation. Thank you for the extra time. Chair Furth: You're welcome. Mr. Hayes: It's much better when you don't have to rush. Chair Furth: We'll extend the same courtesy to the public. Any questions? Board Member Gooyer: I have one question. Ken, on the Hamilton Avenue side, the concrete portion, depending on which one you look at, the square openings are either there, or not there. Which one is it? Mr. Hayes: It's... Board Member Gooyer: On this one, it doesn't really appear to be there, other than just... Mr. Hayes: They are depressions, so they're not see-through. Board Member Gooyer: Well, at one point, they looked like they were completely all the way through. They're openings. Mr. Hayes: They're not openings. There was an issue with the sheer wall, so they are recesses in the concrete. Board Member Gooyer: Oh, okay. Mr. Hayes: They're recesses. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Mr. Hayes: But they are there. Chair Furth: Anything else before we hear from the public? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Architect Hayes, in the same thing Robert's talking about, I've noticed the Art Commission seems to present images of irregular, rounded shapes on that same wall, rather than the recta-linear squares. Do you have an opinion, as the architect, what's appropriate for the architecture of the building? Mr. Hayes: It's a very good question. We've gone back and forth on this. I like the interest in the proposal by the artist. I think that that is a concept that your public art coordinator, Elise DeMarzo, is also supportive of. I could see it working. I'm not sure what the, you know, how we're going to accomplish it, if that's something that we want to go. But, I also don't mind just the simplicity of what we have here, with the vines growing on it. I don't know if we have the vines with the other concept, whether or not City of Palo Alto Page 6 you're going to read through that, this undulating façade that picks up on that tapestry kind of pattern. I'd be interested to hear your opinion. I'm a bit on the fence, I think, in terms of which way to go. I don't mind the simple version if we're going to have the vines. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: I have one speaker card, Elizabeth Wong. Elizabeth Wong: I represent Waverley Post, which is the owner of 5560 Waverley, the building adjacent to this parking lot. If there are not enough people in the audience, it's probably because they never received notification of this ARB meeting. The only reason I'm here is because I received an email, and I checked my mailbox yesterday, and there was no notification. I have several buildings in town and I did not receive a single card. I wanted to talk about a few things concerning this building and the (inaudible). One of the reasons why I spoke so adamantly against the fins is because this is a view of my property, and you will see from these windows, I can see the post office, which is amazing, an amazing view, and that the fence totally blocks the view. I thought it was, you know, for the people in the parking lot, it would be a lost opportunity to see the beautiful building that the post office is. Amy, would you show them the next one? I also wanted to voice some of my other opinions. I have a neighbor that is building a 50-foot underground, three stories. There's going to be a basketball court there, and (inaudible) walls, and I don't see why this building could not have 40 feet underground and include three levels of underground parking. I think that we don't have space in the city for parking spaces, and it's an opportunity to build a garage that will stay there forever. I would like to see...It would have been my preference to see the art going horizontal instead of vertical because it's really hard to see vertical in a very small area of downtown. I wanted to also add that I had no conversations or correspondence with anybody since the last ARB meeting. I don't know who they talked to, but they did not include me. I also wanted to ask you if the panel, on the top of the fourth floor, are they solar panels? And, what is the height of that solar panel? I'm interested in knowing that. Basically, those are the things, I think. There is another view that you can see the post office really, really well. Can you see the next slide? This is the kind of view that you will lose, and if you had an open parking space, parking, you know, four or five levels of parking was open, it would be a less-massive building with a splendid view of the (inaudible) area. Thank you. Oh, one more thing, and that is the access to the back of my building. That is a big, big issue, and it will not go away. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mrs. Wong? Okay. Anybody else wish to speak on this project? All right. Any comments from staff? Ms. French: You know, when we continue a meeting, just generally, to a date certain, we do not send out additional notice cards. It's a City expense that we don't go to the trouble to do, because it is a date certain and... Chair Furth: At our last meeting, we announced that this would be heard on this day. Ms. French: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. Any questions of staff or the applicant? Board Member Gooyer: Want me to start? Chair Furth: Sure. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I think this is an improvement over what we've seen, and I think the third time definitely helped. It's interesting. There are a couple of things. The various changes that you made, I think, are all in the right direction, and I think, as far as I'm concerned, this is approvable at this point. There are some items that, I guess, are still somewhat in flux, but it's all just sort of, throw out my opinion. The tapestry as it's shown on here, I happen to like that. I mean, I know it seems like it didn't City of Palo Alto Page 7 really work at Stanford, but I think because, first of all, this is also, you could see through it, and I think it just makes a unique...If nothing else, it's almost, you look at it, you go, "What the heck is that?" It draws you to it a little more. But, I do find it strange that, if this is done, I mean, it doesn't make any sense to me to put the original design skin on there, and then, take that down and put up the tapestry, so we just do one in lieu of the other completely. Secondly, I happen to like the framing for the solar panels. I think it helps the building rather than hinders. I'd like to see, even if they don't put the solar panels on, I'd like to see the frame up there to counterbalance what's going on at the base of the building. I think it actually is a help to it, especially with the new design of the railing on top. It just gives it a nice, finished top floor to it. Like I said, I could approve the project, or forward it on at this point the way it is now. Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you, Ken, and thank you, staff, for all the hard work on this project. I can also recommend approval of the project today. Previously, I had three major reservations. One was the four dead-end aisles, dead-end aisles inside the garage; the narrow alley between the Tai Pan restaurant and the project; and, also, before, I think you were encroaching as much as six or seven feet into the special setback, and I felt that was sort of short-sighted. I understood the logic of it, but it really seemed short-sighted to me given how hard it is to regain right-of-way space in the future when we actually...If we ever need it. Anyway, I think the building is handsome. It is big. I understand Ken's design strategy, and I think that you've done a really great job with giving that approach. I do want to throw out there that there is a different way of designing a big garage like this. In Beverly Hills, there are two garages, public garages. One's at, like, 345 North Beverly Drive. It has a Williams Sonoma on the ground floor and it's three stories. And then, they have another one, which is 9510 Brighton Way, which is five levels. That has ground-floor retail and it's on Rodeo Drive. They look like buildings. You would never think that they are parking garages. They would be more expensive than what you're showing today. They may be out of the budget of this particular project. But, if you just walk down the street, you wouldn't think that they are a garage, and they blend in. And I think as a good of a job as you've done on this project, it's still going to look like a big garage, especially the Hamilton façade. I think you've done everything that you can do on the Waverley façade. I think the retail helps. It's going to be big, and I think we should expect some criticism of the bulk from it. If you think all the criticism we've gone over, like, the 636 Waverley project, this is going to be a pretty big shock to the system in Palo Alto. I think we should be, we're going to have to be prepared for it, and it's responding to a need for parking. I mean, that's the way I'm looking at it. There were a lot of good changes in the last revisions, the photovoltaics structure, the columns, the changes to the fins. I think those are all really important, and I think that they do help. Okay. The only things that I have on my list now that I think are completely addressed is the concrete color, which I think you're calling out as natural. My understanding is there isn't really such a thing as "natural" concrete. Even sidewalks are colored with lamp black [phonetic]. I think we need to see something, and I would prefer to see something warmer, a warmer color than cooler color. I can understand the logic of trying to match the concrete to, having the gray-colored concrete to match the All Saints Church. But then, at the same time, I'm thinking churches should be separate and distinct from the rest of the fabric. I did look at the 636 Waverley building and the color of that in context with all the warm colors on the block and it seems off to me. It seems like it stands out too much from the neighbors. I think that the Board should discuss some provision for placement of signs for the retail storefront. That's mostly because your awning is really high. You don't have a lot of space above the doors, the transoms. Yeah, you can hang a sign, or a provision for blade signs on the columns. Something. I think we have to do something. I'm also concerned about graffiti on the board-formed concrete and I want to know if you're proposing to put the coating, like a graffiti coating on the concrete. Or if the City is going to paint it afterwards, or if you're going to use chemical cleaners, which never completely remove all of the paint. And then, I did want to address Elizabeth Wong's comment about the fins. If I look at the site plan, I think that, even if the fins were removed, I don't think it's going to help the view through the garage because there's that stair, and the elevator, and the sheer wall. I think the other thing is that I think the way Ken has designed the fins now, I think looks good. We have another garage over at the Hoover Building at Stanford, where the fins are four feet apart, and it doesn't work at all. It doesn't look good. I think they do need to be fairly closely spaced. I would say that there is an City of Palo Alto Page 8 alternate. Like, we have the Bryant Street garage. It just has a grid. It looks more like a window frame and not fins. I think that works, actually, pretty well. But, at the moment, I think I'm recommending no change with regard to that. I did visit the site this morning. I do think there is an issue with service vehicles unloading in the mornings for the CVS store and the restaurant, and then, later in the day, for the Apple store. I think that is an issue. I think loading it from the street side is feasible in the early morning because there's generally not a lot of cars parked in the morning. And I do see restaurants (inaudible) Emerson Street that have restaurant loading in the morning, in the street. They just block the street, so I think that can work. But, I think we do have to resolve all that, and I don't see a lot of details in here. Anyway, that's all that I have. I can recommend approval of the project today. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Through the Chair, could I ask a question of the architect, please? Chair Furth: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Architect Hayes, I have a question for you about the concrete sheer wall and what you explained were decorative penetrations. I originally understood those to be windows through the sheer wall, so you'd have a glancing view, a frame of the post office. Is that a possibility, to do that, still? Mr. Hayes: We can certainly investigate that more. That was the original concept, but in working with the structural in Watry's office, it presented some problems for them to be able to get the lateral forces to transfer down the sheer wall. