Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-18 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: July 18, 2019 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions 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. 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00313]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing Structures and the Construction of a Mixed-Use Building Containing 19 Rental Apartments and up to 7,450 Square Feet of Office Space. Three Existing Parcels will be Merged. A Variance is Requested to Allow Protrusion of Roof Eaves, Fin Wall and First Floor Canopy Into the Hamilton Avenue Special Setback. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15332. Zoning District: CD-C(P) and RM-40 (Downtown Commercial and Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project [19PLN- 00130]: Review the Environmental Impact Report, Allow for Public Comment, and Consider a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow for Demolition of an Existing Two-Way Bridge On Newell Road Between Woodland Avenue in East Palo _______________________ 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. Alto and Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Construction of a New Bridge Along the Same Alignment That Meets Caltrans Standards for Multi-Modal Access. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Assessment (EA) was Circulated on May 31, 2019 for a 60 Day Comment Period That Will End on July 30, 2019 in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Zoning District: Not Applicable (Public Right-of-Way) Adjacent Single-Family Residential (R-1[10,000]). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@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 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2019. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 20, 2019. Subcommittee Items 6.250 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]: Subcommittee Review of Brick Sample(s) and Bollard Lighting for the Council Approved Public Safety Building. Zoning District: Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 7.3000 El Camino Real [18PLN-00277]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Installation of Pedestrian Signage at the Pedestrian Access Route. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC-4637 (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) - Board Member Lew Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review Draft Letter Election of Chair and Vice Chair _______________________ 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 David Hirsch 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 # 9965) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/10/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Attachments: Attachment A: ARB 2019 Meeting Schedule (DOCX) Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics January 17  380 Cambridge Avenue: New Commercial Building (2nd Formal)  4256 El Camino Real: New Hotel (2nd Formal)  702 Clara Drive: Three Detached Units (1st Formal)  Crown Castle/Verizon: Cluster 3 Small Cells (1st Formal) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10375) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/18/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 565 Hamiton Avenue: Mixed-Use Office and 19 Units (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00313]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing Structures and the Construction of a Mixed-Use Building Containing 19 Rental Apartments and up to 7,450 Square Feet of Office Space. Three Existing Parcels will be Merged. A Variance is Requested to Allow Protrusion of Roof Eaves, Fin Wall and First Floor Canopy Into the Hamilton Avenue Special Setback. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15332. Zoning District: CD-C(P) and RM-40 (Downtown Commercial and Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on April 18, 2019. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: [http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=70538]. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and is modified to reflect recent project changes. Background The April 18, 2019 video recording of the ARB’s April 18, 2019 meeting is available online: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-4172019/. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response  Provide privacy to the two ground floor residences facing Webster Street through revised planting or low fencing (Units 1 & 2) Proposed moderate height plantings at the perimeter of the terraces. Changed from Foothill Sedge to Miscanthus Junceus. See Sheets L2.01, L2.03, L1.04, A5.2C, L2.01 and L2.03.  Review unit layouts for daylight, privacy, outdoor space (Units 3, 15 & 16) Unit 3 is located adjacent the Redwood Garden, while 15 & 16 are located on the upper level. Unit 3 - Windows were adjusted to allow more light to enter from kitchen through Redwood Garden. Each bedroom has two windows and the living room has a large window. Units 15 and 16 - planter and window locations were revised to allow for more privacy from Unit 17. Giant Chain Ferns are proposed adjacent to the units (notation N). See Sheets A8.2, A8.3, A2.3, L1.02, and L2.02.  Add bicycle parking at grade where possible Two additional short-term bicycle parking spaces are proposed by the Webster Street entry. See Sheets A1.1 and L1.01.  Review floor to floor heights to understand if the overall building height could be reduced. The issue was reviewed and due to the constraints of the elevator overrun height and an already low first floor ceiling commercial space, the proposed overall height is to remain. See Analysis section for more discussion.  Consider adding an accessible ramp for the Webster Street entry Proposed additional straight ramp to access the Webster Street entry. The adjacent landscaping is also updated to accommodate the new ramp. See Sheets A1.1, A2.1, A5.3E, A5.4, and L1.01.  Review lighting at the central terrace to ensure the space does not feel dark. The photometric plan demonstrates that the light levels are appropriate. See Sheets 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 E2.1P and E2.3P. See also Analysis section for more discussion.  Review lighting at third floor shared terrace for brightness.  Proposed alternative light fixture which reduces the lighting level. See Photometrics E2.3P and proposed light fixture F11 on Sheet L3.04.  Review landscape buffer at the 530 Webster property line to promote privacy, and meet with 530 Webster neighbors for input  Proposed two additional trees along the northern property line. The utility trench creates a constraint for planting additional trees. See sheets L1.01 and L2.01. In addition, the applicant responded to requests by the Planning Department for the following:  Updated parking and open space tables to reflect the changes to the PAMC Title 18.  Removed all window frames from the special setback and ensure that the concrete fin wall projection can be removed in the future if needed. Analysis1 Generally, the ARB had a favorable evaluation of the project with some notable requests for revisions as summarized in the above table. Most of the Board’s comments were directed towards privacy of the proposed units and the project’s neighbors. Attachment E provides the applicant’s responses to the ARB in detail. Proposed Revisions Specifically, the revisions bolster the project’s compliance with Findings #2 and #5 where the additional plantings and changes to the plant species and light fixtures enhances living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas. With the proposed additional short- term bicycle spaces and additional accessible ramp at Webster Street, the project is more consistent with Finding #4. Plantings are proposed to be taller at the Webster Street patios. The windows for certain units are designed to allow light in, while the plantings maintain privacy. Proposed terraces will create physical boundaries between private patios and the adjacent landscape that extends to the sidewalk. Together, these revisions represent an improvement to the project and greater consistency with the required Architectural Review findings. With the change of the light fixture (F11), the project is more consistent with the Performance Standard contained in PAMC 18.23.030. The applicant proposes to provide controllability through both a photocell and dimmer for occupant use. While the ARB suggested an occupancy sensor controlled environment, the applicant would like to avoid use of an occupancy sensor to allow the area to be minimally lit during evening hours and address the applicant’s concern that 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 the on/off of an occupancy sensor could be distracting. As demonstrated in the project’s photometric plans, the alternative light fixture would produce less light intensity. Evaluated and Not Changed Height The ARB recommended that the applicant review floor to floor heights to understand if the overall building height could be reduced. The applicant explains that this issue has been studied, but that the overall height of the building cannot be reduced due to the constraints of the project’s elevator overrun height and an already low first floor ceiling within the commercial space. The project includes two elevators: one for the commercial space that ends at the underside of the third floor; and one for the residences that ends at the underside of the roof. Both elevators are specified to be the Schindler 3300 MRL Traction Elevator which provides the space required for stretcher access as required by the Fire Department as well as the lowest overrun clearance of the major elevator manufacturers. The required overrun clearance is 12’- 7” from top of finished floor to underside of the hoistway beam. To meet this clearance at the commercial space, the third floor level is required to be 13’-2” above the second floor level as shown in the new section provided on Sheet A5.7 (section 2). At the residences, the top of roof is set to eliminate any visible bump at the street as shown in the new section on Sheet A5.7 (section 3). With these restrictions, the only place to reduce height would be at the first floor level; however, this floor is already short for commercial space, with 10’-4” clear from floor to underside of the acoustic ceiling, not yet accounting for mechanical ductwork which will hang below this 10’-4” ceiling height. Lighting at the Central Terrace As shown by the project’s photometrics, there will be sufficient light during evening hours provided by the overhead fixtures. During the day, the terrace’s relatively narrow depth of 30 feet before the influx of daylight from the courtyard will serve to provide visual focus through the terrace and light the space. The applicant states that they will present examples of other buildings with similar conditions at the ARB hearing. 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 under CEQA pursuant to Section 15032 for Infill development projects in that the project is located within an urbanized area, the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; and the project would have no significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. See Attachment H for more information. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on July 5, 2019, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 8, 2019, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment F: Applicant's Resubmission Letter (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans and Environmental Review (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 12 120-04-038 120-16-011 120-16-098 120-03-067 120-03-030 120-15-072 120-15-073 120-15-074 120-15-075 120-15-076 120-15-077 120-15-078 120-15-079 120-04-003 120-04-034 120-04-033 120-04-032 120-04-031 120-04-030 120-04-027 120-04-028 120-04-023 120-03-065 120-03-064 120-03-062 120-04-005 120-04-039 120-04-040 120-16-008 120-16-007 120-16-009 120-03-025 120-03-069 120-63-008 120-63-006 120-63-005 120-63-003 120-63-001 120-04-024 120-04-025 120-04-026 120-04-007 120-04-008 120-04-009 120-04-010 120-03-061 120-03-060 120-03-059 120-03-031 120-03-032 120-03-033 120-03-035 120-03-036 120-03-037 120-03-056 120-03-057 120-03-024 120-03-123 120-03-021 120-03-079 120-03-058 120-03-055 120-03-038 120-03-039 120-03-040 120-03-041 120-03-042 120-03-043 120-03-054 120-03-046120-03-045 120-03-020 120-03-082 120-03-083 120-03-105 120-03-106 120-03-087 120-03-107 120-03-108 120-03-109 120-03-110 120-03-114 120-03-115 120-03-113120-03-116 120-03-117 120-03-118 120-03-119 120-03-120 120-03-121 120-03-122 120-03-088 120-03-089 120-03-090 120-03-091 120-03-094 120-03-095 120-03-096 120-03-097 120-03-098 120-03-099 120-03-102 120-03-103 120-03-104 120-32-031 120-32-031 120- 0 3 - 0 8 4 120- 0 3 - 0 8 5 120 - 3 2 - 0 2 8 120 - 3 2 - 0 2 8 120 - 3 2 - 0 2 7 120 - 3 2 - 0 2 7 120-75-001 120-75-002 120-75-003 120-04-110 UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T HAM I L T O N A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T HAM I L T O N A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T FOR E S T A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E B Y R O N S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T HAM I L T O N A V E N U E L A N E 3 9 540 49 9 46 7 45 9 51 2 50 1 609 605 51 8 48 2 48 6 49 6 610 54 3 - 5 4 5 53 4 542 548 56 8 52 4 55 0 50 0 50 8 51 6 57 8 56 4 55 0 54 6 54 0 53 0 B 53 0 53 0 A 52 8 531 - 5 3 5 541 50 5 52 5 53 7 55 5 56 5 57 1 530 63 0 - 6 4 0 619 - 6 2 3 520 440 - 4 4 6 57 9 56 7 62 5 523 518 61 0 60 0 61 6 62 4 63 0 511 517 524 55 5 58 1 420 - 4 3 8 437 642636 - 6 3 8 56 7 55 5 555 530 611601 60 8 60 0 62 0 53 6 530 611 48 4 544 546 515 526 519 PC-2130 CD-C (P) PC- 4 0 5 2 PC- 2545 RM-40 PC-2968 PC-3995 PC-4173 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto abc Address Label (AP) Subject Property Zone Districts 0'68' Attachment ALocation Map 565 and 571 Hamilton, 542 Webster CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto efoley2, 2019-03-20 14:28:00 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) CD-C-(P) 2.a Packet Pg. 13 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 565 Hamilton Avenue 18PLN-00313 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Land Use and Community Design Element Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters and non-retail services such as offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village and University venue/Downtown. Non-retail uses such as medical and dental offices may also locate in this designation; software development may also locate Downtown. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential FARs range from 0.35 to 2.0. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations. On this portion of the site, the project proposes a mixed-use project that includes office (7,450 square feet) on the ground floor and residential (six units) above in accordance with the FAR requirements. Multiple-Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net On this portion of the site, he project proposes high-density residential (13 units) within the density limits and FAR requirements. 2.b Packet Pg. 14 densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is surrounded by established urban uses and is designed to be consistent with the surrounding structures. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The project proposes a contemporary design using wood, textured fiber cement board, board formed concrete, plaster, cedar wood soffits, glass, painted aluminum trellis and painted metal cladding. It’s massing is designed to support pedestrian-oriented uses at the ground floor. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures The project includes large windows and a recessed covered area on the second floor facing Webster Street to provide transitions from Commercial to residential areas. The massing and generous landscaping also help the project to blend into its surroundings. Policy L-3.4 Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The project includes distinctive entries on Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. Elaborate drought-tolerant landscaping is provided between the building and the sidewalk. Policy L-4.3: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. The project provides a distinct entry to a commercial space along Hamilton Avenue. The first story windows along Hamilton Avenue are clear glass. Residential units front Webster Street and include covered private open space areas. All of these combined elements will support a pedestrian-oriented streetscape. 2.b Packet Pg. 15 Housing Element Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Policy H1.2: Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods. The project site currently includes nine residential dwelling units and the project proposes 19 residential dwelling units for a net increase of 10 dwelling units. Transportation Element Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Program T-1.2.3: Formalize TDM requirements by ordinance and require new developments above a certain size threshold to prepare and implement a TDM Plan to meet specific performance standards. Require regular monitoring/reporting and provide for enforcement with meaningful penalties for non- compliance. The ordinance should also:  Establish a list of effective TDM measures that include transit promotion, prepaid transit passes, commuter checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking cash-out, bicycle lockers and showers, shuttles to Caltrain, requiring TMA membership and education and outreach to support the use of these modes. …  Establish a mechanism to monitor the success of TDM measures and track the cumulative reduction of peak hour motor vehicle trips. TDM measures should at a minimum achieve the following reduction in peak hour motor vehicle trips, with a focus on single-occupant vehicle trips. Reductions should be based on the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category and size: - 45 percent reduction in the Downtown district … The project submitted a TDM (December 6, 2018) for consideration by the City. With the combined residential and office TDM plans, it is expected that the project will achieve the 45 percent trip reduction, or five (5) AM and PM peak hour trips reduced. The Hamilton Webster project will be providing Caltrain passes to employees and the reduction of parking spaces should decrease the number of AM and PM peak hour trips by five (5) trips. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking The project provides most of its required parking. The project requests a joint parking arrangement. Parking is provided in the basement and with some mechanical parking 2.b Packet Pg. 16 regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. lifts. A Transportation Demand Management plan is proposed to support the reduction in parking. 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. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the project provides amenity areas where it is the most compatible with the surrounding uses. For example, the project includes private open space terraces on the first and third levels as well as shared common open spaces on the third level (terrace) including a ground level open air central courtyard. General open space areas are provided in the rear (redwood terrace space) and side setback areas. The Hamilton Webster project aims to respect its historic neighbor at 530 Webster. The apparent scale of the Hamilton Webster project, along Webster Street, has been significantly reduced through introduction of a third-floor terrace and full height windows. With a central large opening and full height glazing at the third-floor corners, the mass at the third level recedes, allowing the building to read closer in scale to 530 Webster. In addition, the central shared terrace and building wings of Hamilton Webster have been proportioned carefully to complement the central courtyard of 530 Webster, which is similarly proportioned. Provision of a ten-foot landscape setback and the addition of a full height privacy fence at the property line, coupled with careful window placement, all serve to improve the privacy afforded to tenants of 530 Webster. At the request of the Architectural Review Board, the project includes additional plantings and different light fixtures to better integrate and provide more privacy. The project proposed features a three-story courtyard building with deep landscape setbacks along each street frontage. The massing of the building has been tailored to subtly acknowledge a combination of uses on the site, to smoothly transition between commercial and residential use areas, to respect and respond to neighboring buildings, and to enhance the pedestrian experience. The project is consistent with the following Downtown (CD) context-based design criteria: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2.b Packet Pg. 17 The project will include bicycle parking and is adjacent to existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Proposed landscaping will enhance the pedestrian experience along Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements  At 40 feet tall, the proposed building is lower than the adjacent commercial buildings.  A lobby entrance fronting Hamilton Avenue provides a clear and unobstructed view into the central courtyard, thereby reducing the mass of the building and providing visual relief and interest along Hamilton Avenue.  A second lobby entrance on Webster activates the corner while further breaking down the mass of the building. A series of stepped terraces cascade from the entry is visually interesting to street user.  A third-floor terrace on Webster Street reduces the building mass and apparent height along the residential street. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The project proposes a three-story courtyard building with deep landscape setbacks along each street frontage. The massing of the building is tailored to acknowledge mixed-uses on the site, to transition between commercial and residential use areas, to respect and respond to neighboring buildings, and to enhance the pedestrian experience. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project is adjacent to multi-family residential, however, it provides sufficient setback and transitions well with its surrounding. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site The project includes a combination of open space areas including a central courtyard, shared terrace, residential private terraces, a redwood garden and a 10-foot setback. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The single-level below-grade parking garage has its entry on Webster Street (as requested by the City) and provides parking for 55 vehicles. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood The site is less than an acre in size. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design 2.b Packet Pg. 18 Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will address the 2016 California Green Building Code as well as introduce systems and sustainable design as part of the requirements of the City of Palo Alto and/or following good ‘green’ design practice. The project is consistent with the following Multi-Family (RM-40) context-based design criteria: 1. Massing and Building Facades Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with street(s).  At 40 feet tall, the proposed building is lower than the adjacent commercial buildings.  A lobby entrance fronting Hamilton Avenue provides a clear and unobstructed view into the central courtyard, thereby reducing the mass of the building and providing visual relief and interest along Hamilton Avenue.  A second lobby entrance on Webster activates the corner while further breaking down the mass of the building. A series of stepped terraces cascade from the entry is visually interesting to street user.  A third-floor terrace on Webster Street reduces the building mass and apparent height along the residential street. The project proposes a three-story courtyard building with deep landscape setbacks along each street frontage. The massing of the building is tailored to acknowledge mixed-uses on the site, to transition between commercial and residential use areas, to respect and respond to neighboring buildings, and to enhance the pedestrian experience. 2. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project is adjacent to multi-family residential, however, it provides sufficient setback and transitions well with its surrounding. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site The project includes a combination of open space areas including a central courtyard, shared terrace, residential private terraces, a redwood garden and a 10-foot setback. 4. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The single-level below-grade parking garage has its entry on Webster Street (as requested by the City) and provides parking for 55 vehicles. 2.b Packet Pg. 19 5. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood The site is less than an acre in size. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types as small-lot detached units, attached rowhouses/townhouses, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. The project proposes a mixed-use project with attached multi-family and commercial. The project is a single attached building with a courtyard in the center. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will address the 2016 California Green Building Code as well as introduce systems and sustainable design as part of the requirements of the City of Palo Alto and/or following good ‘green’ design practice. 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 proposes a contemporary design using wood, textured fiber cement board, board formed concrete, plaster, cedar wood soffits, glass, painted aluminum trellis and painted metal cladding. Proposes are muted colors to be compatible with the surrounding. 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 proposes a design that includes a three-story building, and one level of below-grade parking for 55 cars with an entry along Webster Street. Massing and landscape setbacks have been considered in an effort to achieve a deliberate transition between downtown and an adjacent residential neighborhood, thereby binding the urban fabric. A biophilic design approach yields significant greenspace for the enjoyment of future tenants and the broader Palo Alto community. At the request of the Architectural Review Board, the project includes additional short-term bicycle parking and an additional accessible ramp at Webster Street. 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 2.b Packet Pg. 20 indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Throughout the building and along the elevations, the landscape materials of the courtyard, terrace and street provide an organic counterpoint to the built environment. Throughout the site, the planting palette is varied to provide visual interest using native and drought tolerant plantings. Redwood trees on an adjacent lot will be preserved. Moreover, nine non-native street trees, in poor condition, will be removed at the request of Urban Forestry and replaced with a Valley Oak street tree, which is both native and low water use. The canopy coverage of the trees proposed for this project will be 5,620 square feet greater than that of existing canopy coverage when measured at a 15-year projected growth. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Per the City of Palo Alto planning goals, the project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Secure bicycle parking will be provided in the garage with additional bike parking on the street along Cambridge Avenue. Both will provide alternate means of transportation with less fuel emissions and potential traffic. The systems proposed for the building will be designed to meet to energy performance criteria of California Title 24 for Mechanical, Lighting, and Building Envelope. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 Performance Criteria 565 Hamilton Avenue 18PLN-00313 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. An enclosed integrated trash facility is located on the north side of the project located approximately 15 feet from the property line and screened by a fence. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The project’s photometric plans demonstrate that project’s proposed lighting will not impact the neighbors or the street. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick- up. The current project proposal does not include late night uses or activities. Future commercial tenants that would like this will need to file for a Conditional Use Permit, as required per the Zoning Code. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project abuts residential uses and provides landscaping to screen the uses of the buildings. Mechanical equipment is located in the center of the rooftop out of any sightlines. Other utilities are located not in plain sight from the public. 2.b Packet Pg. 22 Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The parking areas are located underground. Most terraces are inward facing. The Redwood terrace in the rear of the project abuts neighboring properties. 18.23.070 Parking The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. Parking is provided within the basement of the building. 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The project maintains a single curb-cut for access to a garage. The project maintains a 5-foot sidewalk. Bicycle parking is provided by the project. 18.23.090 Air Quality The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 2.b Packet Pg. 23 Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities For any site or sites with multiple uses where the application of this chapter requires a total of or more than ten (10) spaces, the total number of spaces otherwise required by application of Table 1 may be reduced when the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use or site. In making such a determination, the director shall consider a parking analysis using criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar methodology to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The analysis shall employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the base parking requirement and for the determination of parking requirements for individual land uses. The director may also require submittal and approval of a TDM program to further assure parking reductions are achieved. The project submitted a TDM (December 6, 2018) that outlines a 45% trip reduction. The project seeks an eight percent reduction in the required amount of parking for the project. (60 spaces are required, while only 55 are provided). Variance Findings PAMC 18.76.030 (1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in Title 18 substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Tree Protection Zone: As depicted in the Major Architectural Review application (Plan Set Sheet L1.01), the root protection zone of five mature redwood trees situated on an adjacent City-owned property (the Cowper Webster Street Garage) significantly encroaches into the buildable area of the proposed project site, preventing it from being fully utilized in a way that is similar to other sites in the zoning district. Whereas neighbors within the CD-C(P) zone typically build to their rear lot lines, as permissible in the CD-C(P) zone, development on the proposed project site is limited by a need to protect the root systems of the City’s redwood trees. To address this special circumstance, the applicant has pulled the proposed project forward towards Hamilton Avenue, leaving the protected redwoods room to thrive at the rear of the project site. Buildable area on the CD-C(P) parcel lost to this special circumstance is approximately 565 square feet at the ground level of the project. Adjacent Historic Building: In addition, a historic building (530 Webster) located to the north subjects the proposed project site to unusual constraints. While the required setback on Webster Street is variable at 0 to 16 fee per municipal code, the proposed project has incorporated a 20-foot setback to better align with and to respect the adjacent historic structure at 2.b Packet Pg. 24 530 Webster Street (as per direction received from the Architectural Review Board during a preliminary hearing). Assuming the maximum 16-foot setback, buildable area lost to this special circumstance is approximately 470 square feet (or greater) per building level. Antiquated Special Setback Has Not Been Enforced: The proposed project is also impacted by an extraordinary 17-foot special setback along Hamilton Avenue. Other than the proposed project site parcels, only one other parcel (550 Hamilton) along Hamilton Avenue is subject to a 17-foot special setback. Despite being subject to a 17-foot special setback, the 550 Hamilton site was improved under PC zoning in 1971 with a building structure that occupies a significant portion of the 17-foot special setback zone. The 17-foot special setback map was drafted in the 1950’s era (when lane widening was a common traffic calming measure), but 550 Hamilton was constructed more than two decades later. Based on this sequence of events, it can be assumed that the City determined prior to 1971 that a 17-foot special setback was no longer needed or desirable at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. With other approaches to traffic calming being evolved since the 1950’s and that the City does not intend to use the special setback at the intersection of Hamilton and Webster in the foreseeable future. Adjacent Similarly Situated Properties Enjoy a Smaller Seven Foot Setback: Along Hamilton Avenue, the special setback is generally seven feet (instead of 17 feet). In accordance, most buildings along Hamilton Avenue are set back seven feet or less from the property line. For example, a neighboring office building at 555 Hamilton, immediately adjacent and west of the proposed project site, was constructed in the 1980’s (per the assessor’s office) and is set back only seven feet; and a church at 625 Hamilton Avenue, just across the street from the proposed project, is situated even closer to the street than 555 Hamilton. In fact, in the downtown area, 565 Hamilton is the only CD-C (P) zoned property with a 17-foot special setback; and the proposed project also contains the only RM-40 parcel having a 17-foot special setback on Hamilton Avenue. Based on the facts above, a strict application of the 17-foot special setback to the applicant’s project site would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. In summary, the Hamilton Webster project has several unusual and substantial constraints that do not normally arise on other sites in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. A unique 17-foot special setback impacts the property along Hamilton Avenue, a historic neighbor has necessitated a deep 20-foot setback on Webster Street, and a collection of protected redwood trees on adjacent City-owned property impacts the proposed project on the two remaining perimeter property lines. With unusual pressures applied on all four sides of the proposed project site, strict application of the special setback would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. (2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. 2.b Packet Pg. 25 As previously noted, the 17-foot special setback applicable to the proposed project is quite unusual for properties in the vicinity and properties in the same zoning district. In downtown, 565 Hamilton is the only CD-C (P) zoned property with a 17-foot special setback. The proposed project also contains the only RM-40 parcel in the downtown area having a 17-foot special setback along Hamilton Avenue. Thus, granting the application would not constitute a granting of privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Further, if the variance is granted as requested, the proposed project will substantially comply with all regulations, because it fully complies with all other development standards and, with respect to the special setback, the encroachments have been minimized. In fact, the bulk of the proposed project’s building mass will still be set back a full 17 feet, as stipulated by the special setback map. The maximum encroachment into the special setback area (of approximately six feet) will be at the office canopy, where the project will still be able to maintain an 11-foot setback from the property line, which is significantly deeper than the seven feet special setback that applies to most other properties in the vicinity and same zoning district Furthermore, the volume of the roof eave and office canopy encroachment (at approximately 627 square feet) is minimal as compared to the volume of the lost buildable area (approximately 1,035 square feet) associated with protecting redwoods on an adjacent property and respecting the adjacent historic building at 530 Webster via a 20-foot setback. Other than the requested exceptions, the proposed project complies with all other City regulations. The granting of these exceptions would not be considered a special privilege, but rather would be based upon the unique circumstances of the parcel as explained above and shown on the project plans. (3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning). The project as proposed complies with all Zoning Ordinance requirements (other than the encroachments for which a variance is sought), including the context-based design criteria outlined in Chapter 18.13 which specifically encourages “facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass.” Furthermore, the proposed project does not conflict with the promotion and protection of public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare. In light of these facts, the proposed project is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan does not contain any setback requirements, so the variance does not include an exception to the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as it will promote the following goals and policies, among others: 2.b Packet Pg. 26  N-2.1: Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the city’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced.  L3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.  L2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing, near retail, employment and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods.  L6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities.  