Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-10-18 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 18, 2018 Community Meeting Room 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. 1841 Page Mill Road [18PLN-00213]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Master Sign Program With Sign Exceptions to Allow for new Monument Signs, Directory Signs, and Directional Signs. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zone District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 6, 2018. _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Subcommittee Items 4. 2609 Alma Street [18PLN-00074]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to 1) Rear Facade Design and Materials, and 2) Rear Yard Landscaping Plan. Environmental Assessment: Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN- 00253. Zoning Districts: RM-30. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at efoley@m-group.us. 5. 250 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]: Subcommittee Review of the Previously Approved Public Safety Building That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes for Bollard Lighting and Material Finishes, Textures and Colors. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@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 # 9709) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 10/18/2018 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Attachments:  Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)  Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 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 & 10/18 Thompson/ Baltay Architectural Review Board 2018 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics November 1  3128 El Camino Real: Exterior Modifications  Comp Plan Policies: Informational  Tier 3 Wireless: Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2  Tier 3 Wireless: Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9670) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/18/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1841 Page Mill Road: Master Sign Program with Exceptions Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1841 Page Mill Road [18PLN-00213]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Master Sign Program With Sign Exceptions to Allow for new Monument Signs, Directory Signs, and Directional Signs. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zone District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The proposed project is an amendment to an existing Master Sign program from 2003 and a request for an exception to the size and number limitations for freestanding and directional signs allowed by Municipal Code Section 16.20. The Master Sign program provides design provisions for existing and future tenants of the building to follow, which describe the number, occupant, location, materials, and lighting of future tenant signs. Individual signs are typically considered minor projects requiring staff review only, however, pursuant to Section 18.76.020 of the Municipal Code, Master Sign programs and sign exceptions are considered major projects and are subject to review by the ARB. With the approval of a Master Sign program, subsequent individual signs that conform to the program do not require additional architectural review. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Not applicable Representative: Bryan Panian/Cody Le Beau – Corporate Signs Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 1801-1899 Page Mill Road Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 10.4 acres Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes; Hillview-Porter Regional Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes; there are numerous protected and regulated trees on this site Historic Resource(s): Not applicable Existing Improvement(s): Four buildings between two to three stories tall comprising of roughly 185,000 square feet of office use, built circa 1975 Existing Land Use(s): Research & Development, General Business Offices, Professional Business Offices Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Stanford University Housing (County - R1S) West: Stanford University Open Space (County - OSF) East: Research and Development (RP) South: Research and Development (RP) Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RP (Research Park) Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: The ARB reviewed two applications for Master Sign programs (94PLN-00076 & 03PLN-00025) and one application for a sign exception (85PLN-00263) for the site between 1985 and present. 1. File No. 85PLN-00263 was the initial exception application that allowed for the secondary tenant monument along Page Mill Road. It was subsequently updated in conjunction with the Master Sign programs mentioned below. 2. File No. 94PLN-00076 established the initial Master Sign program for the site which was subsequently updated by 03PLN-00025. 3. File No. 03PLN-00025 established the existing signage reflected in the Attachment F. The staff report for this application is provided as Attachment D. Project Description The applicant proposes a Master Sign program with sign exceptions for the existing Research and Development complex located at 1801-1899 Page Mill Road. The program consists of a site plan, sign elevations, material boards, tenant identification, wayfinding signage. The purpose of the Master Sign program is to update the existing sign program to provide a consistent design concept between the buildings on the site and tenant signage. The following signs are requested with the Master Sign Program including Sign Exceptions:  Two (2) freestanding monument signs at the vehicle entrances to the site along Porter Drive and Page Mill Road. Signs are proposed to be constructed of concrete with an aluminum cabinet and black vinyl lettering for the tenant names. Sign A1 would be a maximum height of 48 inches while sign A2 would vary in height between 49 inches and 63 ½ inches based on the slope of the ground as it travels across the sign area. The signs would be 60 and 97 square feet respectively with sign A2 having existing lights that will provide illumination by upward-facing site lighting.  One (1) freestanding tenant monument sign (sign B) located along the main entrance to the property on Page Mill Road nearby sign A2. This sign is proposed to be constructed of concrete with an aluminum cabinet and black vinyl lettering for the tenant names. Sign B would vary in height between 65 inches and 60 inches based on the slope of the ground as it travels across the sign area. There are existing lights that will provide illumination to the sign by upward-facing lighting.  Six (6) directional signs (signs E1 – E6) located throughout the property to help direct individuals towards the different buildings on site. Signs are proposed to be constructed City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 of a stainless steel pole with an aluminum panel that has the address numbers for the buildings made of white reflective vinyl. Each wayfinding sign is proposed to be seven feet tall with an area that ranges from 10 to 15 square feet depending on how many address panels are attached to the pole. These signs will not feature illumination.  Seven (7) freestanding directory signs (signs C1 – C7) located in front of the respective tenant locations on the site. Signs are proposed to be constructed of concrete with an aluminum cabinet and black vinyl lettering for the tenant names. Each sign will be 48 inches in height and 20.71 square feet in size. These signs will not feature any illumination.  Seven (7) new address numbers (D1 – D7) facing Page Mill Road and towards adjacent properties. Address letters and numbers are not considered signs for the purposes of compliance with the Sign Code. The address numbers would have no illumination and would either be 18 inches or 24 inches in height. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Master Sign Program: In accordance with PAMC Section 16.20.030 "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. The master sign program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the master sign program, subsequent individual signs may be erected without further design review. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Director of Planning & Community Environment 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. Projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve this application are provided in Attachment C.  Architectural Review – Sign Exception for area and height: In accordance with PAMC section 16.20.040 “Sign Exception” means an application made in conjunction with an architectural review which requests a deviation from what is allowed in the Sign Code. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Director of Planning & Community Environment 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. Projects are evaluated against specific findings. All City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve this application are provided in Attachment C. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located on the southeast side of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway along the western border of the City and the Stanford Research Park. The neighborhood is characterized by medium sized research/office buildings along Porter Drive, Page Mill Road, and Foothills Expressway with single family residential uses, in the County, on the northern side of Page Mill Road. Existing signage in the area includes large freestanding monument signs located in landscape berms along Porter Drive and Page Mill Road. The scale of the existing signage in the area is appropriate given the larger parcels with multiple tenants located in and around the Research Park. Page Mill Road and Porter Drive are heavily trafficked roads which explain the need for larger signs to showcase multiple tenants for vehicles passing by and looking for their destination. The proposed signage design would maintain that consistent style of monument signs seen within the Stanford Research Park. Given that many of the surrounding parcels are large in size compared to other commercial sites within the City, it is more difficult to apply the strict allowances of the Sign Code, as the regulations do not translate as well onto larger properties with multiple tenants. Doing so would significantly limit this property’s ability to identify the tenants that work on the site which would make it challenging for anyone trying to locate the offices of one of the tenants. The entry signs along Page Mill Road and Porter Drive are vehicle oriented and will be large enough to be seen by visitors looking for either a specific tenant or the address ranges associated with the site from the street. The updated design will connect with the site’s overall design concept to produce a coherent aesthetic that will be easily recognizable to anyone coming to the site. While the area of the proposed sign exceeds the maximum allowed by the Sign Code, it would be very challenging to identify all the separate tenants on the site and still be in compliance with the 27 square foot allowance. The proposed design will update the existing freestanding sign to provide a more consistent design with the site without creating new visibility issues for vehicles. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The secondary monument sign located along Page Mill Road heading east into the City is partially obscured by a tree, vegetation, a light pole, and a utility stairwell. It is also located at such an angle that it will not obscure the main entry sign along Page Mill Road as a vehicle approaches the main entryway and only provides a minimal overlap along the edges of the two signs that do not contain tenant information. The proposed increase in height will serve to provide more visibility to an existing tenant sign as vehicles approach the property along Page Mill Road without creating a sign that is obtrusive or unappealing. The existing tenant directory signs and directional wayfinding signs located within the complex are a mix of small and large structures that do not currently create a sense of internal order as you travel from building to building and are difficult to notice when traveling in a vehicle. As proposed, the new design for both sign types would better serve to create a sense of consistent size, scaling, and aesthetic design as you travel through the site. The new design of the signs would better direct people coming to the site to their destination as they would be more visible from a moving vehicle. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. 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. The standards for freestanding signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.20.120, are listed below:  Area and Height. Freestanding signs five feet or less in height shall be permitted in all Zoning Districts except for the GM zones, the Hospital District, and for El Camino frontages of CN and CS zoned properties. The maximum area of such signs is set forth in Table 1. Would not comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. Both A1 and A2 freestanding signs along Page Mill Road and Porter Drive would exceed the maximum 27 square feet but not the five foot height limitation. Sign B would exceed the 27 square foot size allowance but not the five foot height limitation.  Location. Every such sign shall be wholly on the owner's property. Complies; all signs are located on the subject property.  Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be no more than one such sign for each frontage. In the case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies having a common frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be that of the shopping center or commonly used parcel and not the frontages of the individual businesses or occupancies. Would not comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. Sign B was previously approved through an exception in 1985 and changes to what 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 was previously approved would require another exception. The consistency of the design in conjunction with all the other proposed signs would be more appropriately processed under a Master Sign program instead of a typical sign application which usually addresses signs per tenant space.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; signs will be made from concrete and aluminum.  Lighting of Freestanding signs. No freestanding sign shall be constructed in such a way that any light bulb or filament is visible from the front of the sign or from beyond the property line. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit signs of neon tubing or similar self-illuminating material of equivalent or less intensity. Complies; external illumination will be minimal and focused on sign A2 and sign B. The standards for directional signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.20.120, are listed below:  Area and Height. Directional signs shall not exceed an area of six square feet or a height of three feet. Would not comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. The directional signs have a minimum of three to five directional placards measured with an area that will range from 10 to 15 square feet which will exceed the allowable six square feet. Additionally, the proposed seven foot height of the directional signs would exceed the three foot allowance.  Location. Every such sign shall be located on the property to which they pertain and shall be located at least twenty feet within the nearest property line, except that directional signs of not more than three square feet in area may be located not less than ten feet within any front property line. Complies; all signs are located on the subject property.  Number. Currently there are no limitations indicated in the Sign code to the number of directional signs allowed on a property. Complies with sign code given that there is no limitation indicated. The consistency of the design and number of signs in conjunction with all the other proposed signs would be more appropriately processed under a Master Sign program.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; signs will be made from stainless steel and aluminum. The standards for directory signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.20.160, are listed below: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9  Area and Height. Such signs may have an area of four square feet, plus one and one-half square feet per name, in no event to exceed seventy-five square feet and shall not exceed eight feet in height. Would not comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. As proposed, all of the 21 square feet tenant directory signs would exceed the maximum floor area allowance.  Location. Every such sign shall be situated at least two feet inside the property line. Complies; signs will be located more than two feet into the property.  Number. Currently there are no limitations indicated in the Sign code to the number of directional signs allowed on a property. Complies with sign code given that there is no limitation indicated. The consistency of the design and number of signs in conjunction with all the other proposed signs would be more appropriately processed under a Master Sign program.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; signs will be made from concrete and aluminum. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 Policy L-50 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”. The main vehicle entry signs have been designed to provide an updated look to connect with the existing building’s own mix of traditional and modern design. The location of these two signs is consistent with existing signage in the area, and would be uncluttered while still providing visibility from several angles. The materials are proposed to consist of painted concrete with an aluminum tenant cabinet, and the chosen color palette of silver-aluminum and white is understated and would easily blend into the surroundings given the surrounding office park environment. With the exception of the directional wayfinding signs, the remainder of the freestanding signs will follow the same design and color scheme which will serve to establish a consistent design, size, and scale throughout the site. The height of the proposed wayfinding signs are taller than similar signs in the area, however, the design will be more visible at vehicle level than the existing wayfinding signs used to guide visitors and tenants to their destination while not obscuring visibility when traveling through the site. While most of the signage exceeds the allowable areas for freestanding, directional, and directory signs, staff believes that much of the new signage will be appropriate in scale in relation to the existing buildings and size of the site. Additionally, staff believes that it will facilitate easier identification of separate tenants as well as pedestrian and vehicle traffic through the site. Consistency with Application Findings 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Draft findings for approval are contained in Attachment C of this report. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15311 (Accessory Structures), item (a) “On-Premise Signs” of the CEQA Guidelines. 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 October 5, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 5, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Building/Planning Technician Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2471 (650) 329-2575 garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment C: Draft ARB and Sign Exception Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: 2003 Master Sign Program Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 50 50 50 50 G F E E Quarry Booster Gas Station #3 F 20-082E20-082A 20-082B Page Mill Station Utilities_Stairway 1701 3170 1899 1801 3174 3145 1891 1881 1841 3150 3160 1961 1661 1903 1901 1699 1702 1700 1897 915 909 908 903 900 1002 1012 1020 1005 1017 1028 1029 1036 1044 1047 1052 1060 1068 1055 1063 1077 1089 1095 10981084 1076 899 895 891 885 87 9 873 894 878 868 867 861 855 849 856 848 840 843 837 831834 841 845849 853 857 861 PORTER DRIVE PORTER DRIVE FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD FOOTHILL EXPRESS W AY PAGE MILL ROAD L W A Y MUNDO WAY RA I MU N D O W A Y V E R N I E R P L A C E A L L A R D I C E R A I M U N D O This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line abc Easement Zone Districts City Jurisdictional Limits: Palo Alto City Boundary Tree 1801-1899 Page Mill Road 0'301' Page Mill Road MSP and Exception 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 gsauls, 2018-09-14 11:49:42 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) RP SITE ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1841 Page Mill Road 18PLN-00213 _________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2747 Park Blvd Exterior Wayfinding Signage,” stamped as received by the City on July 25, 2017 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. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of the signs has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 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. 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, Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION 1. Resurfacing of existing monument signs without altering any of the physical dimensions does not require a building permit. 