The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-10-04 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: October 4, 2018 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and the Construction of a 100% Affordable Housing Project on the Site Located at 3703-3709 El Camino Real. The Project Consists of a Four Story Building Containing Sixty-Five Residential Units, Two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing Combining District Regulations to the Site. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3200 El Camino Real [18PLN-00045] Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition for the Existing 16,603 Square Foot Motel and Construction of a new Four-Story Approximately 53,599 Square Foot Hotel. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change _______________________ 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. to Remove the Existing 50 Foot Special Setback Along Hansen Way. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 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 Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Minutes of August 2, 2018. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 16, 2018. Subcommittee Items 7. 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to 1) Designated Guest Parking Spaces, 2) Details for Several Material Choices, 3) Location and Design of at Least two Benches, and 4) Alternative Colors/Stains for the Siding. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning Districts: CS/RM-30. For More Information Contact the Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt at jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 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 # 9679) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 10/4/2018 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/Thompson 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 9/6 Lew/Gooyer 10/4 Thompson/ Baltay 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2018 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics October 18  1841 Page Mill Road: Master Sign Program  3128 El Camino Real: Exterior Modifications  4256 El Camino Real: New Hotel  Comp Plan Policies: Informational  250 Sherman: Subcommittee for Public Safety Building  2609 Alma: Subcommittee for 4 units 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9423) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3705 El Camino Real: 65 Affordable Units at Wilton Court Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and the Construction of a 100% Affordable Housing Project on the Site Located at 3703-3709 El Camino Real. The Project Consists of a Four Story Building Containing Sixty-Five Residential Units, Two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing Combining District Regulations to the Site. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Continue the project to a date uncertain in order to allow for plan modifications that would meet the ARB findings. Report Summary The applicant requests approval of an Architectural Review (AR) application of a four-story, 65- unit building on the subject site. All units in the project would be deed-restricted for low and very-low income individuals, as well as a number of units for individuals with developmental disabilities. This AR application is being processed concurrently with an application to amend the zoning district map (rezoning) to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 regulations to the site. The AH Combining District modifies a number of the key development standards for the underlying Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone, including height, FAR, density, parking, lot coverage, and open space in order to incentivize affordable housing construction. Background Project Information Owner: Palo Alto Housing Architect: Pyatok Architects Representative: Sheryl Klein, Palo Alto Housing Board Chair Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 3703-3709 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 163’ x 98’ (20,150 sf) Housing Inventory Site: Yes, with a realistic yield of 9 units across the two parcels Located w/in a Plume: Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, several street trees Historic Resource(s): DPR forms indicate there are no historic resources Existing Improvement(s): Two detached structures; 1-story each; circa 1938 and 1949 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northeast: RM-30 Multi-family Residential (apartments) Northwest: CN Neighborhood Commercial (restaurant) Southeast: CN Neighborhood Commercial (retail) Southwest: CN Neighborhood Commercial (retail) Special Setbacks: Not applicable Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: CN Neighborhood Commercial / AH Overlay (Pending) Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial Context-Based Design: Yes Downtown Urban Design: Not applicable SOFA II CAP: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Yes Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: The Council conducted a prescreening of the project at a public hearing on August 28, 2017. Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60907 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61317 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-136/ The Council approved the AH Combining District at a public hearing on April 9, 2018. Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64347 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43577.64&BlobID=65350 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-2-3-2-2-2/ PTC: The PTC conducted hearings on AH Combining District on February 14 and March 14, 2018. February 14, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63360 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64590 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2/ March 14, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63857 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64589 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2-2/ PTC conducted hearings on the rezoning of the subject site on September 26, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66818 HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant seeks to develop a four-story residential building on the subject property containing 65 income restricted-units. The site is located at the northeast intersection of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue on the southern edge of the Ventura neighborhood. The application for Architectural Review is being processed concurrently with an application to amend the zoning district map to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the site. That rezoning application was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission on September 26, 2018, which recommended approval of the rezoning to the City Council. The building follows an L-shaped plan with the longer portion built up to the required 12 foot sidewalk along El Camino Real. The main entrance to the building is located on the El Camino Real frontage approximately 24 feet from the Wilton Avenue corner. The first floor is composed of community and auxiliary spaces, as well as a parking garage accessed from the alley. An additional level of parking is provided beneath the building, and is accessed separately at the end of the alley. The second floor contains 23 units, as well as a large outdoor patio area on a podium above the first floor garage. The third floor is composed solely of 23 residential units, and the fourth floor is composed of 19 units with a roof deck at the corner of Wilton Avenue and the rear alley. The roof contains a ~4 foot parapet on all sides, and space for potential solar panels. The proposed building would be ~48 feet in height. Towards the alley side of the project, the total height to the roof is lowered to 32 feet, with an additional ~4 foot parapet/safety railing, 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 which provides a transition on Wilton Avenue between the taller portions of the building on El Camino Real to a lower profile along the alley. The materials include board-formed concrete on the first floor street frontages, and combination of stucco and wall tiles on the higher elevations. In addition to these materials, the alley-facing (northeast) and southeast elevations include stucco with an alternative color. The second through fourth floors slightly overhand the first floor by a foot on the street-facing frontages. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue and is improved with two mid-century 1-story commercial buildings containing retail establishments, including a stamp and coin shop, a European grocery, a hair salon, and a bridal shop. The site is located on the southern edge of the Ventura neighborhood, and is surrounded by a diverse range of uses, including one and two-story retail buildings and multi-family residential apartments. Reflecting this diversity of uses, the zoning districts in the vicinity of the site are varied, but generally follow a pattern of Neighborhood Commercial Districts fronting El Camino Real abutting Multi-Family Residential districts one block off the corridor. The Multi-Family Districts in the vicinity are long and narrow following the contour of the El Camino Real corridor, and abut Two-Family and Single-Family Residential districts to the northeast. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed, and a summary table is provided in Attachment D. The current iteration of the project plans is noncompliant for building setbacks based on less than the minimum requirement for the underlying CN district along the street frontages and interior lot line abutting the adjacent retail building. The applicant will work to resolve these setback issues, and would appreciate early guidance on the overall project design from the Board in order to fully inform a resubmittal, which would be returned to the Board for further review. In addition, the applicant has requested a waiver from the retail preservation requirement that applies to the site as permitted through the AH Combining District regulations. This retail waiver request will be considered by the City Council when they review the project. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 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 (Comp Plan) land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial, which supports the development of higher-density housing on sites located near public transit services. The site is located on El Camino Real, which is served by the VTA 22 Bus, which provides 15 minute headways during much of the day, including peak commute hours. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Housing Elements contain a number of policies and programs that support the development of higher density housing in transit-served areas, as well as providing flexible development standards for projects with substantial affordable housing components. The Housing Element designates these two parcels as having a realistic potential for 9 units. The Comp Plan also contains policies that seek to provide transitions to lower density residential districts, which is provided for in the form of a transition in the height of the project towards the multi-family residences (and single family residences beyond) on Wilton Avenue. Finally, the Comp Plan contains policies encouraging the preservation of retail, whereas the applicant has requested a waiver to the otherwise applicable preservation requirement for this project. A list of the applicable Comp Plan policies is included in Attachment F. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. The site is located on El Camino Real and is therefore subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Links to these Guidelines are included below: El Camino Real (ECR) Design Guidelines (79’ ECR Guidelines): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19040 South El Camino Real (ECR) Design Guidelines: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19041 Both sets of Guidelines include direction for the future physical development of the corridor, with detailed policies for buildings, streets and paving, signs, landscaping and trees, and the overall streetscape appearance. The ECR Design Guidelines recommend screening parking with walls, landscaping, and berms, and relegating parking to the sides and rear of the site. Frontages along El Camino Real should use the front setback (assuming ECR) to provide a landscape buffer between the building and the street to block noise and provide a more pleasant view of the building. Light poles associated with the project should be between 12’ and 20’ in total height, with low and even levels of light intensity to prevent glare. The South ECR Design Guidelines provide more specific guidance for residential-only projects on the ECR corridor. The site is located in the Barron-Ventura Area, which is characterized by 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 moderately dense development. The guidelines suggests that new buildings should front El Camino Real with an appropriate scale for the neighborhood commercial district, with a particular emphasis on pedestrian amenities and transparent facades at street level. Exclusively residential projects should be setback 20-24 feet from the curb on El Camino Real frontage, and 16 feet from the curb on sidestreets. This greater setback appears to assume residential units on the ground floor or slightly above ground floor, whereas the current application contains functional community and auxiliary spaces on the ground floor. The South ECR Design Guidelines suggest that projects should have prominent pedestrian entryways facing El Camino Real, which are announced with elements such as overhangs, columns, and low walls to create a strong presence. The Guidelines also encourage “active” frontages through the use of lobbies, community rooms, as well as and outdoor terraces and plazas above ground level. The scale and character of the development should provide a strong street edge that is appropriate to the “boulevard scale” of El Camino Real. Flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged, especially for buildings that do not contain units with individual entry ways to the street. The Guidelines encourage articulation in the massing to enhance visual interest and a sense of scale. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Of particular interest to many in the neighborhood is amount of parking associated with the use. The project contains 42 parking spaces, whereas the minimum required for the use is 38 spaces per the AH Combining District regulations. The units provided for residents with developmental disabilities are not required to provide associated parking spaces. A traffic assessment was performed for the project, which indicates that net peak hour trips associated with the project would be negligible given the existing intensive retail use. The studied intersections (Wilton Avenue/El Camino Real and Barron Avenue/El Camino Real) currently operate adequately during weekday peak hours and, with the addition of the project, would not be measurably impacted. Additionally, the assessment projected that approximately 5% of associated trips would be assigned to travel east of the site onto Wilton Avenue, with the majority of vehicles traveling north or south on El Camino Real. Consistency with Application Findings The findings to approve an Architectural Review application are included in Attachment C. While the project is still under development and will need to correct the previously mentioned setback issue, the ARB is invited to discuss whether the findings can be met. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project exempt from CEQA per Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). The project meets the required criteria for this exemption as established in Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194 as detailed in Attachment E. 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on September 21, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 24, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. 2. Recommend the project continue to a date certain Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: Findings and Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Affordable Housing Exemption (DOCX)  Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Policies (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 15 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 0.0' 107.9' 50.0' 07.9'9' 5.0' 5.0' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 50.0' 113.3' 8.2' 42.5' 120.4'50.0' 102.9' 26.7' 24.4' 113.3'45.0' 153.9' 421 19.3' 7.9' 151.4' 7.9' 50.1' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 45.0 6.0' 45.0' 06.0' 106.0'106.0' 20.7' 71.6' 26.3' 67.6' 35.9'4.3' 121.6' 2.2' 106.8' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 109.7' 50.8' 101.3'50.0' 128.9' 109.7' 50.0' 101.3' 50.1' 102.9' 90' 62.6' 88.2' 62.6' 88.2' 53.9' 60.0' 120.0'20.0' 80.0' 60.0' 102.8' 100.0' 70.0' 71.7' 27.1' 49.6' 62.6' 19.0' 47.2'71.7' 65.0' 106.0'150.0' 90.0' 9.7'2.0'22.0' 126.2' 50.0' 114.7' 32.6' 2 0.9' 95.8' 50.0' 95.8' 1 2.2' 40.6' 79.6' 50.0' 79.6' 21.0' 46.2' 47.6' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 10.0' 94.0' 107.9' 106.0' 87.9' 15.7'2.0' 55.0' 140.0' 55.0' 140.0' 75.0' 165.0' 75.0' 165.0' 165.0' 50.0' 165.0' 99.2' 155.0' 120.1' 104.3' 110.2' 15.7' 94.0' 31.4' 57.7' 24.9' 20.6' 85.1' 119.2' 165.0' 109.0' 13.7' 130.2'98.7' 130.2' 141.2' 120.3' 15.7' 131.3' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 100.0' 106.0' 100.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 120.4' 50.5' 114.7' 110.0' 140.0' 100.0' 15.7' 130.0' 27.6' 127.4' 49.9' 155.0' 49.9' 155.0' 59.1' 155.0' 59.1' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 143.0' 50.0 50.0' 120.0'120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 120.0' 60.0' 92.9' 15.7' 50.0' 102.8' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 108.0' 93.8' 15.7' 98.0' 103.6'103.6'167.5' 15.7' 93.1' 177.5'50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 50.0' 143.0' 20.6' 24.9' 57.7' 31.4' 30.1' 120.0' 35.1' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 119.9' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 89.0'119.8' 89.0'120.0' 110.0' 130.2' 55.0' 109.0' 165.0'239.2' 105.0' 55.0' 130.2' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 53.0' 119.8' 53.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.7' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 148.8' 148.8' 153.9' 150.4' 150.4' 76.7' 37.7' 37.6' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 119.8' 119.8' 101.6' 93.6' 66.0' 53.4' 82.5' 82.5' 165.0' 55.1' 265.0' 74.2' 50.0' 119.7' 164.5' 239.2' 239.2' 5.9' 45.0' 101.2' 38.9' 18.9' 175.8' 1.2' 80.6' 150.0' 161.8'7.5' 101.2' 19.2' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0' 100.0' 89.0' 92.4' 7.9'17.4' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' BARRON AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMIN MATADERO AV BARRON AVENUE CURTNER AVENUE WILTON AVENUE KENDALL AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL MADELINE COURT CY PRESS LANE LANE 66 L A R-2 RM-30 CN 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 abc Known Structures Tree (TR) 3703-3709 El Camino Real Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 128' Existing Zoning Map - 3703-3709 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2018-09-18 17:43:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 16 725 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel. 650 321 9709 Fax. 650 321 4341 pah.community BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER April 19, 2018 Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Wilton Development Proposal & Planning Application Dear Hillary, Following the City Council’s recent adoption of the Affordable Housing Combining District Ordinance, we present to you our planning application for the development of 61 units at 3707-3079 El Camion Real in the City of Palo Alto. Our proposal includes the development of 61 units of 100% affordable housing with 58 studios and 3 one-bedroom apartments (including one manager’s unit). The new units will provide housing for households earning up to 30 - 60% (possibly up to 80% with 59% averaging) of the Area Median Income with a percentage of the population targeting households with special needs. Additionally, we propose to set aside 15 units for adults with developmental disabilities. As you know, PAH has a long history and a proven track record for providing award- winning, affordable housing in Silicon Valley. We have recently expanded into the City of Mountain View and San Mateo County, but look forward to binging forward another project in the City of Palo Alto. PAH brings exceptional experience in building affordable, urban in-fill housing and transit-oriented development with high-quality development standards. Our in-house Property Management and Resident Services staff provide tremendous support for our residents, which always creates successful properties that are proven models for affordable housing communities. Please feel free to reach me at 650-321-9709, ext. 1300 or cgonzalez@pah.community with any questions. We look forward to the potential opportunity to partner with the City again to continue to tackle the affordable housing crisis in Silicon Valley. Sincerely, Candice Gonzalez President & CEO 2.b Packet Pg. 17 Wilton Court Narrative Palo Alto Housing (PAH) proposes to redevelop two parcels (20,150 sf total) along El Camino Real into a mixed-use development. The project would include 61 units of badly needed affordable housing and would take advantage of tax credit and city affordable housing funds. The development would be located at 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real, and would also be bound by Wilton Avenue, a 20’ wide alley and interior lot lines / adjacent commercial uses. The proposed 100% affordable housing development would be a three-story wood frame (Type V-A) structure on a two-story semi-depressed concrete structure (type I-A) podium, and would consist of 61 apartments (58 studios and 3 one- bedroom units) including one manager’s unit. Ground floor uses would be for the residential community above including management/leasing offices, mailroom, bike storage, computer lab and building-associated services spaces. Additionally on the ground floor would be a 50 space residential parking garage. The podium level would contain a community room, gym, and laundry facilities. The residential floors as proposed would be organized in an L-shaped double loaded corridor, parallel to El Camino Real with a large opening to breakdown the mass along Wilton Avenue, and would allow additional sunlight into the podium courtyard. The rear yard garden would contribute to storm-water management and allow the potential to save the larger trees on this portion of the site. The roof would have Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic panels for improved building energy performance. The project requests the application of the Affordable Housing Combining District Ordinance. 2.b Packet Pg. 18 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3703-3709 El Camino Real 18PLN-00136 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 2.c Packet Pg. 19 CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA 3703-3709 El Camino Real 18PLN-00136 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 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 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 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 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 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 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 2.c Packet Pg. 20 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3703-3709 El Camino Real Zoning District CN (Existing Zoning) (1) CN (AH) (Proposed Zoning) Regulation Required Required Proposed Minimum Site Area (ft2) None Required Same as Underlying District 20,150 sf Site Width (ft) None Required Same as Underlying District 98 feet Site Depth (ft) None Required Same as Underlying District 168 feet Min. Front Yard 0 – 10 feet to create an 8 – 12 feet effective sidewalk width (7) Same as Underlying District 5 feet off Wilton Avenue Min. Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Same as Underlying District 0 feet for residential portion; 1 foot for commercial (ground floor) portion) Min. Interior Side Yard 10 feet (for lots abutting a residential zone district) Same as Underlying District N/A Min. Street Side Yard 5 feet Same as Underlying District 4 feet off El Camino Real Special Setback No Same as Underlying District N/A Build-to-Lines 50 percent of frontage built to setback; 33 percent of side street built to setback (1) Same as Underlying District ECR frontage would comply if in compliance with setbacks; Wilton Avenue complies Maximum Site Coverage 50 percent None Required None Required Maximum Height Standard: 40 feet on El Camino Real Maximum Height Within 150 feet of a residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the side: 35 feet (4) Standard: 50 feet Maximum Height Within 50 ft of a R1, R-2, RMD, RM-15, or RM-30 zoned property: 35 feet (3) Standard: 44 feet to roof, 48 to top of parapet Transitional Height: 32 feet to top of roof, 36.5 feet to top of roof deck wall Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 (4) 2.0:1 2.0:1 Maximum Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (4) 2.4:1 Not applicable Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Same as Underlying District Adjacent RM-30 zone is greater than 70 feet, and therefore no side or rear daylight plane is required 2.d Packet Pg. 21 Page 2 of 3 Maximum Residential Density per Acre 15-20 units/per acre (8) None Required 141 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space/Landscape Coverage (percent) 30 percent 20 percent (2) 35 percent Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit) 150 sf per unit (when six units or more) (2) 25 sf per unit for 5 or fewer units, 50 sf per unit for 6 units or more (2) 89 sf per unit Minimum Common Open Space (sf per unit) N/A None Required None required Minimum Private Open Space (sf per unit) N/A None Required None required Multiple-Family Off-Street Parking Requirement 1.25 per studio, 1.5 per one- bedroom; 2 per two-bedroom 0.75 per unit. The Director may modify this standard based on findings from a parking study that show fewer spaces are needed for the project. The required parking ratio for special needs housing units, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per unit. 42 total spaces 0.65 per unit (project total) 0.75 per unit for units not dedicated for individuals with developmental disabilities Guest Parking 33% of all residential units provided None None Bicycle Parking PAMC 18.52.040 Table 1 1 space per unit/ 100% Long Term (LT) Same as Underlying District 70 spaces in bicycle storage room CN Notes 1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. 2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. 3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. 4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). 5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. 6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. 7) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. 8) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. 2.d Packet Pg. 22 Page 3 of 3 CN (AH) Notes 1) These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23, as well as the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060 for residential-only projects, Section 18.16.090 for mixed use projects in the CN, CC, and CS districts, and Section 18.18.110 for mixed use projects in the CD district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 2) Landscape coverage is the total area of the site covered with landscaping as defined in Chapter 18.04. For the purposes of this Chapter 18.30(J), areas provided for usable open space may be counted towards the landscape site coverage requirement. Landscape and open space areas may be located on or above the ground level, and may include balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens. 3) The Planning Director may recommend a waiver from the transitional height standard. 2.d Packet Pg. 23 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION PROJECT TITLE: 3703-3709 El Camino Real (Wilton Court) PROJECT LOCATION: 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real; APNs: 132-35-045 and 132-41-085; City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rezoning of the site to add Affordable Housing Combining District (Overlay), and Architectural Review of a new 65-Unit, 4-story residential housing project containing 100% income-restricted units. NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING THE PROJECT: City of Palo Alto NAME OF PERSON OR GROUP CARRYING OUT PROJECT: Palo Alto Housing EXEMPT STATUS (check one) ☐ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268) ☒ Article 12.5 Residential Infill Projects ☐ Categorical Exemption. ☐ Statutory Exemptions. REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT: Project meets threshold criteria set forth in Sections 15192 and 15194, as described in Attachment A. PROJECT PLANNER: Graham Owen IF FILED BY APPLICANT: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Declare if a Notice of Exemption has been filed by the public agency approving the project Signature (Public Agency) Title Date 2.e Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15192. Threshold Requirements for Exemptions for Agricultural Housing, Affordable Housing, and Residential Infill Projects. In order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housing project must meet all of the threshold criteria set forth below. (a) The project must be consistent with: (1) Any applicable general plan, specific plan, or local coastal program, including any mitigation measures required by such plan or program, as that plan or program existed on the date that the application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code was deemed complete; and The project is consistent with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation for the site is CN Neighborhood Commercial, which allow for higher density residential uses near transit services. (2) Any applicable zoning ordinance, as that zoning ordinance existed on the date that the application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code was deemed complete, unless the zoning of project property is inconsistent with the general plan because the project property has not been rezoned to conform to the general plan. The project will be consistent with the zoning ordinance prior to City Council approval. (b) Community-level environmental review has been adopted or certified. An Environmental Impact Report was adopted for the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan on November 13, 2017. (c) The project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the project can be adequately served by existing utilities, and the project applicant has paid, or has committed to pay, all applicable in-lieu or development fees. The site is located on an existing developed site in an urbanized that is currently developed with all relevant utilities. The applicant will be required to pay all applicable development impact fees as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. (d) The site of the project: (1) Does not contain wetlands, as defined in Section 328.3 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 2.e Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 3 The site is located in an urbanized area and does not contain any wetlands. The nearest watercourse is the Matadero Creek, located approximately 0.2 miles from the site. (2) Does not have any value as an ecological community upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection. The site is developed with commercial buildings and associated parking lot, and does not contain significant habitat or ecological value to animals, birds, or plants. Protected trees on and near the site would be protected during construction in accordance with Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (3) Does not harm any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.) or by the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code. The site is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan and is not known to contain any species protected by federal or state statutes. (4) Does not cause the destruction or removal of any species protected by a local ordinance in effect at the time the application for the project was deemed complete. The site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Palo Alto. The site is almost entirely covered by buildings, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces, and does not contain wetlands or valuable wildlife habitat. The site is not known to contain any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act, Native Plant Protection Act, or the California Endangered Species Act. The project would not cause the destruction or removal of any locally-protected plant or animal species. (e) The site of the project is not included on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The site is not located on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. (f) The site of the project is subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment prepared by a registered environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity. In addition, the following steps have been taken in response to the results of this assessment: 2.e Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 4 (1) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed, or any significant effects of the release shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. The site was characterized in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II Summary Limited Investigation. The Phase II investigation collected soil, vapor, and groundwater samples from the subject site, and several samples contained contaminants in concentrations above residential screening levels. These contaminants are suspected to have originated from the historical motor and marine supply business that operated on the site prior to the existing uses. The Phase II report provided recommended mitigation measures to ensure that the health and safety of future building occupants is protected, including the removal of contaminated soil from the site and the installation of a vapor intrusion barrier beneath the planned parking garage. All such measures would be reviewed and approved by the appropriate oversight agency in accordance with the recommended Site Management Plan and in compliance with all state and federal requirements. With an approved Site Management Plan, all effects of the soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contaminants on the site would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (2) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. The nearest surrounding property with a history of releases of hazardous substances is located approximately 150 feet away at 3601 El Camino Real. This nearby site contains a Shell-branded Gas Station and is a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup site under the oversight of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Local Oversight Program. Due to historical leaking underground tanks associated with the gas station use, petroleum hydrocarbons were found in the soil and groundwater at and near the site. The associated groundwater plume was delineated in a Site Conceptual Model from 2014, which showed groundwater movement in the north-ward direction from the site. A case closure and no further action notice for this site was issued on July 29, 2016. The Wilton Court site is located outside of the plume delineated in the Site Conceptual Model and in the opposite direction of the detected groundwater movement. (g) The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code. The two buildings on the site Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms for the two existing commercial buildings were prepared to survey the historical development of the two parcels on the site. These forms are used to assess whether a building or site contains 2.e Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 5 a potentially significant historic resource due to its association with events, persons, or exemplar architectural style significant to the development of the state of California. Both buildings were assessed and neither was found to be a potentially historic resource or eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources. (h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard. The site is located in an urbanized area and is not subject to wildland fire hazards. (i) The project site does not have an unusually high risk of fire or explosion from materials stored or used on nearby properties. The site contains retail uses containing stored materials that are typically associated with such uses. The surrounding uses are multifamily residential apartments, a restaurant, and other retail uses. Neither the site nor the surrounding properties have an unusually high risk of fire or explosions. (j) The project site does not present a risk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency. Criteria addressed under subsection (f)(1). With an approved Site Management Plan, all effects of the soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contaminants on the site would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. As mitigated, the site would not present a risk of a public health exposure that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency. (k) Either the project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone or a seismic hazard zone, as determined pursuant to Section 2622 and 2696 of the Public Resources Code respectively, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of an earthquake or seismic hazard. The site is not located in an earthquake fault zone or seismic hazard zone. Construction of the project would proceed in compliance with the California Building Code. (l) Either the project site does not present a landslide hazard, flood plain, flood way, or restriction zone, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a landslide or flood. The site is not located in a flood zone or area subject to landslide hazards. 2.e Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 6 (m) The project site is not located on developed open space. The site is located in an urbanized area and is not located on any developed or undeveloped open space. (n) The project site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy. The site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy. (o) The project has not been divided into smaller projects to qualify for one or more of the exemptions set forth in sections 15193 to 15195. The project has not been divided into smaller projects to qualify for one or more of the exemptions set forth in Sections 15193 to 15195. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21159.21 and 21159.27, Public Resources Code. CEQA Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption) CEQA does not apply to any development project that meets the following criteria: (a) The project meets the threshold criteria set forth in section 15192. As demonstrated below, the project meets the threshold requirements set forth in 15192. (b) The project meets the following size criteria: the project site is not more than five acres in area. The project is located on a site encompassing less than half of an acre. (c) The project meets both of the following requirements regarding location: (1) The project meets one of the following location requirements relating to population density: (A) The project site is located within an urbanized area or within a census- defined place with a population density of at least 5,000 persons per square mile. Not applicable 2.e Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 7 (B) If the project consists of 50 or fewer units, the project site is located within an incorporated city with a population density of at least 2,500 persons per square mile and a total population of at least 25,000 persons. Not applicable (C) The project is located within either an incorporated city or a census defined place with a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile and there is no reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project. The site is located within the City of Palo Alto, which is an incorporated City with a population density in excess of 1,000 persons per square mile. There is no reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project. Net peak hour vehicle trips associated with the project would be negligible given the existing intensive retail uses. (2) The project meets one of the following site-specific location requirements: (A) The project site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses; or (B) The parcels immediately adjacent to the project site are developed with qualified urban uses. (C) The project site has not been developed for urban uses and all of the following conditions are met: 1. No parcel within the site has been created within 10 years prior to the proposed development of the site. 2. At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. 3. The existing remaining 25 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that have previously been developed for qualified urban uses. The project site contains two commercial buildings that contain several retail establishments. Retail is considered a qualified urban use per Guidelines Section 15191. Additionally, the site is surrounded by retail and residential uses, which are also qualifying urban uses. 2.e Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 8 (d) The project meets both of the following requirements regarding provision of affordable housing. (1) The project consists of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing consisting of 100 or fewer units that are affordable to low-income households. (2) The developer of the project provides sufficient legal commitments to the appropriate local agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs deemed to be “affordable rent” for lower income, very low income, and extremely low income households, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The project consists of the construction of 65 units that would be affordable to low- and very-low income households. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21159.23, Public Resources Code. 2.e Packet Pg. 31 Attachment E: Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies – 3703-3709 El Camino Real Land Use Element  Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible.  Policy L-2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing, near retail, employment, and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods.  Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers.  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.  Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.  Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail.  Policy L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing.  Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Housing Element  Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse.  Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial area within one-half mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element sites within one –quarter mile of fixed rail stations.  Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available.  Program H2.1.4: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards.  Program H2.1.6: Consider density bonuses and/or concessions including allowing greater concessions for 100% affordable housing developments. 2.f Packet Pg. 32  Program H2.2.8: Assess the potential of removing maximum residential densities (i.e. dwelling units per acre) in mixed use zoning districts to encourage the creation of smaller housing units within the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and adopt standards as appropriate.  Program H2.1.10: As a part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. “pearls on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas.  Program H2.2.6: On parcels zoned for mixed use, consider allowing exclusively residential use on extremely small parcels through the transfer of zoning requirements between adjacent parcels to create horizontal mixed use arrangements. If determined to be appropriate, adopt an ordinance to implement this program.  Program H3.1.5: Encourage the use of flexible development standards, including floor-area ratio limits, creative architectural solutions, and green building practices in the design of projects with a substantial BMR component.  Program H3.1.12: Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers who provide extremely low-income (ELI), very low-income, and low income housing units, above and beyond what is required by the Below Market Rate program, such as reduced parking requirements for smaller units, reduced landscaping requirements, and reduced fees. 2.f Packet Pg. 33 Attachment G Project Plans and Environmental Documents Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3705 El Camino Real” 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=4374&TargetID=319 2.g Packet Pg. 34 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9563) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3200 El Camino Real: New Hotel (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3200 El Camino Real [18PLN-00045] Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition for the Existing 16,603 Square Foot Motel and Construction of a new Four-Story Approximately 53,599 Square Foot Hotel. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Remove the Existing 50 Foot Special Setback Along Hansen Way. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the information presented and provide comment and continue item to a date uncertain. Report Summary The purpose of this report is to introduce the formal project and allow the Board to provide direction on the proposal while the environmental documentation is in process. The project has been through the Preliminary Review and Pre-Screening processes previously. The project seeks Architectural Review and Zoning Amendment approval. The project proposes to demolish the existing two-story motel building on site and develop the site with a new four-story hotel with a two-level basement garage. The project site includes 100-foot frontage along El Camino Real and 258-foot frontage along Hansen Way. The property has a 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way, thereby rendering half of the site usable for new development. The design considers the prior discussion from the Board and the City 3 Packet Pg. 35 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Council and assumes elimination of the 50-foot special setback along Hansen Street through a Zoning Amendment. The project also seeks a 17% reduction in required parking (may be higher if the coffee shop is open to the public). Background On October 1, 2015, the ARB conducted a preliminary review of the project (Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLkk9TeWWBI). There was public and Board comment that the project was too bulky and its design would benefit from looking at the context of the surroundings. On April 4, 2016, the City Council conducted a Pre-Screening for the project with the same design that was presented to the ARB on October 1, 2015. The Council did not support a variance for the project, had some concerns about the project design, and requested that it come back to the Council for further consideration and discussion. On May 1, 2017, the City Council held its continued Pre-Screening review of the project where several Council members indicated that the proposed zoning map change was appropriate and provided feedback regarding the design. The applicant subsequently applied for a new Preliminary Architectural Review to reflect the new design concept. On June 15, 2017, the ARB conducted a hearing on the project. The Board had comments regarding the plaza area as a public focal point. There was interest in seeing more modulations on the third and fourth floors along the side that faces the Fish Market property. Project Information Owner: Prabhu Corporation c/o Yatin Patel Architect: Architectural Dimensions Property Information Address: 3200 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park area, adjacent to Ventura neighborhood Lot Dimensions & Area: 100’ x 258’-3” (28,878 square feet) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, Street trees Historic Resource(s): Built in 1947, evaluation in process Existing Improvement(s): 16,603 sf; Two stories; 25 feet Existing Land Use(s): Adjacent Land Uses & North: CS (Commercial/Electronics Repair) 3 Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Zoning: West: RP (Research & Development) East: CS (Commercial/Fish Market Restaurant) South: RP (Offices) Aerial View of Property: Source: Digital Globe, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CS (Service Commercial) Comp. Plan Designation: CS (Service Commercial) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes 3 Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: April 4, 2016 (Pre-screening): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51665 May 1, 2017 (Pre-screening): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57247 PTC: None HRB: None ARB: October 1, 2015 (Preliminary): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49220 June 15, 2017 (Preliminary): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=58266 Project Description The site consists of a single parcel totaling 26,878 square feet. The site is located on the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Hansen Way (see location map, Attachment A). The site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Service Commercial and a zoning designation of CS Service Commercial. The site includes a 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way. This special setback is applicable to all properties along Hansen Way. The project includes the demolition of an existing two-story motel and the construction of a new four-story 53,598 square foot hotel with two levels of underground parking (80 spaces) with total of 82 parking spaces provided for the site. To accommodate the development, the proposal includes elimination of the 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way. The project would have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.99:1 and a site lot coverage of 39.8%. The project would include a plaza at the corner intersection of Hansen Way and El Camino Real that would feature some outdoor seating and have access to a coffee shop (not confirmed whether this is open to the public). A minor entry into the hotel is located off the plaza and the primary entry is located along Hansen Way adjacent to the driveway onto the site. The four-story contemporary-designed hotel includes modulations along the Hansen Way elevation. At the ground level, a porte cochere provides for vehicular entry and drop off area leading to the lobby of the hotel. A second story terrace wraps around from the Hansen Way elevation to the El Camino Real elevation with potted plants. The north elevation, includes some modulation, however, not as much as the Hansen Way elevation (south). Proposed materials include stone cladding, stone veneer, painted stucco, vision and spandrel glass with aluminum frames and metal paneling. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: 3 Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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 (Attachment B). However, since this project includes other actions that require approval by the City Council, the Board will make their recommendation to the City Council. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.  Zoning Amendment (ZA): The elimination of the special setback requires a legislative action. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80. Rezone applications are reviewed by the PTC and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council.  Conditional Use Permit—(CUP): Since the hotel will have operations between 10:00pm and 6:00am daily, the project requires the approval of a CUP. This process for evaluating a CUP is set forth in PAMC 18.77.060. Typically, the Director of Planning & Community Environment approves these requests. Since the application includes other action that require approval by the City Council, this request will be considered by the City Council. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located at the entrance to the Stanford Research Park, and across El Camino Real from the Ventura neighborhood, in an area that includes mostly older single to two story commercial development. Directly across the street along Hansen Way is a research & development building surrounded by a large surface parking lot. Hansen Way includes a 50-foot special setback that was intended to accommodate future street widening. The subject lot is narrow in comparison to some of the other lots in the area with frontage along El Camino Real. The adjacent property to the north of the site along Hansen Way includes a building that does not meet the 50-foot special setback (i.e. 36-feet). The intersection of Hansen Way and El Camino Real includes a “pork chop” traffic delineator that channels a free-right movement for vehicles from El Camino to Hansen Way. Another “pork chop” allows free right turning onto El Camino Real from Hansen Way. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 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 Service Commercial, which includes facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Nonresidential FAR will range up to 0.4. On balance, staff believes the project will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency will be provided at the next hearing, prior to ARB recommendation. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. 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. Proposed Use The project replaces an existing motel with 36 guestrooms and increases the guestrooms on- site to 99 rooms. A hotel is a permitted use within the CS district. In accordance with PAMC 18.16.060(d) hotels are permitted up to 2.0:1 FAR. The project’s FAR of 1.99:1 is consistent with this standard. Regardless of the size of the site and intensity of the development, the CS zoning district has no maximum site coverage standard. Setback The project shows an encroachment into the existing 50-foot special setback. As previously discussed, as part of the project’s requests, a zoning amendment is proposed to eliminate this setback for this property. Context-Based Design Criteria According to Section 18.16.090 of the PAMC, “compatibility is achieved when apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 linkages with the overall pattern of buildings, so that the visual unity of the street is maintained”. The proposal shows an architectural style compatible with some of the newer buildings on the street within the vicinity, intended to create a visual unity of the street’s buildings. The building would be one of the newer developments on the block in terms of design and massing. Generally, the streetscape along El Camino Real includes a mixture of newer and older development that includes one to four story buildings. The pattern for newer development is to be more intensive, incorporating contemporary design. El Camino Real Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Guidelines The project is subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the South El Camino Real Guidelines. The Guidelines consider the site a part of the California Avenue Corridor Area. According to the Guidelines, new buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades. Entries should face El Camino Real, or be clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians. Auto-oriented development should include pedestrian-friendly design elements to accommodate those arriving by foot or transit. The project includes what appears to be a secondary pedestrian entry from El Camino Real. The Guidelines encourage visually appealing and functional open space amenities. The project includes an outdoor patio area at the corner of the property, which appears to support this guideline. The use of low walls is encouraged to define this location. The site will need to enhance the site landscaping, especially along the parking lot edges as encouraged by the guidelines. The project should also consider a variety of lighting types, integrating these fixtures into the project design and at the same time minimize glare upon adjacent properties. Signs are not currently included in the scope of the project; however, the guidelines encourage that primary signs be designed as an integral part of the building, be legible, and backlit. The proposal generally appears to be compliant with a majority of the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The proposal provides some appropriate transitions to the surrounding buildings with the varied roof lines and building articulation. The architecture, while modern, is simple in appearance and appears to not detract from the streetscape. The proposed project also includes landscaping at the street to improve visual interest and pedestrian comfort. The ARB is requested to discuss the project’s compatibility in the areas of scale, mass, pedestrian oriented design, given the site’s context. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project proposes to move the current main driveway entry from El Camino Real to Hansen Way to reduce pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. Prior iterations of the project included maintaining the “pork chop” at the El Camino Real and Hansen Way intersection. Through discussions with the applicant, the project now proposes to eliminate the adjacent free right 3 Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 turn (pork chop), which is likely to improve circulation along El Camino Real and provide greater safety to pedestrians and cyclist alike. Implementing this improvement would require coordination between, the applicant, the City and the State Department of Transportation (CalTrans), whom controls the El Camino Real right-of-way. The project includes two surface parking spaces and a ramp that would lead to two levels of underground parking with standard parking spaces. According to PAMC Section 18.52, the hotel and restaurant(s) would require 105 automobile spaces; the plans indicate 82 proposed automobile spaces which could be increased with the use a valet parking in the aisle ways. The project currently seeks a parking reduction pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050, Table 4 for a 22% reduction when transportation and parking alternatives are provided. The maximum allowed reduction is 20%, therefore, staff will continue to work with the applicant to see how valet parking may/or may not create efficiencies. The project requires 12 short-term bicycle spaces. The project currently provides 10 bicycle spaces. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to a number of applications as described previously. Each application requires the City Council to make findings for any approval. The Board is tasked with recommending findings for the architectural review application. A list of the findings is included as Attachment B. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project requires the completion of an Initial Study, which is currently ongoing. Technical studies supporting the environmental analysis include, air quality emissions report, arborist report, historic report, geotechnical study, Phase I environmental site assessment, acoustical report, and traffic report. 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 Daily Post on September 21, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 24, 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. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Finding, Context-Based Design and Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 43 50 50 RM- 637 CS CS CS RP 611 52 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 592 572582 3150 3170 3200 3300 607 60 550 447 3 429 451 441 431 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3201 450 430 400 3263251 0 3802862450 456 470 71 299929512905 461 3000 30173001 3128 3127 850 700 600 3398 3111 473 3225 440 620 630 429 660 3215 3275 3327 3399 3333 3201 3051 3101 3160 3260 2 3265 LA M BERT AVENUE EL CA MINO REAL HANSEN W AY EL CA MINO REAL HANSEN W AY W AY ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE APE EL CA MINO REAL L CA MIN O REAL EL CA MIN O REAL EL CA MINO REAL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Legend Special Setback Frontages Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 3200 El Camino Real (Project Site) 0'200' 3200 El Camino Real Area Mapwith Zoning Districts CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2018 City of Palo Alto 3.a Packet Pg. 44 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3200 El Camino Real 18PLN-00045 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 3.b Packet Pg. 45 Context-Based Design Criteria 3200 El Camino Real 18PLN-00045 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 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 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 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 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 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 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 3.b Packet Pg. 46 Performance Criteria 18.23 3200 El Camino Real 18PLN-00045 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. Consistency will be finalized at the 2nd formal hearing. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 3.b Packet Pg. 47 The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 3.b Packet Pg. 48 3.b Packet Pg. 49 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3200 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00045 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.61 acres (100’ x 258’) 0.61 acres (100’ x 258’) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 2 feet 12 feet Rear Yard None 5 feet 10 feet Interior Side Yard None 5 feet Varies (3’-10” to 11’- 11”) Street Side Yard None 3 feet 0 feet (19 foot setback from curb) Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback on Hansen Way (7) Not compliant 63% (63 feet) along El Camino Real 52% (135 feet) along Hansen Way Special Setback 50 feet on Hansen Way – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 3 feet 0 feet (19 foot setback from curb) Max. Site Coverage None 48.3% (13,000 sf) 39.8% (10,808 sf) Max. Building Height 50 feet 25 feet 48 feet Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 for hotels per 18.18.060(d) 48.35% (283,980 sf) 1.99:1 (53,598 sf) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property The hotel operates 24 hours daily. 3.c Packet Pg. 50 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotel* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking Hotel - 1 per guestroom for a total of 99 parking spaces Eating and Drinking – 1 space per 60 sf of public area and 1 space per 200 sf of service area, less up to 75% if approved by the Director for shared use** = 5.6 spaces Total = 105 spaces 22 spaces 82 spaces Bicycle Parking Hotel - 1 per 10 guestrooms (100% short term) equals 10 spaces Eating and Drinking - 1 per 600 sf of public area and 1 space per 200 sf of service area**= 2 spaces Total = 12 spaces None 10 spaces Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000 - 99,999 sf 1 space 1 space * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements **Applicant has not confirmed whether the coffee shop is open to the public. The hotel use is subject to the following additional restrictions per PAMC Section 18.16.060(d) (d) Hotel Regulations (1) The purpose of these regulations is to allow floor area for development of hotels in excess of floor area limitations for other commercial uses, in order to provide a visitor-serving use that results in an enhanced business climate, increased transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenue, and other community and economic benefits to the city. (2) Hotels, where they are a permitted use, may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1, subject to the following limitations: 3.c Packet Pg. 51 (A) The hotel use must generate transient occupancy tax (TOT) as provided in Chapter 2.33 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and (B) No room stays in excess of thirty days are permitted, except where the city council approves longer stays through an enforceable agreement with the applicant to provide for compensating revenues. (3) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to: (A) No more than twenty-five percent of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use; and (B) No more than twenty-five percent of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to condominium use; and (C) A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building(s); and (D) Where residential condominium use is proposed, room stays for other hotel rooms shall not exceed thirty days. (4) Violation of this chapter is subject to enforcement action for stays in excess of thirty days not permitted under the provisions of this chapter, in which case each day of room stay in excess of thirty days shall constitute a separate violation and administrative penalties shall be assessed pursuant to Chapters 1.12 and 1.16. 3.c Packet Pg. 52 3.d Packet Pg. 53 Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 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 “3200 El Camino Real” 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=2716 3.e Packet Pg. 54 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9674) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/4/2018 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 (3rd 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. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB at the August 16, 2018 public hearing. The project was then scheduled for the September 6, 2018 ARB hearing, but a quorum was not achieved for that meeting. Accordingly, the project was continued to the September 20, 2018 hearing. At the September 20th hearing, the ARB recommended the project return for a third hearing with the following changes. 4 Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Building Colors. Lighten the two proposed grey colors. Ensure the color of overhangs relate to the color of the wall it is shading. The applicant is proposing lighter colors and will provide an updated material board at the hearing. However, the applicant has some concerns that the colors will fade over time and become even lighter than the ARB desires. Grey overhangs will be provided on the third and fourth floors to match the wall color of these floors, as shown in the renderings. Landscaping. Provide additional landscaping on all floors, especially the 4th floor, to buffer uses and provide visual interest. Enhance the proposed green screen at rear of the building to provide additional support for vines. Additional planters have been added to the project, especially on the 4th floor where 16 rectangular pots will be secured to the roof just outside the railing on the upper floor. The green screen will be enhanced with a trellis to further encourage vine growth at the rear of the building. West Wall Design. The proposed design on the west wall needs to be better integrated with the rest of the building. The applicant is proposing two options for the west wall as shown in the plan set. The first option is the same as was presented to the ARB on September 20th. The second option uses the proposed tan color on the top half of the 3rd and 4th floor west wall with the grey color on the bottom half of the wall to better integrate all four floors while providing interest on the west wall. Renderings. Provide accurate renderings that include views from University Avenue, the corner of University and Kipling, and the rear of the building at a minimum. The applicant has provided high quality renderings of the west wall from the vantage point of University Avenue to demonstrative how the west wall and 4th floor landscaping will be perceived from street level. Additional renderings may be available at the hearing. Earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation of City codes and policies; these reports are available online. The staff report for the September 6, 2018 hearing, which was continued to September 20th, is available in Attachment J. Additional staff reports, project plans and other information may be found on the City’s project webpage at bit.ly/429University Public Comment 4 Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Prior to the September 20, 2018 ARB hearing, staff received an additional comment letter from Michael Harbour, the appellant of the original project. Mr. Harbour continues to have concerns about the three items that are the subject of this review, as further described in Attachment L. 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 Daily Post on September 7, 2018. Postcard mailing occurred on September 10, 2018. At the September 20, 2018 ARB hearing, the project was reviewed and continued to this October 4, 2018 hearing. 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 ARB1 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: Public Correspondence (DOCX)  Attachment I: August 16, 2018 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment J: September 6, 2018 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4  Attachment K: Neighbor Comments (DOCX)  Attachment L: Comments from September 19, 2018 (DOCX)  Attachment M: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 58 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) 4.a Packet Pg. 59 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, landscaping, 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 The project uses native indigenous landscaping and drip irrigation systems that represent 4.b Packet Pg. 60 citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. sustainable principles of design. 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 4.b Packet Pg. 61  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; 4.b Packet Pg. 62 (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. 4.b Packet Pg. 63 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. 4.b Packet Pg. 64 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. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Per PAMC 16.61.040, and RLUA No. 2017-2, Development Impact Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 4.c Packet Pg. 65 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. 4.c Packet Pg. 66 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, 4.d Packet Pg. 67 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. 4.d Packet Pg. 68 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. 4.d Packet Pg. 69 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. 4.d Packet Pg. 70 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 4.d Packet Pg. 71 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. 4.d Packet Pg. 72 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. 4.d Packet Pg. 73 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 4.d Packet Pg. 74 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) 4.d Packet Pg. 75 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) 4.d Packet Pg. 76 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. 4.e Packet Pg. 77 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 4.e Packet Pg. 78 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 4.e Packet Pg. 79 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) 4.e Packet Pg. 80 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. 4.e Packet Pg. 81 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. 4.e Packet Pg. 82 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 … 4.f Packet Pg. 83 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 4.f Packet Pg. 84 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 4.f Packet Pg. 85 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 4.f Packet Pg. 86 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 4.f Packet Pg. 87 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 4.f Packet Pg. 88 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 89 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 4.f Packet Pg. 90 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 4.f Packet Pg. 91 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 4.f Packet Pg. 92 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 4.f Packet Pg. 93 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 4.f Packet Pg. 94 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 4.f Packet Pg. 95 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 4.f Packet Pg. 96 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 4.f Packet Pg. 97 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 98 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 4.f Packet Pg. 99 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 4.f Packet Pg. 100 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 4.f Packet Pg. 101 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 4.f Packet Pg. 102 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 4.f Packet Pg. 103 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 4.f Packet Pg. 104 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 4.f Packet Pg. 105 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 4.f Packet Pg. 106 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 4.f Packet Pg. 107 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, 4.f Packet Pg. 108 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 4.f Packet Pg. 109 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 4.f Packet Pg. 110 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 4.f Packet Pg. 111 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? 4.f Packet Pg. 112 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 113 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? 4.f Packet Pg. 114 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 4.f Packet Pg. 115 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 4.f Packet Pg. 116 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 117 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 4.f Packet Pg. 118 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 4.f Packet Pg. 119 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 4.f Packet Pg. 120 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 121 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 122 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 123 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 4.f Packet Pg. 124 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 4.f Packet Pg. 125 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 4.f Packet Pg. 126 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 127 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 128 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 129 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 4.f Packet Pg. 130 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 131 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 132 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 4.g Packet Pg. 133 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 4.g Packet Pg. 134 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 4.g Packet Pg. 135 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 4.g Packet Pg. 136 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 4.g Packet Pg. 137 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 4.g Packet Pg. 138 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 4.g Packet Pg. 139  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 4.g Packet Pg. 140  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 4.g Packet Pg. 141 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 4.g Packet Pg. 142  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 4.g Packet Pg. 143 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 4.g Packet Pg. 144 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 4.g Packet Pg. 145 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 4.g Packet Pg. 146 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 4.g Packet Pg. 147 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 4.g Packet Pg. 148 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 4.g Packet Pg. 149 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 4.g Packet Pg. 150 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 4.g Packet Pg. 151 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 4.g Packet Pg. 152 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 4.g Packet Pg. 153 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 4.g Packet Pg. 154 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 4.g Packet Pg. 155 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 4.g Packet Pg. 156 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 4.g Packet Pg. 157 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 4.g Packet Pg. 158 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 4.g Packet Pg. 159 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 4.g Packet Pg. 160 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 4.g Packet Pg. 161 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 4.g Packet Pg. 162 114. 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 4.g Packet Pg. 163 125. 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 4.g Packet Pg. 164 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 4.g Packet Pg. 165 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 4.g Packet Pg. 166 137. 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 4.g Packet Pg. 167 143. 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 4.g Packet Pg. 168 429 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 4.g Packet Pg. 169 429 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 4.g Packet Pg. 170 429 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 4.g Packet Pg. 171 429 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 4.g Packet Pg. 172 429 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 4.g Packet Pg. 173 429 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 4.g Packet Pg. 174 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 4.g Packet Pg. 175 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 4.g Packet Pg. 176 From: Architectural Review Board To: Lew, Alex; Osma Thompson; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc: Adam Petersen; Gerhardt, Jodie Subject: FW: 429 University Date: Thursday, September 6, 2018 9:09:28 AM From: Rita Vrhel Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2018 8:53 AM To: Architectural Review Board Subject: Fw: 429 University On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 11:43 PM, Rita Vrhel wrote: Please. please, please hold the owner of 429 University Ave to the same rigid standards as other projects built in Palo Alto. I know this project has been in the works for years but the delay has, to my knowledge, been due of the owner's steadfast refusal to modify the project as required by both the City Council and the ARB. The City Council, when they approved the project after many presentations, required that final building plans be approved by the ARB. After your last rejection, the owner applied for a demolition permit without having the plans approved by the ARB; this was correctly denied after a request by Dr. Harbour and others. I believe this demolition request was a not so subtle tactic to pressure the ARB to grant Project approval by presenting Palo Alto with a large hole on University Ave. Please do not let this property owner pressure you to make a hasty decision which will ill serve Palo Alto and reflect poorly on the ARB. We all do best when the rules are followed by all rather than just a few. Bring bullied and giving in will only encourage other developers to do the same. Thank you so much. Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Medical Case Management 4.h Packet Pg. 177 From: Michael Harbour To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org; Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly; Adam Petersen Subject: URGENT: 429 University Ave Relevant Motion Documents Date: Sunday, August 26, 2018 9:28:37 PM Attachments: Council Motion_2-6-17.pdf Staff Report_2-6-17.pdf Dear City Council, Given the lengthy duration of this issue and the numerous documents associated with this case, I'm attaching the following relevant documents with highlighted passages for the proposed 429 University Avenue development to simplify your review. The city council mandated a set of rules (set as conditions) for the applicant to follow. The applicant has not met those obligations. Staff was required to submit written findings to the City Council as part of the approved Motion which it has not done. At this time, there is no reason whatsoever that the Planning Department should issue demolition and building permits until all obligations and findings have been met. The historic resources (Birge Clark buildings) should not be demolished until there is 100% certainty that all obligations have been met. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Michael Harbour, MD, MPH Lead Appellant for 429 University Ave Attachments: 1. City Council Motion Minutes from February 6, 2017. a. ARB Member Alex Lew tells City Council that the ARB has not seen a complete rendering of Option #1 (thereby indicating that it still needs ARB review). b. Motion for Building Option #1 is approved to be set for further development. (complete PDF transcript pages 1-52; motion on PDF pages 48-49). c. Approved Motion references three pages of recommendations within Staff Report that are to be incorporated into the final Motion (pages 527-529 in original packet or PDF pages 5- 8). d. Ms. Gitelman (planner) states, "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..." (PDF page 45) e. Final passed motion (PDF pages 42, 48-49). Motion includes conditions and directs Staff to return with the written findings of adoption. 2. Staff Report from February 6, 2017. Contains the specific items mentioned in the passed Motion. (see pages 5-8). 1. Applicant shall submit detailed plans for floor area and development standards 2. 4th floor guardrails and plantars to be set back 3. Library to be removed 4. Third floor roofline to be set back to follow third floor building footprint 5. Decorative wall design treatment, feature or element to be applied and have ARB approval 6. Elevator on Kipling St. no to exceed 50 feet 7. Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendations for landscaping review 8. Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendation to Director of Planning of building materials, colors, and craftsmanship related detailing associated with building 4.h Packet Pg. 178 9. Also recommended ARB consider recessed pedestrian entries as ARB has consistently sought to improve the pedestrian experience of this building, but there has been little refinement of the feature over the different iterations. 3. The staff recommendations state "it should be noted that all of the options in this report will be subject to more detailed review for code compliance at the building permit state, if/when a single design option has been advanced." (PDF page 8) 3. ARB Hearing video link from August 16, 2018. The ARB unanimously denies the submitted design. Relevant video starts at 1:30:35 within the clip http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2/ 4.h Packet Pg. 179 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) 4.i Packet Pg. 180 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. 4.i Packet Pg. 181 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 4.i Packet Pg. 182 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. 4.i Packet Pg. 183 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 4.i Packet Pg. 184 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9555) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/6/2018 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 (2nd 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. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB at the August 16, 2018 public hearing. The Municipal Code encourages the Director of Planning and Community Environment to make a decision on projects after two public hearings for Minor AR projects. Earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation of City codes and policies; these reports are available online; a copy of the August 16th report without 4 Packet Pg. 85 4.j Packet Pg. 185 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 prior attachments is available in Attachment H. Links to the full staff report and video of the meeting are provided below: Document Link Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66300 Video http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2- 2-2/ The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in earlier reports and modified to reflect recent project changes. The ARB is encouraged to make a final recommendation to approve, conditionally approve or deny the project. Discussion1 The ARB last considered this project on August 16, 2018. The Board expressed the following comments: ARB Comments Project Response West Wall Plans: The ARB requested clarification about how the west wall design relates to the entire building. The motion referenced that the design include more detail and layering, and better relay the architect design intent of resembling a tree like structure. The proposed reveals have been revised to take the shape of an up-lifting tree-like pattern Craftsmanship: The ARB noted in their motion that the applicant should include construction details that demonstrate the craftsmanship of the building. The applicant has provided photos and construction level details of the building showing the elevations, with building sections, and details for the roof, windows and doors. Landscaping: The ARB expressed concerns about how the landscaping would look over time and that the garden wall planter along the rear alley Lane 30 may be overbearing. The applicant is proposing indigenous plant material in conformance with the ARB Findings. A detail of the proposed vine trellis is shown on Sheet L4. Staff has prepared Architectural Review Findings and Conditions of Approval contained in Attachments B and C. The project plans are available as Attachment J of this staff report and they are also available online at the following link: bit.ly/429University. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 4 Packet Pg. 86 4.j Packet Pg. 186 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 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 Monday, August 24, 2018 which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 27, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff has received comments from the original appellant, Michael Harbour, and these are contained in Attached I. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information 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: August 16, 2018 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment I: Neighbor Comments (DOCX)  Attachment J: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 87 4.j Packet Pg. 187 From: Michael Harbour Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 1:48 PM To: Lait, Jonathan Cc: Gerhardt, Jodie; Adam Petersen; Yang, Albert; Keene, James Subject: Re: 429 University - Building Permits Hi Jonathan, Thanks for the update. I've read extensively and am obviously very familiar with the council Motion from February 6, 2017. I understand that Ms. Gitelman was the point for the Motion and it was not your issue at the time. The Motion specifically included the language from the Staff Report which need to be followed. It also states that Staff was to provide a written report back the City Council which was not done. I I believe that you should have also notified the city council of the applicant's permit extension as a significant issue per the Motion. The Motion specifically mentions the following items (please note the highlighted items 7-9 and summary statement): 1. Applicant shall submit detailed plans for floor area and development standards 2. 4th floor guardrails and plantar to be set back 3. Library to be removed 4. Third floor roofline to be set back to follow third floor building footprint 5. Decorative wall design treatment, feature or element to be applied and have ARB approval 6. Elevator on Kipling St. no to exceed 50 feet 7. Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendations for landscaping review 8. Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendation to Director of Planning of building materials, colors, and craftsmanship related detailing associated with building 9. Also recommended ARB consider recessed pedestrian entries as ARB has consistently sought to improve the pedestrian experience of this building, but there has been little refinement of the feature over the different iterations. Also, The staff recommendations state "it should be noted that all of the options in this report will be subject to more detailed review for code compliance at the building permit state, if/when a single design option has been advanced." (PDF page 8) I will be closely following that these items are diligently followed per the city council motion. Thanks, Michael Harbour 4.k Packet Pg. 188 From: Michael Harbour Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 9:31 PM To: Architectural Review Board Subject: URGENT: 429 University Falls Short of City Council Motion Requirements Dear Architectural Review Board Members, The Appellants and Neighbors are disappointed with the applicant's re-submission of plans (dated 8-23-18) for 429 University Ave. The plans fail to address the City Council's Motion requirements from February 6, 2017. The City Council passed a motion (in bold below) that the following items would be addressed as part of the resubmission of plans. The Appellant's responses to the Motion requirement are stated (in red below). The ARB just viewed these sketchy plans for building Option #1 (selected by City Council) for the first time on August 16, 2018. As a proposed development, the ARB has had less input on this particular building design than most. The current design does not meet the strong design requirements and suggestions upheld by this ARB. We strongly urge you to reject these plans as submitted and return them to the City Council for final review and approval. City Council Motion and Appellant Response: 1. Applicant to return to ARB for review of proposed Western Wall design--although the tree pattern is an iterative improvement, the overall design is incongruous and unconnected with the rest of the entire building. It makes no cohesive design sense. 2. Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendations for landscaping-- the landscaping remains sparse, poorly designed, and does not bring warmth to a giant, cold cement block building. An example building at 102 University still has not been able to grow a complete vine in a similar indentation. It will be a barren space devoid of any landscaping. 3. Applicant to return to ARB for review and recommendation to Director of Planning of building materials, colors, and craftsmanship related detailing associated with building-- this submitted building and design has been "disavowed" by the original architect, Joe Bellomo. The applicant had advertised him as the "Birge Clark Award" recipient which was something intended to mitigate the fact that Birge Clark buildings would be demolished if this building is approved. Mr. Bellomo told the ARB that the cement slag was "proprietary." Since the original design, materials and craftsmanship are no longer the same as those originally promised, we strongly urge denial based on the inability to confirm the original items as submitted. 4. Also recommended ARB consider recessed pedestrian entries as ARB has consistently sought to improve the pedestrian experience of this building, but there has been little refinement of the feature over the different iterations--the building violates municipal design code and downtown design guidelines. There is no improvement or change to the pedestrian experience of this building. It remains "unfriendly." In inclement weather, there is no recessed space or shelter for pedestrians. The building is a 4.l Packet Pg. 189 giant cement block which maximizes size and demonstrates massing. It lacks transition to neighboring buildings. It is not compatible with surrounding one story buildings and removes pedestrian friendly recesses. In addition, there is no pedestrian friendly design or business consideration along Alleyway 30 which the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Design Guidelines require. (DDG pg 21 and CP T-21) Thank you for your detailed review of these items listed within the Motion. Since this meeting is quasi-judicial, any concern regarding any of the above four items should be sent back to the City Council for its final decision. Please do not approve the plans as submitted and suggest a more thorough design process. Sincerely, Michael Harbour, MD, MPH, FACP Lead Appellant for 429 University Avenue 4.l Packet Pg. 190 Attachment M 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=4338&targetID=319 4.m Packet Pg. 191 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and Robert Gooyer. Absent: None. Chair Furth: Good morning, and welcome to the August 2nd, 2018, meeting of the Architectural Review Board in the City of Palo Alto. Would you call the roll, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications - see below Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Are there any agenda changes, additions or deletions? Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything from us up here? All right. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: Let's take a quick look at the upcoming -- that's item number 1 -- at the upcoming schedule. We're going to have absences. I will be away on August 16th, Peter will be away on September 6th. Does everybody else plan to be here? Nods all around. Yes? And we have the tentative agenda items for August 16th, 429 University, where the applicant has asked that I not participate, in any event; 2609 Alma Street, a condominium project; and preliminary façade revisions at 656 Lytton, which I believe is Lytton Gardens. Okay. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 250 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review Application for a Proposed Public Safety Building to be Three Stories Above Grade With 45,400 to 48,000 sf of Floor Area Above two Basement Levels With Usable Floor Area Within the First Basement Level, Five Surface Parking Spaces Within a Fenced Area and 143 Below Grade Parking Spaces (Including 12 Stalls in Tandem Arrangement), as Well as two Operational Site Buildings Accessory to the Public Safety Building, Landscape Improvements, and a Public Plaza. City Council Approved the Environmental Impact Report and Public Facilities Ordinance ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: August 2, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Amendment on June 11, 2018. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: We have one public hearing item today. It is at 250 Sherman Avenue. It's a consideration of a major architectural review application for a proposed public safety building to be three stories above grade with 45,000 to 48,000 square foot of floor area above two basement levels with usable floor area within the first basement level, five surface parking spaces within a fenced area, and 143 below grade parking spaces, as well as two operational site buildings accessory to the public safety building, landscape improvements, and a public plaza. The City Council approved the Environmental Impact Report, which we all received a while ago, which was combined for this and the adjacent parking garage. And, the Facilities Ordinance Amendment on June 11, 2018, a second reading on that ordinance, perhaps. The zoning district is Public Facilities. Staff? Amy French: Good morning. We did oral communications, right? Chair Furth: You're right. I miss that all the time. Oral Communications Chair Furth: Is there anybody who would wish to comment on a matter not on the agenda? Oral communications? Seeing none, okay, I've got to check these off on the list. Yes, this is actually agenda item number 2. All right. (inaudible) Chair Furth: That's item 2. We will look forward to hearing from you. All right. We're back. Ms. French: Well, moving along. We've got a Public Safety Building design that has been six months in the making, and the applicant heard the ARB and responded. Here is the path that we have traveled from Spring of 2017 with the scoping, the pre-screening and preliminary reviews, followed by October of last year with the first formal review on this building, coupled with the parking garage, which has since been approved by the Council in June, as well as the Environmental Impact Report, June 11th. That was certified. And, here we are, our second formal hearing for the Public Safety Building. We look forward to going to Council with this application in the fall sometime. We had some issues back in October. I put a couple images on the screen showing the issues. I have a couple of slides here showing before and after, to help the public and the board with the compare and contrast. Key move is the employee vehicle ramp now faces Birch. I'm sorry, faced Birch before and now faces Jacaranda. And we have a warmer material palate. The architect will display those here and will talk about those. Before we had a large plaza and there was some different functionality. Now we have a smaller plaza. This was at the ARB direction. And the community meeting room is now a one-story element. We now have greater articulation. Here's bird- friendly glass at the upper floor, and we have human-scale features there. I'm going to turn it over to the applicant team. Just one note. There's been questions about timelines for construction. The parking garage is going out to bid very soon, in the fall, so, as noted last time with the parking garage, that construction will take place first, and then, maybe 2020, at some point -- Matt can weigh in on this -- the Public Safety Building would be started. Matt Raschke, Public Works Department: Hi. Thank you, Amy. I'm Matt Raschke, senior engineer with the Public Works Department. I'm the overall project manager for both the parking garage and this Public Safety Building. As Amy mentioned, we're going out to bid with the parking garage towards the end of this month. It's just resubmitted for its second building permit plan check, so we're expected that to go into construction and probably break ground at the beginning of 2019 and be finished in the first quarter of 2020. And then, the Public Safety Building in this project, we would expect we could get started on the construction as soon as that garage is functional. Here in the audience today we have the police chief, Robert Jonsen; assistant chief Patty Lum; fire chief Eric Nickel; deputy chief McNally and Blackshire; and City of Palo Alto Page 3 also Interim Director of Public Works, Brad Eggleston; and Charlie Cohen, the Communications Director for Public Safety. If there are any questions, we may bring them up to answer any of the operational questions about the new facility. We're, I think, very pleased with what the architect has come up with, with this new design. After the October meeting, we went back to the drawing board and re-thought how the building would look. We think they took your comments to heart, and I'm very pleased with how the new design came out. With that, I'd like to introduce Michael Ross with Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture to give his presentation and describe the features of the building. Mike? Michael Ross, Ross Drulis Cusenberry Architecture: Good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. You have 10 minutes. Mr. Ross: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here and to be part of a design that is very important... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I realized that Matt introduced you, but could you introduce yourself for the tape? Mr. Ross: I will. Can I have the keyboard? Chair Furth: And it seems a bit silly, but spell the name so that our transcriber gets it clearly. Mr. Ross: My name is Michael Ross, and I'm the project principal at Ross Drulis Cusenbery Architecture. We've been working on this project for quite a while. [Spells name.] Chair Furth: We'll let her take her chances on Cusenbery. Mr. Ross: I believe all those names are on the record. Chair Furth: They are. Mr. Ross: It's a pleasure to present this design. I want to let you know that we took your comments very seriously, and in the simplest sense, they landed. We got it. I believe the revised design that we're going to present this morning substantially addresses many of your comments. First, I'd like to acknowledge the work of other people, and I want to thank the Palo Alto Police Department, the Fire Department, the Office of Emergency Services, the Department of Public Works, the Planning Department, and Nova Partners, for their invaluable feedback, as well as your own, that supported these design changes that I'm presenting today. I'd like to acknowledge my team back in Sonoma. There's a lot of very thoughtful, engaged architects who are working on this, including Mallory Cusenbery, who can't make it today, who is on vacation. Thank you for this opportunity. The revised design addresses many of the ARB's prior comments. The architecture was made softer, more open and warmer in color. The vehicle ramp was relocated from Birch to Jacaranda Lane. Design modifications were added to create a more human scale presence at the street level. The communications tower was integrated into the building design. A warmer materials palate was proposed. The building form was articulated to reduce its prior blocky-ness, and the entry plaza was reduced in size to allow for the introduction of a single-story element, the multipurpose room, allowing it to front Birch Street. A few of your comments we, for a variety of reasons, chose not to incorporate. The screened operational yard remains. That fronts Park. The Police Department considers this to be an operational imperative. Why? Because it includes oversized vehicle parking, bicycle patrol, evidence vehicle garage, emergency generator, and some other specialized police operations functions that benefit from being at ground level. And because of disengaging the multipurpose room from the building form, the plaza became smaller. To remind everyone, this project is composed of three primary elements. The 55,000 square foot site includes approximately a 47,000 square foot Public Safety Building over two levels of parking; the screened operational yard; and the site utility building. Those are the three primary architectural elements and they are settled into a landscape that surrounds and softens the site. The Public Safety Building Site is currently one of two City-owned lots, which together hold 310 exposed surface parking spaces. The site is bounded by a three-story multifamily residences along Park; two-story commercial buildings along California Avenue; the 65-foot- City of Palo Alto Page 4 high county courthouse across the street on Sherman; the recently-approved California Avenue parking garage, which will go out to bid in late August or in September; the new Visa building on Ash, a handsome building in its own right; a new 29,000 square foot office building on Park; and, therefore, the Public Safety Building will become neighbors with and familiar with an evolving context. It's going to become part of a new ensemble of buildings that are emerging out of this neighborhood. This image depicts how the proposed Public Safety Building has been designed to be compatible with this evolving neighborhood. You can see that it settles nicely into the context. It's 50 feet high, lower than the county courthouse, approximate height of the new California Avenue garage. And, it has aspects that relate to the context and heights of the other buildings around it. What's very important to understand in the design is that interlaced into this is the whole concept that this is a standalone, 24/7, survivable building with very specialized needs. The prior design may be over-emphasized, the defensiveness of this, and we've designed this building to be more open, approachable, human scaled and civic, and still meet the specialized needs of the building. This is a view from Birch and Sherman, and we believe the building balances openness with security, utilizing a three-part layering of façade elements. The base forms a full perimeter, continuous pedestrian realm, which is defined by a board-formed terra cotta-colored concrete base with openings, landscape and passive seating elements integrated. Above the building base is a two-story tile-clad precast concrete wall system, which references the building heights along California Avenue. The third-story element is a glass and white porcelain tile façade with interior aluminum air foil louvers for the control of light, privacy and glare. You can see that the building is much more open, it's glassier, and it allows natural light to penetrate deep into the building. If you see the patterning of the interior air foils, which is basically oversized plantation shutters, they mimic and reflect the scrim across the street of the California Avenue garage, the terra cotta that has this horizontal and vertical patterning. But, this has a very important function for the occupants of the building. This is a view down Jacaranda from Birch towards the single-story multipurpose building, which is now on the corner and that reduces the scale and massing of the building, and creates a more harmonious fit, I believe, with the street scape. As you view down Jacaranda, you will see that it's a series of offset concrete walls of the same terra cotta color, and as they're offset, every offset is set with a planter box, so they are softened with plants that will allow the security function to be maintained but, at the same time, provide for a pleasant walking experience as you walk near it. Jacaranda Lane will remain open and lit in the evening with soft lightings that will be mounted on the security walls. This is a view down Birch at a more discreet level. Combine the Public Safety Building and the California Avenue garage, widens the public realm between the two buildings on Birch Street. What you see here are the passive seating low seat walls that are in front of the multipurpose room. What are not shown are skateboard, sort of defensive mechanisms for this bench. It looks too tasty for a skateboarder in this view, but we are aware of that. But, what you see here is because we've widened this realm between the two buildings, it allows us to create a street scape with ample areas of passive seating, canopy street trees, planters, and it provides a pleasant place to walk. It continues. The whole idea that the building is seated actually on top of a concrete lid of this two-story garage belies the point because it's actually seated into a landscaped frame. This landscape frame has multiple functions, is doing a lot of work for the Public Safety Building. It's planters, seating, vehicle security barriers. The wall that you see here, where it says "Public Safety," is actually ten feet high above the planter, so we've deepened the planters to allow for larger trees to be planted because it's very difficult to get the adequate root clearance when you have a garage below it. The Public Safety Building's entry court serves as the foreground to the building's corner entry. The entry is framed by a single-story canopy element. If you remember before, there was a much more monumental entry proposed for the building. The corner entry addresses both Birch and Sherman streets, and upon entering the building, the viewer will be able to see all the way through the building. There's a layering of transparency starting at this point, where you can see through the north, over the top of the California Avenue buildings beyond. This layering of transparency is actually one of the guiding ambitions of the design that you see inside with the light well that is evident from the roof. This canopy datum creates a defining element that is parallel to Sherman and it de-emphasizes views to the upper floors from the sidewalk. This is a diagram of this landscaped frame, which is the pedestrian realm that the building springs from. What's interesting about it, this terra cotta color, which is the board-formed concrete, has a number of vertical inflections, one at the entry, which signals the entry to the building, and two symbolically at the communications tower, which signals and symbolizes the building's connection to the region and the larger communications network, which it is a hub and importantly part of. Carved into this are more discreet City of Palo Alto Page 5 pedestrian-level and pedestrian-scaled elements. This depicts one of them near the public entry. The pedestrian experience is enhanced by these because they provide the passive seating, the overhanging street trees, and landscaped areas. The landscape design, as I said, softens the building's edges. The understory plantings will emphasize the use of native and flowering drought-tolerant plants. Extensive street tree planting will be provided, including the use of alternating London Plane and California Sycamore trees along Sherman, which is similar to what we're planting in front of the Cal Ave garage. Chinese Elms, we planted along Birch, which match the front of the Cal Ave garage trees. A Coast Live Oak or Valley Oak specimen tree will be planted at the corner of Jacaranda and Birch to screen the entry to the garage, and the planting palate has been specifically designed to provide a diverse mix of plant types, leaf textures, sizes and colors. Chair Furth: Excuse me just a second. You've gone over time, but with the permission of the board, we'll... Mr. Ross: I apologize for going over time. Chair Furth: Take what you need. Mr. Ross: Okay. Chair Furth: You're the only agenda item today, and you're a big one. Mr. Ross: A few more minutes and I'll be done, but thank you for the extra time. I appreciate it. I'm not presenting this metaphorically; I'm presenting it as a building. But, metaphorically, we are very thoughtful about this building because there's a lot of relational concepts that guided our design, that we wanted to create a sense of welcoming, which we believe was missing in the prior design. But, at the same time, theoretically - and actually, we had to create a building that was also providing protection to the very important functions that support the police department's mission inside, and we did. And we wanted to create connectivity, and connectivity happens, particularly across the Birch Street realm, where we widened it. There's this vertical and horizontal and plant world connection that happens between the two buildings, and we want to create a diversity of material types and form and articulation and texture, and we believe that the materials that we propose do that. And, we wanted to provide a sense of support in terms of people know that this building exists to provide public safety services to the wider community and the region, and that the building has much more going for it than simply roof, walls, glass and places to park. It is a three-part composition when we start describing materials. The three-part composition in our mind is a mixture of public, the context that it's in, and the mission. Each one of these elements has a material. This is how the materials are provided. The terra cotta-colored board-formed concrete forms the base. The second floor is basically a tile-clad precast concrete element. The third floor is a mixture of ballistic glass and porcelain tile. The ballistic glass, by the way, is bird-protected glass. There are painted steel detailing and acrylic modified plaster soffits and other features. And I have samples of that right here. This is a view from the California Avenue garage. It will be actually across the urban forest that we are planning in between the two buildings and will become softer with the years. The Public Safety Building will be a 24/7 building and the building ante will be softly illuminated, signaling readiness, availability and service to the community at all times. We believe the soft lantern effect will be an important part of the design. Also, you can see how the louvers above, again, reflect the scrim and the patterning on the California Avenue garage across the street. This is a view from the air from across the proposed garage towards the entry on Jacaranda Lane. We believe the building is going to be a good neighbor and compatible with the neighborhood. After many years, and hopefully with your approval, we can get this building underway, to provide public safety services from a new headquarters, from a new building that will last for 75 or more years. Thank you for this opportunity and the extra time to speak. I'm available to answer questions at any time. Chair Furth: Thank you. Before we do that, I should ask, do any of us have conversations that we need to report? Alex? City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Lew: Yes, I do. I had a meeting with the Police Department, Public Works, Planning Department, on November 8, 2017. Chair Furth: Anything that emerged from that meeting that hasn't already emerged on the public record here? Board Member Lew: Yes. I don't believe so. Chair Furth: Okay. And we've all visited the site. Yes, we have all visited the site. Okay. Any questions of the architect? Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Sure, I have a question. Does it mention police anywhere on that building? Mr. Ross: No. It may have on the, next to the door. The signage program will have a directory and who occupies it, but right now, it's titled the Public Safety Building, Palo Alto Public Safety Building. Board Member Gooyer: Why is that? Mr. Ross: Great question. You actually see it because it's a combined services building that includes fire administration, the Office of Emergency Services, and other services. In many of the communities that we're working in right now, that's the preferred terminology. In Palo Alto, it's showing up again. City of San Francisco's new Public Safety Building, police department headquarters, it's the Public Safety Building. That's the name. Board Member Gooyer: The reason I bring it up is that there is a friend of mine from Europe visiting at the moment. His comment was, if I needed the police department, I wouldn't even know where to go. Mr. Ross: Duly noted. Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Is there seating on Park Avenue? I understand there's a landscape frame, but it's a little hard to understand if there's actually seating... Mr. Ross: On Park? Board Member Thompson: ...where the bike path is. Mr. Ross: Right now, on that area, it's heavily landscaped with low seat walls. There's not formal benches, but there is low seat walls that form the vehicle ramming barriers along that boundary. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so it's not formal seating? Mr. Ross: It's not formal seating like I just showed you for Birch. Right now, landscape comes down to a 18-inch-high wall. Board Member Thompson: I have one more question. In this view, I was a little unclear what's happening with the air flow. I understand you said it was trying to relate to the parking garage on the other side, but in the other renders, it looks like it's just a straight grain, and in this render, it's showing these block (inaudible). I kind of want some clarity about what's happening with the louvers here. Mr. Ross: With your permission, I'm going to hand you a piece of the louver. The louvers are mounted like plantation shutters. Whole sections of them move, open and close, and it's a very easy way of doing it. We will be mounting this to allow for individual control of the light in these offices. If you want privacy, you can just move them and they all close, or if you want partial. That's what you see there. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, what are the dark block-outs? Are those people closing --? Mr. Ross: They're partially closing portions of it, so instead of having an eight-foot-high ganged louver, there is being depicted three sets of louvers that could be individually opened and closed. Board Member Thompson: And it's up to the department to decide --? Mr. Ross: It's up to the office user to decide. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so there's no guarantee that this pattern will show up at all. It could potentially all be blank, it could potentially -- Mr. Ross: It will be flexibly reconfigured based on the user within. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Ross: Just like if there was Necro shades or some sort of shade in these offices. One office may want it open; another office may not. It allows the user to modify their work environment. Board Member Thompson: And just to clarify, what's the grade of modification? Is it three tiers up and--? Is it, like, every four feet, and every four feet? Mr. Ross: Every window set will have, between the mullions will have its own independent group of louvers. It's not like 16 feet of louvers all moved at one time. It will be broken up according to the window pattern. Board Member Thompson: And also down and up in the same -- Mr. Ross: Correct. Correct. Board Member Thompson: In three tiers, or--? Mr. Ross: It's being depicted as three tiers right now. What we finally end up with, I know it won't be one. It will probably be two or three. Board Member Thompson: Okay. That helps. Thank you. Mr. Ross: Thank you. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, thank you. I'm sure it's in your drawing set, but if you could explain to me the materials for the fascia of the roof on top, and then, the soffit immediately underneath it. Mr. Ross: The soffit immediately underneath it is going to be the modified acrylic cement plaster. The fascia we are proposing to have clad in either a pre-cast piece that is similar in color to the second-story tile, or the tile itself. I prefer the pre-cast. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, I have one more question. You also have a different soffit and different fascia, as well, right? On the entry? Mr. Ross: Yes. The painted steel, which is in the, there's a dark painted piece of metal in there that Commissioner Furth has right now. That's the color of the painted steel. Single-story element that wraps City of Palo Alto Page 8 from the corner entry parallel to Sherman. On the underside of that, we're proposing to either have a wood material like the Visa building, or the cement plaster. We're open to your feedback on that. Board Member Thompson: All right, thank you. Board Member Lew: Okay, I have a couple questions for you. Is there a provision for lighting the alley? Mr. Ross: Yes. The alley is going to have wall-mounted fixtures up on the eight-foot-high concrete wall that goes down. They are going to be down-lights, night sky compliant fixtures that will illuminate the ground plane. Board Member Lew: Great. I don't think I saw them on the lighting plan but they might be there. Mr. Ross: And that's a good catch. You are correct. The lighting plan did not show those, but it shows a similar fixture, I believe it's E-2. Board Member Lew: Yeah, yeah. I did see those. Thank you for that. I think if I understand the utility plan correctly, there are backflow preventers on Park, in the planters. Mr. Ross: Yes. Board Member Lew: I was wondering, can you actually do that in a raised planter, or do they need to be at grade? Mr. Ross: We're going to have to penetrate our wall system, the garage wall system, in numbers of places, including a very sophisticated telecommunications system, where multiple ducts are going to be going through the walls. The fire sprinkler system also is going to penetrate, and then, it will go up through and be hidden in the landscape. It's one of the, I think, most under-designed infrastructure elements in America, is backflow preventers. Board Member Lew: They are big. Mr. Ross: They're big. Board Member Lew: Really, really big. Mr. Ross: Yes. Chair Furth: They provide truly informal seating. Board Member Lew: On the Park Avenue elevation, is there a large elevation of it? I saw the perspective of the, a perspective, but I didn't really see...I only saw a very, very small elevation on Sheet A-303. Mr. Ross: Yes. Board Member Lew: The perspectives were useful, but I didn't see an enlarged elevation in the set. Mr. Ross: Currently in this design presentation, we didn't include it. Board Member Lew: Okay. Mr. Ross: It's largely the landscape screen back wall of what you see here that wraps around, heavily landscaped in green. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Board Member Lew: Yep. And, the porcelain tile. I was wondering if you had considerations about the size of the tile and the pattern of the tile. I think the perspectives are showing a...What do we call it? Not running bond. Just a grid tile. But, I was wondering...Obviously, you don't have a contractor bidding, you don't have exact materials, but you have a design concept for that. Mr. Ross: I would prefer, actually, a horizontal offset sort of pattern, like oversized subway tiles, basically. I think that would support the design of the building. What you see here, these two larger pieces are indicative of the warmer palate that we're proposing, as compared to the gray before. Also, remember, we're talking about specularity. Well, this is resonate with the tile that's on the large wall across the street, so there is some sort of internal consistency with the design and how we're thinking about the two buildings. Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. That's all the questions I have at this time. Chair Furth: Okay. And we will get to the speaker in just a minute. A member of the public who wishes to speak. Take me through the proposals for signage on the building. I see the one on Park, but I can't believe that's all that would happen. Mr. Ross: Currently, right now, on every side there is going to be a sign, so people understand that this is a place to go. As you can see here, we're proposing on Sherman that Public Safety... Chair Furth: This one is Park. Not Park. This is Sherman. Mr. Ross: Sherman. That's Sherman, and what you see there is... Chair Furth: Oh, I'm sorry, that's Sherman. I was thinking this was...It's the corner. Mr. Ross: It's the corner of Park and Sherman. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Ross: And, so, what we're proposing to do on the corners is to have signage. Not all the signage is indicated. Let's see, if we go back... Chair Furth: For example, where is it going to be on that corner? Ms. French: Can I jump in just for a second? There will be a separate sign program package for this building. Chair Furth: I understand, but... Ms. French: I just want to make sure. Chair Furth: ...it's helpful when you're approving a design to know where the spaces potentially are so that we don't find ourselves unfortunately constrained. Mr. Ross: And right you are. Currently, we're proposing to mount the words "Public Safety" vertically next to the doors, and on the glass will be Palo Alto Police Department, Fire Administration, and other users. There will be a monument sign out on Birch, on the corner that hasn't been shown yet. And then, down Jacaranda, there will be some directional signage because we don't want people to go into the staff garage if they think that there is public parking there. There's going to be more instructive-type signage that happens. But the building will be signed on all sides. And to echo Amy's comment, we will be coming back to you with a formal sign program. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Furth: Thank you. I appreciate that, but sometimes we find that the only space left is space that doesn't do very well. I trust that won't happen here. Could you take me through the seating as we go all the way around the building? I'm not quite clear what passive seating is. Mr. Ross: Well, as compared to picnic tables, where people come, that sort of thing. Passive seating is, there's just an area where you can sit down, enjoy the trees, take a rest before you go across the street to pick up your car, or things like that. The public plaza hasn't been designed for active, you know, pedestrian things. There aren't going to be chess tables there, or things like that. It's basically the fore-court to the Public Safety Building, but there's still areas to sit in the shade and enjoy the world, socialize, and things like that. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Ross: Well, all of the seat walls provide opportunity. You can see right there that there are insets, that low benches have been carved into the planters in places. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Ross: Yes. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Ross: Yes, they are. There are carve-outs into this wall. We couldn't provide -- to go back -- we couldn't provide 100 percent seating along the street without sacrificing root depth. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Ross: I'm just giving you a little overview of the logic behind it. We're proposing to carve into this landscape zone and provide seating in regular areas. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Vice Chair Baltay: Microphone. Chair Furth: Which, of course, also doubles as a skateboard barrier. And then, we go around to Park. Is it the same basic element? Mr. Ross: Park is going to have this same basic element, that there is going to be 18-inch-high seat walls, and if the landscape perimeter is higher than that, it will step down. There will be places to sit, and it will jump back up again. Chair Furth: Okay, so, backs for some of those, or just all bench-style with no back? Mr. Ross: Currently all bench-style. Chair Furth: Okay. And then, on Jacaranda? Mr. Ross: Jacaranda, there are no seat walls until you get up to the corner and by the live oak tree. Jacaranda is too narrow, and I don't think it would be safe. Chair Furth: Thank you. Let's see...In terms of lighting, one of the things we think about, as you say, it's a 24/7 building, and one of the things we think about is spillover to adjacent residential properties. It looks to me like you're far enough away from the housing on Park that not to be an issue. Is that what you concluded? City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Ross: That's exactly what I concluded. The other thing that we took to heart is the utility yard, which is front-facing... Chair Furth: Closer. Mr. Ross: It's closer. We've now screened it with canopies over the top of the oversized vehicle parking areas, and the lights are underneath that, shooting down, so they will be looking on top of basically a mute roof. It will be screened by a series of trees. I really believe that we have addressed the issue of light spillage for the residents. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions before we open this to the public? Thank you. We have a speaker card from Roger Smith. I don't think you need to spell your name for the record, and you have three minutes. Roger Smith: Thank you. I'm Roger Smith. I've lived here for 54 years. First of all, I'd like to say thank you for all of you taking your time and effort and expertise. It's what makes our city so great. I also have three daughters, live here with their families. I was co-founder of Friends of the Palo Alto Parks. In 2006, I attended the Citizens Police Academy, and part of their program, they took us through the police building. At that time, I think there was one person that was arrested, was sitting in a hallway, and it was bad. It was bad building. And I've thought for the last 12 years, how in the world haven't we been sued? It was so inadequate and an embarrassment compared to other communities. I also founded a group called MAM, Mothers Against Murder, so I deal with a lot of the police departments in the area. Anyway, in 2012, I attended a meeting at Escondido school, and I said at that time, please, get the police building done before I die. And I was 71; I'm now 77. Four years ago, I was the main signer on the TOT tax increase, and I spent a fair amount of time, effort and money getting that passed, because we were going to get the police building. And here we are, four years later. Also, which most people don't pay attention to, we have 14 openings in the police department. It is hard to find good police officers either transferring in, or coming out of the academy. If I were an applicant and I came and saw our police building, I wouldn't even think about coming here because it's a reflection, in my mind, of how we view the police and our safety and our community. I have a daughter that lives at 425 Grant, which is near this program. She would be here today; she's supportive of the program. I would encourage you to please, please approve this project as it's presented so I can see it and benefit from it during my lifetime, and my three-year-old granddaughter can benefit from it for the next 74 years. Again, thank you for taking your time. I really appreciate what you all do. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Anybody else? Okay. Anything that staff wishes to say? All good? Ms. French: I think we're good. Chair Furth: All right. Who would like to start? Okay, Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Could I get the architect to put up again the renderings, one of them of the front entry of the building, please? The close-ups of people walking in. Mr. Ross: Sure. [Finding requested rendering] Vice Chair Baltay: That one is great. Bravo. I think you've really got a civic entrance to a civic building. I know I was critical in the past, but to me, this is good. Mr. Ross: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: This is a good design, it captures the feeling of a civic building. It's serious, it's important. It's also a new design. It’s not copying the past. Hats off to you guys. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mr. Ross: Thank you very much. Vice Chair Baltay: Looking at the building in greater detail, my biggest concern really has to do with the choice of materials, and I think it's not really quite as defined yet in the plan set. I'll put out some of my ideas or thoughts and we'll see what the rest of the board thinks. I think it was Alex who mentioned the shape of the porcelain tiles that make up the base is important, as is the patterning of the expansion joints, or whatever you're showing in this rendering. It's just not specified at all, and I certainly would like to understand more how that's going to work. I am concerned about the terra cotta-colored board-formed concrete. I'm wondering if you couldn't get some kind of a brick material or a tile material. There's a little bit more texture to it. Somehow the concrete, especially on the back where the communication tower is, that's a very tall piece of concrete. I understand that the color makes it feel warmer and the board-forming is more attractive, but it's still a large piece of concrete. I have some reservation about that. The color of the fascia of the roof, which I asked about earlier, I think could be more of a contrast to the rest of the building. Maybe you could consider that again. It seemed to me that you guys hadn't quite fully resolved in your own minds what the design should be. And then, when I look at -- Perhaps you could change to the elevation along Sherman Street, of the building. My drawing 3.02. Mr. Ross: This drawing? Vice Chair Baltay: No, no, keeping going on, please. The overall elevation of the building. [Finding requested rendering] Vice Chair Baltay: As I've been looking at this, I'm feeling that the proportions aren't quite right for the banding. I don't want to tell you a design difference but, to me, if you were to somehow reduce the height of the upper band, the glazed portion, maybe by raising the terra cotta piece somewhat so it's not right at the floor. Or, lowering the roof soffit a little bit. Maybe it's not quite integrated into the structure the way you have. But, to me, the proportions are about 50/50 on the second and third piece of the building, and it's, to my eye, just a little bit awkward. I'd like to see the glass portion be a little thinner. And you might also, once the terra cotta gets bigger, I had sketched on my drawing a series of punched window openings on the right-hand portion of the middle chunk of the façade. Behind that, I believe you have, it must be a locker room or a bathroom, but if you could have small punched window openings even high in those spaces, I have to believe that policemen would appreciate having a little bit of natural light in those rooms, and they could be quite secure, being high up and small. I think that would be a little bit helpful to the overall massing of the building. My last comment has to do, not so much with anything you can do, but we've chosen to put a police station in a busy downtown area. The result is that we have, along Park Avenue and half of Sherman, at least, a 14-foot-tall façade of building with no windows or no activity that normally relates to the public. I agree that your landscaping is thoughtfully done. I think the benches are a great amenity. I lament the fact that we don't have a storefront there, or an office, or something that is people going in and out. I understand that the needs of the police department preclude that from happening. I find it unfortunate. Thank you. Mr. Ross: Thank you. Chair Furth: Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I'm having a hard time with this building. The whole concept, I guess, with the thing about saying "police" and everything else, is that you were trying to make it a little bit friendlier, inviting, that sort of thing. And yet, the plaza is completely sterile. I mean, I understand Wynne’s concept about seating. It's like, I'm sorry, but to me, a planter wall is not seating. I'd like to see in that entryway some benches, or whatever, and they could...I don't know. They could be concrete benches, or something that actually looks like a place that's designated to sit on, not just park your butt on a planter. And that's the same thing all the way around the building. It seems like you're fighting yourself as to what do you really want. You want this building to be standoffish, where it's protection, that sort of thing? Then you'd have it the way you have it now. But I thought the concept was, what I've City of Palo Alto Page 13 heard in the past, is to try and make it more inviting. That's why you have a plaza in the first place, is to bring people in there. The whole idea about, I think it would be an ideal situation for a community, you know, enrichment. If you want to have your lunch in front of the police station, or something, in the sunshine, in a plaza, this isn't inviting to do that. Along with that, it's the same concept of, as you said, the board-formed concrete, I agree with Peter, is that that's got to go. I mean, that's about as institutional and stay-away-from-me, don't-touch-it; it has a rough finish on it. Brick or something else, I definitely agree needs to be...I understand you want a hard, you know, easy-to-maintain surface, but not this. It's just really standoffish. Again, it's that whole concept of why I'm having trouble with that. Thirdly, from just a design/volumetric standpoint, you know, the term "undulation" has been brought up quite a few times. To me, this looks like a shoebox. You know, there's a couple of small ins-and-outs, but very, very little. Now, I understand the functionality of it, and you have a certain amount of...You're limited as to what you can do on the inside. But, I would have liked to see some pop-outs or something that makes a little bit...Which is what you have in your very first design. You had some undulating surfaces, where you changed surfaces based on the pop-out, not so much just a straight band. And then, it's been bothering me also - and I hadn't thought about it until Peter mentioned it - the fact that the perfect 50/50 balance on that, I agree, is awkward. I agree that, I think maybe the middle band should be larger and go up, and just...Even if the windows get smaller. That really isn't going to change the function on the inside. Instead of a window going all the way down to the floor, which is probably not a bad thing if you're going to have desks, or whatever, in there anyway, if that comes up, say three feet, and the window just starts there and goes up to the ceiling of the other one, I think that would help a great deal. Like I said, it's come a long way since the last time. It really has. And I appreciate that, and I can understand the things you didn't want to change, why you didn't. I mean, the service yard sort of thing has to be there, no matter what. That's just a reality of life. I don't have a problem with that. Like I said, there are some things here that with fairly minimal changes, I think could go a long way. I'll leave it at that for right now. Mr. Ross: Thank you for your comments. Board Member Thompson: Hi, there. Mr. Ross: Hi. Board Member Thompson: This was my first time looking at this project. I don't have the benefit the other board members do, of seeing what it used to look like, even though I did see a glimpse in your presentation. I will start in saying that there are things that I agree and disagree with, with what my board members are saying. My fellow board members have been saying. For me, you know, the words that you wrote in your analysis sounded really great, but they don't really match your design. I saw that you were attempting to reduce blockiness. It's still very, very blocky. I saw that you were trying to add more human scale. I don't see really anything that's actually done that. You know, for the board-formed concrete, I actually don't mind it. I think it's pretty creative. And I also disagree that the middle band should get bigger. In my opinion, the middle band is the thing that is creating the wall that is making this such a box, and I think that's really where you need to focus your energy on in terms of making this a more welcoming place. If you look at the context, the building across the street, across Sherman, has a wall that's similar to this. I don't know if you know what I'm talking about. Mr. Ross: The Visa building? Board Member Thompson: It's the one that's on the diagonal. Chair Furth: Courthouse. Mr. Ross: Courthouse. Board Member Thompson: Okay, yeah. It's similar because it does have similar color, but there is still a design, and there's still pattern in that wall, and I don't see that. And I think, just thinking about, you City of Palo Alto Page 14 know, you have this parking garage on the other side that is doing this really interesting...I don't know if you've seen their wall that has all of these different tiles. They're doing something really exciting on that side, and your band in the middle has a lot of opportunity for that, but it's not doing that. In fact, it's sort of...I don't know. It's probably the part of this building that I struggle with the most because it's yearning for something more, but it's still just this flat wall that makes it really uninviting, very blocky, not human scale at all. And then, in terms of the air foil louvers above, I think it's a little optimistic to think that, with that level of detail in terms of operability, I can't even imagine myself trying to operate that on a day-to-day level. I would recommend maybe thinking about relating to the garage on the other side, making something that's a bit more fixed so that you actually have the lantern that you want at nighttime, instead of probably...It might be nothing at all times. I think that's a design opportunity that has the opportunity to be really interesting, but I think the way that it's designed right now, it can't achieve that in any way. In terms of the public plaza, I saw in previous meeting minutes there was a lot of conversation about the plaza, so I don't necessarily want to put too much emphasis. But, on first glance, the plaza is barely a plaza. It's very small. I agree with Robert that there isn't much design in terms of creating more community there. I also take a big issue that there isn't a lot of public amenity on Park, and given that I'm a bicyclist, given that I take the Cal Train there, there is a lot of street activity on that side, and I think there should be something that relates to human scale, whether it is just a more...something that's treated differently in the planting frame that you've designed. Which I like. The planting frame is really nice. I think I hit everything I want to say. Oh, yeah. Undulation. There is a lot of opportunity to do that, not just in the material choices, but I think even in the massing that...You know, the roof line is a really hard, hard line, but I think I would encourage you to explore that a little bit more. I don't want to be too prescriptive in encouraging you to, you know, change your roofline at a diagonal, or something. You have a lot of good context there. I think that does a lot of undulation. There's that building on Birch, you know, that has the arched windows, and there's just a lot of work off of. I felt like that middle, that middle band is supposed to be of context, and I don't think it's doing that right now. Mr. Ross: Can I respond just briefly, just to...? As a point of clarification, the middle band is actually referencing the height of the California Avenue. We set the top of that wall to be similar to the heights of the buildings that are just to the north of it. All the Cal Ave buildings are much lower. And the articulation that was talking about, the different levels don't stack up. It's not flush. They are offset, so you're getting articulation that way, as well as the difference in the material types along the band. And to your point, the middle section can be more textured and things like that, but the current design is just proposing something quiet, which at times is architectural in its own right. But, thank you for your comments. Chair Furth: Let's finish our comments and then we'll... Mr. Ross: Certainly. Chair Furth: ...have some discussion and have some more opportunity for you to respond. Osma, more? Board Member Thompson: Just really quick, to that point. In terms of representation of your design, I think there are a lot of things that aren't clear, like that. If those are points that you want us to see, it would be really great to illustrate that, and maybe also to find someone else to render your drawings. Because I think there's a little difficulty in seeing exactly what you guys want in terms of what you're trying to achieve. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Okay. Well, I am closer to recommending approval of the project than my other Board members. I think that the revisions were well thought out, particularly that corner entrance and the staff driveway garage entrance. I think those were really, really critical improvements that you've made. Overall, I just want to say, I do have reservations about putting the Public Safety Building here, right near all of the businesses. In the future, thinking ahead, to me, it would be better to have other, like, more mixed-use building here. I do agree that this is...The location is great because it's right in the middle of town. That makes sense. The things that I'm looking for in this that I think could make the City of Palo Alto Page 15 project better is, one is the, is more information on the materials. I think we've talked about it before on tile patterns, tile size. I'm more supportive of the board-formed concrete, but I’m open to a change if the other Board members think it would be better to have a different material. On the 10-foot wall along Jacaranda, I was wondering if you would consider, where there is the pedestrian access, pedestrian walk from California Avenue, if there's some sort of terminus there. If it's a gate, or maybe if you shift the recesses that you have, just so that there's something, as you look down there, that there's something that draws your eye down the walk, to terminate the walkway. On the entry canopy soffit, I think you were looking at, you were showing drawing wood, and then I think you mentioned that it could be plaster, as well. I just want to question you, like, we have, we have the Walgreen's building here on University Avenue, which has a simulated wood stain. Mr. Ross: Like Chastain, that...? Yeah. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think that particular one might be the minimum metal. Anyway, some of them look better than others, so I would just recommend that it maybe come back to the Board. I'm supportive of, if you're trying to get a wood aesthetic, I'm supportive of that. I just caution you that we've had building code issues with those, that they do need to be fire, I think they have to be fire rated. On the landscape plan, I think you're showing Japanese Maples along Jacaranda, inside the wall, and I think you're also showing them along Birch... Mr. Ross: Chinese Elm, yeah... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: Chinese Elms, and then, the Japanese Maples. And I would want more information on that. A Japanese Maple could be a little five-foot accent tree, or it could be a 15- or 20-foot tree that can be green, or it can be red, or burgundy. My concern is that we're removing all the existing trees on Birch, so it's going to be full sun, and that tree is usually more like, likes to be sort of under the canopy of an existing tree. Mr. Ross: Okay. Board Member Lew: I'm a little concerned that they may not do well there. On findings, if we were going to get that far today, I think I have some comments for Finding #4, where I think we could add that the sidewalk is being added along the Jacaranda alley, and that wider sidewalks are being added on Park and Birch. And, under Finding #6, Unsustainable Design, I think I might add that the...You have concrete construction for the building? Mr. Ross: Yes. Board Member Lew: The concrete construction provides thermal mass? Mr. Ross: Yes. Board Member Lew: And the courtyard design would provide daylight to the middle of the building. That was really important. Just lighting a building is actually the biggest energy use in a building like this, especially if it's occupied all the time, every day. And then, to respond to some of the comments made by other Board members, I think I'm okay with...I had the same reaction to the second floor/third floor proportions, but I'm not, it's not a critical concern for me because you have that canopy between the first and second floor. We react to it because we're seeing it on these oblique overheard aerials, but I think the reality is, if you're just walking down the street, the canopy is what you're going to see. The trees that are proposed there are Sycamores, which grow really quickly, and they are going to block out any view of the second and third floor very quickly. I mean, they replanted (inaudible) and Mountain View with Sycamores and they are huge after just, like, three years. I mean, it's amazing how quickly they grow. I'm not concerned about that at all. But, I did have that reaction, too, I think, with Peter, with just City of Palo Alto Page 16 window patterns and tile patterns. I think, in my mind, it's approvable today, but as I look at it, I think that there's one more step you could take to make the building even better. That's where I'm at on the materials and the window pattern. I think I would echo Peter's comments about fascia's and all of that. I had the same reaction. It's approval, but just a little tweaking could make it really stand out. Mr. Ross: Thank you for your comments. Chair Furth: Okay. You should feel free to sit if you'd like. Mr. Ross: Okay. Chair Furth: Or stand. Whatever. I would say it was a great pleasure to see the revisions. Some of the things that particularly, I think, made this a better project was the preservation and strengthening of the alley grid down there, so that Jacaranda becomes a much more useful, attractive alley for its usual purposes, and the relocation of the garage entry that went with that. That was such a problem before and I think that your solution is very creative and accomplishes a lot of what our goals are here. I do have a question for staff. One of the major uses of the alley presently is trash bins. If we continue this, I would like to know what we're going to do to get them out of that space, so that this functions as designed. I like the community room location. And, I'm sorry, I did have a question for you. What's the floor level of the community room as compared to the plaza? Is it higher? Lower? Mr. Ross: Essentially the same. Chair Furth: Okay, thanks. I think it's important for that community room to advertise its presence and its use, and one of the things in the many revisions of City Hall I've seen in the last 20 years, I think the conversion of the former HR department to a meeting room that, basically it's a glass box, really enlivens that space and really makes it work, both for the people within in and the people outside it. I would be in favor of optimizing the visibility of that community room consistent with your other goals of a secure building. And I couldn't quite tell from the drawings and elevations how that presently works, but I think that should be optimized, and I actually think that that should be signed as something, so people can find it. I mean, it's a great amenity to be delivering. Let's see. I like the landscaping frame, and I like the fact that if you're going to use louvers, they're split so that you can use them in different ways. When I looked at this, I was puzzled as to why the third level was so tall. It looked oversized to me because I read it wrong. I didn't understand that the windows came down to floor level. And windows coming down to floor level in an office use, in our experience, create problems, whether it's the good view of the wastebasket, or the fact that it's difficult to put furniture against them. I'm puzzled by that decision. And I don't have an opinion of what would make the best balance of the banding, but that did...I kept thinking of this for very, very tall people. I went over and looked at the site again this morning, and I tend to look at these things at 6:30, but I was looking at them later today, with different light. This building orients towards the courthouse and Page Mill, not California. Basically, we're creating a civic center in our secondary downtown, an historically separate city or town. Mayfield. And it used to be that the courthouse was just plunked down there, and with budget constraints and security hardening, it's become ever less attractive. One of the things that this building and the garage will do is give it more sympathetic context to its height. It does have decorative elements, which I never even noticed. All the way down Birch, people use vertical rectangles as design elements, for fenestration, and also, that's what makes the decorative element on the courthouse building. And it makes me realize that the middle tier, to me, is in need of some kind of relief, and some kind of element that makes it more interesting in terms of light and shadow. I'm glad that you're introducing seating. I think it's great that you're introducing it into landscaped spaces that tuck off a sidewalk. I mean, you can imagine that there actually is a place where two people with strollers to sit and talk, which I think is an important issue this close. I do think it needs to be clear that these are places for sitting, not just for perching, and that we're inviting and urging people to come sit and be there. I am interested in... I mean, I'm deeply affected by earlier exposure to White's essays on urban spaces, so I want to know, where is the shade? Where are the pedestrians going to go? Where am I going to sit, where I'm going to talk, walking in and out? You know, standing there with my...People don't stand there with briefcases anymore, but my backpack, and chat City of Palo Alto Page 17 with somebody. Where is it if I want to sit down and talk a little bit longer? I just want it to be clearer that it's comfortable, that it's welcoming, and that we're not afraid of people. Of course, we're afraid of some people, and after an earthquake and other times of great difficulty, this building needs to stand and be solid and function. But, it can do both. It's been interesting, the long struggles we've had with this plaza, which original we know was, went through many changes in the 60's. I think we need more detail on materials. We would not approve a building under ordinary circumstances without much more specificity. And the same with landscaping. And on the landscaping, of course, we're looking for something...Your illustrations include a butterfly. We're looking for pollinator-attracting plants. And I think the presence of flowering plants is going to be important. Some of the buildings in the city have what I think of as industrial landscaping, which is not very interesting. It's sort of the much, much later equivalent of oleanders down the freeway. Lovely plants, but maybe not the best use. So, when we do get a more detailed landscaping plan - and I think we need one - I'd like to be sure that there are things that smell good, there are things that bloom, there are things that are, it's pleasant to be near, and of course, they are things that the City can still maintain. I mean, my neighborhood has benefitted tremendously from upgraded traffic circles. You're shaking your head. Mr. Ross: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Well, it's part of the budget. And for some reason, we found budget to maintain our hideous traffic circles after years of not doing it. And if we can't maintain it, then we need to talk about that. But, there are...These are your thoughts, and we'll see what happens when we come back. I tend to look at these buildings very much as an experience to walk by, and to work in, and it seems to me that you've accomplished a lot for the people who will work in it. I like your entry, and I think we're close to having something where, if I’m walking, I'll think, "Oh, great, now I get to walk this block. This is an attractive block to be in." I had a question for staff. What about public art? Mr. Raschke: Peter Wegner was selected as the public artist. He's held a community meeting in the Cal Ave area to gather information. He's met with the stakeholders in the building, the police department, fire department, office of emergency services, and currently, I believe he's weighing all that and looking at the design. It's still going to be evolving, I take it, from today, to come up with an appropriate art piece. Chair Furth: And what sort of work does Mr. Wegner do? Mr. Raschke: Some of his most nearby pieces are in the night school of business. A combination of things. One that I really admire is titled Monument to Change as it Changes. If you haven't seen it, I would encourage you to go over to Stanford and take a look. It's a, kind of reminiscent of an old train station flip board, the way that the train schedule would flip down, but instead of words, it's colors and patterns that change. I think right now it's set up to about an 8-hour cycle of fascinating changes and cascades. Also in that complex he has a landscape piece that represents, like, the variables in economics. The bench seating in the courtyard is, like, X's and Y's. You really don't notice it so much from the ground level, but the users in the buildings can look down upon it and see these shapes. And then, one other piece in that campus, the night school of business, is another electronic piece that is, just flashes, like, adverbs. And I don't recall the name of it, but there are three really great pieces there. He's done a lot of major installations. Chair Furth: These would mostly be freestanding or attached to the wall? Mr. Raschke: Two of those are attached to the wall and the one is on the ground. Chair Furth: But we don't know yet what his thought would be here. Mr. Raschke: We don't have any idea what he's going to come up with, but he's very thoughtful and very contextual. I think he's a great artist for this project. We're just waiting to see what he comes up with. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Furth: Thank you. Oh, I would like to know more about, not the sign program itself, but where the signage is likely to go, so we understand those possibilities. I think I have an answer to my questions about light spillage. I think that's it. This is not a critical path holdup towards this building - this Board - because we have a big construction project to be completed. But, that doesn't mean that there isn't a sense of urgency about this. From my point of view, I think we need more specificity on materials, we need more specificity on landscaping, including seating. I am interested in knowing how much bicycle parking there is, and where it is. I see it in the drawings; I should have looked more carefully, but I will concentrate on that. Because I think we typically under-park things. It seems to me we need to continue this, but I would like to know what my colleagues think. Vice Chair Baltay: Can I follow up, Wynne, on something? Chair Furth: Mm-hmm. Vice Chair Baltay: I wonder if I could get the architect to come up with, put detail drawing 6.02. That's the cross-section of the building on the front. I'd like to follow up and sort of react to some of the comments from my fellow Board members. Next detail than that one - 6.02. Mr. Ross: I don't have the entire set. I don't believe I have that. I just have the summary. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, well... Mr. Ross: I have this one. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Chair Furth: Can Amy put it up? Vice Chair Baltay: I'll refer to my colleagues, then, to look at detail 6.02. The point I'd like to make is that what I'm seeing is the third-floor glazed band is set almost exactly flush with the beige tile below it, and it strikes me as an opportunity to create a window sill at the top of the base tile and recess the glass back from that and create then some more texture to the top of the building. You could put that glass in and out, perhaps, as Osma was asking for. You might consider taking the louvers and putting them on the exterior of the building and fixing them at an angle that you'd like for the architectural purposes. You might be able to take the roof fascia and lower it down to be even within the concrete structural beam, to help with the overall height of the building. It seems to me that that sectional detail cries a lot about, just a little more refinement to how the second and third levels are interacting. That would, I think, go a long way towards some of the comments we've made. I don't want to prescriptively design what to do, but that struck me when I noticed that the glass was flush with the tile below it, that that only enhances the boxiness. Thank you. Chair Furth: Is there a skateboarder on section, illustration 6.02? Mr. Ross: It is. Chair Furth: I see. Glad to know they are welcome. My personal sense is that I would like you to know how pleased I am at the direction in which this building is moving, and we are not, generally speaking, telling you to start all over again. This is a building that's going to make it. But it does... Board Member Gooyer: I like the way you look at me when you say "start over again." Chair Furth: I could look otherwise. I was just referring to the fact you're having a difficult time with this building, and appreciate your memory for the earlier design. Listening to you all, it seems to me we're talking about continuing this to a date certain or uncertain, depending on the applicant's desire, for more details on materials, for more details on landscape. I will tell you, I'm puzzled by your vine selections, but City of Palo Alto Page 19 that doesn't mean they're not great. I just don't understand them. I never thought of potato vine as really adequate for a building of this scale and weight. That there are additional comments from some of us that the middle band along - always forget the name of the street - Sherman is too much, with too little interest. We want to be sure that it's good pedestrian amenities along Park, but we've never really seen that frontage head on. I'd like to know about signage location. What else would you all think we needed to think about, ask the applicant to think about? Board Member Thompson: I'd like to see more steps made towards the previous direction that we gave, in reducing blockiness and increasing pedestrian amenity, like, pedestrian, human scale elements. And that's not just at the base of the building, but that's throughout the entire building. Because as much as it might be that the Sycamores will grow, you know, anything could happen, at any time, and this building needs to stand even without its landscape and still look good, despite it. Board Member Gooyer: And I think, I still think that, we've talked about the undulation, and I heard your comment about, well, it does, you know, a couple of inches one way or another is not undulation, as far as I'm concerned. And, you know, I'm well aware that, obviously, you need a certain criteria, but popping something out, you're not going over a property line, or anything else. You can do some undulating and still fit all the requirements that you need. I do like the idea of possibly, maybe on one of the facades, the louvers go on the outside. These things are awfully massive to be on the interior anyway. I mean, if you're using them just for, you're saying it's ballistic glass, so it's not really for a safety issue, but something like that on the interior, I could see what's going to happen. Somewhere along the line of some cost-cutting, somebody's going to go, you know, we could put some venetian blinds in there that will also take the light out and not have this. I'm not saying that's going to happen. All I'm saying is that there are some variations that can happen to get the boxiness out of there. And, just as another item, I see the four police officers in the back, obviously going, oh, my God, we wanted to get this thing approved today. But, we're also looking at this, this is a building that's going to be around for 50 to 75 years, probably, and taking the time now to get it to what we feel is the best possible, I think will be a benefit in the long run. I've gone through this in another community where we went through all this, and now, the police chief thanks the board for having taken the time and the effort to make sure that we got the most and the best quality design that was available. Like I said, I think it's jumped a tremendous amount since the last time. I think it's well on its way. I'd like to have you fine-tune it to where, you know, I think it becomes much more a better finished product. As to your comment about relating to the adjacent buildings, I could see if there was a building that abutted it, then you could say I'm trying to relate that band to that. But, if something across the street, I think the average person is going to look at the building and see it as an entity, rather than, oh, yes, I could understand where you were trying to relate to the building across the street. Board Member Lew: Just for the record, I could recommend approving the project today, with things coming back to the subcommittee. The things that you listed, to me, are, I think, relatively...What do I want to call it? They're easily... Chair Furth: Superficial. Board Member Lew: They can be addressed and still move forward. Chair Furth: They're not about the core. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: And I guess, I don't know if others agree with me that there's a value in -- to the maximum extent possible -- signaling the presence and use of the community room, so that you can see when it's occupied. I mean, if there are people meeting there, doing civic engagement, you can see that when you walk or drive by. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Thompson: I would agree with that. I think right now, the way the images have rendered it, I wouldn't have known that there was a community space there. I think to give that presence, and also just to continue more street activity. Chair Furth: And I always find it...You know, we have wonderful community rooms, great ones in the Rinconada Library that are quite isolated in the courtyard. But, I find it exciting to see people sitting, talking. It's a really thrilling part of civic life, so, to the extent that's visible, I love it. And if it's impossible, I understand. But, if it's an option, I think it would be a great gift to the community. Materials details, landscape details, livelier and engaging plaza, which I think is a sort of under-developed rather than... You don't have a different vision. Clear signaling of the presence of the community room, and then, you've heard concerns that something that's not quite right or engaging enough about the upper two levels, but not everybody agrees with that. My feeling on that is that it could change and I would not be distressed, and it would be good to have some additional interest on that long wall along Sherman. I realize that one of the things I like about the building so much as you've revised it is it is much more suitable to the location. It is much more...One of the things I like about the Mayfield development is that it's light, somehow. A lot of those buildings float. And then, we have the poor courthouse, which I may be unhappy about because of unhappy times spent there, on jury duty. A little more playfulness would be okay. And perhaps we'll get that from the public art. Board Member Thompson: I think I'll also add, even if you can't add another plaza on Park side, but just to detail Park Avenue to accommodate more pedestrian activity, make that more pedestrian friendly. Chair Furth: By pedestrian activity, you're thinking...? Board Member Thompson: I mean, at the moment, it's really hard to see where, if there are any benches on that side. Even if it's not just a bench, but maybe there could be, I don't know, some kind of cove, or some kind of thing that makes it part of the pedestrian scale, instead of just a wall. Chair Furth: I've always [crosstalk] ... Board Member Lew: They've widened the sidewalk, and their bump-out - what do you call it? There are coves, right? There are two or three. Board Member Thompson: It's just not very clear because those look like drive aisles. I don't know if they are. Chair Furth: Clearly, we're not understanding it. Board Member Lew: Are you making a motion? Chair Furth: Unless somebody else would like to. If we continue this, do you want it to be to a date certain or an undetermined date? Ms. French: September 20th would give enough time, I think, for all concerned. MOTION Chair Furth: Then I move that we continue this matter until September 20th. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that motion. Chair Furth: All those in favor? Opposed? None. Thank you very much. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: I trust...Actually, I trust you don’t feel too discouraged by this. I found this all very encouraging. This isn't the level detail of materials or landscaping that we would ordinarily approve on a private project, and they're going to be important, and we look forward to seeing your revisions. Board Member Thompson: I think also, a really quick note, that the garage on the other side, they kind of took this opportunity to make part of it really special, and I would just encourage you that, you know, with all the notes that we've made, don't be afraid to make something really, really special with all that, as well. Mr. Ross: Thank you, and we are the design architects for that garage. Board Member Thompson: Great. You got this. Chair Furth: They know how to do it. And that went through three iterations also. Before we all declared victory. Which we did. Study Session Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: We have two sets of minutes, June 7th and June 21st. Any comments or corrections on June 7th? Alex? Board Member Lew: Okay, on page 22 of the minutes... Chair Furth: Hang on. Board Member Lew: ...it's - this is really minor - it's the, the transcriber spelled out parti phonetically. [Gives correct spelling]. It's a French word. Chair Furth: Yes, it is. Yes, yes, yes, I saw that, too. Anything else? Board Member Lew: Can we vote on the minutes separately? Chair Furth: Sure. Board Member Lew: Because I’m going to abstain from June 21st. MOTION Chair Furth: Motion to...May I have a motion...? Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we approve the minutes from the meeting of June 7th. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Gooyer: I'll second. Chair Furth: Motion by Baltay, second by Gooyer. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Approved unanimously. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Chair Furth: What about the minutes of June 21st? City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Thompson: Could I abstain from that, as well? Because I also wasn't there. Chair Furth: All right, so there are only three of us. Any comments or corrections? Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we approve the minute from the meeting of June 21st. Board Member Gooyer: I'll second. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? All those abstaining. Board Member Thompson: Me. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Okay. Abstentions, yes. The abstainers are Lew and Thompson. Okay. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0-2. Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: Any subcommittee items? Ms. French: None. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Any Board member questions, comments or announcements? Alex. Board Member Lew: I have two. If you guys paid attention to the Council meeting, they made a big change on Monday with regard to the office cap. Also, I have a comment on the North Ventura plan. The start date has been pushed back from September to October. Chair Furth: Okay. That's sort of become a ritual. And the change in the Comprehensive Plan cap, take us through that, Alex. Board Member Lew: I'm not going to. Chair Furth: All right, but they reduced... Board Member Lew: There was a citizens initiative... Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: ...to change the comp plan and to have the office cap. In R&D. To include the entire city, whereas before it had excluded things like the Research Park, and some of the areas. It was really focused more on the downtown cores. And then, the cap was reduced, the previous cap was reduced back down to our, is it 50,000 square feet per year? Ms. French: I'll jump in here because there are several different caps, right? There's the 50,000-annual limit of office and R&D. There's the citywide cap that the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in November of last year, continued on that 1.7 million for the entire city and not specific to certain areas. Chair Furth: That's 1.7 total, or additional? City of Palo Alto Page 23 Ms. French: Total until 2030. That was the thing that happened on Monday night. There was the choice between going to the ballot and letting the voters decide, or, the Council adopting an ordinance that put it into place immediately, without the need for second reading. The 850,000 square feet cap for the entire city until 2030. That is what happened. They adopted it as an ordinance at the meeting on a 5-4 vote. Chair Furth: And what is the City's present office space inventory? I'm just wondering, how much additional office space is that? Ms. French: Backing out the numbers of pending and approved, it's more like 605,000 square feet left until 2030, of office and R&D space. Because we have pending, you know, approved and pending in the pipeline projects, that we're kind of backing out of that to see what amount is really left over. Now, on another note, Wednesday night, last Wednesday night with the Planning Commission, there was a vote to reject a staff-proposed ordinance that had responded to Council direction back in January of last year with respect to removing the cap downtown. So, the rejection was of an ordinance that said let's remove the cap, because now it's a citywide cap. Well, the cap is still on the books for downtown. They have about 25,000 square feet. And that's commercial cap, not just office and R&D. It includes retail, hotel, all those things. Chair Furth: I'm sure we'll understand it eventually. Vice Chair Baltay: And to be clear, the new cap, which averages about 50,000 square feet per year, includes the Stanford development, the research area by Page Mill... Ms. French: Correct. The citywide cap, as well. Vice Chair Baltay: That's going to be a significant change. Ms. French: Stanford Research Park. Chair Furth: That's like a building, right? I mean, we're getting buildings close to 40,000, aren't we? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: And it's an acre... Vice Chair Baltay: It's basically one... Chair Furth: It's a commercial acre. Vice Chair Baltay: ...one new building like that a year... [crosstalk] Ms. French: Yeah, if you're having larger... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Except to the extent they are replacing existing square footage. It's the increment that we're talking about. Is that right? Or is it...? Is it incremental or total? Ms. French: It's both. If there's a conversion from not office R&D to office R&D, that counts. If there's a new space created for ops and R&D, you'd probably say that counts. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Furth: If I have a 30,000 square foot building - this isn't hypothetical, this is true - and I want to replace it with a 45,000 square foot building, is it...? We only count the 15,000 towards this new cap? Ms. French: Yes. Chair Furth: This is about increase, not about total inventory. Ms. French: Increase. Chair Furth: Okay. Got it. This may change the workload of this Board. The work opportunity of this Board. Anything else? Board Member Lew: We want housing projects. Chair Furth: Yeah. Bring on the housing. Okay, I think that's it for today. Anything else for you? We're all done? Thank you, all. Bye-bye. Ms. French: Thank you. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and Robert Gooyer. Absent: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, I call to order this meeting of the Architectural Review Board. Roll call, please. [Roll Call] Oral Communications Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, next item is oral communications for any member of the public who would like to address something that is not on the agenda. Having no speaker cards, we'll move on to the next item. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Vice Chair Baltay: Agenda changes, additions or deletions. I would like for us to postpone the review of the Board minutes because I want to wait until we have a full board, and I don't think we've received the minutes yet anyway. And then, I would like to announce that I will be recusing myself from 429 University and Alex Lew will take over as Chair at that point. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Vice Chair Baltay: Do we have any questions or concerns? Then moving right along. Study Session 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 PC2698 for Lytton Gardens II (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org.. Vice Chair Baltay: We're going to address study session item 656 and 649 Lytton Avenue, request for preliminary architectural review of proposed revisions to the façade of an existing multifamily affordable senior housing facility and other minor site revisions. Environmental assessment is that this is not a ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: August 16, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 project. The formal application will be subject to California Environmental Quality Act review. Staff report, please. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning, Board members. The project before you today is a project at 649 and 656 Lytton Avenue. The site consists of four parcels with two existing structures, Lytton Gardens I and Lytton Gardens II, which are both planned communities with senior affordable housing. A quick overview of the project. The application before you today is a preliminary architectural review application to assess modifications to the existing Lytton Gardens I and Lytton Gardens II facilities. I'll provide a little bit more detail about these in a moment, but generally, the modifications include changes to the material on both buildings from wood shingles to fiber cement board; through wall heating and air conditioning units in Lytton Gardens I facilities or units; parking modifications; minor landscape modifications; and some exterior lighting. The existing material is a wood shingle. The applicant notes that for maintenance, combustibility and durability reasons, they are proposing to replace the existing wood siding with fiber cement lap siding. The materials board that is in front of you includes a sample of the new materials proposed. At the Lytton Gardens I facility, the applicant is proposing new packaged terminal through-wall air conditioning/heating units, and the units on the outside would be painted to match on which it's located. In the below-grade parking garage at Lytton Gardens I, the parking would be modified to create three new ADA compliant spaces from five existing standard spaces. This would result in two fewer spaces than currently exist. At grade, they would remove two existing non-compliant ADA parking spaces that block a portion of the drop-off/pick-up zone. Landscape and lighting modifications, they would generally revise the walkway configuration and add benches and bicycle parking at the corner of, I think it's University and Middlefield. Some of the exterior lighting would also be replaced. Some key considerations for you guys today: Your thoughts on the proposed material changes and material quality; consistency with the Downtown Design Guidelines; and thoughts on the parking modifications. We ask that Board members provide initial feedback to the applicant. No formal recommendation is needed at this time. And, following the hearing, the applicant may elect to file a formal application for architectural review. Thank you so much. Vice Chair Baltay: Do we have the applicant here? Good morning. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. You have 10 minutes. Glenn Wood, SGPA Architects: Good morning. My name is Glenn Wood. [spells name]. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Wood: Good morning, Board members. I'm here to represent the applicant for the Lytton Gardens project, which consists of two buildings, a larger affordable senior building and a market rate senior building. I'm going to keep my presentation pretty short here because I know you've looked at the packet and read the staff report, but I would like to point out that we've made a few changes to some of the visuals and things from what's in your packet. If you guys could follow along on the screen a little bit as I go, there's a few changes in some of the visuals. The primary modifications we're making is to upgrade the siding on the entire building from the cedar shakes to a fiber cement horizontal board. We've tried to work a little more on the visuals to make them a little more realistic because there are a lot of trees and landscaping around these buildings. We wanted to try and let you visualize it in a little bit more context than what was in your original packet. We're also upgrading, making some modifications around the pick- up/drop-off area and some of the interior courtyards, and upgrading the landscaping and modernizing it. The applicant's main goal for this is to visually enhance the entire building and upgrade it, but also to keep the building properly maintained and to choose materials that are easy to maintain. The applicant does have concerns about the combustibility of the cedar shakes, especially considering that it's a senior population living here. They also have maintenance concerns and sustainability concerns on the existing wood shakes. I have a team here, including the landscape architect. She'll come do a really brief presentation right after me, a little more detail on the landscaping. I have Joann from SGPA, who knows a little more about the background of the project, and I have Karim and Doris, the applicants. They can answer questions about the history of the building and background of changes that have been made in the past, if you have questions about that. What I wanted to do here, just to kind of finish my City of Palo Alto Page 3 presentation, was actually to show you some of these visuals that we've been working on, just to try to help to, help you to see what some of the changes are going to look like. I apologize; I have to flip through some slides here to get to it. This is what the current conditions look like. The proposed elevations as you have already in your packet. And then, here at the end, we spent some time to show how the building, a little more realistically how the building fits into the existing trees and landscaping on this sheet. And then, let me move forward. This one, we worked hard on upgrading this visual to show the drop-off area, how that will appear with the upgraded landscaping and the improvements that we're making there. Here's another view of the pick-up/drop-off area with the improvements shown. And we have these updated visuals of the courtyard area showing the landscape, which Jacque will go into more detail with. I think I'll just leave it there and let Jacque come up and talk a little bit more about the landscape. We have some physical samples of the fiber cement board if you'd like to see that also. You've got that. All right. Okay, well, thank you. I'll be here for any questions that you might have for me. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, you have 10 minutes total, so please come to the microphone. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Jacque Keller: Yes. My name is Jacque Keller with Keller Mitchell. [spells name] We were brought on the job to, they really wanted to save water. We looked at areas that didn't make sense for lawn. They have a lot of lawn right now, so what we're trying to do is on the street sides, put in a lot of drought- resistance plant material. The other thing we were really cognizant of is there are so many trees, we saved as many trees as we could. There are a few trees that we had to remove that were ailing or didn't make sense from an ADA standpoint. We had to widen some of the walkways. And we did give a few more...Let's see here...As you can see on the left-hand side, we created a central space so that we could have some more dining for the seniors. We removed the fountain and relocated it because it was in a strange spot. Again, we kept most of the trees in that central courtyard. We did remove a few. And we're just refreshing the landscape with drought-resistant plant material. We used permeable paving wherever we could so that we could reduce the run-off. And we created this drop-off area so that it was safer, and yet, it was a challenge because we had to keep the existing redwood trees. Wherever we have redwood trees, we decided to remove the lawn and add in mulch in lieu of the lawn. We tried to remove the lawn as much as we could where it made sense. In the central area, we have a little bit of lawn, but seniors do not use lawn the way children do. If you have any questions, I'm certainly here to answer them. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. If that's the conclusion of the applicant's presentation, do we have any members of the public who would like to address this project? Oh, absolutely. Please continue. Mr. Wood: I apologize. I didn't mention the wall units, and I had heard that that was a question that the Board had. The applicant is proposing the wall units because it's a, in an existing building, it's very difficult to retrofit it with a full AC and heating system with ducts and everything like that. The wall units are very energy-efficient and less expensive, and the current building does not adequately, have adequate heating, and it has no air conditioning. This would provide both heating and air conditioning to the units in a very sustainable and cost-effective and low-energy way. I think that was the last item that I thought I could address. We'd love to hear your comments and see if you have any questions for us. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Baltay: Do we have any members of the public who would like to address this project? I see no speaker cards. Very well, then. Does anybody have any questions? Robert, you were asking earlier. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I think it was answered, but is either one of these two facilities state licensed, as in OSHPD, that sort of thing? Because it's a medical facility? Female??: [off microphone] Board Member Gooyer: Okay, that's fine. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Vice Chair Baltay: Could you please come... Female??: [off microphone] Vice Chair Baltay: Perhaps the applicant could come to the microphone and answer that question. Mr. Wood: Karim, the applicant, he could probably answer these. Vice Chair Baltay: If you could please state your name and spell it for the record. Karim Sultan, Covia: Yes, sorry about that. My name is Karim Sultan. [spells name]. I am the vice president of affordable housing for Covia. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Sultan: You're welcome. Our buildings are not licensed for OSPD. The Lytton II facility is licensed RCFE as an assisted living facility, half of the building, but not as OSPD. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Sultan: Thanks. Vice Chair Baltay: Anybody else? Osma? Board Member Thompson: I have a question about the fiber cement panels. We have three samples here, and then we have some colors. Are we to assume that these are not the actual color and that this is painted on the fiber cement? Mr. Wood: Yeah, we have submitted a color board that shows the actual colors we're proposing. [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: Yeah, we have a copy, it was just a question on these physical samples, that these are not actually the color. We should imagine this material with these colors. Mr. Wood: Yes, that's correct. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: And I have one question for, I don't know who, the applicant, I guess. I've been aware of this building and living with it; I work very close by. It seems to me there's fairly new cedar shingles on the building just now. Can somebody address what the history of that is? Mr. Sultan: Yes. There were shingles done in 2014, so those are about, the earliest that have been done. There were some shingles done a couple years before that, and the most recent was about four years ago. Vice Chair Baltay: But I remember just within six months or a year, seeing scaffolding and men working on shingling it. Could it be that the project continued on for some time? Mr. Sultan: No. The last major exterior work that was done was the new roof and that was done about two years ago. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay, so, this is a study session, so we'll all be offering some comments, and then I'd like to offer the applicant the opportunity to ask questions when we finish that. Osma, why don't you start us off. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Well, hi. Thanks for your presentation. I'm familiar with this building. I grew up in Palo Alto. I would say my first reaction is a question on maybe the choice of choosing the horizontal grain versus a vertical grain. And even not just the grain, but the level of detail that is currently existing with the cedar shingles. There is a sort of sense that once we move to something new, there is a chance that that extra layer of detail would get lost. And I appreciate the color palate that you've brought forth. I think it will work with the landscape pretty nicely. But, I'm a little, reacting a little bit to, you know, fiber cement is really, really smooth, and in terms of the joints of where a panel ends and begins, I think there's a lot to sort of study, and maybe also consider something a bit finer grain in detail, or potentially a slightly different application that still maintains the vibrancy that the shingles actually give because of how detailed and how many edges you see. It sort of works with the landscape really well because the landscape is very detailed, and you have these small details. I would say that's my initial reaction. I'd like to hear what my other Board members have to say. Vice Chair Baltay: Robert, do you want to follow up? Board Member Gooyer: Sure. Yeah, same with me. I've seen this building for, my God, as long as it's been there, probably, and I've always liked it. I just - there's a nice warm, soft feeling about that building with the wood shakes, or shingles, and unfortunately, using a Hardie plank type product, to me, just makes it look like, you know, half the new apartment buildings or hotels along the freeway that are going up, it just detracts from the quality of the building. I understand completely why, you know, this is a revolution... Well, I shouldn't say revolution, but, I mean, it's a good product. That's why it's used on a regular basis. It's almost indestructible, but it still takes something away from the quality of the building itself. Unfortunately, there aren't too many other alternatives for something that, instead of - as you mentioned in the correspondence - goes from an eight to 10-year lifespan to a 30-year life span. It's very understandable. I'm not really thrilled about it, but I guess this is an example of the old adage that the landscaping will hide most of the building, so it softens it up. As far as the through wall units, those are horrible. I hate those things. And especially the way you've applied them, just wherever they needed to be randomly. About the only way I've seen them successfully done is in many cases where...In fact, some of the literature that we've received from you is where the unit is integrated below the window so the whole entity becomes, you know, you've got the louvers across the full length of the window, even if it's a little bit bigger than the unit. And then, it blends as one large unit. On this particular situation where they just pop through the wall based on their necessity on the inside, I just cannot accept that. I think that needs to be better thought out. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. With regard to the Hardie shingle, I would say it's probably the most environmentally-preferable choice of material for this particular retrofit, so I can accept that. And I think, as my other Board members have mentioned, it doesn't have any subtly. We've seen several projects, we have several projects in Palo Alto with it and they've been painting them sort of bright colors, and it loses...It sort of fights with the cedar shingle subtly, right? It seems like they're trying to do two different things. I'm encouraged by the perspectives that you have here on the screen. I think they're showing a subtler color than what ended up being printed in our set, and it seems like they are a little more subtler than what's on the color board. I would encourage you to try to do a more subtle colors than what's on the board. The board's pretty close. It's pretty good. There are several places on the building where there are existing panels meeting on an outside corner with shingles. I would suggest to pay close attention to those so we don't have two different colors and two different materials visible from the street. That's pretty...It's a pretty awful design detail. Also, when I walked around the site, I saw a lot of exterior conduit around exterior stairs and things. If you guys could clean that up, that would, I think, look a lot better. It seems like there have been a lot of modifications to the building over time and it would be great to clean that up a little bit. I think also with the change in the shingles to the City of Palo Alto Page 6 Hardie shingle, it seems like you might have places where it will clash with the fences, the existing fences, so pay attention to that. It seems like some of the fences are stained and others are not, so maybe there's a way to make those a little more consistent. When I walked around the site, I was wondering if it made any sense to highlight the entrance more on Lytton. Maybe it doesn't make any difference for the residents of the building, but I lived in the neighborhood, and I actually never knew the entrance was on Lytton versus University or Middlefield. And with regard to other, I think staff asked for comments on the entrance parking, and I don't really have any comments on that. I think it's hard to deal with ADA as it is, so I'm sure you're probably just doing what can actually be done by code. I think that's all that I have on this one. I generally am supportive of the project. I am supportive of the changes to the landscape. Removing the lawn, I think is key. I also saw, when I was looking at the site, some of the redwood trees are maybe, like, just a couple feet off of the building. That's kind of a no-no, generally. I mean, normally, if you have something like redwood trees, you would try to keep it at least 10 feet away from the building. It seems like there are some issues with the existing landscape that should be addressed at some point. And then, I think as Robert was mentioning, the HVAC, the packaged terminals. Yeah, that's not my preferred aesthetic, but it seems to me that for senior housing, the HVAC system is really critical. I notice it with, like, my parents, as they get older, they're more sensitive to that. I can accept them. I think the other option I would say is the mini split, where the units are up on the roof. But then you have to have a way to get the refrigerant lines down to each unit, so if you don't have a place for that, then they go on the outside of the buildings, the conduit lines. That's not attractive either. I can live with them. Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Okay. I think I'm a little bit less sanguine about the whole project myself, so I'll start with the siding, as well. My looking at the building is that those cedar shingles are almost brand new. The reason they look so discolored right now is because you never put any finish on them. You put the shingles up and left them alone and they're just starting their weathering process to turn brown. It's a shame that they weren't protected more, and I think shingles can last a lot longer than seven to 10 years on a building. If you look all over town, we have many, many houses that are beautiful, lovely buildings with cedar shingle siding. It's an important traditional material in our community, and to change away from that on a building like this I think is a real loss, especially when you've just invested a significant amount of money fixing them. I'm really bewildered as to why you want to tear them off and start over. I'm also concerned that there's a, there's a real environmental impact. Those shingles come from the very best cedar trees. The grain lines are tight and perpendicular. We cut down a lot of them to make the shingles on that building, and now, three years later, you're proposing to throw them away? It just seems to me a travesty to do that. An enormous amount of resource went in. We need to respect that, and you should be, I think, keeping those shingles and preserving them, and putting some effort into maintaining them. I think they will give you a long life. I just don't understand why you would want to put new shingles on, and then, a few years later, throw them away. And I think it's a significant aesthetic change to the building, putting Hardie plank horizontal siding. You've also proposed the least expensive Hardie plank. There are several versions that are thicker, with deeper shadow lines, which would look better. In my mind, it's just a very inexpensive building material that's used more on less expensive, less prominent properties, and this is not that. This is on an important corner, right next to downtown, and a lot of people know and love this building. The shingles were a big part of putting that building into the redwood grove that it's in, so I just don't support changing to horizontal fiber cement lap siding. I very much appreciate your concerns about fireproofing and wanting a more durable material, and if you are determined to change, I believe there are several new products on the market that might give you a little bit more sense of detail and fineness. We've come across in my firm sort of a siding material made out of fly ash cement. Boral is the company who makes it. You might investigate that. It's fairly new on the market, but it's similar price to Hardie plank. It has more variety of choices of patterns, and it might just look better. I think this material is just too thin, it's too simple and inexpensive-looking, and it's a real step down. I just can't support stepping away from the cedar shingles you have to do that. Your application is a study project that's not detailed out, but again, when you take these two boards and they're angled slightly because it's a bevel, and you try to join them at a corner, you just can't do it. You have to have corner boards, vertical strips there. That dramatically changes how the building looks. Your renderings just don't show that. It's a series of colored planes. When you start to detail it out and really think about it, it will look very different. The corner boards - the three or four-inch City of Palo Alto Page 7 boards vertically at each corner - on a building like this, which has so many corners, it will really change how it looks. The same thing when you come to the bottom of all these overhanging balconies. These boards are really thin, and you're proposing that we just look up at the bottom of this, and that's it? Again, you need more detailing, typically a belly band, some trim, some detailing. I'm asking you - I think the Board will be asking you - to just up your level of design on this to really think through all these details, to make this a suitable building for the prominent location it's in. Regarding the air conditioning units, I share the comments of Robert, that they're just not acceptable the way they are. They need to be much more carefully integrated and designed into the project, so his idea of perhaps integrating them with the trim around the window, or as Alex suggested, if you get a mini split system, and perhaps you could run the conduits in some sort of concealed trim piece on an inside corner and put them up on the roof - It just takes some more thought, I think, to really figure out how to integrate and make changes to this building. The overall impression I have looking at your application is that you're basically playing with colors. That's sort of the palette you've given yourself, and I think that you really need to look at the details just a whole lot more carefully, to prove to us that you can justify changing the material and the siding. If you really are determined to do it. On the entrance off of Lytton, I'm concerned that you haven't really addressed...I've driven by that building once or twice a day for the past 10 years, and I can't tell you how many times a delivery truck tries to pull in, gets blocked by a car, clogs up the traffic, and I think it's because there's a lot of deliveries and service-type stuff going in through that entrance, and you have just a very narrow drive-through there. It's very confusing, and I would think you might want to just reconsider a little bit. Is it possible to make it wider, or to make sure you don't have anything but residents dropping off there? Ubers, and taxis, and residents dropping off people. Because right now, it just functionally doesn't work, I don't think. It's too tight. And as I look at your renderings, you seem to even have a series of bollards that reduce that one narrow spot to, it must be just the width of a car, at best. It's very easy for that to clog up, to block up traffic on Lytton, and to make it not useful as a real entrance to the building. I think the other changes on parking are fine if staff is supportive of that, but I think that that entrance off Lytton could be improved somehow. Once you're doing all this work on the building, you might try to find a way to make that better. You've heard from us. Does anybody else on the Board want to add anything? Osma? Board Member Thompson: I think your point about the cedar shingles is really valid. It seems like we've all been sort of responding a little bit to the material choice, and also just recognizing that the existing is very warm, and very detailed, so, in terms of the renovation, there is a lot to live up to in that sense. It would be a real shame to lose all that. I think that's a good point that you made. Board Member Lew: Just two (inaudible). One is that the, on the corners, I do support your comment about more details. There are ways of doing the corners where you don't have the corner board. Vice Chair Baltay: Have you tried it with Hardie shake, Hardie plank, Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah, we did on low-income housing. There are metal corners. Vice Chair Baltay: Exactly. Board Member Lew: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: And they look like metal corners. Board Member Lew: Yes. But you don't have to have the corner board. And some of the metal corners are better than others. And then, the other thing is on the cedar. On really high-end houses, each shingle is, like, hand-dipped, right? Because you need to do both sides. You can't just paint it after it's installed. It's pretty labor...I mean, I think that's the issue, is the cost of the finishing versus, you know, leaving them untreated, and then, having to deal with the problem later. There's the issue of, like, first cost versus maintenance cost. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Vice Chair Baltay: But they just finished putting the money into the shingles already on the house. It's a shame to put them on the building and then not finish them whatsoever. That doesn't matter to our application here. Board Member Lew: I know, but I think, too, it seems like the quality of shingles varies, so it does seem like there are some areas that have newer shingles, but that's not true for the entire building. I walked around the whole thing and it seems like it's in varying condition. Vice Chair Baltay: Does the applicant have any questions or concerns? This is a study session, so it's informal. This is your chance to get feedback from what we've said. I'd love for you to have the opportunity to ask any other questions. Mr. Wood: I don't know if I have questions, but is it okay if I kind of summarize what I heard from you all? Is that okay? Vice Chair Baltay: Please do. Mr. Wood: Okay. Because I think they are all great comments, and I really appreciate that. Our goal is, of course, to provide a building that is to the level of the beauty and quality of, you know, what that site deserves. And we do understand that the existing materials show a certain softness and scale and quality, so I agree with your comments there. I think what we can do is we can, within in a fiber cement product, within the Hardie products, we could see what other options there are for thicker boards, or other variety of things. We could also look at other fiber cement products, as you mentioned. We're happy to do that and see if there are any products for around the same price point that might be more subtle or might have a little more softness to it than the Hardie products. And we can look at the detailing, and maybe there are certain detailing that doesn't add much expense, but could really upgrade the quality of the building and the aesthetic. I think those are all good comments, and we will take those to heart and go back and look at that some more. As far as the wall units, grouping them with the windows makes sense, so we have to see how it works with the functioning of the unit on the interior a little bit. We can't just completely ignore the interior if there is a wall or something there. Also, these are small units, so furniture and things does matter when we locate these things. But still, we will take that comment to heart, and we'll really try to group them with the windows and create, like, a more organized façade with the wall units, do something better with that. We'll study that some more. For the drop-off, we can look at that. I'm not sure how much room we can create with all the existing landscaping that's there, but we'll certainly look at that, too, because it's good to know that there is traffic backing up in that area, and we'll see if we can come up with some ideas for that. We'll talk to Corinne and Jacque and the design team and look at that. And then, I also, there's a comment about the colors, and I think generally what I’m hearing is, you know, a warm color palette that complements that neighborhood and complements the landscaping and the trees, is what you're looking for. We'll probably stay with something similar, but maybe we'll...I heard somebody say that maybe keep, make sure the colors stay in the subtle ranges, and nothing too strong or too bold. We'll keep that in mind and we'll go back and look at that. I don't have...I can't think of...I mean, I kind of...I feel like I understand the comments in general well enough. I don't have any specific questions. Do you have any questions? Ms. Keller: No, I just wanted to...We did struggle with that drop-off quite a bit. We were really concerned about keeping the redwood trees. If we could remove a redwood tree and that would help that drop-off, but...We put bollards there because there's quite a bit of pedestrian traffic, and we made the drop-off as wide as we could while still respecting the tree. Those were the (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, then. Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, if I may. There was also some conversation about the entrances, and Board Member Lew had a comment about the stairways, if we could elaborate on that. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex? City of Palo Alto Page 9 Board Member Lew: I think some of the lighting around the exterior staircases. There's just, there's a lot of stuff that's been tacked onto them over time. Ms. Hodgkins: I do want to just add a note. The protection of the redwood trees is somewhat important to the...The project is likely going to be exempt from CEQA as currently designed. As soon as they start removing protected redwood trees, it may significantly increase the timeline if they have to prepare an environmental document related to that. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Claire. Okay. Anybody else? I think that wraps us up on this item, so I'd like to move right on to the next item on our agenda. Thank you. Mr. Wood: Thank you. 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 Assessment: Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN00253. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan, Phillip.Brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. Vice Chair Baltay: Next item is a public hearing regarding 2609 Alma Street, a recommendation on an 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 condominiums, including one below market rate unit. The environmental assessment is that this is an addendum to the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the earlier project on this site. Staff, do we have a report? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Good morning, Board. We have a slight staff change here. Philip Brennan is moving on to another jurisdiction, so Emily Foley will be taking over this project. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Emily, welcome. Emily Foley, Project Planner: Good morning. As previously stated, this presentation is for 2609 through 2617 Alma. The proposal is to demolish four rental apartments - it's two duplex buildings - and construct four ownership units, including one below market rate unit. Each unit has a two-car garage. They vary in size from two to four bedrooms, and about 860 to 1,300 square feet. This project was previously approved in September of 2015. However, the building permit was not pulled within the allotted amount of time, so the planning entitlement did expire, so we are reviewing it again. The associated parcel map to subdivide the four condominium units was recorded at the County and is still valid. There were no major changes to the architecture. However, in 2017, the Affordable Housing Code changed, resulting in the need to provide one below market rate unit, which, as previously stated, the proposal is doing. The project is located on Alma Street in the Midtown neighborhood. The lots along Alma Street are in the RM-30 zoning district, and the parcels in the rear are R-1 single-family. There was one neighbor comment received after publication of the staff report, which was provided to the Board when it was received. It had a question about the relationship between the height of the building and the RM-30 district compared to the R-1 single-family houses behind it. However, this was addressed at the time of the original approval. The design of the building steps up from the street and steps down in the rear. It complies with the daylight plane that is required for RM-30 when it abuts to R-1 zone in the rear, so it's two story in the front and the back and the three story is in the middle of the property. Here are the elevations showing that. Along Alma, you see the two-story form. The side elevations show how it steps up towards the middle. This is Building A; that's in the front. Building B is in the back. This one shows the daylight plane on the west and east elevations, showing how closer to the single-family homes it is lower. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Additionally, the building materials include wood siding and various colors of stucco to break up the massing, as well. The staff recommends the Architectural Review Board recommends approval of the proposed unit based on the findings and as subject to the conditions of approval. You may ask me any questions. Additionally, the applicant is here and has prepared a presentation. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Why don't we hear from the applicant? If you could please state your name and spell for the record. Chris Kummerer, CKA Architects: Thank you. My name is Chris Kummerer. [spells name] My company is CKA Architects in Menlo Park. Happy to be in front of you again. And, thank you, Emily, for the thorough presentation. We've worked the planners hard on this project as we...I think she's our fifth. Thanks for jumping on the project. The presentation was great, so I'm going to keep mine brief. You've seen this view of the project. I'd like to quickly go through our history, just so you understand the amount of scrutiny we've had, and hopefully we've been thoughtful about responding to the comments we've gotten along the way here. We started, in 2013, at the DRC, and then, brought our project preliminarily here in 2014. It was a much larger volume and we got some good feedback from you folks and revised the design to be smaller, and tried to be more sensitive to the neighbors. That redesign came back in 2015. We were continued again to October of 2015. And then, that was approved. As a part of this, the environmental study was also approved, so we did, because we're in the, I want to call it a toxic plume; I forget the name of it. We had a full environmental study done, and limits of grading were established, and what-not. That was also approved. Then, the building permit was set to issue in September of 2016, but the property was sold. Our new clients took over and had a miscommunication with the building department. They thought they were extending the permits for a year, and it was only six months. We ended up back in this loop, so, here we are again, to try to get this reapproved. Thank you for spending the time. I'll try to go through this quickly. Here's our site. I think you've seen it. It's a pretty blighted property. Two low-rise 60's buildings. There they are. The one to the right is not part of this. Here's our neighbor to the left on Alma, and here's our neighbor to the right. This will remain and is not a part of our project. This is worth noting. This is what we started with, and here's kind of our design process. This is a three-story building all the way, front to back. This complied with the zoning but wasn't very sensitive to the neighborhood. With the feedback we got, we took this - here is the rendering of that version - and we were given direction to use the width of the lot instead of the length, separate our vehicle and pedestrian entries, and just reduce the bulk in general. This was the ensuing design, which I think was a lot more sensitive. As a part of this, we worked with the neighbors, too, and if I remember correctly, it was with Lisa. They were very generous, had us to their house, and we sat down, talked about this redesign, and said we're going to try to keep it real simple; two stories on your side, mask the third stories with these roofs. They were supportive of that approach, so it was very nice of them to engage with us at the time. Here's another rendering of that. And then, we were continued for some small items, the detailing of the pedestrian gate and the garage doors. These are images of those. This was the ensuring renderings, which was sort of the final one that shows the full project. Here's our materials board. It's been thoroughly reviewed with a lot of analysis, acoustic analysis because of being on Alma, as well. Now, in this latest iteration, as staff mentioned, we did have to add the BMR unit, which is a significant concession by our clients. But, that was something that was not negotiable. Then we went through another round here. We had to justify fire ladder access and floor area, realignment of street trees. There was one street tree that moved in the building permit process; we had to move it back in this process. These things were on the margins. And then, we actually got a different determination of daylight plane, which was more favorable. But, we didn't enlarge the building for that. And our plantings were revised to be more current and more drought-tolerant. It's hard to see the daylight plane here but there's a spot that we're not using because of the more favorable determination. Here's some of those native plants. In conclusion, it's been a pretty thorough process for us. We've been doing this for five years. I felt really good about the initial approval when we got it here. We worked with the neighbors, we worked with staff, we worked with the comments we got here. We took a pretty large design and made it hopefully into something sensitive. And everybody felt great because here's a portion of Alma that really hasn't seen any work for 50 years. We were hoping it was going to be this first building, that would sort of spur some redevelopment on this stretch. That is still the hope, that it can continue and get built and City of Palo Alto Page 11 be the, sort of first thing here that makes this block a little better. In fact, this whole stretch. Thank you for the time. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I don't have any speaker cards. Is there any member of the public who would like to address this project? Then we'll close the public portion of this meeting. Does anybody have any questions for staff or the applicant? Osma? Board Member Thompson: There are three stucco colors. In the render, I was just wondering if you could clarify a little bit on the elevations and how, in terms of...I guess this is my first time looking at the stucco, but in the render, it sort of looks like a really simple subtlety, and then, in the elevations, it says there are three different colors. Here, I can see one and two are similar, but three is really different. What is your design intent with using three different colors and where they go on your building? Mr. Kummerer: Yeah, thank you. As you know, it's hard to render these things consistently. The intent is really to follow the materials board and for them to be subtle variations and not loud. The genesis of this was to reduce bulk by having different colors. That's the intent. We're really using, on this color board, the two middle upper colors to create variation, and then, that yellowish color on the left is just a little bit of an accent. If the question is which one did we choose, it's this here color board. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thanks. Vice Chair Baltay: Anything else? If not, I'd like either Robert or Alex to start us off and maybe...You two were on the Board when this was approved, so bring us up to speed. Were there any issues, concerns? How did it go about? Alex, maybe you should take the lead for us. Board Member Lew: Yes. I think, as Chris had shown in his presentation, that the Board was not happy with the full three-story scheme, all four units, three stories, front to back. Also, I think the Board didn't like that the driveway was all open, is my recollection, to the street. The units didn't really have very much privacy. I think we've all been to the site. Alma is very noisy. I think the Board was just not seeing that that was the best option. They did the major redesign to the proposed scheme. And then, we did also continue the redesign to address some of the things, some of the windows, and stairs, and details, and landscape. My recollection is that there were, that the neighbors did complain about the three-story scheme, and then, we didn't hear from anybody on the revised scheme. I'm in support of the project. I think, looking at the project again, there are two things that I think could be addressed better. I think these are easily resolved. One is the rear elevation, I think could look better. And I think the elevation isn't drawn that well. It doesn't really show the setbacks, the setback of the third floor very well. I'm just thinking in terms of proportions and colors. I think it could be more attractive. The reason why I'm mentioning it is because it's only 10 feet from the rear property line, so the neighbors on Emerson are going to see it. And then, I think there's been a revision on the hedge on that back property line. I don't remember it being in the middle of the rear setback. I see that there is a utility easement. I'm thinking that that's not going to be viable. I think we have to figure out a way of having that unit have some sort of patio space and have privacy for the neighbors in the back. I don't know what the right solution is. I was thinking maybe cleech [phonetic] or something, where you have the green mass 10 to 20 feet up high, and then, it's open on the bottom for patio use. Maybe you need a second layer of landscape. Maybe there has to be something like vines on the fence, or something...Something. I think it doesn't really work as it is proposed now. Anyway, so, Chris, if you have any comments on that. Mr. Kummerer: It was a condition of approval, so it wasn't on the initial approved set, but it was a condition of approval that we add screening back there. Philip helped us work through that item, and that's where these 10 trees came in, or 15. Fifteen. Because of the easement, we weren't going to plant them in an easement, so we kind of backed into it, if you will. I agree it's not the ideal solution because the original proposal has a patio out there. I'd be supportive of either figuring out a way to plant in the easement with something that's not a tree, that's more of a hedge, so that we accomplish the same things without killing the back yard. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Lew: Okay. And I would like, I guess, if we worked it out. There's the easement, but then, you have an underground electrical connection back there. There might be actually two different standards for how to plant around there. I think it may be kind of tricky. I think we have to resolve that because I think...There's only 10 feet, and if you have, like a, I think like a hedge now would take out five feet of that. And it's in the middle of the 10 feet. We have to figure out something else for that. Otherwise, I'm in support of the project. I think that the...For the reasons that we approved it before, in that it steps. It has a fairly strong roof, horizontal roof profile that blends in with the neighboring mid-century buildings. That's where I am on this one. I think I mentioned before - last time - that I wasn't crazy about some of these nine to 10-foot rooms, but that's not really the purview of the Board. But, it seems to me that there's some undesirable things inside the units. Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Well, from my recollection, it did take quite a few changes based on the initial proposal that came before us. But the thing is, even in this final version, when you're the first building on a block to go either two stories or three stories with nothing else around you, is that the thing really stands out. And, just because technically you're allowed to do it by code doesn't mean that it fits the character of the neighborhood. Basically, my objection to it is the same thing it was at that point, is that the unit in the back is just way too close to the back property line for a third story. The front one is probably okay, mainly because it is facing Alma and cars going 40 miles an hour. It's not that big a deal. I'm up in the air at this point whether...I believe I voted against it the first go-around also, but I'll leave it open at the moment. Vice Chair Baltay: That's it? Osma? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I think, in general, it looks quite handsome from the street, I just discovered there's a stucco color number four here on the rear elevation, and we don't have that in front of us. There's also an obscure glass material back here, as well, that is...I don't know what that is. I think in terms of materiality and what you're doing on the elevations, I think I just need more information, for one. I'm okay with a bunch of different colors of stucco. I'm not entirely sold on how they're being played out right now, just given that there's a lot of it. And I do understand that you have worked in a series of reveals, but I'm not sure how successful it is with the colors that you're trying to use. If you guys do come back, I would really like to see how these colors actually do look, and more of an attempt to, sort of render these a little bit more authentically, to sort of understand how they do affect the street. I agree with my fellow Board members about the rear yard, that it is quite small. Yeah, I mean, I think it's, it's a handsome building, in general. There's a little bit of...What's the word? I'm still a little unclear exactly what I’m getting. I see a render, and I see some design intent, and then, when I'm really going through your elevations, it doesn't really add up, so that makes me a little nervous. That's where I am. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I’m feeling that this project has been reviewed, looked at, very recently, and I really am uncomfortable with the idea of grinding it out again. I think they've been through the process. We approved the building. I think the City needs to have this kind of building built, especially in this location, and we owe it to the applicant, to the town, to expedite, or at least help them get this thing out of here. To have to come back again...I don't want to discount, Osma, your comments about the colors are correct. I think that it could use a little more work. Alex, that back elevation is not the strongest part of the building, and that back yard, you have 10 feet full of hedges. Not a smart move. People are going to want some space there. I acknowledge the neighbors' comments about it being tall at the back property line, facing the single-family neighborhood, but we all know that Alma Street is going to redevelop with buildings like this. It's an RM-30 zone. I think the first time the Board went through this, they did an admirable job of balancing that out. It was a lot of work, it sounds like, to bring down a three-story building across the whole site. Clearly, the design has a lot of effort put into modulating it, attempting to placate the neighbors, to fit in better. I think it's been very well done that way. I can support the project as it is. I can also support if we want to put a few conditions of approval. Maybe they come back to a consent, if necessary. But, I'd like to see us move this along. This is new housing on Alma Street where it's desperately needed, and I think we should be aware of that and not go through a review process again. I don't know...We need three votes. Robert said he voted against it the first time, and Robert doesn't usually change his mind easily. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Gooyer: No, I mean, I agree completely. It's one of these things that, that is an area, I don't want to say in transition, but it's going to happen. It's just, land is too valuable to not have it happen. But, again, it is definitely, if anything is going to have to change on that, I think the back unit, you know, should be maybe slightly smaller. It doesn't need to be a 1,400 square foot unit back there. And, I think just three stories of stucco needs to be, you know, something changed on that. I mean, you know, it's the old adage, it's a four-sided building, and basically, three sides have been addressed and the back hasn't. And the person who lives in those two buildings on the adjacent street have to look at that three-story stucco mass for the next 30 years. Vice Chair Baltay: I hear you. My understanding is that they've already finished construction documents on this and already had a permit issued once, so changing the size of that back unit is a major setback from the applicant's point of view, I would think. Does anybody else have other thoughts of how we might change it a little bit, or condition it and still let it get out of here? Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah, I would say, for me, if we just changed...If we changed the colors on the back façade, and figure out how to add, have patio space and landscape screening in the back, however we do that, subcommittee or consent, is fine with me. And then, to answer the question about the glazing, normally what we've done on other projects where we have a multifamily unit which is 10 feet away from a single-family house, usually we have, like, a double-hung window, and the upper part is clear glass and the bottom part is obscure glass, so that, just from site lines inside the unit, they can't look down into the neighbors' back yard. And so, that's...We've found on a number of projects in town, and we haven't done it this way, as shown in the drawings, where a bedroom has all obscure glass. We don't have to do it. I don't think that's in the code, right? I mean, this is something that we've just done on other projects, and I've seen them, and they seem to work, and it seems to placate the neighbors. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you. That was going to be my question. We certainly can just obscure the bottom of the window. That is a standard treatment that we do that does protect the privacy, but still allows the light in. I did want to ask a question about the landscaping in the rear. Is the Board seeing that landscaping as a privacy screen, or are you seeing it more as a screen that helps reduce the massing? Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, do you want to address that? Board Member Gooyer: Well, the problem I see is that you've got, you know, you've got a straight stucco two-story wall and the only thing that changes is that the bottom half is painted one color and the top half is another color. I just don't like that. We always seem to be hung up on the whole, the clear versus the frosted glass, everything else. It's like, I don't think there are that many peeping toms around that everybody seems to worry about, that everybody's going to sit up there and look down at the neighbors' yard. I'm more concerned that it's an ugly design from that side. I'm more concerned, if I was the owner of that building, I would hate to sit in my back yard and look at that thing. Not if somebody was sitting up there, looking down at me. I don't really care. And I think that's the difference I had. It's just a very unattractive rear of the building. I think some money needs to be spent either putting some wood back there like is on the other three sides, and maybe even a variation of some sort. You know, the windows seem to be nicer on the front than they are on the back. It's just, it's not close to the level of quality that, if I was the owner of the building in back of it, I won't...It's bad enough having a three-story building, and then, it might as well at least be an attractive-looking building I'm looking at. That's my main concern. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may suggest, if we're just talking about material changes on the rear, that's certainly something that could be handling at a subcommittee meeting. As far as privacy, I think most of these windows look to be high sill windows, so the privacy issue has already been handled in the placement of the windows. Board Member Gooyer: Right, I agree. Like I said, I'm not too worried about the privacy aspect of it. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Lew: For staff, I think the...We have a stucco building 10 feet off of the rear property line. My take is to reduce the visual impact on the neighbors, so, one is typically, like, a wood façade, or a taupe-colored stucco. Something that just fades into the background and recedes. And then, I'd also like to have an evergreen hedge, ideally 15 feet high, 12 to 15 feet high. Just makes everything much more attractive. I guess the way I would say it is, like, I think I'm treating, I would treat this particular back yard as I would normally do on a single-family house's side yard. That's basically the kind of dimensions we're looking at, with only a 10-foot rear yard. Just trying to make it very low key and fade into the background. Ms. Gerhardt: I'm just thinking, if we're using the shrubbery and landscaping to more breakup the massing, then it doesn't need to be a straight line of shrubs or trees. It can be more clumped together. And then, give some more sense of rear yard space. Board Member Gooyer: Well, even the...I'm sorry, go ahead. Board Member Lew: Well, okay, I think, yeah...Generally, I think the continuous line is good, and in this particular case, I'm willing to break it up. It seems like there's...Possibly in two. And then, I think what's very strange, I think, on this particular one, is that everything that we're looking at on the first two floors is plainer, but we have four different colors, plus wood railings. And I think that was just too much on this particular façade. Vice Chair Baltay: Osma, did you have more to add? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. I think I kind of agree with Robert more, in that sense in terms of the back façade. I actually think adding some of that wood material to come around...It's true. I guess from a ground level perspective, if you have hedges that maybe block out a certain amount, it's really the top that you would see. I guess I'm not sure that something super subtle would make sense. I think something that is more in tune with whatever else is happening on the façade would be more appropriate. And I think I also agree with you, Peter, that it's true, this has been through a lot. I could see this going to subcommittee. I think the issues that we have brought up are reviewable in a subcommittee, so I could support that. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to have the architect come back to the microphone and respond to what we've been saying. Is this something that you think you can successfully modulate without being a big deal? Because you need to convince us. I think you're on the edge of getting sent back for another design review. Mr. Kummerer: Right. Well, thank you. Thank you for the chance to comment. I'd like to step back for one second. In the initial discussions about privacy, it was noted that the neighbor at the rear, who was a very nice, older gentleman, has a forest in his back yard, so it's evergreen back there. So, these concerns at the time were not as much of a concern. And it's still that way. As far as plantings go - and I know plantings can be a fig leaf [phonetic] because trees come down, and what not, but that was part of the initial discussion. I wanted to bring that to bear. I’m not opposed to... Vice Chair Baltay: Could I interrupt you for a second? I want to be clear. Is it true there's a heavily-landscaped property on the other side of this elevation, in the neighbor's...? Mr. Kummerer: Correct. It's evergreen and quite dense. Vice Chair Baltay: Do we have any photos or evidence of that? [Looking for photos.] Vice Chair Baltay: Robert or Alex, do you remember that from the previous review? Was that the case? City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Kummerer: You can maybe see here. If you look behind that dotted line... Board Member Lew: Yeah, but they're also removing several trees on the property. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, exactly. Trees can also be removed next year, sort of thing. I don't want to... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: After being...Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Why don't you go on, Chris, and address our questions about the elevation, the [crosstalk] elevation. Mr. Kummerer: This photo will show you the evidence of the tree behind, if that's suitable. I think the suggestions on the elevation are good ones, and from my point of view, just adding the wood veneer to that top right section of the elevation, to me, seems like a nice improvement. And then, maybe scrapping the yellow color on the lower would just simplify that. The glazing, the obscure glazing, was just something we worked out with the neighbor. Again, it was an elderly man who was behind there, and the neighbors were looking out for me. We proposed sort of half obscure, and they just said, "We don't want to have anything back there." Our clients felt it was odd to have a room that didn't have a window you could look out, but that was a concession we were willing to make. I agree, it's not great, but that's how we got there. Board Member Gooyer: I don't have a problem, like I said, with the glazing. That could also easily be changed sometime in the future, if something changes. But, for instance, on A3.2B, the elevation that faces the driveway, if we're going to call it, the wood slats there on the second story stop right at the corner, and I don't like a change like that occurring on an outside corner anyway. I prefer, if you're going to change materials, I prefer to change... Mr. Kummerer: It doesn't conclude. If you look on the top elevation on that sheet, it wraps the corner. Board Member Gooyer: Oh, it's way back here? Mr. Kummerer: It's a screen that wraps the corner for privacy. It's on two sides and stops where that window is, where the stucco is. Another item that was brought up was... Board Member Gooyer: Well, still, my thought was that if that wood material goes all the way across, similar to what it is on the front of the building...Or, I should say, the Alma Street side. And as you said, get rid of the yellow, which I think is an arbitrary color that doesn't really need to be there. I think it would help enhance that back side quite a bit. It also splits up the elevation from the back. It is obviously, in a pure elevation like this, the third story looks a whole lot closer, obviously, than it is in reality. But still, I think that would help a great deal. Mr. Kummerer: I think those are good suggestions. I also wanted to address the point about three-story stucco walls because...I just want to make sure there's not confusion about that. Board Member Gooyer: No, I know it's two story... Mr. Kummerer: They don't exist in the project unless you're in the middle of the project and looking up, and you're in the center between those two buildings and you look within the project. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. We're not trying to re-debate... [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 16 Mr. Kummerer: Yeah, yeah, [crosstalk] ... Vice Chair Baltay: ...so I think we're done with questions for you. Thank you. Mr. Kummerer: Cool. All right. Thanks. Vice Chair Baltay: The question to the Board is, do we put this to a subcommittee? Or do we want to see it back again? Board Member Gooyer: I'm fine with a subcommittee. This is not that drastic that it needs to come back for total review on our part. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, maybe you can make a motion for us, then? MOTION Board Member Lew: Okay. Let me get the findings out here. I'll make a motion that we recommend approval of the project, subject to the findings and existing conditions of approval in Attachment C, with the addition that it returns to the subcommittee for review of the rear...? What do we want to say? Vice Chair Baltay: Rear elevations. Board Member Lew: Revision of the rear elevation. And, two, is consider an alternative planting plan for the rear property line that allows for the dual screening and patio use. Vice Chair Baltay: Do we have a second? Board Member Gooyer: I'll second that. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Let's take a vote on it, then. All those in favor? Opposed? Okay, the motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to call a five-minute adjournment, and then, Alex will be taking over for Chair after that. Thank you. [The Board took a short break. Vice Chair Baltay did not return to the meeting because he recused himself from discussion of Item No. 4.] Board Member Lew: We are ready to reconvene. 