N-7.4: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of energy in new and existing residences and other buildings in Palo Alto. In summary, an important goal of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is to encourage more housing units in transit rich areas. Without a variance (in light of unusual pressures on all four sides of the proposed project site), housing units near transit would be lost because the buildable site area would effectively be reduced (assuming the roof eaves and office canopy remain), and/or the roof eaves and office canopy would be lost (impacting the ability to shade the windows from solar heat gain, as well as impacting the aesthetic interest of the building). Granting a variance for the roof eaves, office canopy, and other architectural design elements resolves this issue, allowing the property to be built out in a fashion similar to other properties in the vicinity and zoning district, and in a fashion that is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. More succinctly stated, if a variance is granted, desirable housing units will be provided near transit, retail and employment; redwood trees will be protected; adjacent historic structures will be respected; and roof eaves, window frames and office canopies will maximize the efficient use of energy and improve the pedestrian experience and surrounding property values. (4) 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 proposed encroachments improve the aesthetics of the proposed project (which replaces end-of-life structures) on a stand-alone basis; and the eaves and office canopy help to soften what would otherwise be an abrupt transition between discrepant setback zones. Granting the variance application thus enhances the pedestrian experience and improves surrounding property values.  Other than the special setback variance requested, the proposed project is consistent with City regulations (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) and, therefore, is not detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. 2.b Packet Pg. 27  Public convenience is enhanced by an office canopy that denotes entry, assists with wayfinding (via attached signage), and provides protection from the elements.  The four-foot roof eave encroachment, at 38’-3” above grade, would not significantly impair the City’s use of the 17 feet special setback at the ground level. Moreover, the six feet office canopy, which is the most significant encroachment proposed, also does not impair the City’s practical ability to use the 17 feet special setback, since the City could not use the area under the proposed canopy for most purposes without first demolishing the existing office structure located at 555 Hamilton Avenue. In summary, granting the variance requested provides the City with future option value to use the special setback in a fashion that is consistent with the opportunity on other properties in the vicinity. Approval of the requested variance will facilitate development of a mixed-use project: (i) that is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan, municipal code, and context based design criteria, (ii) that preserves the health and welfare of five city-owned redwood trees on an adjacent lot, (iii) that is respectful of its historic neighbor at 530 Webster Street, (iv) that is aesthetically pleasing and complements neighboring properties, and (v) that is consistent with other projects in the vicinity. 2.b Packet Pg. 28 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 565 Hamilton Avenue 18PLN-00313 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Hamilton Webster Project, Palo Alto, May 10, 2019” stamped as received by the City on May 13, 2019 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 be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 6. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $469,416.90 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 2.c Packet Pg. 29 8. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 9. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT: 10. SUBDIVISION: As three lots are proposed to be merged, a Preliminary Parcel Map and a Parcel Map, or a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Merger (if applicable) are required for the proposed development. Map types and review procedures vary depending on the number of units proposed. Depending on the number of units proposed, the applicant shall submit a minor or major subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Parcel Map or Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. 11. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS: The City’s full-sized Standard Conditions sheet must be included in the plan set. The conditions noted on the sheet shall be adhered to for the full project duration until completion. Copies are available on the Public Works website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67175.06&BlobID=66261 2.c Packet Pg. 30 12. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontages, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 13. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650- 496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 14. FLOOD ZONE: The proposed project is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area. Accordingly, the proposed construction must comply with Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.52 and FEMA’s requirements for construction within a flood zone. Plans must show:  Elevations are based on NAVD88 datum.  The location of the BFE on all architectural elevations and all structural foundation details.  The structure below the BFE is constructed of water-resistant material.  All mechanical, electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment is located above the BFE to the maximum extent practicable.  The Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area form, which is available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website. https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits/default.asp#FloodZoneIssue  If required, a table showing the calculation for number of flood vents needed; location of flood vents on foundation plan; detail of flood vent; location of flood vent relative to adjacent grade. 15. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not 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 2.c Packet Pg. 31 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. 16. 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. 17. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits/default.asp 18. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website: https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits/default.asp 19. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 20. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 21. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2718 22. 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 2.c Packet Pg. 32 issuance of the building or grading permit. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 23. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. 24. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. 25. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: 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, the qualified thirdparty 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. 26. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Is this project increasing impervious area at the site? If so, applicant shall provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100- year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way, as described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 27. PAVEMENT: Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be required to resurface, grind and pave, the full width (curb to curb) of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street along the frontage of the project.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 28. Submit draft Flood Emergency Operation Plan for review prior to Public Works Building Permit approval. 2.c Packet Pg. 33 29. Submit draft Inspection and Maintenance Plan for review prior to Public Works Building Permit approval. 30. Submit final Flood Emergency Operation Plan prior to Public Works final inspection. 31. Submit final Inspection & Maintenance Plan prior to Public Works final inspection. 32. Prior to Public Works final inspection, owner shall sign and record an agreement stating that the Flood Emergency Operation Plan and the Inspection and Maintenance Plan will be followed for the life of the structure and that the agreement shall be transferred to all subsequent owners. 33. Prior to Public Works final inspection, this Project shall file a Floodproofing Certificate for NonResidential Structures (FEMA Form 086-0-34) with all applicable authorities. The Floodproofing Certificate shall include the Flood Emergency Operation Plan and the Inspection & Maintenance Plan as described in FEMA Technical Bulletin 3-93. UTILITIES WATER/ GAS/ WASTEWATER 34. The applicant shall submit a completed Water-Gas-Wastewater Service Connection Application - Load Sheet 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 existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 35. 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, and any other required utilities. 36. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all 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. 37. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. 38. This project must comply with California Water Metering for Multi-unit Structures Water Code as amended by law Senate Bill 7 (Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537-537.5) 2.c Packet Pg. 34 requires individual water meters or submeters for each unit of new multiunit residential structure or mixed-use residential and commercial structure constructed after January 1, 2018. CPAU encourages submeters over individual meters particularly for buildings with many units since individual meters may be impractical. The owner of the structure shall install submeters that comply with all laws and regulations governing the approval of submeter types or the installation, maintenance, reading, billing, and testing of submeters, including, but not limited to, the California Plumbing Code. 39. 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. UTILITIES ELECTRIC ENGINEERING 40. This project will require the installation of new electric utility substructure and reconfiguration of the existing electric utility distribution system in order to provide service to the new transformer. Applicant shall contact CPAU Electric Engineering for off-site and on-site requirements. 41. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 42. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. 43. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 44. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 45. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 46. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 2.c Packet Pg. 35 47. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 48. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 49. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 50. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. 51. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 52. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. 53. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 54. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 55. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. 2.c Packet Pg. 36 56. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 57. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 58. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service: • All fees must be paid. • All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. • All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. • Easement documents must be completed. BUILDING 59. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION 60. At the Building permit stage, the project shall demonstrate compliance with the following Municipal Code Sections: a. Section 16.09.170(c), 16.09.040(m) (Discharge of Groundwater), b. Section 16.09.180(b)(10) (Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas), c. Section 16.09.180(b)(6) (Copper Piping), d. Section 16.09.180(b)(9) (Covered Parking), e. Section 16.09.180(b)(5) (Condensate from HVAC) f. Section 16.09.165(f) (Carwash Prohibited Discharges) g. Section 16.09.165(h) (Storm Drain Labeling) PUBLIC ART 61. Prior to the issuance of a Building permit, the applicant will be required to pay the public art fee. 62. The fee amount will be confirmed based on the building permit valuations on file at the time of application. 63. Alternatively, the project may provide public art on site by completing the public art in private spaces process. 2.c Packet Pg. 37 Hamilton Webster Project Description – May 10, 2019 PROJECT OVERVIEW Hamilton Webster is a proposed mixed-use project to be located on 0.5 level acres in downtown Palo Alto, at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. The program for this project includes: multifamily rental housing (19 homes), office space (up to 7,450 square feet), and on-site parking (55 stalls). This program is achieved with a three-story building, and one level of below-grade parking. Massing and landscape setbacks have been carefully considered in an effort to achieve a subtle and sophisticated transition between Palo Alto’s central business district and an adjacent residential neighborhood, thereby binding the urban fabric. A biophilic design approach yields significant greenspace for the enjoyment of future tenants and the broader Palo Alto community. In keeping with this design approach, the proposed building materials are “natural” in color and provide significant warmth and texture. Materials proposed include: wood (cedar), textured fiber cement board, board formed concrete, plaster, glass, and painted metal. The resulting project, situated near abundant downtown retail and public transit, will be a dynamic mixed-use asset that encourages a pedestrian lifestyle. PROJECT GOALS The project sponsor has a number of goals for the Hamilton Webster project that have informed the architectural design. Primary goals include the following: • To provide nineteen (19) residential rental units in downtown Palo Alto, in close proximity to retail, dining, and urban transit options, thereby promoting a pedestrian lifestyle. • To provide a 7,450 square foot office space on Hamilton Avenue that creates an opportunity for a seamless, subtle, and sophisticated transition between the project’s commercial neighbors on Hamilton Avenue and the project’s residential neighbors on Webster Street. • To be a good neighbor by respectfully integrating the design and massing of the Hamilton Webster project into the context of the existing neighborhood, with particular emphasis placed on respecting the privacy of residential neighbors at 530 Webster Street. • To create a project that respects the existing natural environment (including the urban canopy) and creates new opportunities for residents and pedestrians to reconnect with nature in an urban context via a biophilic design approach. • To construct a building that will have a strong sense of permanence and timelessness. • To provide convenient onsite parking, thereby reducing the quantity of residents parking on street, as compared to existing conditions. PROJECT APPROACH The project site includes three separate parcels—one zoned CD-C (P) and two zoned RM-40. Existing site structures include three buildings (containing a total of 9 residential rental units) that have exceeded their useful life, that are not compliant with current building code, and that are largely reliant on street parking. To achieve the proposed project (containing 19 residential rental units and approximately 2.d Packet Pg. 38 7,450 square feet of office), all existing site structures would be removed, the three parcels would be merged to create a single lot via a Certificate of Compliance process, and a single mixed-use structure would be constructed. It should be noted that even though internal lot lines will be removed to create a single parcel, the underlying zoning designations for each parcel shall remain and shall be respected. EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS Existing improvements on the site include nine (9) residential rental units. The project site also includes a shed (~74SF) on the 542 Webster parcel, a parking garage for 4 cars on the 571 Hamilton parcel (~938 SF), and a parking garage for one or two small cars on the 565 Hamilton parcel (~427 SF). The combined total of all structures is +/- 9,013 square feet. Recent tenants have primarily parked in the street because of the smaller size and limited clearance in the existing garage units. All of the existing structures are at or nearing end-of-life, and none are considered historic resources. ADDRESS 542 WEBSTER 571 HAMILTON 565 HAMILTON TOTALS APN 120-03-060 120-03-061 120-03-062 Stories 1 2 1 Square Footage 1,944 +/- 5,242 +/- 1,827 +/- 9,013 +/- 1 Bedroom Units 4 3 0 7 2 Bedroom Units 0 1 1 2 Total Units 4 4 1 9 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The buildings surrounding the Hamilton Webster corner parcel vary significantly in size, mass and character. To the west and south along Hamilton Avenue are three story office buildings of stucco and glass, each close to 50 feet in height. To the east across the intersection, the First United Methodist Church, an iconic structure of concrete planes, rises more than 70 feet from grade. In contrast, along Webster Street the adjacent two story multi-family residence is approximately 24 feet in height. The Hamilton Webster project seeks to unify this street front by providing a single building that acknowledges the large mass of the adjacent commercial buildings along Hamilton Avenue, but which is scaled down to respect the smaller scaled residences along Webster Street through its massing and articulation. SITE CONSTRAINTS The Hamilton Webster project has a number of site constraints that have significantly informed the project design. These constraints include: (i) a 17 foot special setback along Hamilton Avenue, (ii) a variable 0-16 foot side setback along Webster Street, (iii) redwood trees on the adjacent Cowper- Webster Garage lot, (iv) a 50 foot height limit on the CD-C (P) parcel, (v) a 40 foot height limit on the RM-40 parcels, and (vi) an AH flood zone designation. Impacts of these constraints on the site design include the following: • The proposed building façade has been set back 20 feet along the Webster Street property line to align with an adjacent residential neighbor. While this 20 foot setback exceeds the 0-16 feet required, we believe the setback is “neighbor friendly” and creates an opportunity to provide significant front yard landscaping that is highly residential in character, and that can be enjoyed by the entire Palo Alto community. 