2. A building permit is required for any existing monument sign that is being replaced with another sign of different or similar configuration using the current applicable codes. 3. A building permit is required for the construction of any new monument or wayfinding signs using the current applicable codes. ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 1841 Page Mill Road/18PLN-00213 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: As discussed in the staff report, the project as conditioned is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the project conforms to Policy L-50: “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”. 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 master sign program presents a framework for future tenant signage for the purposes of wayfinding and site visibility. The proposed signage uses compatible materials and colors that are unified and coherent, and will assist in creating a sense of order on the site. As proposed, the site signage is appropriately scaled for the site and reflects the character of the surrounding Research and Development Park context. 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 master sign program makes use of aluminum and concrete materials that are durable while also being simple, clean, and aesthetically pleasing. The color palette silver-aluminum and white for the sign material complements the traditional and modern tones used on the buildings that currently exist on the site. 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: Signage has been placed to assist in wayfinding for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists entering the building(s) and site from a number of locations. The signage conforms to the City’s requirements regarding visibility triangles at intersections, and would not impair the function and safety of the drive aisles serving the site. As proposed, the area of each type of sign exceeds the maximum permitted for each sign type, however, the proposed design would still be appropriately scaled for a large Research and Development Park complex, such as this one. 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: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. A landscaping plan was prepared and approved previously on this site and will continue to be implemented outside this scope of work. 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: The proposed signs include LED lighting which is energy efficient and long lasting. Sign Exception Findings 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; The project parcel is exceptionally large in comparison to other RP zoned parcels surrounding the site. The site is a total of approximately 10.4 acres and holds a significantly more tenants (6) whereas most RP zoned properties are closer to one acre and usually hold two to three tenants. Strict application of the Municipal Code allows for only one freestanding sign per frontage, the intent being to limit signage seen by the general public from the public right-of-way. However, given the size of the project site and past approval for the existing signage along Page Mill Road and Porter Drive, the signs would not be visible from any project frontage if they were reduced to meet the Sign Code allowances and would not be in keeping with past ARB approvals. Likewise, the proposed directory and directional signs would be difficult to see as one travels through the site looking for one of the tenants and would provide stark shifts in scale when compared in relation to the existing buildings. Therefore, given the exceptional size and the configuration of the lot, the property is unique and these sign exceptions would be appropriate. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; Approval of this exception to maintain more than one freestanding sign per frontage is necessary to ensure that strict application of the Municipal Code does not deprive the property owner of the ability to improve the site for the substantial enjoyment of their tenants. It is the substantial property right of the property owner to use this land and improve it for the benefit of their tenants. Strict application of the Code to minimize the freestanding, directional, and directory signage, which is intended to promote tenant identification and facilitate ease of movement throughout the site, would be an unnecessary hardship. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The granting of this application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. Rather, it would be located wholly on the subject site and would enhance movement throughout the site as the signage proposed would be more visible for vehicles entering the site looking for their destination. As proposed, the site signage is appropriately scaled for the site and reflects the character of the surrounding Research and Development Park context in an aesthetically pleasing and coherent manner, therefore, the project meets this finding. Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 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 “1841 Page Mill Road” 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=4388&TargetID=319 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9675) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 10/18/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2609 Alma Avenue: Subcommittee Review of Rear Facade and Rear Yard Landscaping Title: 2609 Alma Street [18PLN-00074]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to 1) Rear Facade Design and Materials, and 2) Rear Yard Landscaping Plan. Environmental Assessment: Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00253. Zoning Districts: RM-30. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at efoley@m-group.us. 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 August 21, 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 3a: Revised the rear elevation to incorporate better use of materials and improve visual appearance. Applicant’s Response:  These drawings describe revisions to the rear façade that were discussed during ARB approval for the project. Board members requested the project return to the subcommittee to review proposals to clarify the design of the rear façade. The original City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 proposal was a design with four different stucco colors on four different quadrants of the façade. The revised proposal incorporates a wood element on the trop right (largest most visible quadrant). The wood element wraps the corner of an upper balcony. The base stucco color was simplified to be the darker color (stucco color #4 – see sample). The remaining top left quadrant is a lighter stucco color. The new façade proposal is better balanced and more in keeping with the look of the front façade. Staff Analysis/Feedback:  The color scheme overall has been unified, and the ground floor only contains one stucco color, excluding a vertical accent on the West elevation. The wood accent material was also added to the second floor to be more cohesive with the other sides of the building. The rear façade now contains three colors of stucco. Architecture Review Condition 3b: Consider an alternative planting plan for the rear of the property that facilitates both visual screening and patio use. Applicant’s Response:  The placement of screening bushes has been revised on the site plan to locate the 15 Prunus Carolinia along the rear fence. This is in response to a comment from the Board that Staff’s recommended placement of the bushes in the middle of the yard was not satisfactory. Staff Analysis/Feedback:  While the landscaping addresses the ARB’s concerns that the original landscaping plan makes the backyard unusable, the proposal of plants along the rear fence will obstruct an existing five-foot utility easement along the rear property line, including an existing utility pole. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2/ 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 Emily Foley, Project Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x111 (650) 329-2575 efoley@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3  Attachment A: August 16, 2018 Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment B: Applicant's Response Letter (PDF)  Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX) City of Palo Alto Page 1 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. Additionally, the building materials include wood siding and various colors of stucco to break up the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: August 16, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 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 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. City of Palo Alto Page 3 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 pleached trees 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. 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 City of Palo Alto Page 4 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. 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 City of Palo Alto Page 5 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. 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 City of Palo Alto Page 6 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 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? Mr. Kummerer: You can maybe see here. If you look behind that dotted line... City of Palo Alto Page 7 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] Mr. Kummerer: Yeah, yeah, [crosstalk] ... City of Palo Alto Page 8 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. 2609 – 2617 Alma ARB subcommittee memo September 28, 2018 These drawings describe revisions to the rear façade that were discussed during ARB approval for the project. Board members requested the project return to study session to review proposals to clarify the design of the rear façade. The original proposal was a design (4) different stucco colors on four different quadrants of the façade. The revised proposal incorporates a wood element on the top right (largest most visible quadrant). The wood element wraps the corner of an upper balcony. The base stucco color was simplified to be the darker color (stucco color #4- see below for sample). The remaining top left quadrant is a lighter stucco color. The new façade proposal is better balanced and more in keeping with the look of the front façade. The placement of screening bushes has been revised on the site plan to locate the 15 Prunus Carolinia along the rear fence. This is in response to a comment of a board member that Staff’s recommended placement of the bushes in the middle of the yard was not satisfactory. Sincerely, Chris Kummerer Principal, CKA Architects Menlo Park, CA Stucco color #4 Attachment C 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: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “2609 Alma St” 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. On the attachments webpage, you will find a link to the ARB Subcommittee Plans entitled “Binder_ALMA ARB Study Session” uploaded on October 1, 2018. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9699) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 10/18/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 250 Sherman: Subcommittee Review of Public Safety Building Title: 250 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]: Subcommittee Review of the Previously Approved Public Safety Building That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes for Bollard Lighting and Material Finishes, Textures and Colors. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On September 20, 2018, the ARB recommended Council approval of the subject project. At the ARB’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: In the revised draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A), the following condition appears in the Planning conditions: Condition 5: The following items shall return to a subcommittee of the ARB for further consideration/exploration: a. Light fixture E-1, b. The materials with respect to finishes, textures and color, focusing on the board-formed concrete at the base of the building. c. The communications tower antenna attachments design, and City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 d. The design of the community/multi-purpose room to make it flexible for use by the Police Department and as a City-managed civic meeting room (including the door to the plaza, additional windows, and signage). The ARB had left item (b) as a broad statement condition, but there was some specificity in what some members were hoping to review; that is:  An optional finish for the board-formed concrete,  Review of the patterning and layout of the sand-colored tile, and  Reconsideration of the glossiness of the white tile up above. Applicant’s Response for October 18, 2018 Subcommittee Review: The applicant is seeking feedback from the ARB subcommittee on the following two items prior to Council’s consideration of and action on the project: Item a. Four E-1 light fixtures (bollard lights near Birch Street) changed to less-glare fixtures. The design team is proposing an alternate pole fixture which screens the light in two directions. The fixture is rectangular, similar in height as the fixture shown at the 9/20 meeting. An image is provided below and a cut sheet describing the fixture is provided as Attachment C. Item b. Color and texture options for the lower level exterior cast-in-place concrete shown in the September 20, 2018 ARB meeting as terra-cotta color with board-formed texture. The design team will present variations of the texture, color, and finish of the lower level cast- in-place terra cotta colored board formed concrete. Future Subcommittee Review Items: Item c: Antenna Attachments Design City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The antenna attachment layout will not be ready for subcommittee review prior to the City Council’s scheduled November 5, 2018 hearing of the project. All of the communications systems must be further selected and designed, so this item is likely the last item to be addressed, and the designs may need to periodically go back to ARB as the communications needs change during the life of the building. The revised draft Record of Land Use Action has a placeholder condition regarding ongoing architectural reviews of the antenna attachments. Item d: Community/Multi-Purpose Room Design The multi-purpose room’s openness related to the possible programmatic use of the space as a community room needs Council direction and will be highlighted in the staff report to Council for the public hearing of the project on November 5, 2018. The Police Department is likely to seek very limited use of the space as a community room. As set forth in the revised draft RLUA, the community room/multi-purpose room design would return to ARB subcommittee soon after Council’s decision on the project. Excerpt minutes of the September 20, 2018 ARB hearing are provided as Attachment B to this report and a video recording is available online at http://midpenmedia.org/architectural- review-board-74-09202018/ The ARB is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or require further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Revised Record of Land Use Action (DOC)  Attachment B: ARB Excerpt Minutes from September 20, 2018 (DOCX)  Attachment C: Bollard Lighting Specifications (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 1 DRAFT ACTION NO. 2018-0X RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 250 SHERMAN AVENUE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 17PLN-00256: PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING On November 26, 2018, the Council approved the proposed Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: On November 26, 2018, Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Architectural Review application and conditional approval recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, for the Public Safety Building at 250 Sherman Avenue; A. On October 19, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted the first public hearing of the Public Safety Building (PSB) application, together with the application for the Sherman Avenue public parking garage, and continued its review of both applications to a date uncertain; B. On January 18, 2018 the ARB reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the PSB Project in a public hearing and provided comments, which were addressed in the Final EIR Council adopted on June 11, 2018; C. On June 11, 2018, Council adopted modifications to the Public Facilities development and parking standards for public parking facilities and essential services facilities within the Downtown and California Avenue business districts; D. On August 2, 2018, the ARB reviewed the PSB application in a second public hearing including a review of the Architectural Review approval findings and draft approval conditions, and continued the hearing to September 20, 2018; E. On September 20, 2018, the ARB unanimously recommended that Council approve the proposed public parking garage, subject to subcommittee review as noted in approval condition #5; and F. On October 18, 2018 the ARB Subcommittee reviewed and provided feedback on two of the items noted in Planning Condition of Approval #5. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On June 11, 2018, the City of Palo Alto City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and made related findings by Resolution 9772. Attachment A 2 SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. The design and architecture of the proposed public safety building complies with the Six Findings for Architectural Review set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.76 Section 18.76.020. (1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because:  With Council’s recent adoption of amendments to the Public Facilities development and parking standards for essential services facilities and parking garages within the Downtown and California Avenue Business districts approval of the project, the project complies with the land use and development standards of the PF zone.  The following policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) are relevant to the project: o Policy T-5.6, strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible, o Policy T-5.7, require new or redesigned parking lots to optimize pedestrian and bicycle safety, o Policy T-5.8, promote vehicle parking areas designed to reduce storm water runoff, increase compatibility with street trees and add visual interest to streets and other public locations. Encourage the use of photovoltaic panel or tree canopies in parking lots or on top of parking structures to provide cover, consistent with the Urban Forest Master Plan, o Policy N-2.3, enhance the ecological resilience of the urban forest by increasing and diversifying native species in the public right-of-way, protecting the health of soils and understory vegetation, encouraging property owners to do the same and discouraging the planting of invasive species, o Policy N-2.10, preserve and protect Regulated Trees on public and private property…and related program N2.10.1 continue to require replacement of trees including street trees lost to new development, o Policy N-4.12, encourage Low Impact Development (LID) measures to limit the amount of pavement and impervious surface in new development and increase the retention, treatment and infiltration of urban stormwater runoff. Include LID measures in major remodels, public projects and recreation projects where practical. o Policy L-1.10, hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts, 3 o Policy L-4.2, encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping, o Policy L-4.3, ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art, o Policy L-4.8, maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in function and scale between the Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas, o Policy L-5.2, provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts, o Policy L-5.3, design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the character of the area where they are located, o Policy L-6.1, promote high quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces, o Policy L-6.3, encourage bird-friendly design, o Policy L-6.6, design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and well-being; and to enhance a sense of community safety, o Policy L-6.10, encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. (no signage proposed with this application), o Policy L-8.2, provide comfortable seating areas and plazas with places for public art, o Policy L-70, enhance the appearance of streets by expanding and maintaining street trees, o Policy L-8.4, create facilities for civic and intellectual life, such as better urban spaces for civic programs and speakers, cultural, musical and artistic events, o Policy L-8.5, recognize public art … as a community benefit; encourage the development of new public and private art and ensure such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the neighborhood, o Policy L-8.6, seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public spaces, open space and community gardens, o Policy L-9.2, encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand, o Policy L-9.6, create…publicly accessible, shared outdoor gathering spaces within walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods, 4 o Policy L-9.7 strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways, including…entries to commercial districts, o Policy L-9.8 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan by reference in order to assure that new land uses recognize the many benefits of trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust tree canopy throughout the city,  Related Program L-9.8.1, establish incentives to encourage native trees and low water use plantings in new development throughout the city, o Policy L-9.9, involve the Urban Forester, or appropriate City staff, in development review, o Policy L-9.11, design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots, to meet high-quality urban design standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in design of public infrastructure.  