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. The openings are very small. It seems that the sheer strength would not be dramatically affected. Thank you. I find myself able to recommend approval of this project. I think the changes have been for the good, and I'm very pleased with the way it looks now. I'm very appreciative of the architect and staff for modifying the façade a little bit with the top corniche line. I am concerned that the building is much better with the photovoltaic canopy on the top. The reality is that the canopy is something like 56 feet up, so it's higher than the current sacred 50-foot height limit, and this is going before City Council for a vote. I'd like to give them some ammunition, that the Architecture Board thinks the building is significantly better with the photovoltaic canopy, fully understanding that it's higher than the current 50-foot limit. We still think it's an improvement on the building and should be retained. At least put it really loud and clear to everybody what's going on. My second and only other issue is regarding that concrete sheer wall. I think it's much better if you have rectilinear openings through it that people can see out of. Perhaps also modify the color, or just take into account what Alex was saying about toning down the coldness of the gray concrete. I think the metal covering on the stairs will be a nice feature, having the public art there, and I'm all in favor of keeping it there, but I don't think it needs to be extended to the concrete sheer wall. I find the rectilinear grade somehow sinks in with the building as an architectural element. I think it's a loss not to have those peekaboo windows out to the post office that we were originally discussing. I'd like to recommend that, I guess that that concrete sheer wall come back on consent, or just a recommendation to staff to check the color of the concrete and see if we can't get openings through it. Aside from that, I'm grateful to the staff for all the work that's gone through, and the architects for getting this building to where it is now. Thank you. Board Member Gooyer: Can I just interject one item? I agree completely, and that's why I asked the question about the openings in the concrete wall. I think it would be much better if the openings were there. And I also know, having dealt with enough structural engineers, that they're going to scream and moan and everything else, and then, if you put your foot down, it's amazing how it gets done. I don't buy it, that it has to be that way. I mean, I accepted your answer because I know you probably asked the structural engineer and they said, no, no, I need that wall solid. But they don't. It's amazing how...I've always gotten my way if you really push a little bit. Chair Furth: I'm trying to judge by facial expressions how many architects are out there and how many engineers are out there [Laughter.] Getting a lot of audience reaction. City of Palo Alto Page 9 [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: It's a few more rebars, Wynne. That's all. Chair Furth: That's what I figured (inaudible). Sorry about the terrace. Board Member Lew: Wynne, I'd like to interrupt for one second. There's the internal joke, like, if you're having a meeting with architects and engineers, the engineers show up 10 minutes early and the architects show up 10 minutes late. That's reflective of, I think, structural design, as well. Chair Furth: I see. And the extroverted engineers are the ones who look at your shoes, right. Okay. I think it looks like a handsome building. I'm really pleased. I share Elizabeth Wong's sorrow at the loss of that view of the post office, but it's going to happen with this building program. I'm grateful that you did carve out the corner on Waverley so that as people come down that street, to have a bit more of a glimpse of that beautiful building across the street. That beautiful civic building across the street, but as a Depression project, with a feeling that civic buildings should look good, they should look like we care about our common purposes in our public buildings. That they shouldn't be as cheap as possible, but they should be the most satisfying we can do. And in this last set of drawings, I have the sense that this is a huge structure, it's a parking structure, but it's also a handsome structure, and we can be proud of it. I think a really important thing with a building of this size is what the experience is walking by it, or even driving by it, close up. I think it's going to be good. I think it's going to be a big improvement over our current experience. We do sit up here and carp a lot, but we also do appreciate what you're doing. There's going to be a much better bicycle and pedestrian experience. I am not going to be locking my bike in the midst of the ivy. I'm not going to be dodging cars backing up into me because there is no pedestrian path at this point that doesn't involve cars backing up into you. I really like your new, walking through the lower level. I'm really glad that we discussed and you were able to raise that floor level underground. I think that this is really, for all the fact it is housing for many, many cars, a pretty multimodal project. I agree that we need to think about where the signage is going to go. I'm delighted that we have a public art element here, and it looks like a beautiful one. On the concrete color, I do not like that cold gray. I don't think -- and I don't know if it really is cold -- I don’t think that it's the concrete across the street in the church that we should be picking up on. I think it's the other civic building, which is the post office. I want to know that it's going to enhance that. Which one am I looking at? Ms. Boyd: Yes, they have. Chair Furth: (inaudible) [Laughter] Chair Furth: I saw it, I looked at it, I looked at it in a bigger context; I still don't like it. I think the context is the post office. I do think that this is wonderful for us in terms of a City building and solar panels because we have been not happy with retrofitted solar panels on parking garages. We have thought that they looked horrible, to use a technical term. These finish the building. They make it lighter, they make it soar, they make it float, they make it ecologically more optimistic. They're great. I really like the altered railings up on the top. Again, I think those are great design elements. I have the sense that this building, when it's built in full, can make us proud in the same way that our post office does, while we reflect on the changes in the way the world is organized between the point when the post office was the most important thing we had, and when the parking garage still was. Fifty-six feet -- or whatever -- is a lot of height, but the building next to it is 75, so this is one of the very few places in the city where I think, downtown where I think you could do this and it wouldn't be a bad thing. I was very concerned about pulling it back as far as possible. I think you've done that. And I also realize that by having the wider sidewalk, you give a sense of bigger pull-back, even though the building façade is not further back. I very much appreciate the wider sidewalks. What else did I want to say? I agree that the windows would be much better. I am concerned about loading and how that's going to work. While I know that this building is much more deferential to the 550 Waverley building than a standard, you know, if we continue City of Palo Alto Page 10 development pattern along that street, all the way to the corner, which has zero setback. This is a different situation. It's a deep building, and it's a tall building, and I am persuaded that moving it back isn't going to work. And I'm almost ready to be persuaded that that will be an attractive place to walk through. I am persuaded that it will be a much better place for people working there. Our code says we're supposed to have seating areas and what-not, not just for customers, but for employees, and we're all used to the sight of workers on their breaks, sitting on stand pipes, or curbs, or boxes overturned, and I'm glad that we're going to have seating. In one of the drawings of the seating proposals, it shows what I think of as architecturally lovely, but not comfortable seating. The Timber form Colossus, I can't tell how tall that is, but it looks a little short. I hope it's at least 30 inches, or thereabouts. I'm looking at sheet... Male: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Yeah. Male: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Microphone. Chair Furth: Please. Mr. Hayes: That is John Potis with Merrill Morris, landscape architect. Mr. Potis: Thank you. Benches are 18 inches high and are similar to a chair. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, could you introduce yourself for the record? Mr. Potis: My name is John Potis, landscape architect with Merrill Morris Partners. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Potis: The benches are generally 18 inches high, and that's about the same height as a chair. Chair Furth: I thought was a chair was, a chair seat...Isn't a chair seat 30? Mr. Potis: Thirty would be the table height. Chair Furth: Fine, good, lovely. Mr. Potis: [crosstalk] is generally about 30 inches. Chair Furth: You're right. I just measured my seat this morning. It's 12 foot six. You're right. Great. People can sit down in them. And they're both the same height? Timber form is just photographed to look lower? You have bench options for the alley passageway. Mr. Hayes: There are benches in the alleyway, which would be these Timber form. Chair Furth: (inaudible) way? Mr. Hayes: And then there are benches on the Hamilton frontage, and those are integrated, cantilevered off the architecture. Chair Furth: Right, and as photographed... You present these to us as options in Sheet ARB 4.2, and as photographed, the Timber form Colossus looked really low. Is that an illusion? They're both the same height? City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Potis: We're getting the image up, but it might be that the Colossus looks lower because it's a longer bench in that image. Chair Furth: Could be. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, it will be seat height, they will both be seat height, whether they're... Chair Furth: My point is... Mr. Hayes: ...integrated. Chair Furth: ...of course, that I want a bench that I can sit down on and stand up from, even if I am not in peak health. Which means, occasionally, you need something to lean on. Mr. Potis: Yeah, with sitting up, generally, having an arm on the bench, or a... Chair Furth: Exactly. Mr. Potis: [crosstalk]...And with the other... Mr. Hayes: Can you (inaudible)? Mr. Potis: The Colossus would not normally come with an arm. The Colossus, it's a big hunk of wood, so I think of Palo Alto trees. Even though it's a dead tree, it's a nice hunk of wood. But with the other bench, you can get arms, and also, the other bench, I thought would be more complementary to the built-in benches. But, again, I wanted... Chair Furth: I mean, I love great big hunks of wood and all that. And we have lots of people to whom they will not need any assistance. But, take a look at the CVS clientele. You've got a lot of people who need help getting up and down. Mr. Hayes: The benches in front of the building on Hamilton do have arms. Chair Furth: I understand that they do, but I’m in favor of universal design. Okay. I think that's all. But my overall feeling is pleasure that we have, I think, gotten to a building which will be pleasant to experience, that will enhance alternative forms of moving about, and that will meet the City Council's project, which requires, says we need a lot more parking in this area. I also hear commentary which leads me to think that we should consider a subcommittee. I am prepared to vote for this. I think there are some items that need further work, and I would suggest that a subcommittee is the appropriate way to do that. I'm happy to delegate it to two of you. I don’t think my participation is needed. Any issues, I think, would be -- unless you want to talk about it now -- signage placement, concrete color, and the piercing or not of the sheer wall on Hamilton. Was there something else? Oh, and loading. How loading is going to be handled. Or do you think that's not necessary? Colleagues? I'm actually asking if you're supportive of that approach. Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff. Wynne was asking about loading. Is that actually part of ARB purview? Because that's something in the street right-of-way. I think in discussion in the past, I think that's been excluded from our scope. Ms. French: Correct. Yes. Board Member Lew: We can make a statement to the Council, right? We can make a recommendation, but it's not our... Ms. French: The Office of Transportation would be reviewing where exactly that would be placed... City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Furth: So, what I'm thinking... Ms. French: ...in relationship to the parking. Chair Furth: ...about is that we're required to find that it's functional. If there's something about the parking garage itself in relationship to these public alleyways that is making it dysfunctional for loading, then it would be something we should be thinking about. If we don't think there's anything to be done with respect to the building itself, that we're satisfied it can be done elsewhere, then I agree with you. Ms. French: Could I interject? With the architectural review findings on circulation, if you would like to wordsmith that to note loading space, with the provision of a loading space on Waverley, something to that effect, the details of where that loading space along the block is something that would be worked out. But having a loading space, period... Chair Furth: Allows the building and the adjacent buildings to function... Ms. French: Yeah, we'd like to think of it... Chair Furth: That's helpful. Thank you. Not actually an issue I raised. Further discussion, or does somebody want to make a motion, which we can then discuss? MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I'm happy to make a motion. I move that we recommend approval of this project with the following conditions. Or, actually, before I even go into conditions, in the findings we need to make, I'd like to insert a sentence regarding the importance of the photovoltaic panels. Staff, could you help me locate where the best place to put that would be, please? Board Member Gooyer: I think it should be more than just a sentence. I think they really do help the overall design of the building. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah. I agree. Do we have draft findings in here, Amy? Chair Furth: Yes, we do. They're on pages...They're not highlighted the way they usually are, so they're a little harder to find. They start on page 17. Oh, wait a minute. Yeah. Actually, they start earlier, it's just that they're laid out in a very different way. Ms. French: There is, on packet page 20, is the... Chair Furth: On page what? Ms. French: Packet page 20. Chair Furth: Right. Ms. French: There is the ARB Finding #6. Chair Furth: Right, but they start earlier, right? They start... Ms. French: Correct. Chair Furth: It's very odd because we've got...I have a hard time finding #1. Ms. French: We do have a fair number of comp plan policies for this project, so #1 actually starts on the top of page 14. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Furth: Oh, at the top [crosstalk], right. Ms. French: Packet page 14. Chair Furth: Right. I think it's Finding #2, that the project has unified and coherent design. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah. I would like to see us add... Chair Furth: A bullet [crosstalk]... Vice Chair Baltay: ...in that, in Finding #2, that the photovoltaic panels on the top of the building significantly aid in making the building a harmonious transition in scale, mass and character with the community. Chair Furth: And say, "and supporting structures?" Photovoltaic panels and supporting structures? Vice Chair Baltay: That's great. You're good with words, Wynne. Help me figure that one out. Chair Furth: I think it (inaudible) 2-a, or third bullet? I'm sorry. Never mind. Wrong place. Yeah, you're right. It goes in 2-d. So, the photovoltaic panels and supporting structures... Ms. French: Is the focus the supporting structure for the...? Chair Furth: It's the whole thing. Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Well... Chair Furth: The building looks unfinished without them, is my problem. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex...? Board Member Lew: I think my inclination would be to just say, just have it include the structure and not the panels themselves. Because we got all sorts of state acc...Like, we have two solar shading accents, and I'm thinking it may be better if we just... Vice Chair Baltay: I agree with you, Alex. Chair Furth: Because the structure (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: It's the structure that we're after. We just need to use those words. Chair Furth: Okay, the photovoltaic support structures? Vice Chair Baltay: That's the... Chair Furth: I'm thinking of them as finishing the building, but you said something else. ??: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Provide an elegant top to the building? Top, bottom and middle. Did the architect want to comment why they're good? Mr. Hayes: It terminates the top of the building. It gives it a corniche. Chair Furth: Okay, provides an elegant corniche. Effective? City of Palo Alto Page 14 Vice Chair Baltay: What I wanted to do, Wynne, was use language in the findings... Chair Furth: All right. Vice Chair Baltay: ...and (inaudible) this super structure is important in helping the building achieve a harmonious transition in scale, mass and character with the adjacent... Board Member Gooyer: There you go. That sounds good. Vice Chair Baltay: ...building. Chair Furth: All right. Let's say it provides a corniche, and. Then we've got the facts and the [crosstalk]. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm trying to give Council what they need to hear, that this is the language they wrote. This building does...[crosstalk]. Chair Furth: And then, can we add a sentence? Yeah, because it has a lot to do with the height. And can we add another sentence, that the 75-foot height of the adjacent building...? Vice Chair Baltay: I think that's already here. Chair Furth: All right. Vice Chair Baltay: It's bullet point number 3. Chair Furth: Perfect. Some of these things, I have read them, (inaudible) my marks, but I don't remember them all, obviously. Okay. Do you have something, staff, that will work? Are you clear on what we're saying? Ms. French: Yeah, I think you noted under 2-a, the third bullet, the photovoltaic supporting structure on the top of the building. Chair Furth: It should be 2-d. I'm sorry. Ms. French: Oh, 2-d, okay. The photovoltaic supporting structure on the top of the building provides an elegant top, and there's something about significant, and some other verbiage. Vice Chair Baltay: And it's important in helping the building achieve, then use the language from the findings. Helping the building achieve... Chair Furth: Harmonious transitions. Vice Chair Baltay: ...harmonious transition and mass-scale character with the adjacent building. Chair Furth: Perfect. Vice Chair Baltay: Then, I'd like to make a condition that the openings in the concrete sheer wall remain as openings, as we've been originally shown. It's not a, come back to us on consent. Just make them openings. I believe that can be done. And I'd like to have a second condition, that the color of the concrete come back on a consent calendar after the architect has given a little more thought to how to tone down the harshness of the colored concrete. And then... Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Baltay, are you asking that to be on consent or on subcommittee? Vice Chair Baltay: Subcommittee, I think. I'm sorry, I misspoke. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Assuming the rest of the board is up for that. And then, the signage. Is that something we can expect to have come back at the same subcommittee? Ms. French: Once we receive an application for staff architectural review, we can bring that to the subcommittee. Chair Furth: I think our problem is different. The question is: What is a location on the building that any signs could go. I think that's the way we want to think about it now. Not the content of the sign. [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: The other choice we would have is we could, could we not recommend that a master sign program be included as part of the project? That doesn't mean it would happen. I think we were saying... Chair Furth: [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: There's usually a sign for the garage itself. I mean, we name the garages. Mr. Hayes: There is a master sign program in the drawing set for the parking-related elements that the City has adopted. For the garages. Vice Chair Baltay: Could that just be expanded to include the commercial...? Chair Furth: It's retail...[crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: We're just talking the retail store. Vice Chair Baltay: Just expand it to include the retail signage, too. It can't be that hard just to say you're going to have... [crosstalk]. Mr. Hayes: We can locate, yeah, yeah, we can locate, you know, options for where the signage could be incorporated. Chair Furth: Perfect. Vice Chair Baltay: It will help everybody if you do that. At least that's the base [crosstalk]. Mr. Hayes: And the tenant will want to see that, too. Vice Chair Baltay: Those are the only conditions I'd like to add. I do not think we should put anything about loading... Chair Furth: All right. Vice Chair Baltay: ...on the architecture board. So, that's my motion. Ms. French: Could I ask a clarification? The openings in the concrete, you said that would not go to subcommittee, that's just a ...? Vice Chair Baltay: It would not go to subcommittee. Ms. French: ...would be a condition. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Vice Chair Baltay: We're just saying that should be one of the conditions of approval, is that the openings be retained as openings. Ms. French: Okay, thank you. Board Member Gooyer: I'll second that. Chair Furth: Any discussion? Vice Chair Baltay: No, there's no "if possible" on that condition. It just says it. Chair Furth: Keep in mind we are a recommending body. Any other comments before we vote? Ms. Gerhardt: Do we have a second? Chair Furth: Yes. Robert. I always forget to summarize that. Okay, on a motion by Board Member Baltay, second by Board Member Gooyer, to recommend approval as previously stated. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Hearing none, it passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. Chair Furth: Congratulations. Thank you. We'll take a five-minute break. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: Excuse me, I just had a question about our last project. How many square feet is that parking garage, above ground? ??: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Well, I do, but I can't tell. Ms. Gerhardt: It should normally be on the front page. We can take a look. Chair Furth: Okay. All right. 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. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Well, we will go on to our next item, which is a public hearing on 181 [sic] El Camino Real, which is to say the Stanford Shopping Center. This is a request for architectural review and a conditional use permit -- not from us -- for Shake Shack restaurant, to allow for exterior façade improvements, and to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages in an existing tenant space at the Stanford Shopping Center. It is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. This was formerly the Wells Fargo Bank building next to P.F. Chang's restaurant. Does anybody have any conversations to disclose? We have all visited the sites. Staff? Thank you. You can proceed. Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner: Good morning. This is at the Stanford Shopping Center. We went to hearing previously and the Board had some comments and concerns, so the applicant and I worked on City of Palo Alto Page 17 that and came up with some different designs that addressed some of the comments and concerns expressed by the Board previously. So, let's start the presentation here. Just to go back, the Stanford Shopping Center has a wide variety of retail tenants, restaurants, some kind of day spa uses, hair salons, etc., so they have a wide range of different facades throughout the shopping center, typical of a shopping center, especially an outdoor one. As we move on, this is the existing conditions here. You can see the Wells Fargo ATMs on the upper left photo there, and you can see that the building has a bit of a point to the right, under the triangular building. It is somewhat visible through the tree line during the fall seasons. You can see on the lower left, the photo there, I circled it. From Quarry Road, it is mainly blocked by that plaza with the trees, but the Wells Fargo -- and with that ATM existing there -- that is somewhat, again, visible from El Camino. It is partially visible from the public right-of-way, but it is also partially obscured by the planting that's there at the site. As we go through, we can see that the changes from before are that we do have new public seating -- I'll go into that later -- landscaping has been modified, and, just to hit some key points for board members who were not here before, the change of use from financial services to eating and drinking use -- a restaurant -- does change the parking because they are utilizing the outdoor patio, where the Wells Fargo Bank did not utilize that. They did use it as a refuge; now, there's actually seating there, though the Stanford Shopping Center does have a large excess of parking, so it's not really an issue. Moving on to the Board's concerns here, last time this went before you, there was concerns regarding the landscaping. There was lavender being used before, and there were concerns about bees being attracted and that not being compatible with an eating establishment. You have people sitting outside and bees buzzing around. Also, some of the landscape choices were not drought-resistant or indigenous plants, so the applicant did prepare an updated revised landscape plan that includes native drought-resistant plants. He did remove the lavender to address the bee issue. The other concern was the durability of the cedar wood that was proposed the first time around, and the Board suggested using an alternative material, or painting the brick façade. The applicant now has proposed two options in this submittal before you. There's one with the painted brick façade option, and there's another one with a wood option with an alternative wood. It's an Accoya treated wood as opposed to the cedar that was proposed before. The Board did say that there should be more focus on the triangular portion, the point of the building, for public seating, since it was observed that people lacked seating in that area. The applicant did prepare their site plan according to that and are proposing four new benches. That's shown on the site plan. And, the Board members were not supportive of at the time -- two of the three -- were not supportive of, there was a burger logo on the new trash enclosure. The applicant did remove that. Moving forward, we can see here the landscaping. This is just a general site plan. That did not change, just the planning scheme, so they did not increase the landscape area or decrease it from before. Here, we can see the landscape options. They are California native plants and they are more drought-resistant than the previous selection that was before you. Moving on, this is the first façade option with the painted brick. You'll see that it is painted throughout on this side. This is the side that would face Quarry, and it was partially obscured by that mettle of trees. Here's the same side with the Accoya wood. You can see the difference here. It's the lower portion of the façade. It now has wood. Here's the parking lot side that you can see from El Camino through the trees. Again, this is the painted brick option. At the back-of-house side -- as I would like to call it -- where the trash room doors are, there on the right, you'll see that it's painted light gray, the brick. The brick continues...Actually, it would be the left. That's painted an ash color. There's actually a sample up there for you. Here's the same side with the Accoya wood option, very similar to the previous option that you've seen before. Moving here to the public seating, this is the zoomed-in area of the site plan. Highlighted in yellow, you can see the location of the new benches. It is made of aluminum, looks very modern, nice. It has a back and arm rests. There are the options there. There's also a spec sheet available for you. We are recommending approval of the project with...Excuse me. Let me start over. There was a modification to the conditions of approval in the submitted staff report. Condition number 4 -- yes -- that was handed to you, and that's available for the public. We did specifically state that the four new benches, the public seating condition, would require it to be of that Metro 40 style, or an equivalent style and quality because they are proposing a nice aluminum bench, and in case that does not happen to be available at the time of installation, they could go seek an alternative that's very similar. That is a change that's brought before you. Chair Furth: And that's condition number 14. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: And with that change there, we recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Justin Kyle, Architect: Ready to go? Good morning. I'm Justin Kyle with Michael Hus Office of Architecture in Austin, Texas. Do you need me to spell my name for the record? Chair Furth: That would be nice. Mr. Kyle: Okay. [Spells name.] Sammy gave a good overview of the project, in general. The reason why we're here today is to address the concerns the Board brought up at the last discussion. The, I guess, major element that we've been looking at is one of the questions of providing adequate seating for the area. We discussed the benches. We coordinated with the Stanford Shopping Center to find the bench specification that they would like and provided four different options for this bench location at the areas in general where the Board recommended at our last discussion. Then, overviewing on the landscaping requirement, looking at drought-resistant plants, based on recommendations that we found using research on the Palo Alto website, as well as working with other members without our design team that have done work in the California area, and the Bay Area specifically. These are the specifications that we came up with. Of course, we can modify as needed per the Board's recommendations. For the big item here, we were looking at the façade options on the exterior of the building. Per the Board's recommendation, we looked at an alternative option versus the wood, but we also kept a wood option within this package because we do feel, as for the design, it is the best design option for this project. It gives a human scale to the project. It also brings a warmth into it, and at the level of interactivity between the patrons and at that level of the building. This wood is not a cedar, it's not a teak. We're looking at, not a composite wood, it is actual wood, but it goes through a process, an acetylated process. We have more information and documentation I can discuss here in a moment. Doing some research on this, we looked at, this product is not only a good fit for this area, but it's also a product specifically made for exterior cladding. It is typically used either in a cladding orientation, as we're showing it here, or for decks, pool decks specifically, as well. It's a product made to be UV resistant, to be weather resistant, to be pest resistant, and all the resistances required for an exterior cladding orientation. You can see in this design that we're showing here, there's not much of a change from what we showed initially, so this sticks close to that initial proposal. But, the wood specification is a different specification. As a second option, we did look at more or less the same design. The main element here that we're changing is that instead of a wood over in the back-of-house area here, we are suggesting a slim glazed brick condition. I do want to highlight that for the glazed brick cladding, as well as for the wood cladding, we're not going to be removing any of the brick in the areas where we do have existing brick, where we're having it remain. This is more or less a rain screen condition where we will be creating a floating façade that's going to go in front of the original façade. Also, the reason why we're doing a lot of these movements is because we'd like to reinforce the branding of Shake Shack. It's the reason for the painted brick, it's the reason for the corrugated metal, and the reason for the wood, or for a feature tile element on the outside, bringing it in line with all the other Shake Shacks that have been designed in other areas. But, also, bringing in the wood as an option specifically here, to address local context and to be more in line with Palo Alto design in general. Here is the view from the other façade. You can see for the wood option, we are still carrying the wood and certain portions here, not only in the larger brick areas, but also as a treatment on the mullions of the storefront, as well. For the glazed brick option, I decided to go with the existing brick throughout, either keeping it remaining in the conditions where we will have an existing brick wall, or to bring in new brick where we would be removing existing storefront from Wells Fargo and infilling those openings with the existing brick specification. Still suggesting a painted option City of Palo Alto Page 19 here throughout, for the wood option or for the glazed brick option. These are from the interior, and various details for (inaudible) options. We have also prepared an additional presentation using some of the marketing materials available on the Accoya website. This is just a quick overview of the product. I understand you all have a sample, as well. This product, you can see all of the logos here. Very resistant to insects, very resistant to UV, resistant to water and to decay, and, in general, kind of a wonder product for an exterior application. It's also non-toxic and recyclable, and the wood, original species that it's sourced from, are sustainably harvested, as well. Here's the process. I would recommend reading through this, as well, to get a better idea of what is going on with the process. They're not necessarily injecting the wood with different chemicals. It's going through a process that changes an aspect of the wood to basically remove the bad agents within the wood that lead to warping, to waning, to insects, as well as general decay of the wood. As a result, the wood becomes much harder and much more durable, much more long-lasting. There's an outdoor state [phonetic] test, you can see in this graph here. I know it's small, but this top line here is the product that we're suggesting. You can see throughout the lifetime of other woods and exterior wet conditions that they start decaying much more quickly, especially cedar. Here, it takes a downward trend pretty dramatically. You can see the wood we're recommending for this application is going to be lasting for a good amount of time, and as long as we are maintaining the finish using a clear seal -- which we are suggesting here -- it should retain throughout the entire lifetime of the project itself. Other diagrams here. You can see other tests, that swelling. You can see all the other woods here, through water impregnation studies, that only the Accoya stands as not having any kind of waxing or waning or cupping throughout its lifetime. This is to address specific concerns brought up by the Board at the last discussion, worrying about how this façade -- board and batten façade with this Accoya -- will look over a longer period of time. You can see that there would not be as much movement between the individual boards with this specific type of material. And then, a couple other examples. You can see with finishes on the wood over a period of time, that the typical pine or cedar does tend to look much worse over time, but the Accoya actually stands alone as not having the same amount of decay as the other wood options. And then, the last page is more information on sustainable harvesting of the initial species that they use for this wood product, and for other environmental impacts, showing it being a good, environmentally-sourced and green product to be used in this application. That about covers all of the concerns brought up by the Board last time, unless you'd like me to speak more about the design in general for the Shake Shack. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Any comments from staff? Mr. Gutierrez: No. none. Chair Furth: Thank you. I will close...Any members of the public who wish to speak? Vice Chair Baltay: I have one question for the architect, if that's okay. Chair Furth: Sure. Vice Chair Baltay: I remembered last time you presented a design where you had a groove of some kind cut at an angle in the face of these wood strips. Is that still present in the design? Mr. Kyle: That is still present as part of the design. Vice Chair Baltay: Could you explain that, please? Mr. Kyle: Yes. Let me pull up the original presentation. It's a bit difficult to read in this render. You can see that there is a line here that we showed to highlight this detail. That line follows a path along the façade. I can pull up the elevations, too. Here. And the line you can see present here, as well. What that line is indicating is a batten condition, where we have these fins coming out from the face of the T&G application on the wall. Those battens will have a detail where they'll be a little more proud at one point, and then, cut back slightly, and then, be slimmer at another point. Creating more movement on the façade in general. You can see at the top of the line here, that's where the fin would come out a little bit City of Palo Alto Page 20 more proud from the face of the building, and then, below that line, that fin gets cut back just slightly. It creates kind of a notched condition coming in on a kind of cross-elevation there. We have that movement along this façade here, with this line. We have that movement along this little portion of the wood. And you can see, as it wraps around to the other side of the building, that we're showing those notches, as well. And as an extension of this concept, where we have a wood fin condition on the front of the storefront, that that line would continue, so we would notch in that fin here, and here, and here, as we go up along the storefront. I believe we do have the detail of that, as well. Let me see if I can find it. [Attempting to locate.] Or, we can also send that detail, as well, for a little more clarification, what that notch would actually look like. Vice Chair Baltay: I believe it's Detail 3 on A501. Mr. Kyle: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you for the explanation. Mr. Kyle: Not a problem. Chair Furth: And I had one question. The existing Wells Fargo bank and the P.F. Chang's portion of the building on, what I guess is sort of the northeast side, have vines all over the place. Mr. Kyle: Yes. Chair Furth: Have a lot of vines. And they'll remain on the P.F. Chang's portion of the building. Tell me your thinking about not having them on any portion of your building, particularly the portion of that frontage closer to El Camino. Mr. Kyle: I think for the long-term life cycle of the building, we are expected that ivy to grow back onto the building. We're showing for clarification within our renders no ivy currently as kind of the condition of the building, what it would look like on opening day. Over the course of five or 10 years, we expect the ivy to grow back, eventually. You can see we are showing the ivy in our renders, on the columns themselves. Chair Furth: You are on the other side, yes. Mr. Kyle: Yes, yeah, with the expectation of it growing back. For the initial renovations that we're proposing, we will be removing the ivy back to the P.F. Chang's side, but then, allowing that ivy to grow back onto the building. Chair Furth: I think in your drawings it says it's going to be California pipevine on the columns on the southern frontage. The one towards Quarry, not towards El Camino. Mr. Kyle: Okay. Chair Furth: And I think it's Virginia creeper on there now, not ivy. Mr. Kyle: Well, we can change that specification so it... Chair Furth: I like it, is my point. Mr. Kyle: Okay. You like the California pipeline, or the...? Chair Furth: No, I'm fine, I don't care what you do. Mr. Kyle: Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: I just think that that's an attractive element of the existing building. It weaves it into its site nicely, and if it didn't interfere with your corporate presentation of self, I'd like it. Thank you. That's helpful. Any further questions of the applicant or staff? All right. Peter, do you want to start? Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. Thank you. I made a note on my drawings. It says I prefer the wood look, but will it last? I think, to me, that whole question comes down to whether this wood idea of yours is going to come off, or not. I guess at some point, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and see what happens. I'll be honest with you. When I look at the detailing and look at everything I know about wood construction, this is going to be a disaster. But, maybe there's something about this new wood... Chair Furth: Tell us how you really feel. [Laughter] Vice Chair Baltay: Well, your detail shows the end grain of the wood, the fin, up there, exposed to the elements. The end of the grain of the wood exposed to the elements. That's just an absolute no-no in wood design. Maybe it's just a detail you haven't followed through on. It says you're going to glue these boards to the ledger to hold them on. It just doesn't work. You can't just glue it and expect it to stay. That's detail number 2 on A501. I am concerned that your details are full of language that says use this wood or some other weather-resistant wood substance. I think it should be this stuff, if you're going to do it. I'm assuming that's what you are after. And I'm intrigued by your idea of notching the wood back, now that I understand it. It's a neat idea. I think that might be effective. But, the big picture is that, when you just paint the brick dark like that, it just looks overbearing, and I don't think that's the right answer. I think it's fine to try the wood. My other thought or concern had been, initially, I had been hoping you'd be able to get more seating or public amenity type space where the prow of the building is, where you have a field of landscaping. That was originally lavender, and now it's some other native grasses. But, I had been hoping that would actually be a place for benches, or more public gathering. It's really a shortcut place for people to cut across, going around the corner into the restaurant, or waiting. It seems like you've done, is just put a few benches on the side of the walkway, rather than giving a little bit more space for it. I don't know if it's possible to do that or not, or if that's something you considered, but I want to hear what my colleagues think about it. Those are my two big issues on this, the wood, and whether you can get more seating at the prow of the building. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex. Board Member Lew: Sorry I missed the last meeting for this one. I did review the minutes for the meeting on June 21st, and I do agree with my board members about the wood. I think there was some discussion about maybe staining the brick instead of painting it, and then, the plant list. I'm on board with all of those previous comments. On the project, I can recommend approval. I think my preference is Option 1 with the Accoya wood over the glazed tile brick. I have not used it before. I am in the process of refinishing all of the stained wood on my house, and it's pretty nasty stuff, keeping it clean. Every two years... Vice Chair Baltay: Don't look at me, Alex. Talk to the guy... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ...yeah, with an army of, I'm using trisodium phosphate cleaners, which is not environmentally friendly. I'm using OxiClean and oxalic acid, and it's pretty...To get it to look really good, it takes work every two to three years. And that's just semi-transparent. It's even worse with the clear sealers. That being said, this is cladding on a retail. I would imagine that Stanford Shopping Center has fairly high standards. They're not going to let you not maintain the façade. It's just the skin, it's a retail skin design. They change over time, so I'm fine with Option 1. On the seating at the pointed corner, I think I understood that from the minutes. And then, I did look at the site, and there seems like there's a spoke right there at the corner. I'm not sure that it's actually quite so feasible. I think that might be an City of Palo Alto Page 22 issue. I think, ideally, I think, if I'm understanding your comment, you want something integral into the building. I get that, and I think I would support that, although I don't really know what it is. And it doesn't seem like there's that much space there. I think, generally, my take on it is that the path between your site and the Bloomingdale's isn't really landscaped very well. I did go around the whole shopping center. It seems like they've been removing some of the landscape, maybe to save water or what-not during the drought. It seems like it's not quite as nice. To me, I would rather have an improvement there, and it could be on the corner of the building, as well. I'm open to recommendations from the rest of the Board. Do you think removing the lavender was a good change? We had another project, a big project, the Jewish Community Center, where they actually had to take out all the lavender that was put in all the planter benches because it was just crazy. People could not sit there. So, I think that was a good choice. I did want to...I think the revised plan, this is really good. You've got a few plants, say, like the pipelines, the aristolochia, is a great plant for attracting pipeline swallow-tailed butterflies. They're not really native...The butterflies, I don't think are in our area. They're sort of more north in San Francisco and Berkeley. But there are a whole contingent of people in San Francisco who are trying to bring them back into the city, a couple hundred of them, to reestablish that butterfly population in San Francisco. I don't think that was necessarily your intent, but for staff, if we are trying to do that, the butterfly proponents like The Xerces Society and what-not, that you should have the host plant as well as the nectar plant. And then, the key thing is no pesticides. There's more that we could do if the intent is really to provide habitat. It's not just picking the plant and putting it on a planting list. And I think it's not going to work for your, if I'm looking at your color board here with the very, very dark...We have buildings here on Hamilton where there's existing brick, and they stained it darker. To me, they look better than painted brick. I would imagine that it would be very hard to get something as dark as you're showing here, but I think that stain is environmentally preferable because you would be using less stain over time, which allows the brick to breathe and has less flaking. Those are all my thoughts on this particular project. Chair Furth: Thank you. Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I sort of had the exact same initial reaction that Peter did. I like the wood, but my God, there's no way I could support that. I was willing to accept the brick, but just having read what apparently this stuff does, or how well it holds up, I'd be willing to give it a shot, doing it that way and go with, I guess it's Option 1, or the wood option. I agree, the shopping center has fairly high standards, so if it goes to hell in a year or so, they'll let you know. Also, it's a first-floor type situation. You're not worrying about scaffolding, or whatever, if you do, for instance, have to replace the whole thing. But, like you said, I do agree that the detailing on that is something, my God, you would never do with wood, so I'm willing to accept that. I think what we should do is make it so that we mandate this particular manufacturer or product -- whatever you want to call it -- rather than just saying approved alternate, or whatever, which is very typical in the industry, obviously. And just make it this. I think that's worth a shot. The planting and all that, I agree with my fellow members. As far as the seating, what I've seen when I've designed restaurants, or whatever, if people want to sit outside, it's amazing, over a year, they sort of migrate to what works for them, and after a while, if everybody wants to sit there, the planting goes away and chairs appear. I'm not too worried about that aspect of it. I'm willing to just leave it the way it is. Chair Furth: Thank you for coming back to us. I think this is a safe place to do an experiment with vinegar-soaked wood. That's what they're saying, right? Acetic acid, under pressure. I think it's a very safe place to do this. I think it's got low visibility, I think it's got Stanford Shopping Center's administration keeping track of what's happening, and you. I'm happy with that. I like your plant palate better. I spent the last week surrounded by a lot of butterflies, and I will say, the more you can attract, the more your customers are going to want to be there. It's a magical part of life, and rare these days. But, coming back. I'm glad you're going to add the benches. They should be specified as back benches, the back version of that in condition 14, staff. I believe that's what you intend, and what we want. And as to whether we specify Accoya or Accoya equivalent, how does the applicant feel about that? Are you okay with specifying the specific material? Applicant; Yes, we are okay with it. In terms of insulation and pricing, it definitely works for us. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Furth: Okay, because we don't put this in Public Works contracts because we don't want to be messing with the market. But, if this is -- improperly -- but if this acceptable to you... Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, if I may, we could specify that certain type of wood and we could say that it should come back to subcommittee if it needs to be changed. Chair Furth: Fine. I wouldn't bet on your chances given the opinion of the architects on the Board about wood. I think you persuaded them (inaudible), but I’m sure we could always be further educated. I'm ready to entertain a motion. Oh, and I just wanted to say, since Alex got to talk about how great pipeline is, my experience with Salvia Gregi is it's a great butterfly and hummingbird habitat. Even in small areas. Board Member Gooyer: One minor item on the wood. I'm a big of fan of alternate, but the problem is, if this is fairly unique, there may not be an alternate, or somebody thinks their product is sort of like it, and we go with that. This isn't a massive proportionate part of the project. I don't see any problem with specifying this one particular brand as compared to saying (inaudible) alternate. Chair Furth: Well, since it's acceptable to the applicant, I'm fine with that, too. We're asking for a change...Well, would somebody like to make a motion? MOTION Board Member Lew: Peter, I also do support your comment on the exposed ingrain of the wood, and I think we should... Vice Chair Baltay: I wasn't intending to get into those details, Alex. I think the more you did, the more we're going to find. How were the wood boards attached to your aluminum mullions between the windows? You don't show that detail, but you're going to find that challenging. Just another one. I'm ready to move that we approve the project as presented. Chair Furth: Okay, is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: I'll second. Chair Furth: I would ask for a friendly amendment, to add, in condition number 14, that the new benches shall be the metro-style backed bench by Design Works, or an equivalent style and quality. Vice Chair Baltay: That's okay with me. Chair Furth: And then, also, the staff-recommended condition, where would that go, staff, about the material? With Option 1, right? We have to say Option 1? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, actually, we should make part of the approval that we're thinking Option 1. Chair Furth: Option 1... Vice Chair Baltay: Option 1 is preferable. Board Member Gooyer: With the specified... Chair Furth: ...with the applicant's specified... Board Member Gooyer: Come on, Peter... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: You guys are such skeptics. Based on experience, I'm sure Accoya product... Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, we would need to add that in as a new condition. Chair Furth: Yes. Anything else, folks? Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, do you want to dive into those...? Chair Furth: Any further conditions? Board Member Lew: No. Chair Furth: All right. Is that amendment accepted? City of Palo Alto Page 24 Vice Chair Baltay: Those are acceptable amendments. Board Member Gooyer: Accepted to me. Chair Furth: Okay. Moved by Board Member Baltay, seconded by Board Member Gooyer, to recommend approval of this project with the modified conditions as we just specified. All those in favor say Aye. Any opposed? It passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. Chair Furth: Thank you very much for coming to us, and congratulations. Look forward to seeing your project. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: We're back in session, and it is item number 4. 