2.d Packet Pg. 39 • The proposed building has been set back significantly at the northwest corner to protect redwood trees on a neighboring lot. While this results in a significant loss of buildable area, it also creates a unique opportunity to provide private outdoor space for the office tenant. • While zoning allows for a 50 foot tall building on the CD-C (P) parcel and a 40 foot tall building on the RM-40 component, we are proposing a single 3 story, 40 foot tall building to fit within the neighborhood context. A 3 story structure helps bridge the massing differences between our 2 story residential neighbor, our commercial neighbor at 50’ above grade, and the nearby church at 70’ above grade. • Only car and bike parking have been provided below grade, as required by the codes regulating flood plain designation. PROJECT DESIGN Massing The project proposed features a three story courtyard building with deep landscape setbacks along each street frontage. The massing of the building has been tailored to subtly acknowledge a combination of uses on the site, to smoothly transition between commercial and residential use areas, to respect and respond to neighboring buildings, and to enhance the pedestrian experience. Notable highlights include the following: • At 40 feet tall, the proposed building is lower than the adjacent commercial buildings. • A lobby entrance fronting Hamilton Avenue provides a clear and unobstructed view into the central courtyard, thereby reducing the mass of the building and providing visual relief and interest along Hamilton Avenue. • A second lobby entrance on Webster activates the corner while further breaking down the mass of the building. A series of stepped terraces cascade from the entry as a welcoming gesture to the street. • A third floor terrace on Webster Street reduces the building mass and apparent height along the residential street. • The building is given scale through the creation of a strong distinction between the office and residential uses as well as variation across the façade. The office is set apart from the residential uses with a metal frame running both horizontally and vertically. At the residential units, vertically ribbed fiber cement board panels alternate with floor to ceiling glazing to create a vertical reading along the more public face of Hamilton Avenue. The residential stair, with a metal surround and vertical glazing, provides a visual break in the elevation and creates a counterpoint to the office glazing. Along Webster Street, the façade is further reduced with the introduction of the central third floor terrace. At this elevation, the windows are less formal in their organization, reflecting the residential nature of this street. • The glassy, transparent expression of the office façade allows it to read in context to its commercial neighbors. This transparent façade is given scale through the addition of horizontal metal brise-soleil which provide solar shading for this south facing façade. The projecting brow above and vertically to the east of the office space delineates the change in use and mitigates the transition from office to residential. A secondary canopy at the first floor provides a pedestrian scale entry element as well as future signage opportunities. • An extended eave wraps the project, providing articulation, shading and visual interest. This 4 foot eave extends 4 feet into the special setback on Hamilton, at a height of approximately 40 feet above grade. 2.d Packet Pg. 40 Materiality The proposed building materials have been selected to provide texture and warmth, to relate to the human scale, and to complement neighboring structures. The proposed materials are intended to be natural in color, primarily in warm tan, natural grey, and brown tones to fit within the Palo Alto context and to express the nature of the chosen materials. Proposed materials include: • Board Formed Concrete: Durable concrete walls at the base of the building and within the landscaping have texture provided by the formwork and are natural light grey in color. • Textured Fiber Cement Board Panels: These durable panels provide scale through the vertical textural ribbing. The panels at the second and third levels are proposed to be a natural taupe color to provide warmth and relate to the adjacent buildings. At the ground floor residences on Webster, the panels are a light grey color to accentuate their relationship to the adjacent concrete and to ground the building. The ribbed texture of the panels provides a texture that changes in tone throughout the day as the light moves across the surface, subtly activating the façade. • Cedar Wood Soffit: Natural cedar wood siding material is proposed at the underside of the eaves, on entry doors and on lobby walls viewed through the glazing. This material is welcoming in its color and texture and adds additional warmth and scale to the building. • Painted Aluminum Trellis: At the third floor terrace, a trellis extends over the space to provide shading. The trellis is proposed to be painted aluminum in a color tone similar to the cedar siding. From below, this material is visible, adding visual warmth to the elevation as well as a spatial relief. • Plaster: Plaster occurs along the north elevation with a warm beige integral color to be compatible with the adjacent textured panels. At the ground floor trash area, the plaster is an integral grey color to complement the adjacent concrete. • Glass: At the office, the curtain wall system is visually open at the ground floor with extended metal brise-soleil at the second floor for solar shading and visual relief. The window system is proposed as a full height window system with intermediate mullions and operable windows. All are proposed with dark bronze metal frames. • Metal Cladding: Painted metal occurs at the eave fascia, at the office frame & canopy, and at the floor delineation between glazing systems. The fascia and office projections are intended to be dark bronze in color while the floor panels are a lighter brown to harmonize with the adjacent ribbed panels. • Landscape: Throughout the building and along the elevations, the landscape materials of the courtyard, terrace and street provide an organic counterpoint to the built environment. Addressing Its Neighbors The Hamilton Webster project aims to provide a strong yet restrained presence to its historic neighbor at 530 Webster. The apparent scale of the Hamilton Webster project, along Webster Street, has been significantly reduced through introduction of a third floor terrace and full height windows. With a central large opening and full height glazing at the third floor corners, the mass at the third level recedes, allowing the building to read closer in scale to 530 Webster. In addition, the central shared terrace and building wings of Hamilton Webster have been proportioned carefully to complement the central courtyard of 530 Webster, which is similarly proportioned. Provision of a ten foot landscape setback and the addition of a full height privacy fence at the property line, coupled with careful window placement, all serve to improve the privacy afforded to tenants of 530 Webster. With a simple roofline and horizontal layering of its mass, the proposed Hamilton Webster building does not try to compete with the soaring form of the First United Methodist Church. Instead it works as a foil, allowing the verticality of the Church to read more strongly when viewed against the horizontality of the proposed building. The form of the board formed concrete planes at the first floor of the proposed building augment the strong reading of the concrete planes of the Church; along Webster, the rhythm 2.d Packet Pg. 41 of extended concrete planes of the proposed building reference the repetitive concrete fins of the First United Methodist Church. Materially, the taupe toned siding panels, cedar wood eaves and trellis of a matching brown color provide a warm hue that is sympathetic in tone to both the color of the First United Methodist Church and the clay tile roof of 530 Webster. Lot Coverage The proposed project features deep landscaped setbacks on all street frontages, resulting in very favorable lot coverage ratios. Lot coverage ratios for the proposed project are 25% and 62% on the RM-40 and CD-C (P) parcels, respectively. For context, the maximum lot coverage allowed by municipal code for the RM-40 parcel is 45%, and there is no maximum lot coverage requirement for the CD-C (P) parcel. Private and Shared Outdoor Space The project team has endeavored to create a biophilic design that reconnects people to nature. Throughout the site, the planting palette is varied to provide visual interest through the use of native and drought tolerant plantings. Redwood trees on an adjacent lot will be preserved. Moreover, nine non-native street trees, in poor condition, will be removed at the request of Urban Forestry and replaced with a Valley Oak street tree, which is both native and low water use. The canopy coverage of the trees proposed for this project will be 5,974 square feet greater than that of existing canopy coverage when measured at a 15 year projected growth. While only 2,850 square feet of open space is required for this project per the municipal code, more than 6,150 square feet has been provided. In accordance with Section 18.13.040(e) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a portion of the required private usable open space has been added to the required common usable open space to improve the design and create spaces that can be meaningfully enjoyed by tenants. While the sheer quantity of open space provided is a meaningful differentiator for this project, the programming and placement of this open space is perhaps even more important in terms of achieving the project’s biophilic design objective. The contribution each space makes to the project is more fully described below. Central Courtyard The project features a central courtyard on the main floor. This courtyard is visually open to the street, while physically private for the building tenants through the discrete placement of a metal screen at the covered terrace. The office space provided on the CD-C (P) parcel will boast floor-to-ceiling glass, giving office tenants visual access to the greenery of the central courtyard as well as physical access from the first floor. The residential units access the courtyard from the residential lobby and will also enjoy courtyard views from their units which ring the courtyard on three levels. Shared Terrace The project design incorporates a shared terrace on the third floor fronting Webster Street. This provides a second outdoor space which is large enough to be meaningfully enjoyed by the apartment residents. This terrace also serves to visually reduce the mass of the building along Webster. The greenery of the terrace is visible to the street, providing additional views of landscape to the public, consistent with the biophilic design goal. Residential Terraces On Webster Street, the two Level 1 residential units have terraces that front the street, providing outdoor space for the units that is both private and visually connected to the street. With their generous size and adjacency to the residences, the central courtyard, shared terrace and 2.d Packet Pg. 42 private ground level terraces are able to provide the common and private open spaces required for the residential units. Redwood Garden An additional outdoor space has been provided on the CD-C (P) parcel for private use by the office tenant. While an outdoor space is not required by code for the office user, provision of such a space is consistent with the biophilic design goal. Good Neighbor Greenery A 10 foot landscape buffer and fencing has been provided at the rear property line to provide privacy to the neighboring residential building. This buffer is a significant visual enhancement to existing condition. Parking The single-level below-grade parking garage has its entry on Webster Street (as requested by the City) and provides parking for 55 vehicles. Per Palo Alto Municipal Code, 60 parking spaces are required for the project. The project is requesting a “Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities” reduction in accordance with Section 18.52.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the project proposes to implement a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce net new peak hour trips to the project by 45%. Variance Request The project is requesting a variance for encroachments into an unusual 17’ special setback on Hamilton Avenue. Encroachments are shown on the plan set and include the following: • A roof eave extends 3’ into the special setback at approximately 40’ above grade, providing articulation and visual interest to the elevation, and shading the third floor residences. • An office canopy extends 5’ into the special setback, designating a pedestrian entry point, providing coverage from the elements, and creating a location for future signage. • A concrete fin wall extends 2’ into the 17’ special setback, denoting residential entry. As the neighboring property at 555 Hamilton Avenue is not subject to the same 17’ special setback, there is a large shift that occurs at the transition between the two properties. The roof eave and the office canopy both serve to soften the abruptness of this transition, extending forward to welcome the pedestrians. For this reason, as well as the benefit the projections provide to the Hamilton Webster building itself, we request a minor exception to the zoning regulation. CONCLUSION The Hamilton-Webster project seeks to create a biophilic environment unifying work and domestic living. This is an exciting and unique opportunity at an important nexus of Palo Alto. We look forward to receiving your input on the project. 2.d Packet Pg. 43 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 565 Hamilton Avenue, 18PLN-00313 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) & RM-40 Combined Standards Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed CD-C Proposed RM-40 Lot Area CD-C: none RM-40: 8,500 sf CD-C: 7,450 sf RM-40: 15,000 sf 7,450 sf 15,000 sf Minimum Building Setback Front Yard (Hamilton) CD-C: None RM-40: 0-25 (Arterial Road— Hamilton) CD-C: 20 feet RM-40: 24 feet Building is at 17 feet Canopy is at 11 feet Roof overhang = 13 feet Building is at 17 feet Canopy is at 11 feet Roof overhang = 13 feet Special Setback (Hamilton) CD-C: 17 feet RM-40: 17 feet CD-C: 20 feet RM-40: 24 feet 17 feet Proposed protrusions: Eave = 4 feet Canopy = 6 feet 17 feet Proposed protrusions: Eave = 4 feet Concrete fin wall = 3’ Canopy = 6 feet Rear Yard CD-C = 10 feet for residential portion RM-40 = 10 feet CD-C = 33 feet RM-40 = 21 feet 10 feet 10 feet Interior Side RM-40 = 10 feet RM-40 = 5 feet 0 feet Not Applicable Street Side (Webster) RM-40 = 16 feet RM-40 = 15 feet Not Applicable 20 feet Residential Density (net) 40 units/acre max 22,450 sf/43,560 sf x 40 = 20 units CD-C = 1 unit RM-40 = 8 units 6 units (35 du/ac) Total project: 37 du/ac 13 units (38 du/ac) Total project: 37 du/ac Max. Total Floor 2.0:1 (14,900 sf) (CD-C) 1.0:1 (15,000 sf) (RM-40) = 29,900 sf 1,659 sf (CD-C) 7,132 sf (RM-40) = 8,791 sf 14,084 sf Total project = 29,900 sf 15,816 sf Total project = 29,900 sf Maximum Height CD-C: 50 feet RM-40: 40 feet One to two stories 40 feet 40 feet Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) CD-C = None Required RM-40 = 45% 6,689 sf (30%) 4,621 sf (62%) 8,379 sf (37%) total 3,758 sf (25%) 8,379 sf (37%) total 2.e Packet Pg. 44 Page 2 of 3 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) & RM-40 Combined Standards Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed CD-C Proposed RM-40 Landscape Open Space Coverage CD-C - 20% (1,490 sf) RM-40 – 20% (3,000 sf) 12% 896 sf 33% 2,459 sf Not applicable Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (CD-C) (900 sf) 100 sf per unit (1,300 sf) = 2,200 sf CD-C = 1,666 sf RM-40 = 1,500 sf 1,219 sf 756 sf office open space 5,695 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (RM- 40) (975 sf) 384 sf Not applicable 5,317 sf Private Open Space 150 sf per unit (CD-C) (900 sf) 50 - 80 sf per unit (RM-40) (650 sf) = 1,550 sf 500 sf 482 sf* (418 sf added to common open space) 378 sf* (1,172 sf added to common open space) * Subject to the limitations of Section 18.13.040(e). Usable open space is included as part of the minimum site open space; required usable open space in excess of the minimum required for common and private open space may be used as either common or private usable open space [18.13.040(e)(2)(B)]; landscaping may count towards total site open space after usable open space requirements are met. 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 2.e Packet Pg. 45 Page 3 of 3 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Mixed-Use Projects Type Required Existing Proposed Commercial parking within the Downtown Parking Assessment District Office: 1/250 sf of gross floor area = 30 Two spaces 55 spaces and requested parking adjustment Residential parking both Residential: Four spaces within and outside the 1/studio (1) = 1 Downtown Parking 1/1-bedroom unit (7) = 7 Assessment District 2/2-bedroom unit (11) = 22 Total Residential = 30 Total with Office = 60 Bicycle Parking Residential: 0 Residential: 1 per unit: 19 (Long term) Long Term: 19 1 per 10 units for guest: 2 Short Term: 2 (Short term) Sub-Total = 21 Office: Long Term: 1 Office: Short Term: 2 1 per 2,500 sf 40% long term / 60 short term = 1 LT / 2 ST Sub-Total = 3 Loading Space 0-9,999 sf = 0 None Not required 2.e Packet Pg. 46 May 10, 2019 Sheldon Ah SIng Project Planner City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Hamilton Webster ARB Submittal 3 Rev Dear Mr. Ah Sing, We have further studied the Hamilton Webster project in light of comments provided by the Architectural Review Board on April 18, 2019, and we have provided revised drawings that we hope will fully address all concerns. This set also addresses the Planning Department request to remove the window projections from the special setback while retaining the concrete fin wall, eaves and canopy. ARB Feedback and Design Team Response: A. Provide privacy to the two ground floor residences facing Webster Street through revised planting or low fencing. After reviewing views from the unit interiors and unit terraces, the design team (landscape architect and architect) believes that the best way to provide sufficient privacy is to use moderate height plantings at the perimeter of the terraces. To achieve this goal, we have changed the previously specified Foothill Sedge to Miscanthus Junceus. This planting will provide a feeling of privacy to the units, while also letting the patios remain open enough to the street to help activate the streetscape in a quiet fashion. It should be noted that the bioretention areas sitting between the terraces and the street are 2 1/2 feet deep, creating an undulation in the landscape that will further help to physically demarcate the boundary between the private patios and the flatter landscape that extends towards the public walkway, contributing to a sense of security for occupants on the patios. Revisions to the planting for this area are shown on Sheets L2.01, L2.03, with a revised rendered view on 1/L1.04 and an updated east elevation rendered view on 1/A5.2C. Sheets A5.2C, L1.04, L2.01 and L2.03. B. Review unit layouts for the following considerations: • Units 1 & 2 for daylight and privacy. • Unit 3 for daylight and outdoor space. • Units 15 & 16 for layout and privacy. We have reviewed and improved the units, as noted below. • At Units 1 & 2 we have increased the height of the planting adjacent the Webster Street patios. We have studied views from inside the unit and we believe the spaces now feel private, yet with a ready adjacency to exterior spaces. • At Unit 3, we have reviewed for access to daylight and views. As shown on the enclosed unit elevations and in the unit views on A8.2 and A8.3, we have designed the kitchen casework to allow light to enter Unit 3 from the Redwood Garden, while plantings provide privacy. Each bedroom in Unit 3 has two windows, and the living room also has a large window. 