Related Program L9.11.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. (2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (2a) creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community; The project is consistent with Finding 2(a), given:  The right-of-way improvements will improve circulation; employee automobile ingress from/egress onto Jacaranda Lane is compatible with the design concept and functions;  The new facilities and amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles are an improvement from the existing facilities as to safety and convenience;  (2b) preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant; The project is consistent with Finding 2(b), given:  Although all existing on-site and street trees will be removed to allow for construction of the PSB, 15 new street trees (Chinese Elms, California Sycamores, and London Planes) in 24” box sizes (with post pavement support system and necessary soil volume for long-term health and separation for utilities) are proposed around the perimeter of the building on Sherman, Birch and Park (plan sheet ARB AM08).  On Birch Street, five additional 24” box sized Golden Rain trees will form an allee with the street trees; and one additional tree (Cork Oak) is proposed for the ‘front yard’ area;  On Park Boulevard, four additional 24” box sized Strawberry trees are proposed behind the street trees;  Six Strawberry trees are proposed in the employee courtyard near Jacaranda Lane;  Plan sheet ARB AM11 provides technical details associated with the tree mitigation plan. 5 (2c) is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district; Finding 2c is not applicable since the PF zone does not impose context based design criteria. (2d) provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations; The project is consistent with Finding 2(d), given:  The materials and architectural forms are intended to be compatible with the mid-century architecture of the area which includes: o A four story building across Sherman (the County courthouse and jail building), a mixed use (office-residential) building on the corner across Sherman, one- and two- story commercial buildings fronting California Avenue, and multi-story residential building on the opposite corner. (2e) enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas;  There are no living units proposed on the site; the project is consistent with Finding 2(e), wherever feasible, with limited lighting proposed facing the multiple family residential building on Sherman Avenue, and with pedestrian friendly landscaping, lighting and sidewalks to enhance residents’ experience walking to California Avenue. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area; the project is consistent with Finding 3, given:  The materials were selected for quality, durability and to convey warmth;  The new structure’s materials and construction techniques are appropriate for the use;  Colors and textures will be compatible with nearby civic buildings and park landscaping; (4) The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.); the project is consistent with Finding 4, given:  The 10’ high security wall along Jacaranda is set back from the property line to provide a continuous sidewalk and meet the 10’ PF zone setback requirement for a significant length of the alley;  Sidewalk curb location adjustments and pedestrian crossing bulb-outs promote safe pedestrian traffic; (5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained; the project is consistent with Finding 5, given: 6  Selected tree species will thrive in an urban environment, provide appropriate architectural emphasis and scale on each of the three frontages, and have relatively low maintenance and water requirements.  Sherman and Park frontages receive raised planters with integral seating, an area of rain garden planting.  Sherman Avenue and Birch Street receive wider sidewalks allowing for street trees and benches.  The entry alignment of the Birch Street ramp connects with Jacaranda to allow a landscaped front yard plaza on Birch,  The landscaped setbacks accommodate seating and shade for individual passive activities along Birch, Sherman and Park frontages;  Low-level, focused pedestrian lighting will reinforce the intimate and small-scale aspects of the plazas/streets, avoid light-pollution, and reinforce the civic character of the facilities. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning; the project is consistent with Finding #6 given:  Suitable street tree planting environments and storm water design features are key features of the project. SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Public Parking Garage at 350 Sherman Avenue by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 5. Plan Approval. Public Safety Building The plans for the Public Safety Building submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by RussDrulisCusenbery, consisting of 47 pages, received September 4, 2018, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Impact Mitigation Measures Required for Both Project Components (250 and 350 Sherman)  Air Quality Mitigation 5-1. To reduce potential short-term adverse health risks associated with PM2.5 emissions, including emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), generated during project construction activities, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall: 7 1. Implement BAAQMD-recommended “Additional Construction Measures”. The City shall implement the following BAAQMD recommended additional construction mitigation measures during construction activities: (1) All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent, to be verified by lab samples or moisture probe, (2) All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average winds speeds exceed 20 miles per hour, (3) Temporary wind breaks (e.g., fences) shall be installed on the windward (generally the north / northwest) of actively disturbed areas of construction. The wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity, (4) Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established, (5) Simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities in the same area at any one time shall be limited and/or phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time, (6) All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site, (7) Site access to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road, or as much as feasible, shall be treated with a compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, gravel, or other cover as feasible to reduce track-out, (8) Minimize the idling time for diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes provided such idling restrictions are consistent with manufacturer’s equipment specifications. 2. Apply construction equipment restrictions. The City shall apply the following construction equipment restrictions to the proposed project: (1) Electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas equipment shall be employed instead of diesel powered equipment to the maximum extent feasible. (2) All construction equipment with a rated power-output of 25 horsepower or greater shall meet U.S. EPA and CARB Tier IV Final Emission Standards for particulate matter. This may be achieved via the use of equipment with engines that have been certified to meet Tier IV emission standards, or through the use of equipment that has been retrofitted with a CARB verified diesel emission control strategy (e.g., oxidation catalyst, particulate filter) capable of reducing exhaust PM emissions to levels that meet Tier IV standards. 3. Prepare Construction Risk Reduction Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City and/or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Risk Reduction Plan for the project which: (1) Identifies the final planned construction phasing schedule and anticipated equipment operations. (2) Estimates the proposed project’s construction emissions based on the final phasing and equipment plan. Any emission update shall be performed using the latest recommended emissions estimator model recommended by the BAAQMD or other standard, acceptable methodology (e.g., contractor-specific fleet emission factors and estimates of equipment operating hours). (3) Models the potential diesel particulate matter and total PM2.5 concentrations resulting from refined emissions estimates. Any modeling shall be performed using an accepted screening or refined dispersion model recommended for use by the BAAQMD. The modeling shall focus on discrete, residential receptors located at and near the proposed project site. (4) Estimates potential adverse health effects associated with exposure to DPM. Risk estimates shall follow the latest recommendations of the BAAQMD. The goal of the risk estimation shall be to identify the receptor(s) or areas of receptors where carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk thresholds may be exceeded. If risks are exceeded, the plan shall identify feasible on- and off-site measures to reduce risks to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. On-site measures may include the BAAQMD “Additional Construction Measures” and construction equipment restrictions included in Mitigation Measure 5-1, as well as phasing / activity restrictions. Off-site measures may include coordinating with all impacted receptors to replace and upgrade existing HVAC systems to provide high performance panel filters capable of reducing potential modeled outdoor PM2.5 concentrations / risks to levels that are below BAAQMD thresholds. 4. Implement Off-Site Mitigation. In-lieu of preparing the Construction Risk Reduction Plan identified above, the City may, prior to the start of construction activities, coordinate directly with impacted residential receptors to replace and upgrade existing residential HVAC systems with a high-performance panel filter with a rated minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) for particles in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 µm of 70% (presumed to be a minimum MERV14), or equivalent system upgrade. This level of control would reduce risks to levels below current BAAQMD thresholds. Based on the results of the modeling conducted for the EIR, the City shall coordinate with residential receptors located in the area bound by Park Boulevard to the north, Ash Street to the south Sheridan Avenue to the east, and Sherman Avenue to the west. 8  Nesting Birds Mitigation 6-1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds and violation of State and federal laws pertaining to birds, all construction-related activities (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) should occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or after August 31). If construction and construction noise occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to August 31), all suitable habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance, including staging and storage areas plus a 150-foot buffer around these areas, shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipment mobilization. If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active nesting is present if a bird is sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented. If it is determined that birds are actively nesting within the survey area, the additional procedures below shall apply. Conversely, if the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds, the additional procedures shall not be required. Additional Procedures. If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment (including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading) shall take place within 150 feet of nests, or as determined by a qualified biologist, until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to insure compliance with the MBTA and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented.  Removal of Trees Mitigation 6-2. Prior to removal of the protected trees and street trees, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit issued by the City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Division for the removal of any and all protected, designated, or street trees (referred to collectively as “Regulated Trees”). In all cases, replacement trees would be required as a condition of the tree removal permit, and the project applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that there is no alternative that could preserve the tree(s) on-site. The project applicant must provide an evaluation and summary for any Regulated Tree (the collective term for any protected, designated, or street tree) proposed to be removed. The applicant shall be required, in accordance with the Tree Protection and Management Regulations (PAMC 8.10) and Tree Technical Manual (PAMC 8.10.130), to replace the tree canopy for the six (6) protected trees, in accordance with the tree canopy formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual (TTM, 3.20). If the tree canopy cannot be replaced on-site, the canopy shall be replaced off-site as close to the project site as feasible. If trees are being replaced off-site, the applicant must submit a Tree Planting Plan to the Urban Forestry Division and obtain the Urban Forestry Division’s approval of the plan prior to issuance of a building permit. The Tree Planting Plan must include: (a) The canopy calculation for trees removed and the number of trees planned to replace them, consistent with the formula identified in the Tree Technical Manual. (b) The specific location where the new trees would be planted with specific baseline information about that proposed site (e.g., surrounding vegetation or development). (c) The species of trees to be planted. (d) Specific planting details (e.g., size of sapling, size of containers, irrigation plan). (e) Success criteria, (f) Monitoring and maintenance schedule (g) Replacement tree planting will be monitored by a qualified arborist. 9 To verify the success of replacement trees, monitoring shall occur for two years after initial planting. After the two year period, the arborist will determine if the trees are capable of surviving without further maintenance.  Archeo-Paleo Mitigation 7-1. In the event of the unanticipated discovery of subsurface archaeological or paleontological resources during earth-moving operations, the following measures are recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts on these resources to a less-than- significant level: 1. Conduct Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for Construction Personnel. The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, and a professionally qualified paleontologist, to conduct an Archaeological/Paleontological Sensitivity Training for construction personnel prior to commencement of excavation activities. The training session will include a written handout and will focus on how to identify archaeological and paleontological resources that may be encountered during earth-moving activities, including the procedures to be followed in such an event, the duties of archaeological and paleontological monitors, and the general steps a qualified professional archaeologist or paleontologist would follow in conducting a salvage investigation if one is necessary. 2. Cease Ground-Disturbing Activities and Implement Treatment Plan if Archaeological Resources Are Encountered. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, the ground-disturbing activities shall be halted or diverted away from the vicinity of the find so that the find can be evaluated. A buffer area of at least 50 feet shall be established around the find, where construction activities will not be allowed to continue until a qualified archaeologist has examined the newly discovered artifact(s) and has evaluated the area of the find. Work shall be allowed to continue outside the buffer area. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist, who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards. Should the newly discovered artifacts be determined to be prehistoric, Native American Tribes/Individuals shall be contacted and consulted, and Native American construction monitoring should be initiated. The City shall coordinate with the archaeologist to develop an appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The plan may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to address treatment of the resources, along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. 3. Conduct Periodic Archaeological Resources Spot Checks During Grading and Earth-Moving Activities in All Sediments. The City shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, to conduct periodic Archaeological Spot Checks beginning at depths below two (2) feet to determine if construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological resources. After the initial Archaeological Spot Check, further periodic checks shall be conducted at the discretion of the qualified archaeologist. If the qualified archaeologist determines that construction excavations have exposed, or have a high probability of exposing, archaeological artifacts, construction monitoring for archaeological resources will be required. The City shall retain a qualified archaeological monitor, who meets the qualifications set forth by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications and Standards, who will work under the guidance and direction of a professional archaeologist. The archaeological monitor shall be present during all construction excavations (e.g., grading, trenching, or clearing/grubbing) into non-fill sediments. Multiple earth-moving construction activities may require multiple archaeological monitors. The frequency of monitoring shall be based on the rate of excavation and grading activities, proximity to known archaeological resources, the materials being excavated (native versus artificial fill soils), the depth of excavation, and if found, the abundance and type of archaeological resources encountered. Full- time monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections if determined adequate by the project archaeologist. If subsurface paleontological resources are encountered, excavation shall halt in the vicinity of the resources and a qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and its stratigraphic context. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. During monitoring, if potentially significant paleontological resources are found, “standard” samples shall be collected and processed by the qualified paleontologist to recover micro vertebrate fossils. If significant fossils are found and collected, they shall be prepared to a reasonable point of identification. Excess sediment or matrix shall be removed from the specimens to reduce the bulk and cost of storage. Itemized catalogs of material collected and identified shall 10 be provided to a museum repository with the specimens. Significant fossils collected during this work, along with the itemized inventory of these specimens, shall be deposited in a museum repository for permanent curation and storage. A report documenting the results of the monitoring and salvage activities, and the significance of the fossils, if any, shall be prepared. The report and inventory, when submitted to the lead agency, shall signify the completion of the program to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources.  Tribal Mitigation 7-2. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth-disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with State guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archaeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative.  Geotech Mitigation 8-1. As recommended by the project's preliminary geotechnical investigation, prior to City issuance of grading permits for individual project construction components, the City shall be required to retain a registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to prepare detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations to guide the construction of all project grading and excavation activities. The detailed, construction-level geotechnical investigations shall be performed for each of the structures proposed for the development site. Subsurface conditions shall be explored and laboratory tests conducted on selected soil samples to establish parameters for the design of excavations, foundations, shoring, and waterproofing. Recommendations from the investigations shall be incorporated into all plans for project grading, excavation, soil support (both temporary and long-term), and utility construction, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The detailed, construction-level investigations, relevant recommendations, and all associated project grading, excavation and foundation plans, shall be subject to review and approval by an independent engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer retained by the City Engineer. In addition, the project civil engineer shall certify to the City Engineer (e.g., through plan submittal for City review) that all relevant provisions of the investigations have been incorporated into the grading, excavation and construction plans, and all earthwork and site preparation shall be performed under the direct supervision of a registered engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer.  