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 MixedUse 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 Board Member Lew: Item number 4, 429 University Avenue, recommendation on applicant's request for approval of a minor architectural review consistent with the Condition of Approval #3, for a previously- City of Palo Alto Page 17 approved mixed-use building, requiring Architectural Review Board approval for the proposed west elevation wall design, landscape details, and exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship. Environmental assessment is the use of mitigated negative declaration prepared for parcel 14PLN-00222. The zoning district is CD-C(G)(P), which is our Downtown Commercial. Project Planner is Adam Petersen. Welcome, Adam. Adam Petersen, Project Planner: Good morning, Chair Lew, members of the Architectural Review Board. I'm Adam Petersen from the Planning and Community Environment Department. I'm here today to present a condition compliance item for 429 University Avenue. As you stated, this item was approved by City Council on February 6th of 2017. There was a condition of approval that was part of that, that this item return to the Architectural Review Board for evaluation of three specific things. This is an evaluation of the design of the west wall, or the interior property line wall, along the third and fourth elevations. It's also an evaluation of the landscape plans and details, and then, also, an evaluation of the exterior building materials and colors that are proposed in craftsmanship for the project. As you are aware, the project is located at 429 and 425 University. This is on the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, as you can see here. The first item that I wanted to get into is the proposal for the design of the west wall. What the applicant has proposed is to basically have, sort of a cement plaster over the west wall with aluminum reveals. These aluminum reveals are about three inches wide along horizontal portions, and then an inch and a half wide along the vertical and the angled portions, as you can see here in this slide along the third and fourth elevations. On the first two floors where the building is obscured by the adjacent buildings, the applicant proposed a CMU wall. Where it's exposed, the applicant proposes using a CMU wall with a text coat, a pink covering over the CMU. In terms of the landscaping that's proposed, there is less than 500 square feet of landscaping proposed for this entire project, for the entire building. The landscaping is proposed in individual pots. It's watered with a drip irrigation system. On the first floor, this is located in the upper right image on the screen. The first floor has five rectangular-style planters that sort of border the open space area. These planters are roughly three feet long by one foot tall by about a foot wide. Two are four feet long with the same height and length dimensions. These planters would be planted with a gray rush-type plant. The second floor would have one planter. This is a round planter. It would be planted with a western azalea. The third floor would have three round planters planted with a sedge firm. And then, the fourth floor would have similar rectangular planters, and these planters would be along the exterior of the elevator with a vine that grows up the elevator. The planting that's proposed is native, indigenous, and drought-tolerant. Going back to the green wall on the first floor, that's planted with a California morning glory vine. That would go up, and you can see that in the lower left, a sample. It's not exactly what's proposed, but that's a sample of what would be located on the ground floor along the alley elevation. Regarding the building materials, the applicant notes that these are the same materials that the ARB evaluated in the Option 1 plans that were approved by City Council. This is a concrete...Excuse me. It's a 70 percent replacement of cement with slag material on the first three floors. The fourth floor would have cement plaster over the metal framed walls. The color scheme would consist more of a sandstone color on the first three floors for the slag material. And then, the fourth floor would be more of a silver smoke color that the ARB can see on the material board. This silver smoke color would obviously be over, would be on the cement plaster over the metal stud walls. Like I mentioned, there's a CMU wall on the interior property line. Where it's covered by the building, there wouldn't be any treatment, but where it's exposed, there would be treatment with text coat paint. There is a skylight system, though, that's proposed on the fourth floor. This is not necessarily visible, but it's between the elevator, and then, the office building to provide some form of covering. With that information [ringing]...I'm sorry. I'd like to back up. We did receive a comment letter - I guess I'll keep going - We did receive a comment letter from the appellant in regards to the materials and the color scheme that's being used for the project. That comment letter was forward to the Board, and the appellant is here today, as well. With that information, staff's recommendation is that the Board recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Great. The applicant, if you could come up, and you have 10 minutes. Peter Coe, Peter Coe Architects, Inc.: Good morning, all the ARB members. My name is Peter Coe of Coe Architects, Inc. We're located in downtown Palo Alto. We got the project last year. We've been working City of Palo Alto Page 18 on this project, for the contracting document for the building department, the last, almost a year now. At this stage, we already got the building, fire, all the department approval, and then, trying to obtain our demolition permit for continuation of construction with the project. Today, we're here just for those three items. One of the items - Adam addressed it - I just want to say that we, there was a blank wall against the (inaudible) building. Only upper two level was visible from the street. You probably can see it from University Avenue a little bit. Also (inaudible) on the alley space. Our concept was really simple because the upper two levels on the third and fourth floor, we have a different color. Actually, I want to correct what Adam just said. The first and second level was the, the color was a more beige color, and then, upper third level and fourth level was the smoky gray color we proposed. And we do have the concrete block infill between the structural columns along the west wall. The concrete block infill was recommended by the structural engineer because the movement of the entire structure. That has to have...Concrete block was like an infill. It's a lot better than a solid concrete wall along the west side. And the original design, the whole project we've been working on for the last year has been follow exactly the conceptual project, what's approved Option 1, was approved by City Council. So, every detail, everything, we try to follow the elevations, everything. Only the upper part of the third and fourth floor. It was proposed stucco finish over there, and our concept was really simple and just using the metal aluminum reveals to form, like, a tree-like, what's going to be aluminum color, natural aluminum color, so it will be a contrast to the smokey-gray color to form that tree-like pattern on the top. I think that the colors really match everything proposed. I just want to let you know I'm here to answer questions. Thank you very much. Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. Okay. I have one speaker card, from Michael Harbor. [phonetic] If you could come up, and you have three minutes. Mr. Harbor: Hi, good morning, Board. It's been 18 months since I've been back here. I'm disappointed that it's taken this long for the applicant to propose drawings after the last City Council meeting. But, as you know, there are three main reasons for this, what is supposed to be a quasi-judicial hearing. We have the proposed west elevation design, the landscape details, and then, exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship. The west wall design in mine and other appellants' opinion is out of character and context with the rest of the building. It is not consistent nor compatible, which was originally proposed to this ARB Board or the City Council by architect Joe Bellomo. The site beside Chevron's appears somewhat like a tribal pattern and clearly stick out as an add-on by an unrelated architect, and I think this is the sixth architect that the applicant has now used for this project. When looking eastward down University Avenue, you have to think about the context, and again, how I initially was able to work with this appeal is that there was municipal code violations - 1818.110. We have to think about the Varsity Theater architecture, the Birge Clark, former Apple Building, and the Hotel President as all buildings that you're looking at as looking eastward towards University Avenue. This is not something that is just put together, slapped on, just to address a design issue. The second major issue that we have here has to do with that of the materials, colors and craftsmanship. It is impossible to evaluate the expected craftsmanship of the building or landscape because the applicant has not provided any background information, experience or completed past projects of either the new building architect, contract, project manager or landscape architect. Joe Bellomo, who I have spoken to about this project, has completely disavowed himself from this design, and in a phone conversation, he said the current design is not his, and he is no longer affiliated with the building. And he was adamant about that. Therefore, the applicant is obligated to resubmit -- I believe -- the entire plan to the ARB, counsel and the community, in its entirety for evaluation. And if the plans aren't satisfactory, then the ARB must immediately notify the Council of such. The applicant has previously praised her choice of architect, meaning Mr. Bellomo. She brought him here, she referenced all of his accolades, his Birge Clark designs, and stood here and, you know, applauded him for all his past work. And she said that the new building would be iconic, and that it would be an anchor with the existing project at 102 Alma, which is the parking garage and offices there. That it would anchor the two things. Mr. Bellomo is no longer affiliated with this project, and since he disavows this building, I think this needs to be taken into consideration. The other thing about the Bellomo projects, the craftsmanship and construction of the materials is unique. I think we need to ask the architect what his experience is in building these, who is going to do City of Palo Alto Page 19 the contract management, you know, what experience do they have in building these Bellomo projects? I don't imagine any. And it seems to me that we've had a bait and switch here... Board Member Lew: I think you need to try to wrap up. I think you've used your three... Mr. Harbor: I have three minutes, and I'm not there yet. But, it looks to me like there is a tactic of cost- cutting, which is going to result in unknown quality and craftsmanship with this building, and it's just too important an historic parcel to be left to chance without any additional scrutiny and confirmation of quality. And we must remember that five buildings are going to be torn down, including a Birge Clark building, for this major development. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Harbor. We do allow the applicant to make comments based on the public comment period, if you have anything you want to address. I don't know if we have a time limit for this particular one. Maybe it's 10 minutes? It's 10 minutes. Okay. Mr. Wong: Good morning. My name is Jaime Wong. Board Member Lew: Mr. Wong, could you spell it for our transcriber, please. Mr. Wong: [spells name] And my family is the one behind this project. First of all, I want to say that Mr. Harbor is very careful in his choice of words, saying Bellomo disavowed himself of this building. But really, we have his permission to use his design, and this is his design. And the reason why we switched architects is because when Bellomo was completing this design, he had one person working for him who was studying for her architecture license. We didn't think he had the staffing or the wherewithal to produce all the drawings that were necessary to get the building permit. That's why we went to Peter Coe, an internationally-recognized architect who has completed many buildings of this magnitude, or greater, and of this quality, or greater. Bellomo's experience is mostly local Bay Area, if not entirely. I think that the appellant - and he wants to call himself "appellant," but that appeal has left the station. City Council has already approved this project, so he is using a lot of information to try and derail what is going to be a beautiful addition to the city. If he tried to do something constructive for the city instead of standing in the way of these things, he might find that the project of this magnitude is hard enough in itself without having to have obstacles put in our way. The level of scrutiny expected for the building is much higher than expected of any other construction. It is right in the middle of downtown. There are no Birge Clark design buildings being torn down. Another piece of misinformation. It's going to be still iconic, same construction design, same construction techniques. In fact, the frontrunner for the concrete work is the same one that did the iconic building at the end of University Avenue. I just don't understand the level of animas [phonetic] that he has against this project. I am beginning to lose patience on that. Bellomo has not repudiated this building. He has just said, "I am no longer involved in it." I think that's clear, or that should be made clear. That's all I have to say. Board Member Lew: Thank you, Mr. Wong. Okay, I will close the... Board Member Gooyer: I have a question of staff. Board Member Lew: Sure. Let me close the public portion of the meeting and open it up for questions of the Board. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Just to clarify for myself, it has been a while on this project. The last time it was before us, it was going to go the City Council. We did not approve the submittal, and it went to City Council. But, I don't remember seeing this design. This Option 1 is different than what we rejected? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, you are correct. When we went to Council, there were actually three options that were presented to them, and Council chose to approve what we consider Option #1. Those drawings are up on our website. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I downloaded it. That's how I got it. Basically, then, we haven't seen any of these three that the City Council picked. Or, I should say, none of those three options went through us. Ms. Gerhardt: I don't know that you've seen this full option in its current form, but it was approved by Council and Council did have three items that they asked for the ARB to review at this time. Board Member Gooyer: I just want to clarify. I'm not trying to be facetious, but basically, we're being asked to look at a portion of a design that we've never seen to begin with. Mr. Petersen: In regards to your question, the three options that went before Council, the ARB did review those options. This Option 1 was the study session option, and then, the applicant came back subsequently with an Option 2, and then an Option 3 before the ARB. Those three were brought before the Council and the Council elected to go with Option 1, which was reviewed, the preliminary design reviewed by the ARB in September, I believe, of 2016, if my date is correct. I'd have to go back and check that exact date. Board Member Gooyer: You're telling me we've seen these before? Because that doesn't look familiar to me. Okay. Board Member Lew: Any other questions? Osma? Board Member Thompson: I think I understood that we haven't seen this, and that this came out of a City Council meeting, and that there were different options that were presented earlier, at an earlier time? Mr. Petersen: Correct. There's been many iterations of this plan. As noted, there were three options. The Board reviewed other options. The Option 1 plan, again, was reviewed by City Council, and the changes that were made, there were some conditions or some changes that were made, namely removing a corner office, having a portion of the third floor roof, fourth floor sort of floor, extend over the office buildings. So, there were some changes that were made to the plan at the Council hearing. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew: Okay. And then, I just want to clarify for my Board members that this is a separate, they've given us a separate project number on this particular one. It's a minor project, so we only have two reviews of this. Normally we would have three reviews for a major project. And we are limited by the Council scope, which is the three items. And the Board has not seen this particular design because the Council made changes to the project. We have not seen, say, the corner cut-out. We have not seen that. And the Council hasn't seen it either, right? Is my understanding. Okay. Anybody want to start? Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Sure. First of all, a couple of things here. On the title of the thing on the application, it says [reading] Requiring Architectural Review Board approval of the proposed west elevation wall design, landscape details, and exterior building materials, color and craftsmanship. Start with the bottom. The exterior building materials, I could see, based on the color board. The colors, I could see on the color board. But craftsmanship, seeing as though I don't even know what this design looked like before this point, I have no idea what the craftsmanship is. It has nothing to do, you know, I haven't seen a set working drawings. And I’m not saying that usually that's the case, but it's very tough for somebody to say, "I need you to judge the quality of the craftsmanship," when there's really nothing to relate it to. I mean, I need to physically see something or see a set of construction documents where I can say, yes, the detailing is adequate, or not adequate, or whatever. So, that one is sort of difficult to answer. As far as the review of the west elevation, from what I've seen on this, first of all, having not been able to put my input on the overall design of the building, but from what I do see here, putting stripes on two blank walls doesn't really enhance the quality of those walls, nor do those chevrons -- or whatever you want to call them -- relate to any other portion of the building. I mean, I can see why it's a separate project because it really doesn't relate to the rest of the building at all. I don't see any chevrons City of Palo Alto Page 21 or any three-inch-wide banding in the plaster in any other portion of the façade, so, to me, it makes no sense. I have a hard time approving this, mainly because I don't think it fits at all with the rest of the project. As far as the planters, I guess it makes sense, having a climbing vine on the back side, but again, with planting, it's kind of tough to say what that's going to look like. The problem with any kind of a living wall is it could look great, and it could look horrible. I mean, it's tough to see. Usually you're not asked to do a design approval for a climbing vine, so, again, I have a hard time doing that one also. I'm just stuck on this project. Board Member Lew: For the Board, the reason why the landscape came back is because there wasn't a landscape architect on board originally. I think the intent was just to make sure that we got something to come back. Board Member Gooyer: I understand why it was done. Board Member Lew: I just want to make sure. Okay. Board Member Thompson: Hi. I sort of struggle in a similar way, not knowing what the rest of the building is doing. At the moment, the way that it's been presented to us, it seems like this whole building is this beige and white color, and I'm struggling with why this wall is not those colors. It's a gray color. And maybe it would make sense if I knew more about the rest of the building. Even just the change in color is confusing. I also would agree that in terms of the level of detail that you are presenting here, I don't know that it's really working with the rest of the partee of the building. The building currently has, the façade, it's a little hard to say with this render how much of the façade you're keeping. Assuming you are keeping it, there are sort of expanses, and then there's these little moments of really high detail. I think maybe a similar partee -- it doesn't need to be exactly that -- would help break down the scale of that wall. The wall is still reading very massive because your moves are very massive. Your diagonals are crossing the entire mass of that wall, so I don't know...I'm sorry, I say I don't know. I do know. Your design is not breaking down that scale in a way that is beneficial, or I think, in with the intent of what I think when they talk about exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship. It sounds like they're going for something that is more in tune with the context, and I don't think that this is doing that for you. At the moment, it's a struggle because I wish I knew more about the project so that I could kind of understand why some of these moves are being made. At the moment, it seems very out of the blue, and it also seems inappropriate for the location. So, until I have more information, I don't think I can put my support with this design. Board Member Lew: Any comments on landscape? Board Member Thompson: I don't, truthfully. I see where it's happening on the ground floor. It's a little hard to understand how that's going to affect the rest of the structure, so I will refrain from discussing the landscape. I appreciate that there are planters there, and that's really great, but it's hard to say how it's going to enhance the building the way that it is currently represented. Board Member Lew: Okay, great, thank you. On this particular one, I guess I struggled with it, not seeing the full set of plans for this, just to see how the building has changed since the Council looked at it. I was actually more supportive of the pattern on the south façade. I think I agree, it's different than the context. It's not what I was thinking of in the past reviews of the building, but I think I can accept it. I think I agree with my colleagues about scale. I think there is something there, but I think I would have to see it in with the context in there, to actually see how much of it you would see from the street. On the planters, I think my general recommendation for planters is to use whatever plant looks good for a long period of time, and in many cases, that's not native plants. A couple issues with native plants. One is a lot of them have a dormant period in the summer, where they don't like any summer water. And then, the other issue is that...One, they don't look good, and two, if it's in a planter and it's getting watered every day, that they can actually develop disease and die prematurely. They're not necessarily adapted to that particular, to living in planters. That being said, I don't have any particular issues with the plants that are being proposed. With regard to the colors, I think the thing that is confusing me on the colors is City of Palo Alto Page 22 that, my recollection is that Joe Bellomo had proposed, on the third floor, I thought he had proposed, was it 3form? Like a plastic? It's a polycarbonate plastic panel up there. And he had used it on one of the houses in Downtown North. And then, I've lost track of what happened on the materials in any subsequent hearings. I'm not actually sure what's happening up on the third and fourth floors. I was wondering if you could explain that, please, Mr. Coe. Mr. Coe: I have a model, a 3-D model here, if you want to look. That's a lot of wall facing, on the third floor, has concrete, was proposed. And then, the back wall is just stucco facing the west side. But the third floor, because it's residential, the openings on the bedrooms are just for the window and one large sliding door. The rest part of it would be concrete wall. That's the third floor, yeah. The third level, yeah. There's a lot of... Board Member Lew: Third floor concrete, okay. Mr. Coe: Yeah. So, because of the first and second floor, first and second floor is the retail, and the second floor will be office. We consider it as a commercial use. Upper level third floor and fourth floor is office, is way set back. But the third floor has a lot of walls just the same color as the west wall, with that grayish color. That was the same color, so it will carry the color all around. Board Member Lew: And on the third floor, concrete? Mr. Coe: Yes. Board Member Lew: Is that precast or is that cast in place? Mr. Coe: It's a cast-in-place concrete. Board Member Lew: And it's this color. Mr. Coe: Exactly, yeah. All the walls on the rear -- you see in the model, on the west side -- will be stucco finish. And then, there will be the same color wrap-around. Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. Mr. Coe: Again, the wall facing University and also Cleveland the alley, they will all be the same color, and then, the same texture, we're trying to match to the concrete wall back there. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you very much. That helps. Mr. Coe: Thank you. Board Member Lew: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: Would the Board like a minute to study the model? Board Member Lew: No, I think I understand...I think I've got it. I think I can recommend the third item, which is for the exterior building materials. I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with the landscape design detail from planting. And then, at least for me, the first item, which was the decorative wall treatment, I think other Board members are opposed to it, so I'm not opposed to revisiting that item. Board Member Gooyer: I have a question. On some of these openings here, where you've got the dots on there. Are those, sort of exposed concrete that have the construction divots in it? Mr. Coe: That's the tie for the concrete because they're pour-in-place concrete. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Gooyer: No, I understand that, but, I mean, you've got the little dots on here, which is fairly traditional for when you pull off the shoring, that you've got the little divots in there. Is that what these are going to have? Ms. Wong: They are tie knots, and the building will look, the concrete will be very similar... Board Member Gooyer: This will be exposed concrete. Ms. Wong: ...to the building at 102 University Avenue. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Board Member Lew: Elizabeth, could you please just identify yourself for your transcript, please? Ms. Wong: Sure. My name is Elizabeth Wong. I don't know what to call myself - the manager for the owners of the building. It's not just me. It's several people. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. I think that, you know, the west wall is a personal preference. If you have 10 people, 10 people will come up with a different design. We are just in the process, at the very late stage of getting this process, the building permits, so we have a year to make some changes to this. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you, Ms. Wong. Okay, so, let's bring it back to the Board. What do you want to do with the west wall? Or the south wall? Board Member Thompson: I was going to talk about the planter on the side that I'm looking at right now. Yeah. Board Member Lew: There's one similar on University Avenue. Board Member Thompson: Is that right? Board Member Lew: Um-hmm. Board Member Thompson: Is it a similar scale in terms of how much concrete to planter to concrete? Board Member Lew: This one might be a little taller but it's high. Board Member Thompson: Okay. In the model it seems quite massive. It seems like a little overbearing, and if the planter were not there, that would be absolutely quite terrifying, just to have this big concrete wall on that side. I'm not sure about that particular part. Going back to the west wall, I think also the model, it's really helpful. I'm actually really glad you guys brought that. I think it still doesn't answer my question, though, about how it relates to the rest of the building. It's true that there is a subjective part, but there is also something that is appropriate. There's nothing else in this building that does that in any way, even in the partee. Some of the walls look like maybe they tilt out, the concrete walls tilt out, but I can't see how that pattern relates in any way to the building. I'm not ready to approve this project as it is right now. Ms. Roberts: Hello. My name is Laura Roberts, I'm with Coe Architects. I would like to answer your question on how we approached the design for that back wall. Ms. Gerhardt: I would just like to confirm that we have closed the public hearing, so, Chair, if we do want to answer, could we please relay that? Board Member Lew: Yes. I'm interested in the design idea. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Ms. Roberts: We feel that this design not just relates to the project, it relates to the entire city of Palo Alto. We think this is an abstract representation of what a tree is, and we're trying to mimic this in a mural, and that's the only opportunity in this project where we have a big blank wall to do a mural. All around the town, you can see a lot of these features, so, we felt that this chevron -- as you're calling it -- for us, are more like branches of a tree. It was an abstract representation of that. Materials, Peter already described a little bit of what the intention is for the coloring. I just wanted to say something related to how we approach that. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: May I respond? Thank you for that. If that is the case, I would say that I think that is a really great concept, to think about trees and abstracting them on your wall. I don't know that that's the best way to go about it. In that concept itself, there are many ways to do that, and something that is more detailed and finer grain. And even...what's the word? A little bit more layering, I think, would give it that complexity that I think trees have. I think the design intent is good; I don't think you've accomplished it in this particular instance. Board Member Lew: I’m reading a book about how humans relate to nature. One of the theories is that with trees, is that it's fractal geometry, and that we can actually see...We perceive that. We know about the complexity and the layering of the different branches, so, like with trees, you have very tiny little twigs. They are in the same geometry as the larger branches. I think Leonard DaVinci had a theory that, like, the area in the main trunk is equal to the layers, if you took a cross section of the tree up at higher levels. It would all add up. That was his theory. It's not completely true, but there is something to it. Okay. Would either of you make a recommendation, or make a motion for this? Because I think you guys are not on board with the west wall, at least, and you have some questions on the planters. Board Member Thompson: I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Board Member Lew: And would you try to elaborate on your thinking on the west wall? Just to give them guidance. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Lew: I think you've done it, but... Board Member Thompson: I think revision to design on the west wall, something that does have a bit more detail, more layering, something that is more true with your design intent, would, I think, make a difference. And then, also, to provide more documentation of how this looks on the street, how it relates to the context, how it relates to the rest of the building. I think that would help you guys convince us that this is appropriate. I would say the same thing with regard to the planters, especially the planter on Lane 30, and that garden wall. Just a bit more understanding of the choices of those plants and how those will behave over time and through the seasons, given that that is a big swath of wall, that if the plants were to fail, would be very large. Board Member Gooyer: One suggestion based on that. If we also have to determine craftsmanship, we should see some either construction details, or something to see what the craftsmanship is, rather than just a couple of lines on a piece of paper. Ms. Gerhardt: Do we want... Board Member Lew: I think the process would be, if you're going to follow Robert's Rules of Order, maybe second, then propose an amendment. Board Member Gooyer: Okay, I'll second it, and then, that's my amendment. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Thompson: I accept that. Board Member Lew: We have a motion to continue to a date uncertain by Board Member Thompson, second by Gooyer. All in favor? Opposed? None. MOTION PASSES 3-0. Ms. Wong: May I make a comment? Board Member Lew: Yes, you are allowed, I think you're allowed a closing comment, maybe? I don't know. Ms. Wong: Elizabeth Wong, again. This is a very late stage, you know, and we don't have the time, so I will probably ask the City to approve the project with a deferment on these three issues. I would very much like to have it, to come in as a subcommittee because these issues are things that take a lot of time, you know, instead of just a presentation. And then, we could have two or three members of the Board working with us, because we are flexible in accommodating some of these things. It is not the typical three or four ARB meetings that we are going through. As I said, I think that this project is almost ready for building permits, and as such, I would request that the City defer these three issues, and these three issues, I would very much like to work with the ARB because, you know, people have different ideas of what they would like, and we're trying to please the ARB. The other point I want to make is that the west wall will eventually be built up, the building next door will build up, and it will cover it. Any sort of layering would be probably not feasible. The other thing is that this building is built, is designed to every inch, so there are things that, you know, we like to (inaudible), but we would like to have a subcommittee to work together on this. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Thank you, Ms. Wong. Jodie, did you have a comment? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. I just wanted to confirm, you know, the ideas that we're speaking about today that we just made a motion on, they are somewhat important details to the building, but they are details. We will work with the applicant to see how we can somehow help them with the timing of the project. If there are parts of a building permit that we can release, or something of that nature, we will see what we can do there. But, I think the Board has made a motion to continue this to a date uncertain, and we will follow that. Board Member Lew: And from my point of view, if we do...The Board made this motion. If the Planning Director prefers to have it go to subcommittee, I'm not opposed to that. We have two Board members who are going to be recused on this project anyway, so it's just the difference between two people and three people on the Board, reviewing anything that comes back. It seems to me it's fairly straightforward. Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Well, because she wrote a letter to the newspaper regarding this item previously, and she was not even, I think, on the Board at the time. Ms. Gerhardt: I don't think we have any true legally-required recusals, but we do have some people who made some comments, worked on the project, things of that nature, so, out of the abundance of caution, they have recused themselves. Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. We will see what the Planning Director recommends on this particular project. Thank you, guys. Good luck with your project. Okay, so, I think that concludes our meeting. Approval of Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Lew: We're not going to review minutes today because we didn't receive them. Subcommittee Items Board Member Lew: And we don’t have anything on the subcommittee items. Thank you. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements - not addressed. Adjournment Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9607) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 10/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3945 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Revisions Title: 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to 1) Designated Guest Parking Spaces, 2) Details for Several Material Choices, 3) Location and Design of at Least two Benches, and 4) Alternative Colors/Stains for the Siding. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning Districts: CS/RM-30. For More Information Contact the Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt at jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On June 26, 2018, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the subject project. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee. Below are the items that were requested to return to the subcommittee and the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments: Architecture Review Condition: a. Revised plans to include the proposed designated guest registration space layout option “C” in the project plans Applicant’s Response: 7 Packet Pg. 194 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2  The revised plans include the designated guest registration parking space per Option "C". See sheet A02.00, A02.01 and A9.12. Architecture Review Condition: b. Detail of the proposed material choices for the Trespa siding (i.e. dimensions, spacing, color, etc.), stone veneer wall edge detail, roof soffit material choice(s) detail, roof eave detail (along El Camino Real), detail of the trash enclosure eave, detail of entry corner post at the street- facing entry (i.e. material transition) and design. Applicant’s Response:  Details of the proposed exterior material TRESPA was added: - dimensions: sheet A09.01, details on A12.03/01,06 and Trespa Sheet Notes on A12.03. - spacing: details on A12.03/03/04/06/07 and Trespa Sheet Notes on notes on A12.03. - color: Notes on sheet: A12.01, A12.03, A12.04, A12.05. and samples on the material board. - stone veneer wall edge detail: sheet A12.04/04,05,06,08. - flat roof soffit material choice detail: sheet A12.04/06,07. - sloped roof eave detail: sheet A12.04/01,02,03. - detail of trash enclosure and roof eave: sheet A12.03/11,12,13. - detail of entry corner post at the street-facing entry: sheet A12.03/07 and elevations A09.01. Architecture Review Condition: c. Location and design of additional (minimum two) bench seating to be located adjacent to public right-of-way. Applicant’s Response:  Two benches are proposed at the front of the lobby: See sheets A02.00, A02.01 and A9.12. Architecture Review Condition: d. Alternative color shades or stain for PT2 and WD2 to better match the proposed Ipe or Trespa siding. Applicant’s Response:  Ipe color will match TRESPA siding. See Material Board. 7 Packet Pg. 195 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2/. The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2575 (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (JPG)  Attachment B: Approval Letter with Conditions (PDF)  Attachment C: June 7, 2018 ARB Minutes Excerpt (DOCX)  Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 7 Packet Pg. 196 7.a Packet Pg. 197 June 12, 2018 Shawn Alexander Axis GFA 1000 Brannan Street, Suite 404 San Francisco, CA 94103 Subject: 3945 El Camino Real (16PLN-00374) – Major Architectural Review Hello: On June 7, 2018, the Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the application referenced above and as described below. The Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the project on June 12, 2018. The approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The approval was based on the findings in Attachment A, and is subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment B for the project. The project is described as follows: 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Request by Shawn Alexander, on behalf of Rajen Shah, for Major Architectural Review of a comprehensive exterior remodel of an existing hotel, located in the Service Commercial (CS) and Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence zoning district (RM-30). Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Section 15301. Zone Districts: CS/RM-30. Unless an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for two years from June 26, 2018, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration date. The time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning. In the event the building permit is not issued for the project within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to contact the Project Planner, Phillip Brennan, by email at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org or by phone at (650) 329-2493. Sincerely, Amy French Chief Planning Official Attachments: A: Findings for Architectural Review Approval B: Conditions of Approval 7.b Packet Pg. 198 16PLN-00374 Page 1 of 9 ATTACHMENT A ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3945 El Camino Real 16PLN-00374 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 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multiple Family and Service Commercial. The project continues the Service Commercial 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 proposed remodel of the existing hotel either adheres to or increases compliance with the applicable design guidelines, development standards, and performance and context-based criteria established for development in the CS zoning district. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. The project scope includes widening a section of sidewalk along the subject site’s frontage bordering El Camino Real to 12 feet, which enhances the pedestrian environment and encourages active transportation options along this service commercial corridor. Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and 7.b Packet Pg. 199 16PLN-00374 Page 2 of 9 a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project increases the amount of landscaping on the site providing new greenery along the frontage and interior landscaping to include six new trees located in existing planter and parking islands. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The proposed remodel replaces the existing roofline with a shed style roof that has its highest point away from the street, providing a more pedestrian- scaled frontage along El Camino Real. Additionally, the front-entry opens facing the sidewalk and is notched back to provide additional visual clearance for pedestrians and guests exiting the site’s parking lot. Policy L-6.6: Design buildings to compliment streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. The project as proposed provides more (9 bike racks) bicycle parking than required (one short- term space per 10 guestrooms; 67 room = 7 bike racks) as required per municipal code. The provision of these facilities implicitly promotes active modes of transportation for hotel workers that may utilize bicycles to travel to work, shopping, or services. Policy T-1.16: Promote personal transportation vehicles an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project forwards a coherent contemporary design and enhances the existing streetscape and includes amenities such as an outdoor seating area intended to serve as an inviting gathering area for hotel guests. The proposed shed style roof above the main 7.b Packet Pg. 200 16PLN-00374 Page 3 of 9 lobby slopes upward from the street toward the lot’s interior which serves to visually reduce the scale and mass of the remodeled hotel from El Camino Real. The proposed design compliments the similarly styled school building (Keys School) adjacent to the site. The proposed scope of work does not negatively impact adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project proposes a compatible contemporary architectural design that utilizes clean and simple building lines and forms. The exterior material and color palette includes a mixture of modern and rustic materials such as standing metal seamed roofs, corrugated metal accents, Prodema cladding, painted wood rafter tails, aluminum louver treatments, and a combination of warm earth tone and neutral colors on painted cement plaster. Taken as a whole, the proposed remodel project will benefit the surrounding area aesthetic. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project includes functional design aspects intended to enhance the pedestrian environment, increase safety, and allow convenient access to on- site facilities. The project provides a widened section of sidewalk to continue the existing 12 foot wide segment of sidewalk in front of Keys School, creating a friendly environment for those walking in the area. The proposed remodel includes a street facing lobby entrance that is jogged back to provide both a covered entry, as well as to increase visibility of pedestrians and sightlines for drivers exiting the hotel driveway. The proposed new covered trash enclosure has been increased in size to accommodate the current level of service and allow easy access for waste recovery crews. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed landscape design integrates into the building design and site’s functions. Six new 24 inch box trees will be planted in new and existing planter areas on the site to break up sightlines and provide shading along the expanse of the parking lot. Smaller landscape improvements to include native and adapted drought tolerant species along the site’s frontage, buffers between the ground floor guest rooms and parking area, and the courtyard. The extensive row of mature dense shrubs along the south side yard property line will be maintained to provide screening for hotel guests and students at the adjacent school. 7.b Packet Pg. 201 16PLN-00374 Page 4 of 9 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. 7.b Packet Pg. 202 16PLN-00374 Page 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3945 El Camino Real 16PLN-00374 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "ASCEND PALO ALTO_3945 El Camino Real,” stamped as received by the City on May 1, 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. ARB Subcommittee: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Revised plans to include the proposed designated guest registration space layout option “C” in the project plans b. Detail of the proposed material choices for the Trespa siding (i.e. dimensions, spacing, color, etc.), stone veneer wall edge detail, roof soffit material choice(s) detail, roof eave detail (along El Camino Real), detail of the trash enclosure eave, detail of entry corner post at the street-facing entry (i.e. material transition) and design. c. Location and design of additional (minimum two) bench seating to be located adjacent to public right-of-way. d. Alternative color shades or stain for PT2 and WD2 to better match the proposed Ipe or Trespa siding. 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. GUEST REGISTRATION PARKING. The approved plan will utilize Option C for the layout of the dedicated guest registration parking spaces. These dedicated spaces will be located in parking 7.b Packet Pg. 203 16PLN-00374 Page 6 of 9 space #1 and #32, as shown on Sheet A02.00 of the approved plans; each of the accessible spaces will be relocated one space over to the right. 7. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 8. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9. 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. TRANSPORTATION DIVISION In addition to the peak parking demand reduction strategies outlined in the approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan dated March 29, 2018. The following standards and procedures apply: 10. Required measures identified in the TDM plan shall remain in full force for the life of the project unless altered by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 11. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Director two years after building occupancy and again every year thereafter; see PAMC 18.52.050(d)(2). Prior to conducting required monitoring activities, the applicant shall engage a qualified third party professional and submit a draft scope of work to the Chief Transportation Official for approval. The draft report shall then be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official for review, and if necessary, revision. 12. If, based on the results of the ongoing monitoring program, peak parking demand exceeds 60 parking stalls, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may require implementation of the alternative parking plan described in the TDM plan, changes to the TDM program to meeting parking demand targets, or impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months (PAMC 18.52.050 (d)(4)). PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING The following comments are provided as a courtesy and shall be addressed prior to any other permit application submittal. This includes Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and Encroachment Permit but after the Planning entitlement approval. 7.b Packet Pg. 204 16PLN-00374 Page 7 of 9 13. EASEMENT: Indicate all existing easements on lot. 14. UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 15. 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. 16. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of- way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 17. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and/or Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 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. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 19. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION Strictly comply with all recommendations contained in the tree protection report. There is a duty for the project applicant/developer to protect neighboring trees. 20. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect and monitor neighboring protected oak during construction and share information with the tree owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so as to ensure the long term health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on the neighboring property as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or perform treatment. If access is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be performed from the project site. 7.b Packet Pg. 205 16PLN-00374 Page 8 of 9 21. 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. 22. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures as a condition of the building permit, Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. 23. 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. 24. TREE PLANTING. The applicant shall notify the Urban Forestry Section (650.496.5953) 24-48 hours prior to installation of any new trees on site for the purpose of inspection and ensuring compliance with tree planting standard detail #604 or approved alternate. 25. 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. 7.b Packet Pg. 206 City of Palo Alto Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Exterior Remodel of an Existing Two-Story Hotel Building at 3945 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM- 30) and Service Commercial (CS). For more information, contact the project planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: Item 2 is a public hearing. It's quasi-judicial, so we should disclose any extramural conversations. Thirty-nine forty-five El Camino Real. I will let planner Phillip Brennan describe the project. Phillip Brennan, Project Planner: Good morning to Chair Furth and members of the Board. A quick reminder that this is the second review of this project. This was originally heard back in April of this year. At that time, the Board provided specific feedback to the applicant and the applicant has responded to that. I just want to briefly go over how the applicant, the responses to those comments and guidance. The Board provided direction, requesting that the applicant reduce the total number of materials and enhance the street-facing side of the building. They mentioned the need to increase the street presence of the lobby; increase seating options for pedestrians; utilize alternative tree species; and explore dedicated guest registration parking space alternatives. In response to that feedback, the applicant has reduced the number of material choices and enhanced the quality, utilizing higher-grade finishes, including Ipe siding carried through from the main building and lobby to the patio area, and Trespa panels. There is a materials board being passed around. Just this morning, though, the owner of the property brought an alternative sample for the Ipe siding. It's also a Trespa-type tile that has a wood finish. According to the owner, this is a much more higher-grade material, more expensive material, and that's their preference. The Board may want to consider that alternative. The design team has increased the glazing along the second story lobby that's facing southbound El Camino to better signify the entry and lobby area of the hotel. They are also proposing a metal awning to identify the front entrance into the lobby. A new bench has been placed at the front entry of the lobby. Also, a new change that you may not see in your hard copy plans but was included in a recent updated digital submittal, the applicant is proposing a new bench to be placed under that entry, which is an ideal place. There is a loading space area directly in front of the lobby on El Camino, and this is most likely going to be the ideal place where shared-ride services and taxi services are going to be dropping off and picking up. I'm suggesting that the bench faces towards the southbound traffic so they can see the vehicles coming. As of right now, the applicant is proposing a stationary cement platform bench, but we'll leave it up to the Board to decide that detail. New native tree species have been proposed. One Pacific madrone is to be utilized, is to be the feature tree in the outdoor patio. Two Catalina Ironwood trees are to be located in the large stairwell planters, and three California Sycamore trees in each of the parking island planters. At the last hearing, a few of the board members expressed a desire to explore dedicated guest registration parking areas, and the applicant has proposed three alternatives. They just included a third option recently that's not included in their plans that I'll go over now. This first option, Option A, utilizes two existing parking spaces as guest registration spaces. Those will be marked with a placard identifying it as a guest registration space. It's located near the patio and directly adjacent to the lobby entrance. Option B is this tandem parking orientation that places the guest registration spaces closer to the lobby. I did want to ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: June 7, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 7.c Packet Pg. 207 City of Palo Alto Page 2 bring up the fact that I did go over this with our fire department staff member, and he did confirm that fire needs a 25-foot drive aisle for this type of parking lot orientation, which features 90-degree parking spaces. This would be problematic in providing that. I think it's also an issue that the lobby is on the left side of the lot, so you have the potential of cars coming southbound on El Camino, cutting across the drive aisle to park there, or having to turn around and do a three-point turn to park in those spaces and utilize that space. Option C moves the ADA parking next to the stairwell, over. This makes a lot of sense because the two ADA ground-floor units are directly located in front of those spaces. We placed the guest registration space closer to the lobby, and one of the guest registration spaces are located directly across the lot. I did want to bring up again that just recently - six or seven months ago - a loading space, approximately 30 feet long, a white loading space, has been provided on site, and that's directly located in front of the main entry into the building. Again, this will likely be the ideal location for drop-off and pick-up for shared ride services and taxis on El Camino. I also did some field reconnaissance to look at some comparable hotels in the area to the Comfort Inn that were recently remodeled. My findings found that hotels such as Zen and Creekside Inn have provided no dedicated guest parking spaces. The Nest Hotel, which is just around the corner from the Comfort Inn, does have dedicated guest registration spaces, as you can see in the picture on the left. That's in front of the patio, and from my understanding, The Nest is actually the hotel that a lot of the design aspects have been modeled after for this hotel. It's staff's opinion that to require the applicant to move the lobby structure or reduce the structure to accommodate some guest parking spaces is a bit cumbersome to the applicant. They have no desire to reduce the lobby size. This was initially proposed as an exterior remodel. We've already asked them to provide a notched-out front entry to accommodate the entry of the hotel facing out to El Camino, and it's been expressed to me that to reduce the lobby to accommodate another guest parking space is a deal- breaker for them. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed exterior remodel of the hotel based on findings, and as subject to conditions of approval. I'll leave it at that. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those. Chair Furth: Are there any questions of staff? Hearing none, would the applicant care to make a presentation? You have 10 minutes to do so, if you do. Shawn Alexander: Good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. If you could spell your name for the record. Mr. Alexander: Yes. I am Shawn Alexander. (Spells name.) I'm with AXIS/GFA Architects, and I am the architect for the project. Thanks for having us here this morning. Phillip, thank you very much for your presentation. I think you captured the essence of our design and what we've done to respond to the ARB. We are very happy to work with the ARB to get a design that you guys are happy with, that's fitting for the community, and is something that our client, can be proud of. In regards to your questions at our last meeting back in April, you asked us to take a look at making the entry more prominent, possibly making a two-story lobby space more visible, add more glass. We've done that. We've added a canopy over the entryway to make the entry more prominent. We've added bench seating for guests to wait for Uber/Lyft ride services, and we've located that underneath so it has some degree of weather protection. We've worked very close with planning staff to come up with design responses that meet the intent of your comments from the last presentation. We've simplified materials. It's a building we're very proud of, and we hope that you are happy with our design responses to your comments. I'm here to answer any of your questions. Chair Furth: Thank you. Admirably concise. Does anybody have questions of the applicant? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: I was wondering if you could go through your elevation and denote exactly where all the materials are going. 7.c Packet Pg. 208 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mr. Alexander: Sure. You've got the materials board, but we had originally proposed in your drawing package that all of the brown colored materials on the lobby building and on the trash enclosure would be an Ipe material. You have the sample there. Phillip had mentioned to you that the owner is actually willing to upgrade that material to a Trespa product. It's a much more expensive material. And in the upper portion of the building, we originally presented it as cement plaster. We've upgraded that material to a Trespa, again, a much more...Yes, the white material. You have the white Trespa and the sort of warm, mahogany-colored Trespa on the bottom that work together. Board Member Thompson: Where does Wood 2 go? Mr. Alexander: I'm sorry...? Board Member Thompson: It's also in the key for your elevations, but I couldn't find it on the building. Mr. Alexander: Forgive me, I'm not really sure where that was intended. My apologies. Board Member Thompson: Are you saying it doesn't exist in the project? Mr. Alexander: I don't believe it exists anymore in the project. Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Thompson, what page are you on? Is it 9.3? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, if you look at... Mr. Alexander: Unless it's on the fence in the back of the property. Mr. Brennan: It's actually identified here. If you go to A09.03, if you look at the lobby patio elevation, the bottom elevation, you'll see "WD2." Board Member Thompson: Okay, so is that structure... Mr. Brennan: I'll let the architect... Board Member Thompson: ...for the roof? Mr. Brennan: It looks like the underside of the roof. Mr. Alexander: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Brennan: Sure. Mr. Alexander: Yeah, my apologies. That would be the stained roof material and the stained beams. Vice Chair Baltay: Is that...? Well, I don't know if you're going to be able to answer. It looks like it's a piece of redwood here. Is that correct? And this is fine vertical grain clear redwood? Mr. Alexander: Yeah, you know, I'm not sure if it's going to be redwood. The hope is that it would be. The intent is to try to get the coloration to match closely to the color of the Ipe, but it's up in an eve, it's in shadows, it's not as prominent. You wouldn't build it from Ipe because you've got structural beams up there. The exposed wood there would essentially be tongue and groove decking material. Board Member Thompson: And is the intent of the paint color PT2 to match the Ipe color? Mr. Alexander: You're referring to the color on the cement plaster columns and facia? Yeah. Our intent is to try to get as close to the Trespa color or the Ipe color. 7.c Packet Pg. 209 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Vice Chair Baltay: And the stacked stone here - ST1? Forgive me, I'm just having a hard time seeing the numbers on the elevation. They're small. Mr. Alexander: Yeah. The intent of the stacked stone at this point was to put it on, if you look at page 903... Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Mr. Alexander: ...you can see next to the lobby entry that's back underneath the circulation, there's a solid wall. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry, I... Mr. Alexander: To the left of the stair, and to the right of the lobby glass. Back underneath the circulation from the deck above. Vice Chair Baltay: These multiple colors of various tan on that piece of wall there is the stone? Mr. Alexander: That's correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Are there any other renderings of what that would look like from the edges, or anything like that? Mr. Alexander: I don't have any other renderings. Sorry. Vice Chair Baltay: How do you end the wall when it sort of stops? You have a corner at 90 degrees. How is that treated? Mr. Alexander: We're going to trim the edge of the stone with some Ipe wood. That was our intent. Vice Chair Baltay: Is there a design detail of that? Mr. Alexander: I don't have a design detail for that, sir. Vice Chair Baltay: How about for the Trespa siding you're proposing? Is this the proper dimension of the board? Are they long tiles to look like boards, or are they...? Mr. Alexander: No, they're actually solid boards, sir. Vice Chair Baltay: What are the dimensions and what are the details, again, of the edges. Mr. Alexander: My apologies. Vice Chair Baltay: It's okay. It's clear that we have a little bit of thinking to do on the details and the finishes, still. Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so the Ipe grain, there's sort of long, sort of linear slats. Are you saying the Trespa would be like that, as well? Mr. Alexander: The Trespa grain, the intent is that the grain would run horizontal, just like the wood grain would be if it were Ipe. Board Member Thompson: Sort of the same spacing, otherwise? 7.c Packet Pg. 210 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Alexander: My understanding is the owner wants to do the linear strips of Trespa as opposed to a larger solid panel. Board Member Thompson: I see. Okay. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant or staff? Vice Chair Baltay: Phillip, can I come back for a second to that third option on the parking arrangement? Is there a drawing of that or something, aside from the slide you showed us? Mr. Brennan: No, that's the only drawing I have for that. Vice Chair Baltay: That's nothing that we can see except for the slide you showed us? Chair Furth: Want to put it up again? Mr. Brennan: Sure. Chair Furth: Essentially, you moved over to the left. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, we did move some parking spaces over, so that's something that we would likely want to bring back to subcommittee, if that's the option. Or, you could leave that to staff to make that detail happen in the plan set, as well. [Short pause] Chair Furth: You moved the disability access spaces over, away from the lobby, and put the registration space next to the lobby. Mr. Alexander: That's correct. Chair Furth: Just slide them down. [Short pause.] Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: I guess, to the Chair. I would like to comment that all of us spent some time going to the site, thinking about this, looking at it, and we respect that you want to come up with a last-minute change that improves it, and it seems like it does. But it really disrespects our efforts by not letting us have that drawing and have it a little bit ahead of time. When I was out at the site, it would have really been nice to think about this option, as well. And yet, here we are, at the very last minute, being shown a slide, and nothing else. It's difficult. Thank you. Mr. Alexander: Member Baltay, I understand your concern there, and it's my apology that we weren't able to provide that drawing to you beforehand. It was an option that was thought up at a last minute. And worthy of showing the Board. Chair Furth: All right. Okay. You may sit down, if you would like. Mr. Alexander: Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex, would you like to start? 7.c Packet Pg. 211 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Lew: I think the project is looking very handsome. I can recommend approval of the project today. I think there are a couple things that need to be followed up. One is the drawing is too light and really needs to be darker for the final, the microfilming and records. Two, I like the aesthetics of the building a lot. It seems to me that you should have some details to give an indication that they're all well-resolved, and I think Peter Baltay mentioned something like the stone and wood details. I was thinking about that when I was looking through the set. Not every detail, not construction-level details, just an indication of quality. On the guest parking, I don't have a strong preference. My take on the parking is I think similar to staff's position. Most motels during the day, there's very little occupancy of the spots, so it's not an issue. I do think it is an issue late at night. Somebody checking in late often will find there aren't very many spaces, but I think that's part of the territory. I often check into motels really late when I'm on a road trip. Usually if you park in the aisle, sometimes I'll do that, it's not an issue because there isn't that much traffic at that time of day. And then, I also expect the motel to be full if I'm checking in really late. It seems to me either A or C is fine with me. It seems like your Option C may interrupt some of the landscaping that you have between the parking and the building, but I think that's pretty minor. On the findings, I think on Finding #2 on page 11 of the packet, I think I might add - for staff - I think I might add that the aesthetics of the project complement the contemporary aesthetic of the Keys School next door. You know, the contemporary design of the shed roof, fairly modern eve details, and what-not. That's all I have. I think the design is really great. I really applaud the architect and the owners for doing this project. I think it looks nice. We have a lot of other motels in the neighborhood who have done really nice things on the inside but haven't touched the outside that much. And I like that you've actually tried to make it, tried to integrate the interior and exterior together. Thank you for that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I like the advance on the outside. I think it's helped quite a bit. I'm still not a fan of the whole entry, the way that works. I just think it's a really weak entry. It's hard to find. As far as the parking, I think Option 1 and Option 3, they are viable, but I think you're going to have a hard time finding those spaces. Option 2, I don't think is even a starter. I mean, I don't know why you threw that in. That's probably illegal the way it is, or doesn't meet code, and that was just useless. The one thing I would recommend that I thought would be a more viable one is to take your spaces - I think it's 27, 28 and 29 - that are 90-degree parking, turn those into two 60-degree parking spaces. So, you lose one, but that way you've got a readily-accessible, right when you pull in, you see the two parking spaces that are unique, which makes them unique to the entry, rather than just being one of the masses. Because once you have a half-dozen cars parked in there, nobody is going to go, "Oh, those two standing over there are for people registering." And, yes, it does lose a parking space, but I think in the long run, it's a better solution to that. At this point, like I said, it's a big step forward. I like the material uses here better than you had before, but I’m still on the fence at this point. Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: Hi. Yeah, I would agree with Board Member Gooyer that this has come a nice ways since last time. Looking at the materials, aesthetically, I think the Ipe, I think has a nicer presence than the Trespa. So, if you're thinking about that, that would be my preference. At the same time, I think the other two items that you've picked for Wood 2 and PT 2 don't match the Ipe just yet in terms of their shade. While the design intent is that you'd like to match it, it doesn't seem that way at the moment. I would encourage maybe finding a shade that matches your sample a bit closer. Also, in the findings, Finding #3 in the packet still talks about corrugated metal accents and aluminum...Yeah, there's sort of bold material choices in there. That would probably need to be updated. I do think it's come a long way, it's true. The entry, I'm sort of struggling with. I think in the way that you've rendered it, it's sort of hard to see exactly what's happening in terms of the change in plane. It does seem like a compressed entry. Yeah, I think the bench that you've shown with the option, with the landscaping behind it, seems to create more of a presence, potentially, but I'd be open to discussing that more with the Board. I could come close. I could come close to recommending, but I think these material choices are really important, so maybe looking at it again in subcommittee, or something. I'd be open to that. 7.c Packet Pg. 212 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, thank you very much, and thank you for your studies on the parking options. I know I was the one who was pushing hard to get something close to the lobby, and I do admit, it doesn’t work, what's shown. Option C, I think, is preferable. I share the comments and sentiments of my colleagues, especially Alex. I think the building looks very good. It's a big improvement in design and it will be a handsome addition on El Camino. I applaud you for making the effort to improve the exterior of your building. It's really good for the City to have that. That said, I'm finding the detailing and some of the questions we've been asking are just not satisfactorily resolved. I'm going to suggest that we put this to a subcommittee to review some of the details and final material selections. I think it's a straightforward matter to make the appropriate selections, but, I'm sorry, it's just not here right now. There's just too many questions about how it is proposed. For example, if you're using Ipe siding, which we've done on many projects, you might say it's a tongue-and-groove board where you're just looking for a plainer surface with horizontal lines where the grooves are. If you're Trespa, it's typically set off a little bit. The material expands slightly. And then, you see the edge of it, where it's clearly not wood. It's a very different material even though the grain does match, and you have to treat it that way. It takes some architectural effort. They're not just a like-for-like substitution. You have to design that material differently to work, and I don't think any of us are seeing that resolution here. I'm open to either material, personally, although I do caution you that Ipe is very difficult to maintain. Within a year, every year, it will need to be refinished. It's such a dense wood. It's not typically used for this application for that reason. It's also not inexpensive. I'm going to propose to my colleagues, though, that...Actually, first, there's two design elements that are more than materials that I find troublesome. One of them, if you look at Sheet A12.02, the upper right-hand corner perspective, this is the corner post of the new entry where you have glass all around the corner. I understand that you want a structural column there. I find it really awkward to have the two materials just sort of, the wood stopping half way up, and then the white Trespa there. On a small, narrow member like that, I would like to think there's another way to detail how that transition is made, or indeed, if you don't just have the white post come all the way down. Or, maybe you have a different post, a round column painted a different color. Some design effort, because here, it just doesn't quite work, in my opinion. We'll see if my colleagues agree, but again, that upper-right perspective on A12.02, where that column is. The second thing I've compared is, on Sheet A00.07, the trash enclosure roof eve is treated differently than it was in a previous submittal, in that it doesn't really have much of an overhang. Whereas, the previous submittal had a slightly larger overhang, which I found much more appealing. I'd like to see that resolved. I'll pass this down to my colleagues so they can see the previous submittal. Those are the two very small design issues that you might just think through once more. Then, I was going to suggest that we ask for, just to be precise, details of the Ipe and Trespa siding, details of how the stone veneer is applied, details of the trash enclosure roof, details of the soffit, the piece outside the front door. You're showing a very attractive metal finish, top-and- bottom thing, and that would look very nice if it's properly detailed that way. So, some resolution on that. I suppose a detail of the overall roof eve. Alex is correct that you want to be really responding to the building next door. It's all about the details. It's not hard to do, but draw it out, put it there so the contractors build it that way, and the staff has something. And, lastly, this entry corner post. That's some of my comments. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I'm prepared to vote to approve this and make the findings. I thank you all for your...I thank Alex and Osma for their comments on the finding changes that we should have. I like the bench under the eve, but I don't think you should eliminate the bench along the sidewalk. The south El Camino guidelines talk about seating for the public, as well as the users, tenants, occupants of this building. I'd like at least one of those benches - and I think it's up to the applicant which one - to have arms so that people who don't stand up easily can get up out of the bench. I think a back is probably not quite as important, but these should be benches that people with varying degrees of strength can use. And I feel strongly that there should be two of them. This is a pedestrian loading zone, is that right? That's been established on the street? Mr. Brennan: Correct. 7.c Packet Pg. 213 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Furth: Those are interesting. I didn't know they existed. That would certainly be helpful here. I'm so pleased that you're planning to redo this building in this style. I think it will look much better, much more attractive as a place to be. I, too, check into a lot of motels sort of late. I really like having a dedicated parking space by the office, so I strongly favor Option C. I don't care if there's one or two, but I think it needs to have one. I propose that we recommend approval with a referral to subcommittee to deal with the design details that you all have mentioned. That's my point of view on this. Basically, thank you very much. This is going to be a much more attractive building on the street, and I trust that it will be good for business, too. Would anybody care to make a motion? MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I'm gearing up to do that, if that's okay. I move that we recommend approval of this project to the director, with Option C for the parking. And then, we would like to see it come back to subcommittee, specifically to see details of the Ipe and Trespa siding. That's the material and configuration. Details of the stone veneer. That's the configuration on the sides. Details of the trash enclosure eve. Details of the soffits at the entry area. Details of the roof eve at the top of the building on El Camino. Details of the entry corner post, I'm calling it. And, lastly, details of benches, showing a minimum of two benches outside. Chair Furth: Is there a second. Board Member Thompson: I can... Board Member Lew: I will second. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, go ahead. Chair Furth: Osma, would you care to be recognized? Board Member Thompson: Could I add to that list, I guess this would be a friendly amendment? Ms. Gerhardt: Can we make the second, first, and then do a friendly amendment? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: I think we have a second from Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I seconded, and I will entertain an amendment. Board Member Thompson: To add alternate shades for PT 2 and Wood 2 stain to better match either the Trespa or the Ipe. Vice Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Board Member Lew: I would accept that. Chair Furth: Okay, the friendly amendment is accepted. Anything else before we vote? Board Member Thompson: I also want to add a comment. Is it too soon? To add a comment, just on the entry post item? Chair Furth: Go ahead. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I agree with Board Member Baltay that that entry post could use some more design refinement in terms of how it's detailed. 7.c Packet Pg. 214 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye? Opposed, none. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Chair Furth: Who would like to serve on the subcommittee? Don't all wake up at once. Vice Chair Baltay: I would. Board Member Thompson: I would. Chair Furth: All right. This will be your subcommittee, Board Members Thompson and Baltay. Congratulations on getting through another step in the Palo Alto process. We look forward to seeing your project built. Thank you. We will take a five-minute break while you set up for the next item. 7.c Packet Pg. 215 Attachment D Environmental Documents Hardcopies of the project plans are provided to ARB Members. These documents are available to the public online, as described below, or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3945 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review record details on the right side and click the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Subcommittee Plans” 7.d Packet Pg. 216