2.f Packet Pg. 47 • At Units 15 and 16, we have reviewed the relationship of the units to their exterior terraces. We have revised the window and planter locations in Unit 16 to allow for more privacy from Unit 17. We have changed the planting type to Giant Chain Fern which grows 3-5 feet tall to provide additional privacy to those units. New Sheets A8.2 and A8.3. Revised Sheet A2.3, L1.02 and L2.02. C. Add bike parking at grade, where possible. We agree that providing additional bike parking, at grade, would be helpful. To address this issue, we have added two additional short-term bike parking spaces by the Webster Street entry. With these added spaces, the bike parking we provide goes beyond that which is required by code. Revised Sheets A1.1 and L1.01. D. Review floor to floor heights to understand if the overall building height could be reduced. We have reviewed the floor to floor height in depth and we have determined that we cannot reduce the height of the building due to the constraints of our elevator overrun height and an already low first floor ceiling within the commercial space. We have two elevators for the project: one for the commercial space that ends at the underside of the third floor; and one for the residences that ends at the underside of the roof. Both elevators are specified to be the Schindler 3300 MRL Traction Elevator which provides the space required for stretcher access as required by the Fire Department as well as the lowest overrun clearance of the major elevator manufacturers. As shown in the enclosed cutsheet, the required overrun clearance is 12’-7” from top of finished floor to underside of the hoistway beam. To meet this clearance at the commercial space, the third floor level is required to be 13’-2” above the second floor level as shown in the new section provided on 2/A5.7. At the residences, the top of roof is set to eliminate any visible bump at the street as shown in the new section 3/A5.7. With the above restrictions, the only place to reduce height would be at the first floor level; however, this floor is already short for commercial space, with 10’-4” clear from floor to underside of the acoustic ceiling, not yet accounting for mechanical ductwork which will hang below this 10’-4” ceiling height. Moreover, the Covered Terrace on Hamilton Avenue would suffer from a lowered ceiling. With this explanation of our constraints, we request that the building height be allowed to remain at its current height, which is both within the 40 foot height limit and lower than surrounding commercial buildings and church. Sheet A5.7 and enclosed Schindler elevator cutsheet. E. Consider adding an accessible ramp for the Webster Street entry. While the ramp at Hamilton Avenue provides access to both the office and the residential lobby, we have reviewed the condition further and agree that an additional ramp at the Webster Street entry may benefit the project. We have added a straight ramp at 1:12 slope to access the Webster Street entry, and we have adjusted the landscaping and stepped terraces to retain the layering effect of the landscape and terrace access at the corner. We have incorporated the ramp into the site and landscape plans, updated the elevations on A5.4, as well as provided elevations and three-dimensional views on a new sheet on A5.3E. Revised Sheets A1.1, A2.1, A5.4, and L1.01. New Sheet A5.3E. 2.f Packet Pg. 48 F. Review lighting at the central terrace to ensure the space does not feel dark. We have studied this terrace area and we believe that the light levels are appropriate both in the evening and during the day. As shown by the photometrics, there will be ample light during evening hours provided by the overhead fixtures. During the day, the terrace’s relatively narrow depth of 30 feet before the influx of daylight from the courtyard will serve to provide visual focus through the terrace and light the space. Similar conditions at other buildings, such as the Oakland Museum of California entry walkway and the Stanford Central Energy Facility, provide examples of analogous built conditions with covered terraces that feel light and welcoming. We will share images of these projects at our second ARB hearing for your review and consideration. G. Review lighting at third floor shared terrace for brightness. Consider controllability /occupancy sensors. We have reviewed the light levels at the Third Floor Shared Terrace and we agree that the space was too bright with the specified F11 fixture. We have found an alternate fixture which reduces the lighting level significantly while retaining the relatively even quality of light across the space. In addition, we propose to provide controllability through both a photocell and dimmer for occupant use. We would like to avoid an occupancy sensor as we believe that the area should be at least minimally lit during evening hours and we are concerned that the on/off of an occupancy sensor could be distracting. See the enclosed revised photometrics on sheet E2.3P and revised proposed F11 fixture on sheet L3.04. Revised Sheets L3.04 and E2.3P. H. Review the landscape buffer at the 530 Webster property line to promote privacy, and meet with the 530 Webster neighbor for input if possible. After reviewing the landscape buffer along the northern property line shared with 530 Webster Street, we have added two additional trees along the northern property line to provide greater privacy to 530 Webster. The utility trench to the utility rooms, shown on C5.1, conflicts with the ability to add any additional trees to the east. We propose to retain the coffeeberry shrub along the fence line, as it is a drought tolerant, native species and can grow as tall as 15 feet. Wilson Meany met with the 530 Webster neighbor on 4/3/2018 (prior to the first ARB Hearing), shared project plans, and asked that 530 Webster advise if they had any issues with the plan set after taking some time to review. We have reached out to 530 Webster twice again, as of May 2, 2019, to request a follow-on meeting to review all changes made since our last meeting – particularly the addition of the two trees mentioned above. As of May 2, 2019 we are still awaiting a response from 530 Webster on when they might be available to meet again, but we hope we can meet prior to the next ARB Hearing. Of note, Wilson Meany also met with representatives of the First United Methodist Church of Palo Alto and representatives of 555 Hamilton Avenue (the adjacent office building) prior to the first ARB Hearing. The First United Methodist Church expressed no concerns with the plans, and the 555 Hamilton neighbor has been extremely helpful in coordinating with us (by providing plan sets, as available) to ensure that our construction does not negatively impact their structure in any way. Revised Sheets L1.01 and L2.01. 2.f Packet Pg. 49 In addition to changes requested by the ARB, we have addressed two requests from the Planning Department in this plan set iteration. A. Adjust parking and open space tables to reflect Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as recently amended. Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code was recently amended. We have updated the parking and open space requirements shown on sheet A0.1 to reflect the new ordinance. Under the new ordinance less parking is required than previously (60 stalls instead of 67), and open space required for the RM- 40 parcel has increased from 1300 to 1950 square feet. The project, as proposed, is compliant with the new ordinance. B. Remove all window frames from the special setback, and ensure the concrete fin wall projection at the Webster Street lobby can be removed from the special setback if the City elects to utilize the setback at a future date. As requested by the Planning Department, the building façade has been set back an additional 1 foot from Hamilton Ave, removing the 12” window frame projections from the special setback area. To achieve this goal, the courtyard depth was reduced by 1’ and several residential units were reduced in size by a few inches each. Our building’s relationship to the neighboring building at 530 Webster remains as previously presented, with a 10’ setback and landscape buffer. To accommodate the City’s desire to retain the possibility of future setback use at the corner of Hamilton and Webster, the original concrete fin wall has been redesigned with two separate rebar cages. In the event the City should wish to use the special setback in the future, the concrete fin wall can be trimmed back 2’ and parged without impairing the structural integrity of the building. The removal of the one foot from the building has slightly changed the amount of open space provided as the courtyard and terrace are reduced by a foot in width. The total open space provided is still greater than that required, providing 6,156 square feet of open space for the use of the residents. All of the changes described above have been integrated into the plan set, resulting in changes to a number of sheets. Each revised sheet has been identified with a revised title block issuance date of May 3, 2019. For ease of reference, the revised sheets are listed below: A0.1 A0.2 A0.3 A0.5 T-3 A1.1 A2.0 A2.1 A2.2 A2.3 A2.4 A5.2C A5.3A A5.3E A5.4 A5.7 A8.2 2.f Packet Pg. 50 A8.3 L1.00 L1.01 L1.02 L1.04 L1.06 L2.01 L2.02 L2.03 L2.04 L3.01 L3.02 L3.04 E2.01P E2.03P Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Roslyn Cole Principal 2.f Packet Pg. 51 Attachment G Project Plans and In-Fill Exemption Hardcopies of project plans and the In-fill Exemption Report are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents 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 to find “565 Hamilton Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, In-fill Exemption Report and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4231 2.g Packet Pg. 52 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10389) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/18/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Newell Road Bridge Replacement (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project [19PLN-00130]: Review the Environmental Impact Report, Allow for Public Comment, and Consider a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow for Demolition of an Existing Two-Way Bridge On Newell Road Between Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto and Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Construction of a New Bridge Along the Same Alignment That Meets Caltrans Standards for Multi- Modal Access. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Assessment (EA) was Circulated on May 31, 2019 for a 60 Day Comment Period That Will End on July 30, 2019 in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Zoning District: Not Applicable (Public Right- of-Way) Adjacent Single-Family Residential (R-1[10,000]). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment included in Attachment F and provide comments; and 2. Consider the project plans also provided in Attachment F and provide feedback on the project. 3. Continue the project to a date uncertain. Report Summary 3 Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The City of Palo Alto’s Public Works Engineering Division requests approval of an Architectural Review application to replace the existing Newell Road Bridge, which crosses San Francisquito Creek at Newell Road, with a new bridge along the same alignment. The project would improve flood control and accommodate multi-modal transportation, consistent with current California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) design standards. The project is primarily funded through grant funding from Caltrans and is therefore subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in addition to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Palo Alto and Caltrans as the lead agencies under CEQA and NEPA, respectively, have released a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for the Newell Road Bridge Project. For the purposes of both CEQA and NEPA, the environmental analysis describes in detail a full project description and impacts associated with the No Build Alternative as well as four potential build alternatives. The proposed project is identified as Alternative 2 in the environmental analysis. The project plans provided in Attachment F reflect Alternative 2; however, for informational purposes, site plans for the three other build alternatives are also provided as a reference. The materials used and type of bridge proposed would be similar under all build alternatives. The purpose of this agenda item is to allow the ARB and members of the public to provide comments on the Draft EIR/EA as well as to request ARB feedback on the project plans provided in Attachment F. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Engineer: NV5 Representative: City of Palo Alto, Public Works Engineering Legal Counsel: City of Palo Alto Attorney’s Office Property Information Address: Newell Road/Woodland Avenue (Public Right-of-Way) Neighborhood: Crescent Park Lot Dimensions & Area: N/A Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes; see discussion below Historic Resource(s): None; see discussion below Existing Improvement(s): Reinforced concrete girder bridge constructed in 1911 Existing Land Use(s): Public Street Right-of-Way Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: High Density Residential land use; Multi-family residential Zoning (R-HD-5) in East Palo Alto West: San Francisquito Creek 3 Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 East: San Francisquito Creek South: Single Family Residential land use; R-1 (10,000) Zoning Special Setbacks: None Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Not Applicable. Public Right-of-Way; Adjacent properties Zoned R- 1(10,000) in Palo Alto and Multi-family Residential (R-HD-5) in East Palo Alto Comp. Plan Designation: Single-family Residential in Palo Alto; High Density Residential in East Palo Alto Context-Based Design: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Applicable Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable 3 Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Staff provided an informational report to Council on the proposed project on May 6, 2019. A copy of the report can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70925 PTC: The PTC held a public hearing on June 12, 2019 at which it considered the DEIR/EA and recommended that Council approve the proposed project (Alternative 2). A copy of the report can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/71970 A video of the public hearing can be found here: https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63- 582019-2/ HRB: None ARB: The ARB held a study session on November 1, 2012; however, the bridge design proposed at that time differs from Alternative 2 presented for consideration today; that proposal included realignment of the bridge. Based on comments received from the public at that hearing and other community meetings at that time, the City chose to analyze the project through a full EIR process and has since revised the design of the proposed project. A new Planning application has also been filed and no hearings have been held by the ARB for the current proposed project design, which includes replacement of the bridge along the same alignment as the existing bridge. Project Description Constructed in 1911, Newell Road Bridge is a 76-foot-long, reinforced concrete girder structure spanning 22 feet in length and measuring 18 feet curb to curb. The existing bridge does not comply with the following geometric design standards, and was therefore deemed functionally obsolete by Caltrans and added to the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP): Roadway Section: The standard minimum width configuration is two 11-foot wide lanes plus separate 5-foot bicycle lanes (16’ per lane, 32’ total) or two 14-foot “sharrow” lanes that serve as shared bicycle/vehicle lanes (14’ per lane, 28’ total). The existing bridge functions as a two-lane bridge, but only has a curb to curb width of 18 feet (where a minimum 22 feet for vehicle access is the current standard). Vertical Alignment: Current standards require smooth, gradual vertical curves between grade differences. The existing bridge approach has a steep grade (up to seven percent) that reduces the length of roadway a driver can see entering or leaving the bridge and reduces the response time for drivers to respond to conditions in front of their vehicle. 3 Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Stopping Sight Distance: At the intersection of Newell Road and Woodland Avenue, the sight distance is limited by the existing bridge barriers and flood walls. Under existing conditions, the stopping sight distance can only accommodate a speed of 15 miles per hour. The new bridge would be concrete with a small steel rail along the top and would be designed to meet Caltrans standards for vehicle and multi-modal access, providing safer access across the bridge for all modes of transportation. Specifically, the curb-to-curb width would be revised from 18 feet to 28 feet in order to accommodate Caltrans requirements for vehicle lanes as well as bicycle access. In addition, five-foot-wide sidewalks would be added on each side of the bridge for pedestrians. The existing abutments that encroach into the creek bank would be removed and new supports would be placed outside the channel. The bridge would be raised approximately 1.5 feet to allow for greater flow capacity beneath the bridge. This would reduce the potential for flooding during larger storm events. Portions of Newell Road in both Palo Alto and East Palo Alto as well as a portion of Woodland Road in East Palo Alto would be raised in order to meet the higher profile of the bridge and to eliminate the existing steep grade and sight barriers. To accommodate the raised roadway, retaining walls varying between 1 foot and 4.7 feet in height would be required along the north side of Woodland Avenue and both sides of Newell Road under all build alternatives. The south side of Woodland Avenue would use the existing flood wall to support the raised roadway. These retaining walls would be located at the back of the sidewalk between private property and the public right-of-way and would primarily be visible from the adjacent properties. The retaining walls would be level with the sidewalk as viewed from the public right-of-way. Three- foot-tall steel handrails would be placed on top of the retaining walls and would be visible from the street and sidewalk. Landscaping proposed within the public right-of-way is shown on the Tree Planting Plan in the plan sets in Attachment F. Landscaping on private property is planned, but the ultimate design will be determined in coordination with the property owners. Alternative 2 was selected as the locally preferred alternative for several reasons. In particular, Palo Alto, in coordination with East Palo Alto as a responsible agency, selected Alternative 2 as the proposed project for the purposes of CEQA because it was determined to be the environmentally preferred alternative (as detailed in the EIR/EA). Alternative 2 is anticipated to require lower retaining walls than other alternatives, it minimizes impacts on the creek bank and adjacent trees (particularly in comparison to realignment of the bridge), it minimizes utility relocations and operational maintenance (doesn’t require new street lights), it maintains the maximum number of existing (unmarked) street parking spaces during and post construction, and it limits the overall cost and scope associated with the project, while still achieving the project objectives. For these reasons, this alternative is presented as the proposed project for the purposes of CEQA. The analysis in this report reflects the proposed project. However, for informational purposes, staff has also included a brief summary of the Alternatives discussed in the DEIR/EA. Alternatives Evaluated 3 Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The environmental analysis describes in detail a full project description and impacts associated with the No Build Alternative as well as four potential build alternatives. These include:  Build Alternative 1: A one-lane bridge with two-way traffic (under signal control) on the existing alignment of Newell Road  Build Alternative 2 (LPA): A two-lane bridge on the existing alignment of Newell Road with stop control (stop signs).  