Contamination Mitigation 10-1. Recommendations included in the Phase II ESA (Stantec, June 8, 2017) shall be implemented, based on construction level project plans when more specific and precise design and construction activities are formulated. The Phase II ESA recommends additional assessment of local and regional groundwater conditions in advance of dewatering activities, combined with, as necessary, evaluation of pertinent and cost effective water management strategies, including preparation of Site Management Plans. Likewise, the project must comply with the City’s standard dewatering requirements. This assessment and mitigation process shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.  Noise Mitigation 13-1. To reduce potential noise levels associated construction of the proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall: 11 Restrict work hours/equipment noise. All work shall be subject to the construction noise and time limits contained in City Municipal Code Chapter 9.10. Construction activities (including deliveries) shall only occur during the following time periods: – 8 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday; and – 9 AM to 6 PM on Saturday. Construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City and/or its contractor shall post a sign at all entrances to the construction site informing contractors, subcontractors, construction workers, etc. of these requirements in accordance with Section 9.10.060(c). The sign shall also provide a name (or title) and phone number for an appropriate on-site and City representative to contact to submit a noise complaint. Construction equipment care, siting, and design measures. The following construction equipment care, siting, and design measures shall apply during construction activities: – Heavy equipment engines shall be covered and exhaust pipes shall include a muffler in good working condition. Pneumatic tools shall include a noise suppression device on the compressed air exhaust. – All stationary noise-generating equipment such as pumps, compressors, and welding machines shall be shielded and located as far from sensitive receptor locations as practical. At a minimum, such shielding shall consist of a three-sided sound enclosure (with a full or partial roof) that provides for proper ventilation, equipment operation, and effective noise control. The enclosure should be designed to achieve a 10 to 15 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise levels. The design of the enclosure shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure the enclosure will achieve a minimum 10 dB reduction in stationary equipment noise levels. – The City shall connect to existing electrical service at the site to avoid the use of stationary, diesel- or other alternatively-fueled power generators. – No radios or other amplified sound devices shall be audible beyond the property line of the construction site. Construction traffic. Construction truck traffic, including soil hauling, equipment deliveries, potential concrete deliveries, and other vendor deliveries shall follow designated delivery routes prepared for the project, which are anticipated to include travel on Oregon Expressway and Birch Road. Construct/Install Temporary Noise Barrier: The City shall install and maintain throughout the duration of all site preparation, excavation, foundation construction, and building construction activities, one or more physical noise barriers capable of achieving a minimum reduction in predicted construction noise levels of 15.5 dB. Potential barrier options would include: – A concrete, wood, or other barrier installed at-grade (or mounted to structures located at- grade, such as KRail) along the project property line. Such a wall/barrier shall consist of material that have a minimum rated transmission loss value of 25.5 dB (or equivalent rating), and shall contain no gaps in the structure through which noise may pass. – Commercially available acoustic panels or other products such as acoustic barrier blankets installed along the project property line, building envelope or, if feasible and necessary, at or near sensitive residential receptor areas. – Any combination of noise barriers and commercial products capable of achieving a 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels at sensitive receptor locations. – Prior to the start of the project, the City may prepare an acoustical analysis that reflects the final site plan, construction activities, equipment use and duration, and refines potential construction noise reductions required for the project. The final type, placement, and design of the project’s temporary noise barrier(s) shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to installation to ensure proper function and a minimum attenuation of 15.5 dBs in construction noise levels. Prepare Project Construction Noise Control Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction-noise related issues. Contains a detailed construction schedule and predicted noise levels associated with construction activities. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction noise complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a noise complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the noise source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint. Prepare Construction Noise Monitoring Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Noise Monitoring Plan which identifies: – Construction activities, hours of operation, and predicted construction noise levels; and – Construction noise monitoring locations, duration, and frequency. The intent of the 12 Construction Noise Monitoring Plan is to document updated ambient noise levels, monitor construction noise levels, and verify compliance with the noise reduction requirements in mitigation measure 13-1. If monitoring indicates temporary noise barriers are not achieving a minimum 15.5 dB reduction in construction noise levels or otherwise indicates construction noise is resulting a 10 dB increase in noise levels above ambient conditions, the City shall increase the height, size (length or width), density, and/or amount of noise barriers installed such that attenuation requirements are achieved. The Construction Noise Monitoring Plan may be combined with and/or incorporated into the Construction Noise Complaint Plan described above.  Vibrations Mitigation 13-2. To reduce potential groundborne vibration levels associated with construction of the proposed project, the City and/or it’s designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall: Prohibit Vibratory Equipment. The City shall prohibit the use of large vibratory rollers (small plate compactors are acceptable) and vibratory pile driving equipment during construction. Any deep foundation piers or caissons shall be auger drilled. Provide Notice to Adjacent Property Owners / Occupants. Five (5) days advanced written notice shall be provided to adjacent property owners and building occupants before commencing all drilling and significant earthmoving activities within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. The notice shall provide the name (or title) and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration- related concerns. Prepare Vibration Mitigation Plan. Prior to the start of construction activity, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Construction Vibration Response Plan for the project which: – Identifies the name and/or title and contact information (including phone number and email) of the Contractor and City-representatives responsible for addressing construction vibration-related issues. – Contains a detailed schedule of drilling and substantial earth moving activities expected to occur within 65 feet of adjacent buildings. – Includes procedures describing how the construction contractor will receive, respond, and resolve to construction vibration complaints. At a minimum, upon receipt of a vibration complaint, the Contractor and/or City representative described in the first sub-bullet above shall identify the vibration source generating the complaint, determine the cause of the complaint, and take steps to resolve the complaint by reducing groundborne vibration levels to less than 75 VdB and 0.04 in/sec PPV. Such measures may include the use of nonimpact drivers, use of rubber-tired equipment instead of track equipment, or other measures that limit annoyance from groundborne vibration levels. Operational Noise Mitigation 13-3. To reduce potential stationary source noise levels associated with the operation of the proposed project, the City and/or its designated contractors, contractor’s representatives, or other appropriate personnel shall: Site equipment away from residential areas. Garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating and air conditioning equipment shall be located outside of setbacks and screened from view from residential areas. Enclose and/or Shield Stationary Noise Generating Equipment. The City shall enclose, shield, baffle, or otherwise attenuate noise generated from garage ventilation fans and public safety building generators, fire pumps, and heating and air conditioning equipment. The attenuation achieved through such enclosure, shielding, and/or baffling shall be sufficient to comply with Section 9.10.050(a) of the Municipal Code, which is estimated to be 78.2 dBA. Prepare Acoustical Study. In accordance with Chapters 9.10 and 18.23 of the Municipal Code, the City shall have an acoustical analysis prepared by a licensed acoustical engineer that demonstrates: – The proposed parking garage’s generator would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted). – The proposed parking garages ventilation fans would not result in a calculated Ldn of 63.0 at sensitive residential receptor locations. – The proposed public safety building fire pump, back-up generator, and heating and air conditioning equipment would comply with the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050, as excepted) and would not result in a calculated increase of more than 3.0 dB Ldn at sensitive receptor locations. The acoustical analysis shall be based on the final project design, reflect the actual equipment type and location at the project site, and the actual noise enclosure, shielding, or other attenuation measures included in the final project design. If the acoustical 13 study demonstrates the noise levels from these sources would be at or within 5 dB less than the Noise Ordinance limits, the City shall demonstrate through monitoring that the equipment complies with the anticipated noise levels. SECTION 7: Approval Conditions for Public Safety Building Planning Conditions: 1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents received September 5, 2018, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this project. 3. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review. 4. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the AR approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 5. The following items shall return to a subcommittee of the ARB for further consideration/exploration: a. the lighting detail fixture E-1, b. the materials with respect to finishes, textures and color, c. the communications tower antenna attachments design, and d. the design of the community/multi-purpose room to make it flexible for use by the Police Department and as a City-managed civic meeting room (including the door to the plaza, additional windows, and signage). Transportation Conditions A. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to Planning entitlement approval: 1. Planset Scale: The scale of the architectural sheets within the PDF copy of the latest planset does not match the scale bar shown on the sheets. Please correct. 2. BICYCLE PARKING: On revised plans, please identify the quantity, location, and design of proposed long and short term bicycle parking facilities. Short-term bicycle parking consists of bicycle racks and several options are available to provide secure, long-term bicycle parking including lockers and secure parking rooms. Detailed design standards may be found in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.54.060. The following minimum bicycle parking supply standards apply for this project, but additional spaces may be desired to achieve trip reduction targets required as part of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, encourage healthy commute alternatives, and serve the public. Public Safety Building Bicycle Parking Requirement Spaces Class: Long Term (LT); Short Term (ST) 1 per 2,500 sf gross floor area 60% LT 40% ST 3. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Revise civil and architectural site plans to address the following: a. Show the shortening/modification of the Birch Avenue median on Civil plans to the extent necessary to remove vertical barriers within the marked crosswalk. b. Increase the curb corner radius of the Birch Street/Sheridan Avenue to at least 15-feet. Retain the directional curb ramps, if possible. The geometry should allow for an SU-30 design vehicle turning from WB Sherman Avenue to NB Birch at “crawl” speed. The vehicle may partially straddle the centerline of Sherman to complete the turn. 14 c. Design the reverse curves for the bulb outs per the attached drawing. d. The Civil site plan appears to have some drafting errors where proposed curblines do not overlap with existing curb locations, implying a change in roadway geometry. This is particularly of concern on the Park Boulevard frontage, where the new curb appears to be offset 3-4 feet from the existing curb. Please correct errors. The curb location on Park Boulevard should not be changed from existing conditions. e. Consider removing the bulb-out within Jacaranda Lane which channelizes EB traffic into the garage and substitute with a device that achieves the intended traffic control but permits greater flexibility for potential future circulation changes. f. At the one-way outbound service yard driveway to Sherman Avenue, adjust the curb line to maximize the width of level sidewalk area outside the sloped driveway apron. Example: 4. PARKING FACILITY DESIGN: Please revise the project plans to address the following parking facility design standards. Please refer to chapter 18.54 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) for a complete list of parking design requirements. a. Show typical parking lot aisle, driveway, and stall widths. Verify plans are drawn to the scale indicated on the sheet. b. Driveway Widths: Verify the proposed parking garage ramps meet minimum horizontal width requirements shown in PAMC 18.54. Exclusive of parking lot aisles adjacent to parking stalls, two- way garage ramps shall be at least 18-feet wide; two-way driveways 20-feet; and one-way driveways 12-feet. It appears the Sherman Avenue garage ramp may be less than 18-feet at the garage entry portal/door frame. c. Garage ramp grades and vertical clearances: Demonstrate the proposed garage ramps meet design standards for slopes and transition areas shown in PAMC 18.54.070 Figure 5. Label: grade break locations, and ramp slopes. d. Clear sight triangles. A 4-foot by 6-foot clear sight triangle is required at all site driveway exits to public streets per PAMC 18.54.070 Figure 6. The area of the triangle shall not contain any vertical obstruction greater than three feet, nor landscaping greater than two feet, above driveway grade. The driveways approaching Sherman Avenue do not appear to meet this requirement. B. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: 1. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: The applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the issuance of building permits. The TDM plan shall include measures and strategies to achieve evening peak hour a trip reduction of target of 35%. The TDM plan shall include a monitoring plan to assess compliance with the required target. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance targets are not met, the director 15 may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months. Building Conditions The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.:  site-specific soils report will be required to be submitted for the building construction permit.  For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements are required per PAMC16.14.430, Section A5.106.5.3.3. The following standards apply: o For the employee parking on Basement Level 2, the property owner shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% and no fewer than one, shall be EVSE Installed. Please indicate on the plans the location of the EVSE-Ready and EVSE Installed spaces. o Accessible spaces. Projects shall comply with the 2016 California Building Code requirements for accessible electric vehicle parking. Show the location of the required EVSE accessible spaces. (CBC 11B-228.3, 11B-812) o Minimum total circuit capacity. The property owner shall ensure sufficient circuit capacity, as determined by the Chief Building Official, to support a Level 2 EVSE in every location where Circuit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed is required. o Location. The EVSE, receptacles, and/or raceway required by this section shall be placed in locations allowing convenient installation of and access to EVSE. Location of EVSE or receptacles shall be consistent with all City guidelines, rules, and regulations.  For new Non-Residential construction of any size, CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 requirements are required per PAMC 16.14.080. The Green Building Checklist “GB-1 Non-Residential Mandatory Plus Tier 2” sheet is required for the building permit. The GB-1 Mandatory + Tier 2 sheet can be downloaded from the City’s website address: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp Public Works Engineering Approval Conditions The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. 1. 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 16 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 grading or building permit issuance by the Public Works department and MUST be submitted before 06/30/2019. 2. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 3. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 4. 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 light-wells, 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 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. 5. DEWATERING: Proposed basement/underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 6. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center. 7. 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 17 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. 8. PAVEMENT: Sherman, Birch, and Park were recently resurfaced -- these streets are under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Sherman, Birch and/or Park based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 9. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 10. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to grading and building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Conditions The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 1. The plans are to be updated per the WGW review comments issued 10/18/2017. 2. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit for each unit on the property for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads 3. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way. 4. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 5. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 18 6. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 7. 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. 8. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 12. 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. 13. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters; lesser distances require a permanent impermeable root-barrier a minimum of 3ft horizontal from water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters . 14. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. Utilities Electrical Conditions 1. Main electric panel shall be at grade and outdoor. The proposed design shall have the location of the main electric panel. 2. The proposed building is two stories deep which might require long tie-back to reinforce the shoring walls. Applicant shall work with Electric Utility prior to driving these tie-backs onto Jacaranda and part of Sherman and Birch to avoid hitting the high voltage electric conduits. Applicant shall pot hole where close to these conduits and electric equipment. 4. No tree drip-line near electric equipment (including conduits). 19 6. The point of electric power connection to feed the new building at 350 Sherman is one of the following: MH 1610 (manhole 1610), Vault 1609, LB3470 or SW 3469 8. The point of connection for fiber is a communication box near transformer 5264. Public Works Water Quality (Storm water Management) Conditions 1. Submit and follow the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” construction BMP sheet during life of project with the building permit set. 2. Use rain capture device at the demonstration garden and include description in interpretative signage. 