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 Chair Furth: This is our third public hearing today. Again, it's a quasi-judicial hearing for 3406 Hillview Avenue. Staff is asking for a recommendation on applicant's request for approval of a site and design review, to allow the demolition of an existing 62,500 square foot research and development building and construction of a new two-story, approximately 79,000 square foot office building. This is a project under the Mayfield Agreement, which entitles Stanford to a more focused review than would otherwise be the case. An environmental review is in the form of an addendum to the Mayfield Development Agreement EIR. Does anybody have any conversations or site visits to report? We've all visited the site. More than once. All right. Staff? Graham Owen, Project Manager: Thank you, Chair Furth. As you mentioned, this is a site and design review application for a 79,076 square foot office building. This is also an application for architecture review, so we're going to be looking at both the findings for architecture review and the objectives for site and design. This is the third hearing, as you mentioned. Since the June hearing -- which was the most recent hearing -- there's been several changes to the application. In terms of the square footage, it's actually been reduced in terms of the gross floor area, so this is actually...This needs to be corrected in this slide, but it was previously an 82,030 square foot office building. From a gross floor area perspective, it's been reduced in its total gross floor area by about 3,000 square foot. What this has done is, even though the building envelope hasn't shifted, 3,000 square foot has been fully allocated from area where you could have office R&D use to specifically dedicated employee amenity space, which is exempt from gross floor area, and also from parking. Chair Furth: Exempt from the calculations, but there's no change in building mass. Mr. Owen: Correct. You got it. As you mentioned, this is a Mayfield-designated project and is subject to the Mayfield Development Agreement EIR and mitigation monitoring plan. First hearing was held in May and the second was held in June, June 20th. That should be corrected in the slide, as well. At the June hearing, the second hearing, there were a couple of comments. The first comment, and probably the most impactful, is the comment about the upper parking module, just the total area of the space that's dedicated for impervious cover, and it's a relatively close adjacency to the open space, which is next to the site. There were comments about the site and design review findings and objectives and how those comport with the asphalt that's proposed adjacent to the open space. One of the most impactful comments, I think, was that that area in particular should be further studied and the impervious area City of Palo Alto Page 25 reduced. The second comment was with regards to the staircase, which was proposed previously at the corner of Coyote Hill and Hillview, and just the comment that this staircase and the landings that make up the staircase should be reoriented so that they are facing directly to the employee entrance just off of Hillview Avenue. Third comment was that we wanted to have a little bit more information about the rooftop photovoltaic system and what was actually proposed. This is an aerial photograph. We're all familiar with the site at this point, but just for the public, it is located in the Research Park at the corner of Hillview Avenue and Coyote Hill, in the RP-5, Research Park 5, zoning district. Adjacent to the site is SAP to the south, VMWare across Hillview Avenue to the east, and then, PARC - Palo Alto Research Center - to the north. And then, you have Coyote Hill proper to the west. This is the revised site plan showing the two biggest changes to the site, which have happened since the June hearing. As I mentioned, they've reoriented the upper parking module to reduce the total amount of impervious cover and asphalt, with the idea of putting 19 parking spaces into a landscape reserve. This has involved a couple changes to the geometry of the upper parking lot. In particular, it went from a two-way module so that you could have cars going in either direction, to a one-way in either direction at the top, for the upper module only. What that does is it reduces the total amount of asphalt that's closest to the open space to the west, and makes it so that all the parking stalls that are in that area are oriented, I believe, at about 60 degrees, as opposed to the 90 degrees that was previously proposed. The applicant has indicated that with this change, putting 19 spaces into landscape reserve, plus the 10 spaces in addition to the 19 that are reduced by virtue of putting more of the gross floor area actually into amenity space, which is exempt from parking, total reduction is 29 spaces. This results in a net zero increase in impervious cover on the lot. The second biggest change is the reorientation of the staircase. It was previously proposed, as I mentioned, at the corner of Hillview and Coyote Hill, and now it's mid-block....Excuse me, kind of right at the center of the site frontage along Hillview, so it more directly ties into the employee entrances proposed at the front. This is showing the evolution of the upper parking module: As it was originally presented with the October submittal, and then, how it was submitted at the June hearing, and then, also, how it is presented today. So, showing the evolution of that area and how it's changed. One of the other comments that was raised at the Board hearing in June was that we needed a better rendering or a better understanding of the front elevation, so the applicant has provided an additional rendering, showing that area, along with the updated location of the staircase. Key issues. Nothing has really changed in terms of key issues that we've raised previously. These are the things that we think are most important with this application. The hillside context, you have a hill that's adjacent, and with that comes the site and design review objectives of trying to maintain ecological balance, having the project utilize sound principles in environmental design. Ensuring that the project is in accord with the comp plan, and that it's going to be operated and constructed in a way that's orderly, harmonious and compatible with its surroundings. In addition to this, we also have the architectural review findings, which you're all familiar with, and which apply to the project, as well. With that, we do recommend approval of the project. This is the third hearing, so we are asking for a recommendation on the project. One thing I wanted to point out is, I provided an adapt places [phonetic] memo, which clarifies the intent of staff's new condition of approval, Condition #6 with regard to landscape reserve. This modifies the language but does not modify the intent. It just clarifies that if we do see a request from the applicant to utilize those 19 spaces which are proposed in landscape reserve, that they would need to accompany that request with a parking demand study, indicating that it's required for their use. With that, I'll leave it at that, and let the applicant take over with their presentation. If you have any questions, let me know. Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Okay. Just so the record is clear, we also have at places a document from Stanford Real Estate Office, headed transmittal, dated July 12, 2018, from Jim Inglis and Lisa Liu to Graham Owen, concerning the 3406 Hillview site and design. It contains a response letter dated July 12th and a revised drawing set. Applicant? Jason McCarthy, Studios Architecture: Good morning. Thank you. My name is Jason McCarthy, I'm a principle with Studios Architecture, and I’m pleased to be here to represent the project on behalf of the design team and the applicant. As Graham noted, we're all very familiar with the site, but, having said that, because context is so crucial to this project, it always helps to reframe. The proposed project is at the corner of Hillview Avenue and Coyote Hill Road and, as we've mentioned, the significant influence on the design really is Coyote Hill Road and its wonderful presence. Rolling grasses, the oak-studied hillside, City of Palo Alto Page 26 is really a truly unique site, and we think a very important site in the Research Park. Also important in this context is that we are deep in the heart of the Research Park and we're putting forward what we think is a very forward-looking design, a new vision of what research and innovation should be. A design that's inviting use and enjoyment of the outdoor spaces and the site itself, so we think this project is a truly unique opportunity. To quickly recap some of the many comments we've had and, I think, design enhancements that we've developed through our dialog with you. We really, truly appreciate all of the comments to date, and we feel that we've taken them to heart, and sincerely feel that the project is much richer for this dialog. Just briefly to note, the south elevation, which we revised for the last hearing, there were a number of enhancements to increase the amount of wood, and really, just in general, tie that south elevation more into the overall context or concept of the project, so it's more consistent in detail, material and scale. We were also asked to look further at the mechanical screen area. We were able to lower the roof screen height several feet, and we demonstrated through a number of site sections that it's really minimally visible from various angles, and we think it's really a part of the overall composition of volumes in the project. And then, thirdly, we were asked to revisit the bird-friendly aspects of the design. We did go back and look at a number of guidelines and made further enhancements to the amount of bird-friendly measures that we were taking, and we think, overall, are presenting a very bird-friendly project. Regarding the site, you asked us to consider the screening of the parking along Coyote Hill Road, in the frontage there, and we think we've done a number of measures to enhance that planting. We really feel strongly that we've got a good buffer between the roadway and the parking. And then, further, you asked us to contemplate that stormwater features and whether or not they could really become a featured element. We've embraced that comment and have added the Juncus plants and larger stone features to really highlight those as a part of the design, and as an integral enhancement or feature to the overall landscape design. We'll focus the bulk of our presentation today on the items that Graham noted, significantly the approach at the eastern entrance, and the stairway to the Hillview Avenue approach, and the parking. For that, we'll have James Winstead with The Guzzardo Partnership lead our presentation. James Winstead, The Guzzardo Partnership: Thanks, Jason. Yes, good morning, guys. We're happy to be before you guys again, talking through some of the questions of this project. The first change I want to talk to you guys about is the east stairway entry off of Hillview. Quickly here, you can see from left to right sort of the chronology of who we've approached this and feedback we've gotten from you guys in this room. You last saw the middle picture, second slide. We really started to think about the user experience as you walk up these stairs and started to include landings with some seating and interactive opportunities. And then, from conversations with you guys last time, we've gotten now to the current plan, which you see on the right, where the stairway has shifted south, down, roughly mid-block, where it then also aligns off the central spine of the building and really brings you right up to that second employee entrance there. Quickly here, this is a comparison. The last time you guys saw this picture, this was the primary slide showing that stairway from the corner. With this shifted now to the south, we've been able to get most of this view over to the native palate that we're using on this project. Again, that's bringing down [phonetic], really inspired by some of the open space. You know, the adjacency, just context within the whole Research Park really didn’t have a landscape, so it would be the front part of this view. We think this actually represents, you know, a visitor, or even just a passerby, kind of first experience of this site. Try to get a feel for how it would actually, just the building's presence and how that could feel. Tree placement has been carefully selected in this whole area, as well. It's really kind of framed that eastern façade of the building and let that read as a presence on the street instead of sort of, maybe lost in the trees in some of the previous ways we had it. With the stairway shifted now to the center point, it's really giving us a great opportunity tie the whole stairway gesture into that upper plaza that we have at the building. That offers opportunity to extend building activities, even down into the stairway, just as a part of how the building lives, in addition to providing that nice, clear hierarchy of wayfinding to that front door, the secondary door. It also ties in with the accessible path that cuts sort of diagonally through the space, and then, this new location actually gives the opportunity to tie the start of each of them together, so the stairs and the ramp start at that exact same point at the lower plaza there. And then, each of these plazas is provided with built-in seating, like you see here. You have some at that middle landing, and then, down at that street side plaza, where you've got some seating right there at street level. And then, new oak trees planted in this area to provide comfort and shade throughout this whole zone. Planting design through the whole area, again, would be a continuation of the native palate City of Palo Alto Page 27 we're proposing here. And then, south of the stairway, starting to work in some larger shrub material and a little bit denser tree plantings, to get a little bit of a buffer between the entry experience here and the auto court nearby, or the ramp down into the garage. But, again, we think this whole expression, tying together nicely, is a really great improvement to the whole eastern façade of the project. And then, here's a view again, as you can kind of see it as you potentially come up the stairs. I'll pass it back to Jason here real quick. Mr. McCarthy: We hope that this additional view helps really demonstrate that both the realignment of the stair and the architecture together are working in great symphony, we think, to really clarify wayfinding and the identity of the project. I think the realignment of the stair brings focus to that eastern plaza, and you can see that the architecture in its scale, massing and articulation also helps draw your eye to that entry plaza. There are a number of articulated elements there, the horizontal sun shades, and entry canopy. And then, of course, the wood volume as a framing element with the roof deck on top of it. We see this as a very active corner, and again, a building that's inviting participation and enjoyment of the site on many levels. I'll also use this slide to briefly comment on the discussion about photovoltaics. You had asked us to be careful with what we're going to see from the street around photovoltaics. What we have proposed for the project is a very low-slung system. It's a ballasted photovoltaic system that sits directly on the roof, so it's not mounted on a raised platform or frame. It's directly on the rooftop, and it's a very low height, so we don't believe this will be visible from nearly any angle on the project. Mr. Winstead: Great. Back to the, the second main change that we're here to show you guys today is adjustments to this upper parking loop. As Graham mentioned, this comes with two changes to the