Build Alternative 3: A two-lane bridge on a partial realignment (offset) of Newell Road with stop control (stop signs).  Build Alternative 4: A two-lane bridge on a full realignment (offset) of Newell Road. Under all of these alternatives, except the No Build Alternative, the new bridge and portions of Newell Road and Woodland Avenue would be raised, as described above. Retaining walls would also be required under all build alternatives, though under some alternatives the required height or length of retaining walls would increase. The proposed project (Build Alternative 2) is described above. Other Alternatives would differ from the proposed project as follows: Build Alternative 1 Under Build Alternative 1, the existing bridge would be replaced with a new one-lane bridge with two-way signal-controlled traffic along the existing bridge alignment. Bicycle access across the bridge would be via a shared vehicle/bicycle lane and would be subject to the traffic signal control for the bridge. Complete signalization of the intersections of Newell Road with Woodland Avenue and Edgewood Avenue would be required to control the direction of travel on the bridge and adjacent roadways. One additional signal would also be provided for the sole residential driveway on the Palo Alto side of the bridge to indicate the direction of traffic on Newell Road at all times. Build Alternative 3 Under Build Alternative 3, the existing bridge would be replaced with a two-lane bridge, consistent with that proposed under Alternative 2, but on a partial realignment of Newell Road. Specifically, Newell Road south of Woodland Avenue would be partially realigned (approximately 30 feet) so that the degree of offset between the existing north and south intersections with Woodland Avenue would be reduced compared to the existing condition. Build Alternative 4 Under Build Alternative 4 the existing bridge would be replaced with a two-lane bridge, consistent with that proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3, but on a full realignment of Newell Road. Specifically, Newell Road south of Woodland Avenue would be fully realigned (approximately 90 feet) to eliminate the offset between the existing north and south intersections with Woodland Avenue. This would provide a standard four-way intersection at Newell Road and Woodland Avenue. Approximately 100 additional feet of retaining wall would 3 Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 be required along the north side of Woodland Avenue and both sides of Newell Road Bridge in comparison to the other three build Alternatives. No Build Alternative Under the No-Build (No-Action) Alternative, no changes would be made to the existing bridge and approaches. No construction activities would occur, and there would be no change in the operations of the existing facilities. Other planned and approved land use development and transportation improvements along local routes may be implemented by local agencies or under other projects. Under the No-Build Alternative, the flooding issue along the creek would also not be addressed. The existing bridge flow that can pass under is 6,600 cfs, which is not sufficient to handle the natural creek flow of 7,500 cfs. If upstream improvements are completed, flows exceeding 6,600 cfs would not be able to pass under the existing bridge, resulting in flooding upstream of the Newell Road Bridge. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings for AR approval are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 The project includes modifications to a bridge and City streets within the public right-of-way and therefore is not subject to zoning and land use restrictions for any specific zone district or land use designation. However, the project has been evaluated to ensure the design meets the intent and objectives of the Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and other City policies. Neighborhood Setting and Character The proposed project is located in an area characterized by low density residential on the southwest side of San Francisquito Creek within the City of Palo Alto and high density residential on the northeast side of San Francisquito Creek within the City of East Palo Alto. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is single family residential for portions of the project within Palo Alto. The single family residential land use designation applies to residential neighborhoods primarily characterized by detached single- family homes, typically with one dwelling unit on each lot where population densities range from 1 to 30 person per acre. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment C. The project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Zoning Compliance3 As noted above, infrastructure work located within the public right-of-way would not be subject to the restrictions of a specific zoning designation. Adjacent residences within the City of Palo Alto are zoned single family residential (R-1[10,000]) and adjacent residences within the City of East Palo Alto are zoned Multiple family High Density Residential (R-HD-5). Work on these private properties would include minor changes in order to accommodate the raised roadway and associated retaining walls. The proposed modifications on these properties would not affect compliance with zoning requirements on any of these properties and the project overall would not conflict with any requirements of the Zoning Ordinances in either Palo Alto or East Palo Alto. Multi-Modal Access & Parking As discussed in Attachment C, the proposed project is consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). Specifically, the project is designed to improve multi- modal transportation by providing safer access over the creek for pedestrians and bicyclists while also resolving the steep grade separation between the bridge and adjacent roadways, which currently reduces line of sight when entering and leaving the bridge. The BPTP includes policies such as Policy T-5, which indicates that when modifying roadways, the City should plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. It is also consistent with general goals to encourage alternate modes of transportation and Objective 4 of the BPTP to “plan, construct, and maintain complete streets that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and disabilities.” The project is not located on a Safe Routes to School path. The staff report prepared for the June 12, 2019 PTC hearing provides a summary of the anticipated traffic impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, which are also discussed in further detail in the environmental analysis. The analysis concludes that during construction, trips would primarily re-route to the closest alternative creek crossing 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 at University Avenue; it is anticipated that these additional trips would cause a significant and unavoidable impact at the East Crescent Drive/University Avenue intersection, as discussed below. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained under CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, NEPA, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, a Draft EIR/EA was prepared in accordance with CEQA and NEPA for the Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project and was circulated on May 31, 2019 beginning a 60-day circulation period, which will end on July 30, 2019. The City of Palo Alto and Caltrans are serving as the lead agencies in accordance with CEQA and NEPA, respectively. The CEQA conclusions for each resource area are provided in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR/EA. The EIR/EA concluded that most impacts would either be less than significant or less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. However, the City and Caltrans, in coordination with TJKM Traffic Engineers, analyzed traffic impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed bridge. This analysis can be found on the project website, which is provided in the link in Attachment F. As summarized in the technical report prepared by TJKM and in Chapter 2.1.4, Transportation, as well as Chapter 3 of the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment in Attachment F, impacts associated with construction of the proposed project (when Newell Road Bridge would be closed) would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic at the University Avenue/East Crescent Drive intersection within the City of East Palo Alto. Therefore, in order to adopt the Environmental Impact Report, City Council would be required to make findings of overriding considerations for the proposed project. It should be noted that once the bridge is constructed and Newell Road Bridge is re-opened, operation of any of the proposed build alternatives would be less than significant. The proposed project would have minimal or no effect on level of service (no change or less than .1 seconds change in delay) in comparison to the No Build Alternative (leaving the bridge as is). In some cases the project would improve operations at nearby intersections; however, the improvement would be so marginal that it is not anticipated to cause an increase in traffic through this area. A Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) analysis was conducted to determine whether the proposed project would result in additional traffic being diverted through these residential streets as a result of the project. The analysis concluded that under the 2020 and 2040 scenario the project would not result in any change to the TIRE index of any of the adjacent streets, including nearby segments of Edgewood Drive, Newell Road, and Woodland Avenue (i.e. the number of trips being re-routed through this area would not decrease or increase in comparison to the no-build alternative). Historic Evaluation In 2003, Caltrans evaluated Newell Road Bridge and determined that it was not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It was re-evaluated in 2015 and the previous determination was confirmed. Five other properties (three single family residences and two apartment complexes) within the vicinity were also evaluated due to their age. All of 3 Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 these properties were found to not be eligible for listing in the NRHP or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Therefore, the project does not have potential to affect any known historic resources within the project area. 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 July 5, 2019 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 8, 2019, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments The Cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto held a scoping meeting on September 3, 2015, at which they received public comments in writing and orally from members of the public on the project. A total of 47 public comments were received during this Notice of Preparation comment period, which lasted from August 12, 2015, through September 14, 2015. The City of Palo Alto recorded the meeting, which can be viewed online at the following link: http://midpenmedia.org/newell-roadsan-francisquito-creek-bridge-replacement-project/. A summary of public comments received during the scoping period are included in Attachment D. The main concern raised by commenters was that realigning the bridge (as proposed under Build Alternatives 3 and 4, which assess a partial and full realignment of the bridge, respectively) would result in an increase in traffic flow, speed, and bad driving behaviors; however, many commenters also said that the realignment would increase vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety. Following the release of the Draft EIR/EA for this project, public hearings and community informational meetings were held on June 12, 2019; June 18, 2019; and June 19, 2019 to solicit input on the Draft EIR/EA from members of the public, the City of Palo Alto PTC, and East Palo Alto Public Works and Transportation Committee. Following this hearing and completion of the 60-day comment period, the City and Caltrans will prepare a Final EIR/EA, which will include formal responses to those public comments. Thus far, comments at these hearings/meetings have primarily focused on: (1) bicycle safety and options for striping or revising the width of the bridge to maximize safety (note that some comments have recommended a narrower bridge to improve safety while others have recommended a wider bridge with dedicated bicycle lanes to improve safety);(2)concerns that widening the lanes would generally increase the amount of traffic crossing the bridge; and (3) comments expressing the importance of moving the project forward as quickly as feasible for flood control. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 Claire. Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan and BPTP Consistency Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment D: Summary of Public Comments on the NOP (DOCX)  Attachment E: Project Description (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 63 R-1 R-1 (10000) POOL gate NEWELL CT AVE WOODLAND WEST BAYSHORE RD D ALTO CLARKE AE PALO MISSION MISSION DR RD AVE WOODLAND SCOFIELD AVE C L E DR CIR CAPITOL AVE COOLEY NEWELL CLARKE AVE OAKES ST BAINES ST W O O D L A N D A V E DANA AVENUE ASHBY DRIVE VENUE UNIVERSITY A VEN UE VE AVENUE ARCADIA PLACE ROAD LOUISA COURT DANA AVENUE VE DE SOTO DRIVE SO U T H W O O D D RIV E ISLAND DRIVE KINGS LANE HAMILTON AVENUE DANA AVENUE NEWELL ROAD NEWELL ROAD NEWELL ROAD PITMAN AVENUE NEWELL ROAD DANA AVENUE MADISON WAY ALESTER AVENUE RHODES DRIVE W EST B AYSHORE ROA D RHODES DRIVE ALANNAH COURT EAS T BAY S HO R E ROA D BAYSHORE FREE W AY BAYSHORE FREEW AY S C E N T D R I V E E D G E WO O D D R I V E EDGEWOOD DRIVE EDGEWOOD DRIVE E D G E WO O D DR IVE EDGEWOOD DRIMADISON WAY H A M I L T O N AVENUE H A M JEFFERSON DRIVE PATRICIA LANE J A C K S O N DRIVE JACKS ON DRIVE PH I L L I PS ROAD This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Newell Bridge Project Site abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits Zone Districts 0' 400' Ne w e l l B r i d g e P r o j e c t Ar e a M a p wi t h Zo n i n g D i s t r i c t s CITY O F PALO A L TO IN 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 RRivera, 2019-05-17 10:57:06NewellBridge Noticing 600ft (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg. 64 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Newell Road Bridge 19PLN-00130 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 3.b Packet Pg. 65 ATTACHMENT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Newell Road Bridge 19PLN-00130 The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Below is an analysis of the projects consistency with applicable goals and policies. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Single-family Residential. The project consists of the replacement of an existing bridge within the public right-of-way with a new bridge in the same location that conforms to Caltrans standards for multi- modal transportation (vehicles, bicyclist, and pedestrians) and site distances. Land Use and Community Design Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. Build Alternatives 1–4 would provide the city with a more attractive bridge area with a bridge designed for all modes of transportation and design in coordination with the ARB to meet the City’s Architectural Review Findings. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Build Alternatives 1–4 would be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city. It includes the replacement of an existing bridge in the same location but designed to accommodate multi- modal access. Policy L-2.2 Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. The project includes better pedestrian and bicycle connections between neighborhoods. Policy L-5.3. Design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent This project would improve pedestrian facilities within this area by providing 3.c Packet Pg. 66 with the character of the area where they are located. pedestrian access across San Francisquito Creek. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Build Alternatives 1–4 would be compatible with surrounding development and public spaces because there would be no change in land use and it would provide better connections between neighborhoods. Final design of the bridge would be subject to the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the city. Build Alternatives 1–4 would include replacement of an existing bridge with a new bridge that allows for better connections between neighborhoods. The project would include landscaping and better pedestrian facilities, consistent with Goal L-9. Policy L-9.3. Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation. Build Alternatives 1-4 allow for a continuous sidewalk crossing San Francisquito Creek, making the area safer for residents. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. Build Alternative 1–4 would improve vehicle circulation along a portion of Newell Road and would improve existing pedestrian and bike safety. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking Build Alternatives 1–4 would improve existing pedestrian and bike safety and allow for better, safer multi-modal access between neighborhoods across San Francisquito Creek Goal T-3: Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. Build Alternatives 1–4 would improve vehicle circulation along a portion of Newell Road and provide safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists, encouraging multi-model transportation. Policy T-3.2: Enhance connections to, from and between parks, community centers, recreation facilities, libraries and schools for all users. Build Alternatives 1–4 would improve existing pedestrian and bike safety. 