3. Highly consider using rain chains or similar along vines and other walls/building corners. 4. Storm drain/drop inlets  Inlets should be labeled with a ‘Flows to Adobe Creek’ message. 5. Stormwater treatment measures  Consider using low-maintenance permeable pavers in the plaza to be part of the demonstration area. Appropriate specs must be followed.  Installation vendor specs should be followed, though vendor specs should be reviewed by Parks Maintenance Staff before installation. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.  Clear, detailed maintenance agreement must be drafted and agreed upon by all City staff in pertinent Departments (Public Works, Parks) before occupancy approval. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 to facilitate this agreement.  Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements.  Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details  Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329- 2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan.  Install an interpretive sign regarding stormwater treatment and pollution prevention. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this text. 6. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org)  Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices- landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans.  Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 7. Stormwater quality protection  Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers.  Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed).  Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping.  Establish a street sweeping maintenance plan in open parking lots. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 regarding this plan. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 1. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code 20 (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. 2. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 3. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 4. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 6. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 7. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary containment is provided for all such materials and equipment 8. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. SECTION 8. Indemnity. 21 To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by RossDrulisCusenbery entitled ‘ARB Submittal City of Palo Alto Public Safety Building 250 Sherman Ave’ received September 5, 2018. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Board Member Osma Thompson, Board Member Alexander Lew, Board Member Robert Gooyer, Vice Chair Peter Baltay. 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 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: All right, our first Action Item is a public hearing, Item Number 2 on 250 Sherman Avenue, 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 feet 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 operation site buildings accessory to the Public Safety Building, landscape improvement and a public plaza. It notes here that the City Council approved the Environmental Impact report and the Public Facilities Ordinance Amendment on June 11, 2018. Amy French. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. We’re back. Chair Furth: You are indeed. Ms. French: Three is the charm - this is the third meeting. There is a bit of a snafu there on the PowerPoint. I’m not sure what happened there, but this gives you the schedule. We are here at the third meeting. We’ve had quite a bit go before us. As you mentioned, the CEQA - Environmental Impact Report - was approved by Council back in June. The last we saw you was August 2, with a quick turnaround to get back here today. We did have a Council Study Session on Monday, and there were some comments. I’ll go over those later, from the Council. They will be seeing this. A recommendation to the Council today is what we’re seeking. And then, of course, the Council will this fall, see this project, as well as the construction budget, etc. But they did have a discussion this Monday. Some thing that the ARB has asked for, as noted in the report, was greater articulation. There have been some changes at the third-floor windows with some movement back and forth for an 18-inch differential between the ins and the outs on those windows. The second floor, also inset glass. You can see a little bit here – well, this doesn’t work. There, you can see a little bit inset here. It’s kind of a depth at the second-floor window in this slide. The multi-purpose room is that area, and the plaza is considered for art placement. We have our Art staff member here, Elise, if there are questions on that. This shows the landscape concept, the pedestrian realm. The architect will go over this further, but there have been changes with that, the public seating. The landscape architect is here today to give a presentation. On Park Boulevard there has been a bit of ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: September 20, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 work there, as well, to widen the sidewalks, seating areas and create kind of a mini-plaza with a bike repair area and bike racks. So, there’s been work on that. The landscape plan is developed. There are plant types, sizes, species and the seating areas do have arm rests. We had some transportation comments that are still in progress. Here they are. We basically need to make sure there is secure employee bike parking on this site. There are a couple of options there, either a secure room with racks or prefab bike lockers. And that would be part of the Transportation Demand Management Plan, so those are important. The Sherman Avenue exit, we need to be careful about those planters that there are sight distance triangles, so as not to impact pedestrian safety. So, we’ll make sure that those are resolved prior to Council. The garage ramp design, there have been just some questions about dimensions on that, and you know, making sure that that’s all going to be resolved. The Council Study Session on Monday, there were some comments on the glossy tile on the third floor, some concern there about the reflectivity and the architect will address that today. Then, also comment on the amount of hardscaping. There was always, you know, interest in how the tower is actually going to look. There was talk about the sizes of the appendages to the tower itself. Then, there were a couple of comments about, “Hey, can you increase the motorcycle parking spaces and bike parking.” Overall, civic identity seemed important, at least to one Council Member, and then one Council Member noted that this was an opportunity for art, if that was one of the considerations for placement. That’s my presentation. I’ll turn it over to the Public Works staff, Matt Raschke. Chair Furth: Excuse me. Before you do that, could you expand a bit about civic identity, that comment? Ms. French: It was basically one comment from one Council Member saying that that was important. That he realized that there was kind of a tension between; you know, it’s next to residential, it’s near residential and there’s more residential coming at the Courthouse area. So, it wants to fit in with residential but it needs to have some kind of civic identity, that that’s important. Chair Furth: Identifiable as a public community building. Ms. French: Yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Matt Raschke: Thank you Amy. Good morning. I’m Matt Raschke, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department. With me today also is our new Public Works Director, Brad Eggleston and I have my staff in the audience, Collette Chew. Today we’re here for our third round. I just wanted to mention a few things about the recent events. Last week we had a community meeting at the Palo Alto Central Meeting Room. We sent out almost 2,000 postcards with nice renderings of both the Public Safety Building and the new parking garage, which is out to bid as of Tuesday, and we’re expecting bids on October 15. So, that project is moving into construction and the primary focus of that community meeting was to talk about the construction impacts and how we’re going to mitigate the temporary loss of parking while we build the garage. But, in terms of overall schedule, the Public Safety Building before you today is a very complicated building. It’s not your typical warm shelled TI office building. This has a very complex interior that we expect to utilize the entire construction period of the garage to finalize that design and then get it out to bid, and hopefully, be able to break ground as soon as the garage is opening, so that we can keep the project on schedule. Right now, projecting construction escalation costs, as was mentioned at our Council Meeting on Monday, we’re looking at the cost of the Public Safety Building would increase approximately $350,000 per month, based on projected escalation. So, we want to get that underway, so that we can not continue to further escalate that cost. Also, today we have the architect at Mallory Cusenbery from RossDrulisCusenbery, is going to present the project, and unless Brad has further comments, I’d like to hand it over to Mallory and get his presentation started. Mallory Cusenbery: Good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. If you could say your name and spell your name for our transcriptionist. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mallory Cusenbery: My name is Mallory Cusenbery, principal with RossDrulisCusenbery Architecture. And yes, Matt, that is a mouthful. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you again, and as always, each iteration of this process gives us excellent comments and each time we come back we feel the design has been improved, so we want to thank you for that. We also want to thank the City, the Police Department, the Fire Department and the Office of Emergency Services for their continued dedication and support throughout this process. It’s been very pleasurable. Our summary takeaway from the last session that we had with you was that there was measured support for the current design, that there was a sense that it was heading in the right direction, but that there were some continuance items that still needed to be addressed in order to meet approval. And that is our purpose at this meeting is to address some of those continuance items. There were a lot of comments, which I have summarized them in great detail for you on another sheet, but this is the synopsis. In general, we felt they fell into these categories. Category one, Improving the articulation of the massing, which meant addressing some visual reliefs, some addition of windows and human scale massing. The second category was to show more information of some of the materials that hadn’t been represented previously. The third was to provide more information on Park Boulevard, that that area did not have enough graphic information to show what the design intent was. To advance the site design, including more information on landscaping and the design of the seating. To document proposed signage locations and to demonstrate the use and functionality of the interior louvers that will be visible from the outside that we had shown previously. I will address all of these in summary form in what follows. There are also a few continuance items that we were asked to study, but are not represented in the current design. I want to address them briefly. We can go into greater detail later, if desired. One of them was the request that we study a contrasting color for the upper fascia. The lower fascia has a contrasting color. We did that and our takeaway from that was that the contrast drew your eye up to the top of the third level, and we thought that worked at cross purposes to bring your eye down to the pedestrian level, so we have not incorporated that. There were two categories that we had mixed feedback from the board here on, and that had to do with the board- formed concrete and the proportion of the glass above the second level. We did look at both of those and we talked at length with the City, and the request from the City was that we continue with the current design as it is, which is the board-formed concrete tinted and the current proportions of the glass. And then there was one other topic, which is the making the multi-purpose room more glassy, and there has been extensive conversation about that. The current status is that, based on conversations with the Police Department, there is a concern that the glass at the ground level of the multi-purpose room introduces an operational vulnerability that is currently not acceptable for the Police Department, so we have not introduced the glass into that location. However, these aside, the other continuance items are adequately represented and are in these drawings, and I will walk through those right now to show you how those have been incorporated. The first category, and it is difficult to see, Brad, you’re right, they were cut off, is the articulation of the massing. Does your screen show the whole thing? Because this one cuts back. I’ll work off memory for mine. The articulation of the massing, you can see the, in this representation, which is a newer representation, you can see the two-story volume, has a lot of articulation. We show the deeper recesses, we show the addition of some windows, and the elements that provide some visual relief within that volume. Represented here as well, increase the differential on the face of the second level by 18 inches so some of the white areas and glass areas are recessed 9 inches, some are projecting 9 inches for the differential of 18, creating some shadow lines and some depth. Over here on the left you can see we introduced that on the Jacaranda side for the 9-1-1- as well as the offices up here, as well as the point that Amy had pointed out that a number of the windows are now much deeper recessed, not just this one, but as you move around it. We introduced this rendering to show our firm belief that the positive experience of this building is going to be in the way that it’s experienced in the pedestrian realm. Colors, inflections, layering, portals, this building is going to change as you move around it and the approach has been to bring the attention down to the diversity of plants and colors at the ground level, and that’s what this, among others, is meant to represent. And you can see there’s actually, between the number of canopies, three or four canopies, you can see some people in view in the center in the distance. They are framed by five frames on the way back, and that’s consistent with a lot of the experience as you move around the building. You have a very rich and diverse pedestrian environment. This represents the new windows that have been added. Some of the deeper recesses and the shadow lines introduced around the projected windows. There was reference at the City Council Meeting to the question about the reflectivity of the third level, and we are continuing with the City of Palo Alto Page 4 idea that that reflectivity, along with the glass, is the strategy that we will use to reduce the perceived mass of the building, because when you’re at the pedestrian level you will see reflections of the sky at that third level. So, that’s the reason for the continued reflectance of that. More detailed information on materials that hadn’t been identified clearly before, we’ll briefly go over this. This is the pedestrian ribbon, slice through that, that the fascia right up here is painted steel. The soffit, which was not identified previously, is a tinted stain on a board, tongue and groove cedar board, so wood. That wood texture is then echoed in the board-formed concrete below it, which is also tinted terra cotta. And then the seating, the precast seating, which is represented here matches the fascia. So, this pedestrian ribbon is actually a very limited palette, the terra cotta color, the charcoal color. And then the third material in that palette really is the plant scape. We don’t want a high contrast building. We want the richness of the plant scape to be foregrounded. That material palette moves to the Birch Street side as well. Again, the soffits are wood and the board-form is there. And then as it relates to the porcelain tile on the pre-cast panels, we wanted to show you more detail on how that would be articulated. These are 12 by 18-inch tiles. That’s an off-the-shelf tile size and the tiles come with a natural variation, which we’ve attempted to represent in this rendering. It’s a subtle variation, but it provides some visual relief on that surface to the concrete on the right, as well as the shadow lines of the windows and more shadow lines here on the deep-set windows and the new windows that were added in the locker room, which incidentally, we’re showing them on the men’s locker room side, but they will be added to the women’s locker room as well. Full palette represented here, and we do have material samples, including initial pre-cast, I mean initial cast and placed poured-form concrete samples. They are all laid out here. We can bring them up to you at the end of the presentation. And a few images that just show the importance of that palette as you move through the pedestrian realm. The third category was more information on Park. So, you can see from this view now the proposed benches, planters and there will be a bicycle repair area, as well as the deep recess and wider sidewalk that is proposed for this area. I will remind everybody that there is parking garage below this, so all of this is on top of the parking garage below. So, this view is very illustrative. You can see on the bottom is the existing condition and above is the proposed condition. And the change is dramatic, when you have a group of people walking to lunch towards California Avenue, they have to walk single file, and we’re not only providing the width here to walk side-by-side, but nested seating that’s recessed back and not vulnerable onto the walkway, as well as the bicycle parking here on the right. And I do want to point out one other thing. We had this elevation before, but I think it was lost in the shuffle, and if you look here, this is the Park elevation. Your experience will be this one-story piece, which is consistent with the height of the retail buildings right across Jacaranda. The volume of the Public Safety Building is in the distance. You really won’t be seeing it from Park substantially, and it’s resonant with the scale of the Courthouse, which is also beyond. The fourth category, providing more information about the site, including landscape. These are wonderful landscape drawings. I will point out that Zoee Astrachan from Interstice, our landscape architect, is here and can answer any detailed questions. The summary version is that we have continued the original idea, which is also consistent with the garage design, that each orientation has a unique landscape identity, as to the different planter areas, depending on the role they play. You can see some of the plant types here by typology – stormwater, sidewalk planting, native, as well as the species. And more detailed cross sections through the site design elements, including the development of the seating design, as well as, and I will point out the sub- sidewalk design, which is designed with the intent of providing generous root space architecture at this pedestrian realm. These illustrations are meant just to show that our strong belief is that the experience of this project will be at the pedestrian level, and that the variety and interest at that realm offers, and that the building will be a background in that experience. Let’s see, textures and materials here as we move around the building and that pedestrian ribbon. And my time is up, so I will summarize to say that on the signage you can see this diagram shows two signs… Chair Furth: If you need a few more, excuse me, if you need a couple more minutes, you should take them. Mr. Cusenbery: Okay, thank you. In terms of the information on the signage locations, two you have seen previously, which is signage location number Two and three, we’re now showing one and four as the proposed other locations for primary signage. One and four will likely be more City identity signage, as well as the Public Safety identity, and the location of one is meant to offer orientation as somebody City of Palo Alto Page 5 approaches the building on that entry forecourt for the Police Department, and on four it is providing it on the Park Boulevard side. Obviously, the signage package will be developed subsequent to this, but those are the conceptual locations. And then the final category is providing additional information on the interior louvers. On the upper left you can see an installed version. We use these in a courthouse where the intent was to bring natural light into a courtroom, but give the court the ability to shut it out, should there be some kind of interference with the court proceedings. So, you can see it represented there. And the difference for what we’re proposing for this project is that we would then allow operation, you can see a 9-grid that would be an average grid that you would have in an office, a variation of positions for those screens to be, so that users will then alter them as they feel the need for lighting, for visual protection and/or desire for view. And the goal on that is to actually provide the randomness and pattern that comes from user control, so that there’s a level of texture and interest on the building that changes over time, by time of day and by user on the interior. Okay, so that summarizes the quick view of some of the continuance items, and our hope is that these have addressed the intent and purpose of the comments, so, thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? I have no public comment cards. I’d like to hear from the landscape architect about the landscape design. Would anybody else? Zoee Astrachan: Good morning. I’m Zoee Astrachan. I don’t know if you want me to spell that or not, but I can. Chair Furth: You may not like the way it’s rendered. Ms. Astrachan: Right. (spelled name and company). Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Astrachan: Good morning. Actually, the concept, as Mallory alluded to for the landscape, hasn’t changed significantly. The shape of the spaces has inflected a bit as the, particularly on Birch, with the community space being developed. But this idea of sort of a continuous feel of a ‘ribbon’ of landscape that is the public interface still stands, and that on all, on three of the four frontages, it’s an invitation to engage with what I would say is sort of the architecture of the landscape. There is seating designed on all three frontages with an emphasis, certainly, at the entry to the building, and on Birch Street with built- in seating that has box and arm rests in all cases. It’s really important to us that it’s comfortable. The material is smooth. It tends to be on the cooler side, this sort of terra cotta feel that is part of the building materials. But something that is inviting and receptive to people. The landscaping concept in terms of the street tree planting, I’m going to sort of emphasize a couple of points and then be open for questions. It has continuity along Sherman with the planting at the garage, but also with planting across the street, so the use of London Plane and Sycamore trees. Also, to fill our desire to have native plantings within the palette of street trees is very important. And that the scale of the trees, as much as possible on the sidewalk, is a little grander than many of the trees that are more internal to the site, given that we’re on structure for all of, behind property line. The trees on Birch also match across Birch Street. They are Elms, Chinese Elms. Again. A larger stature tree meant to have a generous canopy. And then there’s also a line of trees just inboard to that that’s part of this sort of widened sidewalk back to the community room space. So, again, we’re trying to provide shade and canopy. A sort of ceiling to that architectural space. A couple of other things. There’s a resonance, I think, between - I’m just going to go quickly to the sort of materials – a resonance between, Mallory has mentioned of this sort of natural variation of the porcelain and our intent to have the paved areas, the sort of walking spaces along Sherman that’s elevated, and then the entry to the building. You see the sort of stone, the intent that the paving material, I shouldn’t say stone, it’s either stone or pre-cast also has that natural variation. And there’s this feeling of a slight difference but continuity with that idea that it’s nature in an urban way, we’ll call it. And then, also, some other materials, wall finishes where the flags come down, some of the bollards, those things again bring in a sort of element of texture within the space. Step back to the planting for a moment. I didn’t mention that the street trees along Park Boulevard, I think we’ve added some attention to Park Boulevard and making sure that there’s a sort of scale transition from the street City of Palo Alto Page 6 trees, again London Planes, that are continuous along Park on the blocks moving away from Cal Ave, so we’ve created sort of the completion of – not Cal Ave, sorry – of Park Boulevard toward Cal Ave by planting those trees, and then back of walk we’ve paired it with trees that are smaller scaled trees that, again, will be in the raised planters and provide shade and protection for the seating and that little bike repair plaza, and bike parking there as well, on that corner of Jacaranda and Park Boulevard, which I think is important. It seems that the bike parking on Cal Ave is well used and this would help support that from the neighborhood. So, the patterning that you see here and the tones, just to explain that, has to do also with our stormwater treatment strategy, and so we’ve, we have a really pretty strong concept of how that’s going to work. A lot of the plantings I would say will be so highly differentiated from the stormwater plantings to the non, so most people passing by won’t necessarily notice that that’s what’s going on, because we think that the drought-tolerant palette and then the native-based palette can work in both instances, but it will have a subtly different and sort of diverse palette moving around the site. That’s our intent. So, for instance it will go from being grasses and flowers to being more floral-based or more grass-based in those different planters. I think that sort of covers things. I think there is, on Birch there is a little more what I would say, ornamental emphasis at the entry to the building in terms of the way the plantings are used, so it’s a little more limited palette there, and used for very specific, there’s a place in front of the community room, for instance, where, actually against the porcelain tile wall, and on that corner there’s also a tree that’s punctuating the end of the Jacaranda, which is a counterpoint to a similar tree at the Sherman and Birch intersection at the garage. So, those two things are sort of working to create these sort of sub-spaces that are landscape based around the building. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Astrachan: Yeah, I think that’s it probably, unless there’s particular questions. Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay has a question. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, good morning. Thank you for the information. You have a number of raised planters with, that are planted. You were just describing those. Can you tell me what the maintenance requirements are for the plants in those? Ms. Astrachan: Yes. So, we I would say generally we have an eye towards plants that are lower maintenance when we’re selecting them, but that said, they’re perennials, perennial plants and grasses which will need probably, I’m going to say for most of the plants, one to two, maybe three times a year to be, for instance, dead headed or have old plant material taken out, because of the nature of those plant types. But they are relatively low maintenance and are meant to have sort of dormancy built into the way that they look, we’ll call it. Vice Chair Baltay: So, if I can put you on the spot, what would happen if… Ms. Astrachan: No maintenance. Vice Chair Baltay: No maintenance for the course of a year, what would it look like? Ms. Astrachan: You would have some flower heads that die, and they are staying in place. So, but that is actually sort of the look of some of the native plant landscapes, and I think that that’s a sort of acceptable look. Everything will stay green around them. So, we tend to use a mix of plants, so it’s very sympathetic to that happening. But no maintenance, I think would probably not be good for any landscape. So, I feel strongly that any landscape, such as the one around this building, for instance, needs some maintenance during the year. Vice Chair Baltay: We’ve just been suffering with the Post Office on Hamilton as not getting much maintenance and it looks rather overgrown, and I’d hate to see that happen here. Thank you though. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Ms. Astrachan: So, like I said, we try to be very mindful of using plants that are on the lower end of that spectrum, but all plants do need some maintenance. Chair Furth: Does anybody else have questions? I have one question. The planting to the front side, whatever, of the community room is designated stormwater planting? Could you tell me a little bit more about that? Ms. Astrachan: Yes. So, right now the challenge with stormwater planting is that we’re, in many cases, addressing roof water and bringing that down to the ground to treat it in planting areas, which is the most, it’s the somewhat most efficient and cost-effective way to do stormwater treatment. And the planting I think you’re talking about is right in the corner, the very green in the middle of the screen, and we’ve allocated that right now, working with our civil engineer, there’s definitely going to be some push and pull in terms of how the plumbing systems play out, so it’s one of the areas that we’ve, like I say, we’ve dedicated right now and we would be very mindful that it’s aesthetically pleasing and that, again, low maintenance, because it is right near the entry, and if the opportunity provides itself, it’s one that we might shift to another location along Sherman Ave, if we can. We just wanted to make sure that we have a good distribution around the building, and that that one addresses some roofscape that we may need to use in that area. Chair Furth: And if that is a water treatment area, essentially, we would be seeing lots of reedy plants, or what? Ms. Astrachan: No, actually that’s why I was referencing the fact that the California palette, there’s many plants in there, and there’s quite an extensive list that the County has of plants that we can use for that that include many of the plants that we use in ornamental landscapes already. So, that’s why I was saying it’s not so very different visually. The difference is that we would have to provide what we would refer to as a free board. A little distance from the top of the planter to the top of the soil level for the moment when that storm water starts to fill up. So, that’s essentially the biggest difference, is that the soil level is a little bit lower in that planter. Chair Furth: Thank you. I believe we have some questions for the architect. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for your presentation earlier. I have a question regarding the porcelain tiles on what I will call the mid-level band. The sand-colored tiles. I believe the drawings are saying these are precast panels, so the tile would be applied to the panels in advance? Mr. Cusenbery: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: And I’m looking at your drawings. It seems to show a, I guess I won’t use the word random, but the breakup is such that the tiles would have to be cut and placed, so that each panel would have to be a certain location on the building up front because, in order to keep the tile pattern continuous. Is that the case? Mr. Cusenbery: The way that we, this would customarily be done is, we would design a panelization three, maybe four unique panel types. So, on a given pre-cast panel dimension there might be three or four layout patterns, and when you put a different panel next to it, it looks random, but in fact, it’s a repetitive pattern, but with three or four over the distance of the building, you’re not going to be able to identify that that pattern, that panel and that panel match. Then the idea is, the way that they fabricate it, is that those predesigned elements are cast in a silicone. They lay down the tiles, cast over it, pull it up, reuse it, lay down the tiles, cast over it. So, there’s more of a mechanical system than meets the eye. No, it’s not a handset custom piece, but it is all done in the shop. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand that. You said they would lay down the tiles and then… City of Palo Alto Page 8 Mr. Cusenbery: Then cast the precast on top of it, and then when they lift the panel, the tiles are bound to the concrete. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Mr. Cusenbery: And then you have a choice of grouting or not grouting. Vice Chair Baltay: And I guess my concern was that, at least in your drawing, it looks like there are some tiles that one tile would be on two separate panels, and if these tiles also have a variation in color, how would you ensure that the same tile was next to another piece? Mr. Cusenbery: That’s a very good question. Vice Chair Baltay: Because otherwise you’re… Mr. Cusenbery: Carefully. Vice Chair Baltay: That is something you… Mr. Cusenbery: Yeah, that is something that we do, and will have to be very mindful of how the tile types are specified, but that’s a very good question and it’s something that we will have to be very mindful of, and how we craft the specifications. Obviously, we’re not out there laying the tiles, but we will have to craft the specifications in such a way to see to it. And also, we will in all likelihood the panels will be numbered, so you can’t just put, when you hang the panel, you can’t just hang it anywhere. They will, each panel will have a specific location on the building that’s going to end up. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, that’s the answer I was looking for. Thank you. Chair Furth: Are there any other questions? Board Member Thompson: I have a quick one. Are all the tiles flush with each other? Mr. Cusenbery: All the porcelain tiles are flush with each other. There are no projections. Board Member Thompson: Okay, they just vary in color? Mr. Cusenbery: Yes. This is one of these tiles. And the variation in coloration is very subtle, but it, what you won’t have is you won’t have this exact thing repeated over the entire building. There will be slight variations in the tone and in the location of some of the figure that’s on the piece. But they are all flush and they are all flush and the all flush, that really is a product of efficiency for the pre-cast panels to not have the variation in depth which is not impossible, but more difficult to achieve. Board Member Thompson: And what’s the rough dimension of the final pre-cast panel, roughly? It’s sort of like, I’m kind of asking what the rhythm is. Mr. Cusenbery: I believe that’s an 8 ½ foot width. It’s varied and it depends and it’s been ranging between 8 and 9 feet in width and it will be floor-to-floor, so that will be 15 ½ feet in height. Board Member Thompson: I see. Okay. Chair Furth: Are there any more questions? Thank you. Staff have anything they wish to add? Brad Eggleston: Just that, I’m Brad Eggleston, Director of Public Works, that we’re very excited to be here for this third formal hearing and to have taken the design of the project as far as it’s come and City of Palo Alto Page 9 incorporated your comments, which we think have really helped to improve the project, as Mallory had said earlier. Chair Furth: Thank you. Who would like to begin. Board Member Thompson: I have a quick question. Do you think we could take a second to look at the materials? Chair Furth: Sure. We’ll take a quick break to look at the materials. [The following was when the Board was looking at the materials] (Inaudible, off mic) Chair Furth: Could you bring them up or speak to the microphone, one or the other, or both. We’ll look at it and if you could speak into a microphone, then the audience will be able to follow you. Mr. Cusenbery: So, the book that you’re looking at is the previous iteration that you saw previously. We have put colored stickers on the materials that are still in development, with a comparable colored sticker on the piece that’s replacing it, so that you’ll see on the porcelain tile sample we’ve replaced it with one that has more texture and variation. The previous one we had presented that’s in the book was too plain. It was just solid color. So, that’s why we varied to the other one. The previous book that you’re looking at had a gray concrete sample with a terra cotta piece adjacent to it. Our intent is to match the terra cotta that’s on the small piece. The sample that’s circulating right now is our first pass attempt at that. We’re working with fabricators to make those. There will be more samples of that. So, that should be not construed as a final. That should be construed as the first attempt at reaching that color that you see on the board. But, we are having the samples cast with the board form so you can see the impact that the forming has on the coloration as well. So, that’s our first pass, and then the cedar that Board Member Thompson is holding is our first attempt at getting a semitransparent stain to match the color of the concrete that we had cast. So, the goal will be that all of this will match. Thank you for holding that up. The goal is that they will match and there will be a few more iterations on that final color. Chair Furth: Well, thank you for the samples. Mr. Cusenbery: That’s a small version of the big one. Board Member Thompson: A small version of the big one? Mr. Cusenbery: Of the big one, yeah. So, that’s the porcelain tile. Now I’m kicking myself I didn’t bring all three. There were some, we had samples of the variation of the three. Unfortunately, the other two are at my office. [Board done looking at materials] Chair Furth: Well, this is very helpful. As you noticed last time, we didn’t have specifics on materials and we’re much closer now. Mr. Cusenbery: And I do want to underscore a point that Zoee brought up, which is that there will be a continuity in the texture, color and intent of the site materials to work in resonance with the building, so that the site and the building are not separate pieces. It’s more of a continuity of experience and palette. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions? City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Thompson: Sorry, I just need a clarification. So, in terms of the three colors that are going on the pre-cast panel, that’s one, and are the other two right there in this book, or are they different? Mr. Cusenbery: No, the book is not accurate. The book has, the previous porcelain tile that was in the book has been replaced by the one that Board Member Furth is holding, and the variation, you can even see a little bit of variation between that small sample and the large one. So, the range of variation will be more subtle. It won’t be the difference with what’s in the book. I don’t have the range with me. Board Member Thompson: Can you describe what the other two? Mr. Cusenbery: We’ve tried to represent it as accurate as possible. It will have the same color tint. It will have figuring as well. And by figuring I’m referring to the slightly darker striations. The figuring occurs in different parts of the tile, and the chroma of the tile will be just barely, just a little bit different. So, when you put the three next to each other, you can tell they’re not identical, but they won’t be loudly different. They will be very subtly different, and we did our best to represent it in this drawing, the range as we see it. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else? Oh, yes. Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I have one question for staff. Are we approving the antenna today, or is that? Ms. French: The placement of the antenna and the… Board Member Lew: Just the placement, but not the actual… Ms. French: Where the antenna is. I mean, all the details that you have is what we know at this time. If there are some changes to the dishes, those… Mr. Eggleston: I think you’re also approving the height of the antenna, but as far as the detailed design of the attachments to the antenna, that’s not been completed yet, and we’ll still have more work to do on that as design progress further. Mr. Raschke: And if I could add, I believe the basis of that rendering is the Mountain View antenna. We had taken an actual photo of that, and they have converted to the rendering. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Chair Furth: All right. Would somebody like to begin? I’ll nominate than. Board Member Lew: I’ll start. I can recommend approval of the project today. I thank you for your presentation. I think you addressed all of the questions that we had from the last meeting really well, and so I don’t have any reservations whatsoever. I did want to comment on some of the Council comments. So, one I think was about the civic presence of the architecture in this building. It’s interesting in Palo Alto, we’ve done it different ways over time. So, if you look at the old Palo Alto City Hall on Rinconada, it was meant to look like a house. Like it was not meant to be civic whatsoever. Or we have our old Police Station, and we torn down the original City Hall, which was sort of a Spanish style, and they were meant to be house like as well. They were meant to be more domestic. So, we haven’t really – and then we have this building, which is fairly or tried to be fairly monumental and symmetrical and so we’ve done this different ways over time. In this case, I think you’re trying to match the mid-century architecture of the neighborhood, and I think you do so successfully. And then I think the other thing you’re trying to do is really make a landscape statement, the double row of trees and all the raised planters around the building, and that’s partly to mitigate the security needs of the building, but also it also makes it a more desirable pedestrian experience. So, I think that’s a valid approach, and so I don’t have any reservations about that. I think my only thought is that maybe the antenna would come back, just if there is a final City of Palo Alto Page 11 design and color with all the attachments on it, I think might be a good idea. And if there are any other ways of improving what was installed at Mountain View, if there is a color change that could make it better or whatnot, I’d be interested in seeing, possibly interested in seeing that. And then I think also, on the landscape, I think there was a lot of work done between the last time we looked at this and this one. There were a lot of revisions in there, and I think they all look, I think they were all very well thought out. So, that’s all that I have. Chair Furth: Thank you Alex. Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Well, I’m have a little bit more difficulty. First of all, let me start off by saying I want to thank the Police Department for taking me on the tour at the end of our last meeting. I’m well aware, based on what I see that you need a new building. What you’ve got here is amazing, what you’re able to do with what you’ve got here. Having said that, I don’t like to think that we’re being told that the reason this needs to get approved is time, cost and complexity of the building. You know, my concern is that the outside of the building is a good representation of something that the City of Palo Alto will appreciate for the next 50 years. You know, these buildings have a tendency to stay around for a while. The problem I see with this building, and I’ve had this problem since day one is that, and the comment about civic identity has come up before. This building, to me, is sort of, well, let me back up. There are two approaches, especially to a Police building that you could do. You could either make it very subtle and low-key so it doesn’t really look like it at all. Or you could really make it a civic monument. The problem is, either you’re trying to do both or whatever the case, so it sort of fits halfway in between. To me this could be a school, and you know, so it’s still sort of a public building, but with the increase of the landscaping that you’ve done, which I appreciate. I think the landscaping is very nice. The better the landscaping gets, to me, the less the civic image disappears. Those two seem to fight each other. Also, some of the comments we made, I have to disagree with my fellow Board Member here that a lot of the comments that we made last time were ignored, as far as I’m concerned, or minimally addressed. You know, undulation of the exterior wall, and now I see that the windows have been pushed out 9 inches. To me that’s about as minimal as you can get. Also, the fact that, to me, civic building of any kind and board-formed concrete just do not match. I’m sorry, board-formed concrete should be something for utility room somewhere and that’s about it as far as I’m concerned, unless you’re going for a whole different sort of design concept. I find it very difficult to equate slick tile and polished finishes with board- formed concrete. The comments were made as far as having some sort of other solid or form at the baseline, whether it’s brick or something like that. I’d almost rather see a sand-finished concrete than a board-formed concrete. I just don’t think it fits a civic image. Like I said, I think the lighter tile is probably going to be better than the sort of beige-looking tile here, but I’m still on the fence with this. So, I’ll hear what the rest of my Board Members think before I make an up or down thumb on this. Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: Hi. Thank you so much for your presentation. I will try to address all these things in order. I know, you know, the list that you made of our comments and your responses to them looks very thorough. I will admit I sort of echo Board Member Gooyer’s sentiments that when I was looking through this package again, it didn’t feel like much had been addressed at all. A lot of the comments that we had about it being blocky is still the case, I think, in many ways. The materiality is something that I’m still trying to get my head around. I understand we don’t have all the colors here. That’s okay, but even this technique of prefabricated panels I think could be good, but the problem is that you still end up with what feels like a wall. I think the subtlety that you’re trying to introduce is not enough. It’s too subtle. I don’t think anybody will notice that you’ve spent all this time creating four unique panels of extremely subtle colors to create specularity, because even in the render it doesn’t read as something that is different. It almost looked as if you were attempting to break the grid with this pattern of the tile, and yet the grid still stood because of the way of the pre-cast panels, and so I don’t know if there’s another way you can break the grid. I think that would be a way to soften up the lines and make it less blocky. Again, I think relief is important and I think you could get there if you had some sort of dimensionality in that middle band. But I understand that the technique you’re looking at maybe doesn’t afford itself to that. At the end of the day I don’t want to tell you what to do. All I can say is that City of Palo Alto Page 12 the solution that you’ve presented does not address the comment that it is still blocky. It’s very flat. It feels like a wall. It feels like a box, and it needs to have a bit of relief in order for it to feel comfortable in the neighborhood. Otherwise, it will feel a bit too much. To talk about the board-formed concrete, I know we did have some differing opinions. I’m a fan of it. I think the issue that maybe we’re both struggling with is that there is a sort of, I mean, the thing I like about board-formed concrete is that there is more detail in it than like a sand finish, and I don’t want to put words in Board Member’s Gooyer’s mouth, but there is a hardness to board-formed concrete that maybe brick doesn’t have as much. I would be open to seeing a different material. I think the detail is what matters the most to me, and the color. So, one way to mitigate that comment is that maybe you could look at a different material and it could still work as well. I appreciate the landscaping. I think that is a gigantic improvement. I appreciate the attention that you’ve put to Park Boulevard. That area looks a lot nicer than it did before. It’s nice to see it. So, kudos on that. The site lighting plan, is that, the thing about the site lighting, I appreciate the E-1 fixture. There’s a different fixture that’s sort of a cigarette light, I think those cause a lot of light pollution, and it seems like – I think the aesthetic, yeah, these lights, I don’t know, I think those could be, I’m a little weary of those in terms of, I don’t know, making the area… The other light that you have that is sort of a more down light I think is a bit more preferable. This is not a big comment, but just to think about the parti of those skylights. I understand that you’re tying to create a dichotomy, but in terms of, those lights don’t shine on the ground. They kind of light up and I don’t think they light people’s faces as much. So, just reconsidering that. Yeah, in general I would say just to summarize, there’s still a lot that I think was not addressed in the previous comments. The louver functionality, I understand that a bit more, but in terms of… I guess I should have asked a bit more questions earlier. Are these hand operated, does somebody? Mr. Cusenbery: Hand operated. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so you actually physically push it up and down. Yeah. In terms of the aesthetic I think it’s a little lacking. Maybe that’s because, and maybe that goes back to the relief, you know, because it is so blocky the relief is not there. The louvers sort of don’t help that, being on the inside. So, those are my comments for now. At the moment I’m a little shaky if I were to recommend approval today. Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning and thank you for the improvements and the nice renderings and presentation. I have to say I echo the sentiments of Board Members Gooyer and Thompson in that I don’t think you addressed the serious comments we made about changing the bulk of the massive- looking part of the building. That said, I believe the entrance is of a wonderful civic quality and it does enough to mitigate what is otherwise a boxy building so that I can go forward with it. And I would like to even address the fact that some Council Members thought the building didn’t have a fully civic quality to it. I think that that entrance on the corner is wonderfully civic. It’s a beautiful stepping up plaza entrance into the building with a nice overhanging roof with wonderful landscaping with a public building, a multi- purpose building nearby. That takes you miles towards getting it to feel good. I think the real issue is that this is a very complicated problematic requirement inside, and it’s everybody, the City, the architects, the Police even, everybody is struggling with how to accomplish all of this, and it lends itself to a building with big flat walls and a boxy look to it. I wish we could have spent more time perhaps lowering the roof, perhaps raising that third-floor glass so it’s not down to the floor, but that’s not a deal breaker for me. The issue that I do have that I’d like to see addressed, perhaps in the subcommittee, is some of the materials. I don’t think the board-formed concrete is appropriate in this location. Respectfully Robert, I think board-formed concrete can be used on a civic building, but it has to be done so carefully and it has to be an integral part of the overall design. I think you’re matching this with a fairly sophisticated palette of tiles and thin mullioned windows and fancy louvers and a lot of other things that don’t remind me of board-formed concrete. I think that’s just not the right choice for this building, especially when you look at the tall wall that supports the antenna structure. That’s a very tall wall to be made of board-formed concrete and I would strongly like to see that come back on a subcommittee with an alternate material option. At least to have you study it and think about it. Looking at the sample here, which I greatly City of Palo Alto Page 13 appreciate having, just reinforces to me that that material is out of character with the other materials you’ve shown us, in my opinion. The second issue was with the sand-colored tiles and the questions I was asking. Honestly, I think you’re just really going about it the hard way to install tile in advance at the bottom of a pre-cast form, and then try to make sure all the grout lines come together and all the tiles match across the panels. It seems to me a lot harder than just putting the tile on the building after the wall is up there. It’s not that much tile, and that way you’d really be able to control a lot of the grout lines and stuff. I say that, in part, just because of the technique, but in part when I look at all your renderings, in my opinion you just haven’t sufficiently aligned things like window openings or soffit heights with these tiles. When you’re using this large format tile, I think it’s incumbent upon you to align the various openings and relief and projections and elements in the building with these tiles. And it may be just that you’re running out renderings very quickly and your focus was on specularity and texture, but I think that it really should and needs, it must be aligned to really pull off the effect, the sophistication that you seem to be capable of and asking for. So, I would like to see that also come back to a subcommittee, some evidence that the tile or grout line, the thought to how it’s installed and put together really does support the importance of this building. The third thing on the tiles, and this is smaller again, is the upper floor white tile. I think it is too glossy, it is too shiny. You could make that a matte finish and still achieve your design effect, and I think several Council Members commented on it, and I think other Board Members have, that I don’t think you’re going to see a reflection of the sky in that. You have the overhang right above it. I think it will just look sort of too shiny and that just doesn’t seem appropriate to me. That’s my three comments on the materials that with those at subcommittee I can support recommending approval of the building. I do share Alex’s comment that the antenna really should come back to us at some point, when we can see what that will look like. Not that I think we can do anything about the height of the antenna. That seems to be an important part of the function of this building, and it’s inappropriate for us to say that not the aesthetics override that. That said, I’ve seen antennas like this done well and done poorly, and lot of times an engineer will just keep plugging on things to the side of the pole, and having it come back to us might be a counterweight to that, just to force a little more thought into how the whole thing is put together. It’s an awfully tall thing. It’s going to really be noticeable and just one more round of review on that I don’t think is a big deal and would be helpful in the future. My last comment, and I think Board Member Furth will pick up on this, is to do with the public nature of the multi-purpose building on the front. I think that having the glass such that you can’t actually see into the building when you’re on the plaza reduces the civic quality of the entrance that I’m so enamored of, and I would love to see that glass brought down to the floor level, so that pedestrians coming in and out can see if they’re late to the meeting they’re going to or what’s going on with our government officials. The same way that we have the meetings on the ground floor in this building, for example. Yes, it’s more of a fishbowl, but yes, it’s more democratic and it’s more public. The police have a second meeting room deep in this building where they can hold more securely-needed functions. I think that would be appropriate here. But I’ll end my comments with that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you and thank you all for your long and hard work on all this. When I think of where we started and where we are, it’s a radically different building in the way it presents itself to its neighborhood. So, I agree with, I think, most of my colleagues that the materials need further work and I think that could be done with a subcommittee, but I don’t think they’re at the level of detail and success that we would expect in a project that came before us, were it not a City project and we should hold ourselves to the same standard here. One of the things I did want to say was that we’re always asking people to design a building in the round, and here you really have two fronts to this building. It’s not in terms of the Police Department’s use of the building, but you front on two highly traveled streets, and the impression that we create about civility of our City and the accessibility of our government and how much we care about people is influenced by those two sides, and I really appreciate the vastly improved Park frontage. Also, I forgot to ask, we did have a letter from Mrs. Chew, who is the owner of the building which includes Pro Bono restaurant expressing an anxiety about how Jacaranda Lane would work with trash bins and trash pickup. Could you tell me if you think that’s something that could be resolved? Mr. Raschke: Our concerns were regarding the placement of the trash bins for her building, and also window washers and cleaning the side of the building that all would take place on the Jacaranda Lane right of way. So, I believe it could be worked out as a good-neighbor policy to accommodate those. The City of Palo Alto Page 14 trash bins are something we’ll have to work closely with her, her tenants and the Green Waste of Palo Alto to make sure that she has the, they have the correct number of bins and frequency of pickup so that we, perhaps, can get those not stored on the alleyway or find another way to store those. But it is, her concerns are really about her current use of Jacaranda Lane. Chair Furth: So, this is a Citywide problem with alleys, where people have become accustomed to storing every increasing numbers of trash bins in the alleys, where they’re actually not supposed to be? Mr. Raschke: Correct. Chair Furth: Okay. Because she had asked if we would consider relocating the entry back to Birch, and I think pretty strong consensus the answer to that is no. So, I look forward to you working with her to solve those problems. Thank you for the landscaping and particularly thank you for the legible list of plants. I really appreciate that. Did not need to get out my magnifying glass. My comment, my concern is about, principal concern is about the community room. When I was speaking to staff yesterday they mentioned that this room is so big that it requires an exit directly on to the plaza, which I think provides us with an opportunity to get the kind of engagement with the public that we need and want here. An interesting thing about, Alex was talking about our tradition of civic, you know, buildings and it’s gone from Beaux Artes to let’s look like a large ranch house to let’s borrow somebody else’s Edward Durell Stone plans to most recent to let’s maintain Avenidas, which is, you know sort of, I always forget whether it’s Spanish revival or whatever, but similar to our Post Office, which was designed locally, not on a national level because Mrs. Hoover lived here. And then, most recently of course, we both restored and replaced libraries. So, we’ve provided civic meeting spaces in most neighborhoods, but not this one, or many neighborhoods. And one of the great things that this building does is provide real civic engagement in this neighborhood, in that there will be a room that can be used for meetings when the City wants to convene discussions about the various things we convene discussions about. So, it’s important that this room work well in that way. And I understand that it’s designed to do so. So, for example, the restrooms on the ground floor are accessible from the lobby. They will be accessible from this office or this community room, even when the Police Department is not otherwise open, that the secure perimeter is behind that area. And I must say that even having a publicly available bathroom during business hours is admirable civic engagement. I would prefer more fenestration, as they say, more windows I would like continued work to figure out how that can be added in a way that still lets the Police Department, among other users, feel secure in their use of that space. In addition, I would suggest, since we need to have an exit from this room onto the plaza, we use that as an opportunity to provide direct engagement from the outside to the inside. I would also like to suggest that signage, which you have heard me rant on before, is another way to clearly identify this as a community room, as a civic community room, but still as a City-managed community room, but still as a community room. The Council may wish to name it after some admirable citizen so that that signage also tells you, this is a place where people can come not simply to report lost bicycles or more serious events. You know, the name of one of our Police Chiefs lives on in the Hotel de Zink, which is our homeless program, our homeless shelter program that we operate in religious institutions in this City, and that program is named after the Police Chief who set it up, and it’s going, unfortunately, because the need persists, decades later. As to materials, there are settings in which I find board-formed concrete very beautiful. I think of the Pomona College Art Gallery, which uses deeply offset boards. It’s got gorgeous inlaid pieces of design as well. So, it’s designed, board-formed concrete. The tower, to me, does not look at all lovely, and I confess I really don’t like the idea of terra cotta board-formed concrete. Concrete is not terra cotta, or maybe the Romans did it that way. I don’t know. If so, it would still be around because they made great concrete. So, I’m not supportive of the existing color and material, but I do think it all fits together, and so my saying that I really think that’s an unfortunate tribute to Stanford’s terra cotta roofs, that doesn’t need to happen and that may not be your intention at all, is not something that needs to hold the project up. But I think it should be referred to subcommittee. I’m concerned that the landscaping adjacent to the community room might be there or not be there, depending on engineering of water, and I’d like to know that, I’d like this to be approved with that staying there with its purpose in flux. I’m seeing the landscape designer nod her head that that is, in fact, intended as an aspect of landscaping but it’s planting would vary with its purpose. If you would like to add? City of Palo Alto Page 15 Ms. Astrachan: I just wanted to clarify that that is, it’s purpose as stormwater is in fluctuation, but it should purposefully be there. We think that’s a good place for planting. MOTION Chair Furth: Thank you. I think it’s a wonderful place for planting. So, to summarize, if I were going to make a motion to recommend approval of this desperately need, long-awaited project, I would recommend approval with the referral of the following items to subcommittee: One would be continued, I suppose we say, refinement of the design of the community room to emphasize it’s availability