parking quantities; the conversion of building area to amenity space reduces the total parking count by 10. And then, from there, we're proposing to put 19 of the remaining stalls into landscape reserve. Those 19 occur, I don't think you can see the cursor, but they’re along this western edge here. There's 16 here, and then there's three right up in this zone here. This reduction in parking really freed up what we were able to do with the configuration of that upper parking loop. The shift to the one-way traffic, it's much more efficient as far as how much asphalt you need to serve these remaining cars, and it gave us the ability to pull the whole thing away from the property line, from 30 to 50 feet. It's about 30 here, and then, it pretty quickly gets to 50-ish through most of the rest of this area here. The second piece of this is continuation of the stairs that we talked about in the front, bringing them through the building here and using that same pattern for the stairway that brings you up to this upper parking here, similarly furnished with some seating at the landings. A second little landing here with some seating right at the auto court, offering you a chance to, you know, sit in the shade if you're waiting for ride share, perhaps a shuttle. But, back to this upper. The one-way pattern, it will also bring this formal pattern from the building up, and then, let it sort of terminate, so there's much more informal, sort of irregularly-laid-out parking lot. We actually thought that with the one-way traffic and the sort of irregularly shaped landscape islands and the dense tree planting, it actually started to feel more like something you might find at, like a state park, or a trail head parking lot, as opposed to a formal, kind of office lot parking. And then, so, with the conversations we've had with you guys here, and then, some of the changes we've made to the site, as Graham mentioned, we have been able to, what we think is provide a building that gets more use out of this site, which then comes with more parking, and have been able to include all of that into this project with no net increase in impermeable area. And then, that is with the inclusion of further outdoor amenity spaces that really let users get out, interact with each other, and really, just get a chance to interact with the surrounding landscape. I think that's it. We're all happy, obviously, to clarify any points, or answer any questions you guys have. Chair Furth: Any questions of the speaker? Go. Board Member Lew: I have a question for Stanford. For the parcel in back of this particular property on Coyote Hill, it has the agricultural conservation zoning. I'm wondering if there is a leaseholder for that, or is it just...? Is it vacant? Tiffany Griego, Managing Director, Research Park: You're asking about Coyote Hill, specifically? Or which parcel? Board Member Lew: It's the hill, as I understand it. Like, in back. Hillview, right? This is Deer Creek? I guess it's the hill. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Ms. Griego: Yeah. I can tell you what I know. I don't know all the facts about the site, so we need to check. It's in the county, and I think it's subject to the Williamson Act. But, what else...? I'm sorry, I missed the balance of the question. I am not the right person... Chair Furth: Was there a leaseholder (inaudible)? Ms. Griego: Oh, no. I don't think so. No. ??:(inaudible) Ms. Griego: I don't think so. I don't think there's a leaseholder. I've never heard that. Not the right person to answer that, though. I can ask around. Board Member Lew: I do understand that a lot of that area is part of the county, but it's on our zoning map, so I'm thinking that there is one parcel that's in Palo Alto. Ms. Griego: It's county. It's definitely county. Board Member Lew: Okay. Chair Furth: Okay, staff will check on that. Board Member Lew: I think it's not, it's not a critical path item for me. I'm just curious. Chair Furth: All right. Is there any member of the public who cares to speak? Do you have a...? Ms. Griego: Our civil engineer thinks that parcel you're pointing to is in the city, so we need to confirm that. I'm sorry, we need time to do that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Is there any member of the public who would care to comment on this item? Before we close the public hearing? Volunteers? All right. Okay, yes, we can do disclosures again. Any conversations or site visits you want to comment on? We've all seen the site. I went back to look at it again. I'm sure some of the rest of you did, as well. Board Member Lew: I did look at the site yesterday and I did see that there's a large mock-up in the parking lot. Also, I missed the last meeting on June 21st, and I did review the minutes for that. Chair Furth: Thank you. I'll bring it back to the Board. Alex, you get to start. Board Member Lew: Okay, so, I can recommend approval of the project today. I did read the comments from the Board about the upper parking area and the idea for landscape reserve, and I think I do understand that our purview for that is limited. I just had a couple points. One is that the parking, most architects and developers are saying that the office density is going up, generally. Not for all uses, but generally, it's going up, and the tenants are asking for more parking. And, our parking ratio hasn't changed in a long time. I think we just have to be really mindful of that, and I don't think it's the ARB's purview to start tinkering with that. I think we have a director and the Planning Commission for that. With respect to the parking reserve, in the past, we've shown it in the plans, like, what the full build-out would be, and that would be part of your entitlement. It's not like you would have to come back to us to get some sort of new approval for the parking lot. And as I understand the drawings, that's not in here. I haven't seen it, and I think it should be in here. And if I understand the minutes correctly, I think some of the Board members were saying that they could not make the finding if the parking went to the edge of the property, closer to the edge of the property, and it seems to me that you'd still be in the full build-out with all the spaces. You would be pretty close to the existing parking boundary. I'm a little bit troubled with that. I think that I can make the finding that there's a buffer in there. It seems like we have, like, our zoning map tells us a lot of information about what we should be doing. We have 50 to 100-foot landscape buffers around Barron Park, we have -- That's incorrect. We have 50 to 100-foot setbacks, landscape setbacks in Barron Park. We have, it's a 210-foot landscape setback on (inaudible) and 50-foot elsewhere, you know, on all the main streets in the parking lot, like Page Mill Road. And, the zoning map does not really specify anything here. In my mind, it's all Stanford land. Most of the time, there are lease lines. Sometimes there are parcel lines. But, at the end of the day, if there's a parking lot here, near the boundary line, what difference does it make? It's not visible to the public. It seems like there's no leaseholder, so, to me, it...I don't really quite get the point of having a buffer. It's all Stanford land. It's all part of the same entity. That's where I am on the parking. I do think it should be shown in City of Palo Alto Page 29 the set. I do support all the landscape revisions and the building revisions. I think those all look good. And, I think there was some issue about the roof screening. I can support the roof screening and the solar panels. Also, I don't think I completely understand all of the proposals that you're showing for the, the changes that you've made for the bird-friendly glazing. I think I understand some of it, but I’m not sure I got the full extent of the changes. I was mostly concerned about the large amount of glass on the Deer Creek façade. Oh, and one last item. Near your driveway entrance on Hillview, so, I think you've got a backflow preventer, stormwater treatment, and gas meter, and all that. I think I'd like to see, or just maybe an enlarged drawing that could be reviewed by staff. I've seen some other projects where it really hasn't been resolved very well. And I don't want to name particular projects, but where all of that stuff really wasn't very well coordinated, the landscaping and utility stuff. When I've gone out there, it seems like if somebody had planted a hedge, or something that could sort of mitigate the bright red backflow preventers. You do have enough space, I think it all can fit. But, it I would like to just make sure that that gets coordinated. That's all that I have. Chair Furth: Alex, excuse me, which corner was that? Board Member Lew: This is Hillview, the driveway entrance... Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: ...and right against the neighboring property, which is SAP. Chair Furth: Right. Oh, sorry, Hillview. Board Member Lew: I think it's all right here in this corner. Chair Furth: Got it. Board Member Lew: All of [crosstalk] right there in the corner. And I mention it because the SAP, I think, is just all lawn, so there's nothing screening it from their side. Mr. Owen: Chair Furth, if I may, just to answer the earlier question about the adjacent Coyote Hill. The answer is, a portion of the open space area that's immediately to the west is in the city. And then, once you go up and over and onto the loo [phonetic] side of Coyote Hill, a portion of it is in the county. It's right on the city border. But our zoning is for our own city and it's... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: And it applies to that parcel. Mr. Owen: Yep. Chair Furth: And as I recall, there was considerable dispute about how far the Research Park development should go, what sort of development potential it had in the current zoning, and the Williamson Act contract are a holding pattern. I think I got here just to hear the dispute in '98. But not follow it. Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. I can approve the project at this point. I'm still not a big fan of the north elevation, but I think in the overall scheme of things, it's acceptable. The landscaping has come a long way. I think the modification of the front entry -- or rear entry, whatever you want to call it -- I think is an improvement. I could accept the current plan with the landscape reserve, and then, agree with the modification to the condition of approval #6. I agree with you on some of the things, like with the backflow preventer, but invariably, it seems like in the past, I've run into things where you do it a certain way, then the fire department comes in and goes, no, we want ready access, and all of a sudden, they strip everything around it, so it's a never-ending battle where you've got two or three city agencies arguing with each other. So, just do the best you can on that one, I think is basically all we can say. Like I said, I can approve it at this point the way it is. Chair Furth: Thank you, Robert. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Alex, can I try to dig into your mind? Do you have any experience with this landscape parking reserve on other projects over the years? How does it work? City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Lew: I was trying to think of a....last night, I was trying to pull out examples, but I didn't have enough time. I think intent is that it is approved both ways, right. So, off the bat, it's landscape, but then, if they ever need it, they can convert it without having to submit another ARB application. And the key thing is, really, is it's really useful for people who don't think they need to build all of their parking, right? We get landscape, and....My recollection is that we did something in the medical center on Welch Road. Yeah. There's two new buildings off of Welch Road, and I think they, they were able to remove the parking from the front yard. It's all just a large expanse of landscape instead of having the parking on the front of the building. Ms. Gerhardt: From a staff perspective, I would agree with most of your comments. We have certainly done landscape reserve in the past for uses that don’t' think they need all of the required parking. They are usually kind of dashed in on the site plan, so that the Board is aware of where they could go in the future. Also, with this particular project, though, we have actually enhanced it slightly with the new condition by requiring a traffic study prior to this landscape preserve being constructed as parking. Board Member Gooyer: I just want to add the same thing. I've had two situations where it's been used, and in both cases, it was actually a request -- same thing -- from the applicant, and it turned out that, at this point, one is, like, eight years, and the other one is more than 10. Everyone likes the way it is and have never questioned that they want to bring it back. When those were approved, it was sort of a, we'll let you build it this way, the build-out is, you know, the opposite way; if you ever decide you want to do the build-out, you'll need to come to us, tell us you're going from one to the other. But that was the extent of it. It didn't have to go through a new approval. Vice Chair Baltay: That was the gist of my question, Alex. Do you know if these people, have they come back and done the parking and moved the landscaping on these projects? How often does it stick the way we approve it up front? Board Member Lew: You know, it's not very common. The landscape reserve isn't really common. I would have to go back and look and recalculate. Vice Chair Baltay: My take on this is that I really want that. I think the parking lot needs to be farther from the open space and the property line, and this is a mechanism that we're finding that seems to be a good compromise to make it work. That's why I can support the project. It will be disappointing to me if that ends up becoming parking. I understand that that's the process we're working with right now, but it should be clear going into the future that surface parking in these hills, close to open space preserves, is something that I, at least, think is problematic. Other than that, I think the project is looking good, and I can support it. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Could I see that first slide, which shows the context? It shows this side...I think it's Xerox Park across the street, across Coyote? Mr. Owen: Correct. One second. Chair Furth: I guess it's Sheet 1.2. I mean, there's a bunch of them that show it, but...So, this is a 6.5-acre site, right? About that. And the park side is even bigger, and it's a little misleading because it flows into the next one. But, the thing that's striking about this whole thing is how much asphalt there is. If you look at Sheet 1.2, it's even more dramatic. The pattern of development up here is buildings surrounded by great, big, asphalt parking lots. Acres and acres and acres of asphalt. And it's interesting because I can remember all the excitement about VMware and all the wonderful, special features of that building, and then, look at the parking lots. This is so different form most of the sites we see because usually we're really focused on the building, it's using up a very high percentage of the surface area, and that's not true here. It flips it. And I think that's why we spend so much time thinking about surface parking, about landscaping, about large-scale circulation patterns, because there are a lot of choices. And because this may have been seen as terrific environmental design when it was built across the street, but it wouldn't be now. We would not be building those great, big, asphalt parking lots. And that's a change for us. It's a change for the property owners, it's a change for the tenants, and our response is driven, in part, by a change in our Comprehensive Plan, and we're just in the first stages of that. And my thanks to Stanford for its very thoughtful letter to us on this issue, and my thanks for the really helpful drawings and illustrations; my thanks for the revised design, which I think is a significant improvement; and my City of Palo Alto Page 31 thanks to staff for the recommended condition. In time, the City will be changing its parking standards to become consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. We're required to do that. Oh, and use laws need to be consistent. Maybe just our land use designations, but I think more than that. But this is, we're sort of in an interim stage here, and this issue is coming up on all the projects we're looking at. This is a recurring theme. Those of you who have to follow us, know. I like the building. I like the altered access from Hillview. I think it works better. I think by now, the southern elevation looks quite attractive. I don't know if you're just doing pretty drawings, or if it's just a much better building, but it looks good to me. Seriously, it does look good. I think by moving the walkway, you not only center that entrance and say this is how you get to the building, but you provide a better landscape opportunity over in the corner. I don't think I have anything to complain about. Not that we seek to complain. I think Alex's point about struggling with utilities to get them to make commitments early on is an important one. I know from experience -- as I think we all do -- how difficult that is, but to the extent it's useful in interdepartmental discussions, the ARB strongly supports getting this up early so that Stanford's good design doesn't get damaged in a very visible section. I don't think that utilities always have to be hidden, but I do think they need to be thought through. And I will follow Alex's good example and not name names. Or sites. I think that the redesign of the parking lot looks like a significant improvement. I like the change use of streets. I like your more, I guess you called it relaxed curbed islands. I support the project with the condition as recommended by staff. That's approval #6. Would somebody care to make a motion, or is there further discussion? Board Member Lew: I have one more question for Stanford. There's an existing barbed-wire fence along the back of the property line. What are the thoughts about that? Does that need to be retained? Male??: (inaudible) replace that. Board Member Lew: Okay. Great. Thank you. Ms. Griego: We will replace that. Chair Furth: With what? Board Member Lew: Is it possible to not replace it and just remove it? Or no? Ms. Griego: I don't think so. Mr. Inglis: We could (inaudible) property line... Board Member Lew: Jim, if you could please use the microphone for our... Jim Inglis, Stanford Real Estate: [Spells name] We typically use something to the effect of black chain- link fence because it tends to really drop away and not be noticed. We don't put them any higher than we think we need to, so maybe five foot, or something like that. Just to maintain the property line. It helps the landscapers and so forth, and make sure people don't start blending one way or the other. Tenants nowadays are getting a little bit more careful about security and so forth, too, so, that would be a typical approach for us. Chair Furth: Thank you. Oh, I did...While Alex was saying that, I thought...I did very much appreciate Stanford's letter, which is a slight modification of the one in our packet. But I did want to say that, it talks about under-parking, and it talks about standards and changing standards. It's important, I think, not to confuse zoning standards and land use standards with on-the-ground reality, in both directions. I mean, when Graham is talking about reducing the square, the FAR, the gross floor area of the building, but it's not reducing the gross floor area of the building; it's reducing the capital G, capital F, capital A defined term in the code -- floor area -- which, in turn, reduces the parking, which is a great requirement. I think it's our challenge for the next months and years, is to figure out what's an acceptable environmental load in terms of transportation -- and we've got a guideline from the Comprehensive Plan -- and then, given that, what are the implications in terms of on-site parking provision, and to what extent does our energy go elsewhere. I don't think we know what under-parking is yet, and all of this in the general Comprehensive Plan assumes that our ways of life will change in many ways, in particular in this regard. Having said that, does somebody want to make a motion? MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 32 Chair Furth: I will make a motion. I move approval, that we recommend approval of the project as submitted, with condition number 6 modified as set forth in the memorandum from Graham Owen, Planner, dated July 19, 2017 [sic], and with the further condition that the boundary fence on the west side of the parcel be replaced. Do you want to say anything more specific than that, Alex? You want to...? Their choice? Board Member Lew: When you finish...Is that all? Chair Furth: Is there anything else I left out? Board Member Lew: Well, I think that the Board should get a copy of the full build-out of the parking layout. Chair Furth: I disagree. Because I want the staff's condition where they'll come back. Mr. Owen: Just to clarify, the way that we've written it, it would not come back to the Board. Chair Furth: I understand. Mr. Owen: Okay. Chair Furth: Okay, so, let's see. What are we saying? Alex, you're saying...The staff's condition is about demonstrating the need for the parking. Your condition is about understanding what the parking would look like, fully designed out. Is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: Normally, landscape reserve would just be dashed in, so it would be green... Chair Furth: This is about as specific as we get. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. It's just dashed in so that you know the area that it would likely go. Chair Furth: And it is here. Mr. McCarthy: It is dashed in lightly. It's very hard to read on the screen here, but... Chair Furth: But you gave us (inaudible). Mr. McCarthy: ...there's an outline there, yeah. Chair Furth: It's on this sheet. Board Member Lew: I've not seen it. Chair Furth: This one? Board Member Lew: I'm not saying it's not there, but I....[crosstalk] Chair Furth: Maybe you could take us through it and point out which line is which. Mr. McCarthy: Let me see if I can find it in the overall plan here. Chair Furth: We should probably have consensus on which line we're talking about. Mr. McCarthy: You can see here... Chair Furth: Yeah, it takes out a few trees. Mr. McCarthy: It is difficult... Chair Furth: It doesn't? Mr. McCarthy: ...to discern, but you see the dashes, the shorter dashes are contour line. Ms. Gerhardt: It is lightly shown on sheet L1.0. Chair Furth: And does it or does it not take out trees? Mr. McCarthy: No. The trees are planted where the future parking islands would be. Chair Furth: So, they would still remain. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Mr. McCarthy: Yes. Chair Furth: Any further questions on this? Board Member Gooyer: I have a question, then. If it's going to be fully expanded, is it going to go to the October 17 or the June 18 version? Mr. McCarthy: Even in the expanded version, we've moved that western boundary further from the property line by virtue of narrowing up the traffic loop and going to a diagonal entrance. Chair Furth: Graham, would you color in the reserve line on the third view on this sheet and show it to us? Mark it up and pass it around. Board Member Gooyer: Is he going to do that for all of us? [Laughter] Board Member Lew: Okay. And just to following up on this. Okay, I'm okay with that. And then, I would say also on Sheet 1.9, which is our site summary, that we should put in the 19 landscape reserve spaces under parking. It's there. There's one, it says, like, build later. Right? Yeah. Chair Furth: What are you looking at? Board Member Lew: I would just add it to the...Well, I guess it’s fine. My recollection is that we've shown it, we've added it in. Basically, what I'm saying is, if somebody is looking at this, that you added that, and under the total, you get 264. Chair Furth: Here we go. Board Member Lew: It's a small point, but I think that's how we've done it in the past. Board Member Gooyer: It's more semantics (inaudible). Chair Furth: I think we're okay. Mr. Owen: We can have that be revised in the... [crosstalk] Mr. McCarthy: It's noted here, landscape reserve. Chair Furth: We have clearly documented the border of the landscape reserve. We know that the trees are going to be retained if that gets built. We know what the process is, which does not involve us. If Stanford decides to proceed with that. Can I get a second to my motion? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Are there any further discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. Chair Furth: Thank you very much for your proposal and your hard work, to you and to staff. Look forward to seeing the building, and the gardens. Study Session Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: We have no minutes. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements City of Palo Alto Page 34 Chair Furth: Board comments, questions or announcements. This was a small project. Stanford is proposing 2.5 million -- is that right? -- square feet of additional academic space? And the comment period on the revised recirculated Environmental Impact Report closes on July 27th, so if anybody has comments on that, that is the deadline for doing it. No minutes, no study session, no subcommittee items, nothing needs to be...Do we need to appoint a subcommittee for the parking structure? Where did we end up? We do, don't we? Ms. Gerhardt: We don't know the date as of yet, so I think we said we would do that as we start to know those dates. Chair Furth: I would be happy for two of you to volunteer to be on that subcommittee. Board Member Gooyer: For the parking structure? Chair Furth: Yeah. Board Member Gooyer: I'll do that. Chair Furth: You want to do it, Alex? Would you? Board Member Lew: Yeah, that's fine. Chair Furth: Alex and Robert. Unless there's a... Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Furth: ...if there's a date/scheduling problem. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. We'll note that and just make sure they are available. Chair Furth: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Alex? Board Member Lew: On Sunday, July 27th, at two o'clock, there is an event at the Rinconada Library. I think they have a 60th anniversary, and there's going to be an exhibition and presentation on Edward Durrell Stone, the architect of the library, City Hall and the hospital. And also the architect, Group 4, who renovated all of our libraries, is going to give a presentation, as well. Board Member Gooyer: When is that? Chair Furth: Great. Board Member Lew: Sunday, July 27th, from 2:00 to 4:00. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: And I think the exhibition will be there for...I don't know how long. More than just the presentation. Chair Furth: Anything else, staff? Board Member Lew: And the North Ventura CAP is, I think, scheduled for September, I think they were looking at September 19th for the first meeting. City of Palo Alto Page 35 Chair Furth: We will be shorthanded for two meetings, but I think we'll have enough people, and we will all be here for the Public Safety Building, which is coming back. Right? Somebody stopped me in the cafeteria... Ms. Gerhardt: The safety building is August 2nd. Chair Furth: Right. Ms. Gerhardt: And so, yes, we would have everyone. Chair Furth: A full complement. Which I'm sure we will need. Thank you very much. We are adjourned. Adjournment