to the public as a City-managed civic space, including treatment of the door directly into the plaza, signage and, if possible, additional windows keeping in mind the security concerns of the principal users of the building, that is to say the Police and Fire Departments, the Police Department. Also referring to subcommittee details of lighting and also referring to the subcommittee further refinement of the materials and also the – so antenna design, when do you expect to have that together. You mentioned that it’s going to take awhile to get this, the functional bits and pieces of the building together. Mr. Raschke: Correct. Technical services of the Police Department is in the process of determining which radio systems may stay at City Hall and which may… Chair Furth: Which will move. Mr. Raschke: which will transition to the new building. Chair Furth: Would you prefer to bring the antenna here as a separate project, or have it go to subcommittee staff? Mr. Raschke: A subcommittee would be our preference, but… Chair Furth: Okay. Anyway, so I would also refer to the antenna design as it emerges to the subcommittee. So, those are my thoughts. I leave it to somebody else to make a motion. (inaudible) Chair Furth: So moved. Board Member Gooyer: I’m very curious to hear other Board Members opinions regarding the multi- purpose room before deciding on that. Board Member Lew: Can I as for clarification from staff? When I went on a tour of the Police Station, I was told it’s not really a public, it’s not a public meeting room. I guess I think it’s also a Police… Mr. Eggleston: In the discussions we’ve had about the room, in some earlier renditions of the program for the Public Safety Building it was referred to as a community room. As that has evolved we started calling it a multi-purpose room and we’ve had discussions with the Police Department where the vast majority of its use they think would be for trainings and for events where they would be dealing with other public safety agencies, and that the emphasis would be less on the community aspect. Chair Furth: So, I think that’s an important evolution and is ultimately up to the City Council, not us. It is striking. First of all, I believe that any healthy institution always expands to all space available plus some. No health institution ever feels it has adequate facilities. So that’s a Council call, but it would be a pity to have the design not support that alternate use. You know, one of the difficult things about public safety is that it depends on the support and cooperation of the 99.9 percent of the population who does not care to engage in hostile or violent acts and in dealing with the other small fraction, maybe that’s even too high, in dealing with that other small fraction of the population, we need to do whatever we can to continue to engage the vast majority of the population, which is the people who actually make this City of Palo Alto Page 16 community safe by their interaction with each other and with our public safety workers. And I think in this neighborhood where we are really short of public bathroom and public community spaces, this is important. And so, at least from the design point of view, we need to give ourselves and the Department and the rest of the City the flexibility to flex. You know, Palo Alto has the niftiest training room for five counties. It’s going to be used all the time for Police training, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily need to make that sacrifice. Community meetings tend to take place in the evenings. I don’t think that’s the high-intensity use for Police Training, but the users of the building know more about this than I do. I don’t want this to be melodramatic, but I was reading a very thoughtful book that was tracing the mass murder tragedy of Oklahoma City to a response to the disaster at Ruby Ridge, and those are all about alienating ourselves from our own safety in our effort to preserve safety, and then leading to this ghastly disaster. And we’re not going to do any of those things, but I do think on a much smaller level the value of designing this room so that it’s identifiable as a community meeting place, and a civically managed one like our meeting over her, would be great. So, those are my thoughts. However, it’s, and thank you Alex for asking the question, because I had noticed the evolution of the description. My thoughts are that we should design it so it can serve all these purposes and then it will be able to evolve effectively through the time as the needs of the City and the Department evolve. Thank you. Board Member Lew: I have a couple more questions on the motion. One, you asked for lighting details. Were you only referring to Osma’s comments about the cigarette light fixture? Chair Furth: Does anybody have any other concerns besides that one? Board Member Lew: I actually had the same thought about that light fixture previously, but I don’t recall that I actually mentioned it, but the thought had crossed my mind about that one as well. Chair Furth: So, would you be comfortable with simply a reference to the, would you explain that? Board Member Lew: Yes, fixture E-1. Chair Furth: Fixture E-1. Okay, review of fixture E-1 of the lighting. Anything they do to narrow the scope, I’m sure is useful to the applicant. Okay. Board Member Lew: I will second your motion. Chair Furth: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Vice Chair Baltay: I’d like to be clear that Council hears us, that when we started this project there was a large public plaza in front. We’ve now changed that to have a public community room in front, and now we’re changing that to be a multi-purpose room, and eventually it’s going to changed to being a Police room, which has now replaced the public plaza. It seems to me that Council needs to make that decision, but I would recommend that they consider that a community room, in place of a public plaza. Therefore, the design should reflect that use. Board Member Gooyer: I have one question about that is that I find it strange that we call it a public community room and there is no access to the outside, direct access to the outside. Chair Furth: That’s why I’m asking for that. Board Member Gooyer: Oh, okay. I thought you were just talking about the windows. I didn’t hear anything about direct access from the… Chair Furth: No. This room is so big, it has to have direct access to outdoors to the plaza. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I mean, if we’re going to call it a community room, it needs direct access from the outside. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Furth: I absolutely agree. That was the intent of the motion. Board Member Lew: We actually have, say like the… Right, but also the Rinconada Library as a community room, the main door is through, after you go through the main lobby. I think there is a – Matt would know – there is a second door off to the side which you need for exiting, but it’s not like, it’s not on the main approach to the library, so you don’t, you know, see it. Like, technically you could go through there I think. But that’s a security issue. Most, I mean, I’ve always been taught that, you know, in architecture is that there is security and there is always a control point, and it’s usually one door, right? And there may be other doors, but they’re not necessarily operable, and that’s pretty normal. That’s fairly standard. I understand the desire to have it, but I think you’re going against all conventional wisdom about security. Chair Furth: Oh, I don’t want to go against all conventional wisdom, but I do think that this design as approved should make it clear to the public that this is the X meeting room, so that when you’re looking for it you know it’s there. When you walk by you think, “Oh, there’s a meeting room there. I wonder if. Board Member Lew: I get your point. It’s just that generally it’s a better design to do it that way. Chair Furth: Yes, and I don’t know what the implications are of that door and coming in that way. I’m not an expert on this, but if we have an evening meeting, it’s not going to work very well for people to have to pick up a phone and dial it to get admitted to it, because the difference between this and Rinconada is that that is a secured lobby door after hours. So, some way or other that problem needs to be addressed. It could be a series of operational practices. It could be design. It could be both. But the point is to, I think it’s clear. I think I’m belaboring this. Board Member Gooyer: I have one other question about that. Is this room going to be used on a daily basis, almost all day by the Police Department, or is this sort of an extra room that is a toss up as to who wants to use it? I think that if the Police Department, if it becomes a, you know, a daily use of that room, then I think maybe it just needs to be a Police function room, and maybe you could put glass in it to see what, you know, what’s going on or whatever, but I think we’d be wasting the space, I mean, especially with almost every Police Department, they never get a building as big as what they really need. So, I’d hate to see a large conference room because of its classification as a public meeting room go to waste most of the time because they really don’t want to use it based on privacy or, you know, security, that sort of thing. So, I mean, I think that needs to be clarified as to basically what the use is going to be. Is it going to be 95 percent Police Department, 5 percent? Chair Furth: Well, I think, let’s talk to staff about that, but I think this was not part of the building as originally submitted to us, right? This isn’t… Mr. Eggleston: It was part of the building, but it was internal to the building, and we brought it out as a one-story element. Chair Furth: All right. Mr. Eggleston: Can I add something? Chair Furth: Please. Mr. Eggleston: This is a really good discussion. I think for us, we’d like to go back and talk with the Public Safety Departments some more about the details of this, and this would probably be a really good discussion for us to have with the Council, as you mentioned Chair Furth, when we take this project to them and have a discussion that, where there is a decision really about what the scope of this room is. Chair Furth: So I, as we said, this is their call, but this was originally presented to us as a community room, and I think we became very attached to that vision. So, perhaps I would add to my if this is City of Palo Alto Page 18 acceptable to the seconder, to my referral to a subcommittee that if the Council determines that this should function in part as a City-controlled community meeting room then. Does that make sense? It should be signed, etc., or do you want to just… I mean, I think it should be done no matter what, so it has that flexibility and my motion is assuming that it will meet security concerns as well. So, I think I’ll leave it as it is, but it should be clear that we know that this is a Council call, and we think design flexibility might service as well over the next 50 years. Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask one other question. As I am on the fence, when you say “reconsider” or “more discussion about the exterior materials”, what exactly does that mean? Chair Furth: It means that the people on the subcommittee agree with the – recommend a specific set of materials. It means you don’t start again at ground zero. This is a design that has a lot of integration with itself and the building across the street. You don’t suddenly decide that everything should be weathered wood, but there may be a different variance with what they have proposed, and particularly with respect to the board-formed concrete. Board Member Lew: Can I ask a question for staff? Do you typically allow for like a full-scale mockup of the materials? Usually it like when you have a contractor on board, do you typically do that? Mr. Raschke: Yes, we did actually do that for the Rinconada Library. I’d like to add in terms of the terra cotta color and board-formed concrete around the perimeter, it serves multiple purposes and one of the key ones is security for a deterrent for ramming vehicles. So, as far as materials go, the guts of that would need to be reinforced concrete. The finish is really, I think, and maybe perhaps the color would be would… Chair Furth: Well, perhaps I should say, would it be better if I said finishes rather than materials? Would that be in the scope of what you are concerned about. Vice Chair Baltay: I think any number of finishes can be applied to poured concrete and the issue we have is we want a material, I think we want a material that’s got more harmony with the rest of the materials and some texture still. Chair Furth: Well, how about we chance, we could continue, whatever I said and instead of saying materials we say finishes and textures? We may not get Osma’s vote. Board Member Gooyer: I don’t think anybody’s arguing the fact the you need the concrete down there for security, but as you said, how you finish it can be done in a multitude of ways. Mr. Raschke: and I take the blame for keeping the board-formed concrete, because when I just recently noticed after the last meeting that the project at 2555 has board-formed concrete as it’s being finished up. So, the neighborhood has that finish currently with a new building going in. Chair Furth: Remind us what 2555 is? Mr. Raschke: 2555 Park Boulevard, it’s just across from the Courthouse. Ms. French: That was the soft story building that was, you know, possibly historic mid-century modern that was removed through EIR process and replaced with office. Mr. Cusenbery: This building right here. Can you see my mouse? Right there. That right there is the board-formed concrete. Chair Furth: One we’ve reviewed. Thank you. [Male]: And it’s looking really good. I went by there again today. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: We’re pleased with our work and their work. Board Member Lew: You’re saying refinement of the materials and finishes? Chair Furth: What I’m trying to say is what would make you all happy, which is sufficient to that the applicant City is reassured that we’re not saying start at ground zero, but that we have sufficient leeway so that you end up with a satisfactory set of finishes that will get you the necessary, avoid, get you specularity, whatever that is, avoid glare and look appropriately civic and hang together. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I agree. I mean, I understand, you know, you’re on a time crunch, but doing construction documents isn’t going to get change based on what the finish is on the concrete on the first floor. So, that’s why I’m trying to be specific here. I understand the need to keep going and I don’t expect you to start construction documents and have us go, oh, no, no, the whole thing needs to change or whatever. Board Member Thompson: I think it may be questing of massing potentially, because that would change the design a little bit. A lot of my comments were about massing in general and actually, could we go back to that view of the entrance please? I was looking at that for a little while and I had a question. We can go, I think there was one a little bit further out. Nope, keep going. Sure, let’s stay there. I have a question. So, the piece of board-formed concrete that’s at the base of that skinny column, does that need to be thickened for protection or is there a reason that’s so big? Mr. Cusenbery: This piece right here? Board Member Thompson: That’s right. Mr. Cusenbery: That does not need to be that thick. That is part of the development of the ribbon as it moves around. It’s a compositional decision, not a security decision. Board Member Thompson: Okay. So, the reason I brought it up is also partially because, and I’m not sure it really works in this view either, this material, given that there’s something so massive and then there’s the skinny thing that comes out. There’s no relationship between the top and the bottom. If we change that material I think it will change the feel of this a lot. So, it’s true, I appreciate and I was actually going to ask Wynne to repeat all the items that will go back to subcommittee, but I think if we wanted to do that, I think it’s just a lot of items and I’m okay with going to subcommittee, we just have to really be thorough with all these items, and part of me worries that if we do change the board-formed concrete that’s a different building entirely, and I don’t know fi that would mean that we would have to look at it again. Chair Furth: So, I think, I know it’s hard to sit up here and try to make collective decisions in front of an audience, but this is a really important project, and I think we should stay here working on it till we get it done. It shouldn’t take too much longer. Of course, nobody else took notes on what I said, right? Amy French: I did. Chair Furth: Good. So, I was suggesting to take the easiest ones first, that we refer to, that we recommend approval, and when I say “make you happy”, of course that’s code for making it possible for you to vote to approve this project based upon the findings that we are required to make, so nobody thinks this is an emotional decision. So, the following would come back to us, to the subcommittee: The antenna design, right; the lighting detail figure E-1, is that correct? Fixture E-1, thank you. The design of the community/multi-purpose room to make it flexible for use by the Police Department and as a City- managed civic meeting room; and… Ms. French: I’ll interrupt. A, B, C, door to plaza, signage, the potential windows. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Furth: Including consideration of signage, door to the plaza and additional windows. That’s consideration. None of those are required, right? I think we’ve sort of beaten that one to death. Why do I have a line here that says nature? And, and here I need your assistance, further review of materials with respect to finishes, textures and color. Vice Chair Baltay: Could we be more specific on that? Suppose we said an optional finish for the board- formed concrete. Suppose we said review of the patterning and layout of the sand-colored tile and reconsideration of the glossiness of the white tile up above. Chair Furth: My feeling is that once you start modifying anything, it all fits together, and so I would rather leave it a little broader and you can certainly work with the architect in that more focused area, but I figure once you tweak something you’re going to decide you need to… The architect is going to tell you that if you do that, you’re going to need to do this. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, well I’ll support it either way. So, whatever you guys think best. Chair Furth: Okay, that’s my motion. Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. (inaudible) Chair Furth: Thank you. We restated it to the point of redoing it, I think. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you very much for all your hard work. I think we all really look forward to seeing this. So, construction here will not start till the completion of construction of the garage, right? Mr. Eggleston: That’s correct. Chair Furth: And what is the anticipated year for that? Mr. Eggleston: Mid 2020. Chair Furth: Okay. So, that gives us a little time to work out the finishes. Thank you so much. Take care. Mr. Eggleston: Thank you. Chair Furth: All right, our thanks particularly for the tour of the admittedly grip but hardworking quarters of the Police Department. Thank you. We will take a five-minute break Product description Luminaire made of aluminium profiles, aluminium alloy and stainless steelSafety glass with optical structure Silicone gasket Reflector made of pure anodised aluminium Optional luminaire with anchorage unit or mounting base 70 833 made of hot-dip galvanised steel according to EN ISO 1461 Anchorage unit with 2 cable entries 50 × 150 mm Mounting base with 4 elongated holes Width 18 mm · 240 x 240 mm spacingWith inserted door made of die cast aluminium Door latch – square spanner – wrench size 8 mm. Connection box 70 632 for through-wiring – for 2 cables up to 5 × 4@ with fuse Neozed D 01 · 6 A Lampholder G 5 Electronic ballast (EEI=A2) 220-240 V x 0/50-60 Hz DC 176-254 V DC Start ≥ 198 V Safety class I Protection class IP 65 Dust-tight and protection against water jets Impact strength IK09 Protection against mechanical impacts < 10 joule r – Safety mark c  – Conformity mark Wind catching area: 0.63 m² Weight: 32.0 kg 35 0 0 12 0 0 80 0 54 0 14 5 29 0 × 8 5 95155 5 2 1 0,50,3lx m 0 3 6 9 12 3 0 3 6 6 889931 T16 28 W Application Light building element with rectangular profile and double-sided light exit.Light building elements are luminaires which can devide and structure areas in exterior application. They have an orientating, directing and demarcating function. Lamp Fluorescent lamp T 16 · 28 W · G 5 T 16 · 54 W · G 5 Osram: LUMILUX T5 HE 28 W 2600 lm Osram: LUMILUX T5 HO 54 W 4450 lm Philips: Master TL5 HE 28 W 2625 lm Philips: Master TL5 HO 54 W 4450 lm Please note the lamp manufacturers' operating instructions. Article No. 88 993 Colour graphite or silver graphite – article number silver – article number + A Light distribution 10 4 2 1 0,5lx m 0 3 6 9 12 3 0 3 6 6 889931 T16 54 W Project · Reference number Date 88 993 Light building element ! IP 65 30.17 · Technical amendments reserved r BEGA Gantenbrink-Leuchten KG · Postfach 31 60 · 58689 Menden · info@bega.com · www.bega.com Product data sheet