3.c Packet Pg. 67 Policy T-3.5: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users. Build Alternatives 1–4 would improve bike, pedestrian, and automotive safety along a portion of Newell Road. Goal T-6: Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets. Policy T-6.1: Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking. Goal T-7: Provide mobility options that allow people who are transit dependent to reach their destinations. Build Alternatives 1–4 would be compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and would improve infrastructure to allow for all modes of transit to more safely utilize this bridge. Policy T-7.1: Support mobility options for all groups in Palo Alto who require transit for their transportation. Policy T-7.2: Utilize the principles of Universal Design, and local and State design standards, to guide the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects to ensure the needs of community members with limited mobility, including some seniors and people with disabilities, are addressed. Natural Environment Element Policy N-2.1: Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the city’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced The EIR/EA requires replacement of the tree canopy at the ratios described in the East Palo Alto and Palo Alto Municipal codes for trees removed within their respective jurisdictions. Landscaping will be replaced, to the extent feasible, within the project area. Any trees that cannot be replaced within the project area will be replaced within the vicinity as required by the mitigation measures in the EIR/EA. 3.c Packet Pg. 68 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan BPTP Plan Objectives and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to BPTP Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively). Build Alternatives 1-4 encourage bicycling and walking by providing better, safer access for multi-modal transportation across San Francisquito Creek. Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. Objective 4: Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities. Build Alternatives 1-4 would further the objectives of providing complete streets by providing continuous sidewalks and sharrows. Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, biking, public transit use. Build Alternatives 1-4 would encourage bicycling and walking by improving access for these modes of transportation. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians Build Alternatives 1-4 plan for the use of roadway space by all modes of transportation. Policy T-42: Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA ) during the planning and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects. Build Alternatives 1-4 would be ADA compliant. 3.c Packet Pg. 69 ATTACHMENT D SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION Newell Road Bridge 19PLN-00130 # Commenter Last Name Comment EIR/EA Environmental Topic Subtopic 1 Martinez (EPA) Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project (Project). The City of East Palo Alto (City) appreciates its working relationship with the City of Palo Alto regarding this and other projects that impact both cities. The City is supportive of the City of Palo Alto's efforts to reduce potential flooding, and improve the safety for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists in both East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 2 Martinez (EPA) As a Responsible Agency under CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, the City requests and is available for early consultation with the City of Palo Alto to provide input and comments on draft Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) /Environmental Assessments (EA) in order to afford the City sufficient time to meaningfully provide comments. Public Outreach Responsible Agency consultation 3 Martinez (EPA) The City concurs with the City of Palo Alto's conclusion that an EIR/EA is required, given the nature and scope of work the Project will likely entail. In particular, an EIR/EA is appropriate where, as here, the Project's bridge realignment and channel improvements are likely to impact traffic, pedestrian safety, and potential flooding in both cities. As set forth more fully below, the City seeks to provide comments specifying the scope and content of the environmental information germane to the City's statutory responsibilities in connection with the Project. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 3.d Packet Pg. 70 4 Martinez (EPA) The Newell Street Bridge is of critical importance for the City of East Palo Alto. The San Francisquito Creek forms the western boundary of the City. University Avenue, Newell Bridge, and West Bayshore Road are the only bridges that cross San Francisquito Creek (Creek) on the Westside of Highway 101. The City of East Palo Alto has been collaborating with the City of Palo Alto on this project for some time. See Attachment 1 for a March 11, 2014 letter regarding the inclusion of the realignment alternative in the analysis. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 5 Martinez (EPA) Traffic. Compared to San Mateo County, the City of East Palo Alto is characterized by higher rates of residents who walk or ride a bicycle to work, and who are likely to not own a car. The City therefore requests that the following analyses be performed on all Build and No-Build Alternatives. 1. Pedestrian and bicycle safety, access, and design. 2. Vehicular line of sight and corner sight distance standards. 3. The potential safety improvements from adding a signal control to an improved intersection in East Palo Alto (Traffic signal warrant study). Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 6 Martinez (EPA) 4. Vehicle queuing at controls on all roadway segments of the Newell Rd. and Woodland Ave. intersection. 5. Traffic calming elements. 6. Emergency response impact. 7. LOS, Critical Movement Delay, and V/C Ratio calculations for each alternative at the following intersections: a) Newell Rd. and Woodland Ave. b) Newell Rd. and West Bay shore Rd. c) Woodland Rd. and Cooley Ave. d) Woodland Rd. and Clarke Ave. Please coordinate with City of East Palo Alto staff so that we may provide information on the Pedestrian Overcrossing Project that will cross U.S. Highway 101 at Newell Rd. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 7 Martinez (EPA) Land Use and Planning. The EIR/EA should analyze all Build and No- Build Alternatives to determine the impact they would have on physically dividing an established community and conflict with applicable land use plans. Land Use and Planning Physical division of established community and conflicts with land use plans 3.d Packet Pg. 71 8 Martinez (EPA) The EIR/EA should include a Community Impact Assessment and an analysis of the potential environmental justice impacts of the alternatives because the Project is partially located in a low-income and minority community. See Volume 4 of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Environmental Handbook. Community Impacts Environmental justice impacts 9 Martinez (EPA) Hydrology and Water Quality. The City of East Palo Alto endorses the purpose of the proposed Project which, as identified in the Notice of Preparation, is to accommodate the 1% flow rate of the San Francisquito Creek and to increase multimodal mobility. The 1% flow rate should only be accommodated when downstream measures are sufficient to safely accommodate it. Detention or retention measures on Stanford University lands or elsewhere west of Highway 280 must be incorporated when high tides and/or wave run up prevent the downstream improvements from accommodating the 1% flow rate. Hydrology and Water Quality Downstream measures to accommodate 1% flow rate 10 Martinez (EPA) The Project proposes to widen the channel downstream of the Newell Street Bridge. Improvements in the Creek channel must be done starting from downstream improvements working upstream consistent with the approved SFCJPA's EIR. Widening the Creek channel cannot occur until after the completion of the SFCJPA Reach 1 project and between Highway 101 and the San Francisco Bay, and the Caltrans project at Highway 101. Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 11 Martinez (EPA) The cumulative impact of the proposed changes to the Creek channel must be comprehensively analyzed along the length of the Creek to ensure that changes made in the vicinity of the Newell Street Bridge do not have negative impacts on downstream or upstream communities. The City of East Palo Alto is particularly concerned about the vulnerable neighborhoods downstream of the U.S. Highway 101 Bridge. Certainly, if the proposed changes to the Creek channel deviate from the alternatives that were included in the SFCJP A's hydrology analyses, a new comprehensive hydrology analysis must be performed to ensure that there the potential improvements made at Newell Street will not increase the risk of flooding in other locations. Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 3.d Packet Pg. 72 12 Martinez (EPA) Biological Resources. This Project is within the Steelhead trout habitat, which is protected at the state and/or federal level. The bridge will involve construction activities, including changes to the stream volume, and potentially pile driving. Consultation with regulatory agencies will be necessary to determine the impact on the Steelhead habitat. Biological Resources Impacts to steelhead trout habitat 13 Martinez (EPA) Noise. Construction will temporarily increase noise levels in the adjacent neighborhood around the work zone. Please analyze noise control measures alternatives to minimize noise. Noise and Vibration Construction-period impacts 14 Martinez (EPA) Emergency Service Access. Emergency service, Fire and Police in particular, will be modified and affected during the construction of the Project and after it, depending on design alternatives. Please coordinate with Emergency Service providers and analyze potential impacts to emergency response times during, and after construction. Public Services and Utilities Emergency service access 15 Martinez (EPA) Community Outreach. Please coordinate with City of East Palo Alto staff listed below to ensure adequate time for the review of draft documents and to ensure that the appropriate East Palo Alto advisory and legislative bodies have an opportunity to respond. Public Outreach Responsible Agency consultation 3.d Packet Pg. 73 16 Martinez (EPA) Designation of City Staff. The City of East Palo designates the following employees to attend meetings to discuss the scope and content of the EIR/EA; you may send all notices related to this project to the addresses noted below: 1. Carlos Martinez, City Manager, City of East Palo Alto, 2. Sean Charpentier, Assistant City Manager, City of East Palo Alto, 3. Brent Butler, Planning Manager, East Palo Alto Planning Division, 4. Kamal Fallaha, Public Works Director, City of East Palo Alto, 5. John Le, Deputy City Attorney, City of East Palo Alto. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project. The City of East Palo Alto looks forward to continuing our collaborative relationship with the City of Palo Alto on this Project and other projects that impact the residents of both our cities. If you desire additional information or have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Sean Charpentier, Assistant City Manager, at (650) 853-3150. Public Outreach Responsible Agency consultation 3.d Packet Pg. 74 17 Hurley (SF RWQCB) The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the City of Palo Alto's Notice of Preparation (Notice) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Control and Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project (Project), received on August 18, 2015. The proposed Project is located in the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo County. The City of Palo Alto (City) is the Project Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans, District 4 Office) is acting under assignment from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and is the Lead Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) as a joint document with the EIR (EIR/EA). The FHWA is providing 88.5 percent of the project cost, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is funding the remaining 11.5 percent of project costs. The proposed Project would replace the existing Newell Road Bridge (Bridge) that crosses over San Francisquito Creek and connects the cities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. The proposed Project has two purposes: (1) to protect adjacent communities from flood hazards by accommodating the 1 percent flood flow of San Francisquito Creek at Newell Road; and (2) to improve safety for vehicular, cycling, and pedestrian traffic across San Francisquito Creek at Newell Road. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 3.d Packet Pg. 75 18 Hurley (SF RWQCB) The proposed Project would result in dredging or filling of San Francisquito Creek due to the following elements: • Bridge Replacement. The proposed Project would replace the existing Bridge to provide sufficient flow capacity to accommodate the 1 percent flood flow. Although the proposed bridge design is still in conceptual phase, it will likely require abutments and retaining walls at each end of the Bridge constituting fill in the creek, and retaining walls on the Bridge. • Creek Widening. The proposed Project includes widening San Francisquito Creek along 900 linear feet immediately downstream of the Bridge. The Notice does not state the amount of widening. The Notice states this Project element will alleviate a flow “bottleneck” in the creek, and will also minimize increase in the Bridge profile. This element also includes building floodwalls to contain high flows. • Creek Bank Regrade. The proposed Project would regrade the north bank (i.e., East Palo Alto bank) to increase the creek’s capacity downstream of the Bridge, and thereby lower the water surface elevation of the creek during high flow events. The Notice does not state the proposed regarded channel dimensions. Project Description Construction activities/timing 3.d Packet Pg. 76 19 Hurley (SF RWQCB) Water Board staff is generally supportive of the proposed Project for its improvements in traffic flow, transportation safety, and flood protection. We provide the following comments to assist District staff in preparing the Draft EIR and to highlight the Water Board’s policies. 1. Please note that the Water Board adopted U.S. EPA’s Section 404(b)(1), “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredge or Fill Material,” dated December 24, 1980, in its Basin Plan for determining the circumstance under which filling of wetlands, streams or other waters of the State may be permitted. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines prohibit all discharges of fill material into regulated waters of the United States, unless a discharge, as proposed, constitutes the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) that will achieve the basic project purpose. Water Board staff recommends the City prepare alternatives in the EIR that would meet the EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) LEDPA standard to expedite the future Clean Water Act permitting requirements. The sequence in which design proposals should be approached: 1) Avoid - avoid impacts to waters; 2) Minimize - modify project to minimize impacts to waters; and, 3) Mitigate – once impacts have been fully minimized, compensate for unavoidable impacts to waters. When it is not possible to avoid impacts to water bodies, disturbance should be minimized. Mitigation for lost water body acreage and functions through restoration or creation should only be considered after disturbance has been minimized. Where impacts cannot be avoided, the creation of adequate mitigation habitat to compensate for the loss of water body acreage, functions, and values must be provided. Cumulative and indirect impacts to wetlands must also be prevented. Indirect impacts include, but are not limited to: deposition of sediments; erosion of substratum; and maintenance due to excessive sediment deposition. Hydrology and Water Quality Applicable regulations for project impacts to wetlands, streams, or other waters 3.d Packet Pg. 77 20 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 2. The EIR should include an analysis of the effects of the proposed Project on the creek’s hydraulics and geomorphology, stability, and compatibility with related projects in the channel (i.e., a cumulative impacts analysis). As the Notice states that the Project is within the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s (JPA) study area for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection, Ecosystem Restoration, and Recreation Upstream of Highway 101 Project (Upstream 101 Project), the cumulative impacts analysis should include all reasonably foreseeable projects including both of the JPA’s flood control projects (i.e., the Upstream 101 Project and the project extending from US 101 to San Francisco Bay); and the Caltrans US 101 bridge replacement project. The analysis should also account for potential effects of projects upgradient of the Bridge, such as the future Searsville Dam sediment load implementation plan. The cumulative impacts analysis is necessary to demonstrate how the proposed Project would preserve or enhance the creek’s functions and values in accordance with the Basin Plan and U.S. EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 21 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 3. For the proposed channel widening and bank grading elements, the EIR should evaluate channel design alternatives with a bankfull channel and vegetated floodplains using woody vegetation and grasses. Also evaluate and incorporate into the alternative creek designs, to the extent feasible, bioengineering methods consistent with the District’s Stream Maintenance Program Manual, Appendix A. Project Design Considerations Channel design alternatives 22 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 4. The City should evaluate design alternatives that include off- channel flood management measures, such as detention basins and/or decentralized best management practices (BMPs) (e.g., low impact development retrofit measures) to accomplish Project goals. Alternatives to the Project Off-channel flood management design alternatives 3.d Packet Pg. 78 23 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 5. Evaluate and appropriately address potential impacts from discharges from new or reconstructed impervious surface, including the Bridge structure. The EIR should include mitigation measures for post-construction stormwater BMPs consistent with the requirements of Provisions C.3, C.10, and other applicable Provisions of the NPDES Storm Water Municipal Regional Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS612008; Order No. R2-2009-0074, as amended, or the most- current reissuance). Hydrology and Water Quality Post-construction discharge impacts from new or reconstructed impervious surfaces 24 Hurley (SF RWQCB) 6. Include with each alternative an appropriately-detailed mitigation and monitoring plan that addresses the Project’s impacts to wetlands and other waters of the State. This should include an evaluation of potential locations to restore, enhance, and/or create wetland and/or riparian habitat to compensate for the Project’s reasonably foreseeable temporary and permanent impacts to the waters’ beneficial uses and areal extent. We welcome the opportunity to provide additional comments on a draft Project EIR when it is available for review. If you have any questions about our comments please contact me at susan.glendening@waterboard.ca.gov or (510) 622-2462. Biological Resources Impacts to vegetation wetlands and other waters 25 Molseed (VTA) VTA has no comments on the NOP of the Newell Road Bridge Replacement. Thanks. Non-CEQA/NEPA No comments at this time 26 Altman I live at 105 Mission Drive in East Palo Alto, 1/3 of a mile from the Newell Bridge. My dog and I walk over the bridge every morning for a stroll and I drive over the bridge a couple of times a week when heading to certain locations in Palo Alto. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 27 Altman My hope is that the bridge becomes either fully or better aligned with Newell Road on the EPA side and that there is better pedestrian safety over the bridge. A two-lane roadway makes the most sense to me. Preference for Alternative Alternative 3 and 4 28 Altman I will be interested to see what the EIR says about vegetation in and around the creek and whether planting more native species would have favorable effects on creek flow. Biological Resources Impacts to vegetation along creek 3.d Packet Pg. 79 29 Ballard I am writing as the Executive Director of Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC), a membership-based non-profit with the mission to create a healthy community, environment, and economy through bicycling in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. We would like to provide comments on the Newell Road Bridge replacement project. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 30 Ballard We commend Palo Alto for undertaking this project to replace a century-old bridge to accommodate a 1% flood event. Given this opportunity, the bridge should be brought up to modern transportation standards as well, specifically as they relate to Complete Streets and bicycling and walking access. Pursuant to the September 3, 2015 EIR/EA Scoping meeting, none of the five proposed alternatives for the Newell Rd. Bridge replacement include bicycle lanes. The bidirectional one-lane alternative is proposed as a single 16' -wide shared-use lane plus one or two pedestrian sidewalks. The two-lane alternatives is proposed as two 14' -wide shared-use lanes plus one or two pedestrian sidewalks. Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 31 Ballard As a Gold Bicycle Friendly Community, Palo Alto should take every opportunity to improve the existing bike networks, especially those that connect to adjacent communities. The project purpose and need include three relevant considerations: • Maintain connections for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation • Improve pedestrian and bicycle access across the creek • Improve safety for all modes of transportation In addition, East Palo Alto is in the process of constructing a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing of Highway 101 at University Ave. The western landing of the overcrossing will touch down right at Newell Road and West Bayshore. Providing a high quality bike crossing of the creek will aid access to and from the 101 overcrossing and East Palo Alto. Purpose and Need Improve safety and connections for all modes of transportation 3.d Packet Pg. 80 32 Ballard To meet the project purpose and need, and provide high quality healthy transportation options for all users, we recommend a separate 4-5' Class II bike lanes on each side of the bridge adjacent to two 9-1 0' vehicle lanes instead of two 14' shared use lanes. We do not recommend adopting the bidirectional one-lane configuration, as it does not leave the possibility for a safe and comfortable option for people biking. These improvements will also help City of Palo Alto comply with its upcoming Complete Streets resolution, 1 which will require that all projects provide for safe travel along and across public right of ways. We urge you to reconsider the addition of bike lanes on the Newell Rd. Bridge. Thank you for your consideration. Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 33 Boas My name is Patty Boas and I am a resident at 1533 Dana Avenue Palo Alto, California 94303. I attended the scoping meeting regarding the Newell Road / San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project on September 3, 2015. Following is my input for the Environmental Impact Review Report. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 34 Boas 1) Public Safety of Current Bridge at its Existing Alignment - The EIR should provide a historical accounting and analysis of any actual safety issues that have occurred on the current bridge. We need this benchmark to understand the safety of the bridge in its current state. Many residents (myself included) believe that the bridge in it current condition provides excellent traffic calming and forces drivers to proceed slowly and safely. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 35 Boas 2) Current and Projected Automobile Traffic on Newell due to different bridge / alignment scenarios and the impact of each of those scenarios on 1) the safety of children bicycling on and / or crossing Newell, 2) the safety and disturbance of residents walking on sidewalks and crossing Newell, and Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 36 Boas 3) the potential increase in noise, neighborhood disruption and ambience detraction. Noise and Vibration Noise impacts from increased traffic 3.d Packet Pg. 81 37 Boas Specific issues the EIR should examine yet not limit itself to include 1) overall traffic count on Newell (number of, composition of (i.e. cars or trucks) and time of day cars/trucks travel on Newell, 2) speed travelled, 3) obeying stop signs and speed limits, 4) yielding to pedestrians, and 5) driving behavior when passing bicyclists in bike lanes. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 38 Boas 3) Multi Use Zoning & High Density Housing in East Palo Alto (EPA). EPA is studying the possibility of changing zoning to accommodate the development of multi-use buildings and high density housing. The EIR must study the impact and consequences that may result to the Newell bridge and the Crescent Park, Duveneck – St. Francis, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods if such zoning and respective projects are approved. The EIR must request EPA city government transparency in disclosing it goals, its plans and its timing related to such zoning changes and development. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 39 Boas 4) Source & Destination of Traffic - The EIR must ascertain the home and destination of current and projected users of the bridge and analyze the costs / benefits on the character and ambience of the neighborhoods relative to the usage of the bridge by the local home owners. If Palo Altans aren’t primary users of the bridge, they shouldn’t carry the burden of the destruction of a neighborhood that was never designed to be a major traffic thoroughfare. Traffic and Transportation Source of trips and trip generation 40 Boas 5) Escape Route for Crime. Crime is an issue in the Crescent Park, Duveneck – St. Francis, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods. It has been speculated that the Newell Bridge facilitates crime as it allegedly serves as a quick and easy escape route. The EIR should include Palo Alto Police Department current and historical data to validate or refute this conjecture. The EIR should also seek Palo Alto Police Department expertise and preference regarding which bridge / alignment alternative best serves the neighborhood to mitigate crime. Community Impacts Crime 41 Cheng I recently read the letter sent to you from Gary Paladin. I'm writing this email in supporting Gary Paladin's letter for all his concerning issues and its impact to our neighborhood. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 3.d Packet Pg. 82 42 Cheng Specially I concern the Traffic and Pedestrian Use Safety. Newell is the main road for my daughters and their friends in Crescent park and Duveneck-St. Francis neighborhood. They bike to and from Jordan Middle school and Palo Alto High school every week days. And I like to see the kids walking, biking boarding and scooting to and from Duveneck Elementary school safely right on our Dana Ave, which cross the Newell Road. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 43 Cheng Beside the traffic safety issues considered with the Cross Creek Bridge Project. I also concern the quiet neighborhood issue. I almost walk across Newell road everyday. To library, art center and Tennis court with family. Walking around with my dog. Hopefully this Life Quality issue will be considered in the Project too. Noise and Vibration Noise impacts from increased traffic 44 Dolton I have just read the letter sent to you September 5, 2015 from Gary Paladin, my neighbor on Dana Ave. He has carefully studied the matter in depth and brings up numerous important concerns that should be addressed before any decision about the design of the bridge and configuration of Newell Rd. after it crosses the creek. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 45 Dolton Both the neighborhoods of Crescent Park and EPA will be directly effected by the design of the bridge and any good or adverse consequences. Lately, there has been a welcome emphasis on considering the Quality of Life for neighborhood residents. Maintaining Quality of Life for residents who live in the neighborhoods is worth pursuing each time that it is challenged. Community Impacts Project impacts on "quality of life" 46 Dolton To me the one of the most important issues to be addressed is the building of large multi-unit complexes by developers in EPA. The needs of a higher density population and the cars that will be added to the streets, if Newell Rd. is expected to accommodate them, will have a negative impact for people who now currently live on both sides of San Francisquito Creek in contiguous neighborhoods. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 3.d Packet Pg. 83 47 Dolton Newell Rd. is a thoroughfare for residents from both communities, who enjoy family walks to Rinconada Park for picnics, swimming, the Art Center, Neighborhood Gardens, the Rinconada Library and the Children's Library. Children from both neighborhoods ride bikes and walk to those places and the nearby schools. I have already observed commuters on Newell Rd., easily spotted, exceeding the speed limit and trying to rush to get to University Ave. for quick access to enter Hwy. 101. Sometimes cars have lined up at the Channing signal and/or the 4-way stop at Dana and Newell. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 48 Dolton I send my letter in support of Gary Paladin's letter with a special emphasis on my hope that the Newell Rd. design will support Quality of Life in both Crescent Park and EPA neighborhoods. This is a chance for foresight to effect the plan rather than hindsight, which has been a problem with downtown projects. Community Impacts Project impacts on "quality of life" 49 Elliott Thank you for the invitation to the meeting this evening. Unfortunately, I have other commitments and won't be able to make it. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 50 Elliott I have made verbal comments at previous meetings, but I want to provide written comments that it is important that there a project alternative is selected that causes minimal damage to the stream ecology including: 1) Ensuring the new bridge does not include abutments that would increase erosion of the creek bank, 2) Planned "improvements" to the creek bank are ecologically friendly and not bank hardening (e.g., methods in the following document: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/regions/regionx/Engineering_With_ Nature_Web.pdf), 3) Tree removal be limited to the extent possible to non-natives such as the row of Eucalyptus that are on the west side of Newell on the Palo Alto side of the creek, and 4) The venerable and beautiful old Buckeye across from the Eucalyptus trees remains undamaged. Please keep me on the email list for this project. Biological Resources Impacts to stream ecology and tree removal 51 Farn Due to Palo Alto High School's back to school night, my family missed the Newell Bridge meeting last Thursday. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction 3.d Packet Pg. 84 text 52 Farn Our vote is Alternative 1: a new bridge that solves the water flow/flood problem while providing the same access and still preserving the safety and character of the neighborhood. A new bridge with full realignment of Newell Rd is an absolute NO. I don't know who came up with this idea. I can't see any reason for this proposal. Is it supposed to be for safety reasons? I have lived here for the last eight years and not once have I heard an accident at the bridge. What's the accident record on the bridge? Perhaps you can share with us. In fact, a larger aligned bridge will make the traffic more dangerous. The traffic noise on Newell continues at night with cars speeding down Newell. The City has installed stop signs, but this has had little or no effect. Both my kids' bedrooms are along Newell Rd, and they don't open their windows due to the car noise, even on hot summer nights. Very sad! It will just get worse if cars can just speed across the bridge too. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 53 Farn Can the construction start by taking down the bridge before this El Nino winter that's coming??? 2018 is a long time away. Project Description Construction activities/timing 54 Farn Thank you for all your work on managing this project. I know it's not an easy task. The City of Palo Alto should put its own residents' well being and opinions first. After all, we're the ones that are paying the hefty tax to maintain the streets and the neighborhood, which we won't be able to enjoy if there is a super bridge. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 55 Hammer G Fix the Newell Bridge ASAP to prevent flooding. All other issues are secondary. Purpose and Need Flooding 56 Hammer X Important to get this project done as soon as possible for flood control! Preference for Alternative Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 57 Hammer X Include traffic calming measures to prevent speeding. Project Description Traffic calming measures 3.d Packet Pg. 85 58 Hitchings This letter concerns the public community meeting on September 3rd about the Newell Bridge Replacement in City Council Chambers. Because it conflicts with back to school night I cannot attend so I am giving you my public written comments here: Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 59 Hitchings The Newell Bridge is over 100 years old. It is traffic hazard, only allows traffic to cross one way at a time, without signaling and no pedestrian or bike walkway, thus endangering the many folks who cross it every day. It is not seismically safe. It provides a key access point for East Palo Alto vehicular traffic, including emergency vehicles. Also, its poor design significantly restricts channel flow during floods in San Francisquito Creek. One of these recent floods caused 10s of millions of dollars in damage to over 400 homes in Palo Alto in 1998 during an El Nino winter flood. Purpose and Need Traffic safety, flooding 60 Hitchings The City of Palo Alto realizes that in order to address all these issues of public safety they must replace this bridge. They have secured the majority of money from Caltrans, which is very commendable. It is a matter of public safety that the City proceed with an option other than the “no option”. Without the Newell Bridge being fixed, the Chaucer bridge cannot be improved, resulting in significant ongoing flooding risk for many Palo Alto residents. While this project is challenging, the City of Palo Alto and the JPA have done a good job on all fronts and I strongly urge you to continue forward with replacing the bridge. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 61 Holzer I strongly prefer a one-lane bridge with a light if possible. Otherwise you are creating another traffic thoroughfare on a RESIDENTIAL street. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 62 Huerta Here are items I find concerning to include in the Newell Rd. Bridge replacement CEQA scoping. I am in favor of the three options of two way travel on the bridge. Preference for Alternative Alternative 2, 3, and 4 63 Huerta A new bridge will bring more traffic to Newell Road. Please measure the traffic impacts at State levels. Residents in the neighborhood must be conscience they are situated between two City arterial roadways, University and Embarcadero, and are subject to crossing Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 3.d Packet Pg. 86 traffic. 64 Huerta In the seeping meeting email of this project there is mention of widening the San Francisquito Creek 900 feet downstream of this new bridge. I am not for this option. Please consider the materials of fences backing to the creek, permeable or non permeable. Project Description Creek widening 65 Huerta In the current iteration of the three bridge options the bridge would be raise two feet. Unless all bridges crossing San Francisquito Creek are going to be raised two feet I do not see the need to raise this bridge given SFCJPA is working on capacity in the creek. What would be the impact to the new bridge if impacted by a 100 year flood? Remain in service I hope. Thank You Project Description Bridge height 3.d Packet Pg. 87 66 Lowell I am not familiar with the type of comments to be made in Scoping for EIR. I have read the September 3 Scoping presentation. I read the purposes that included making the bridge crossing safer for all forms of transportation, which would include motor vehicles, and that an effort would be made to avoid diversion of traffic "onto adjacent streets" and to avoid increasing number of cars on Newell Road, I also want to make sure that the EIR will address the ramifications, indeed, the likelihood, of redesign for safer motor vehicle transport resulting in increasing the use of the bridge and adjacent streets to avoid traffic on University or to find alternative routes to 101. This is not traffic diverted from Newell onto adjacent streets, but rather traffic that would be added to adjacent streets and to Newell from the many motor vehicles that seek to avoid the backups on University Ave heading toward 101 and toward the Dumbarton Bridge. Similarly, in the other direction, will more cars and trucks tum at the light at Woodland A venue, travel along the east side of the creek through that residential area in East Palo Alto to reach Newell and then downtown Palo Alto or Stanford. To avoid backups, many cars are now starting to travel on parallel two-lane residential roads then cut over to also two-lane largely residential University Ave. or to Embarcadero. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 67 Lowell Many cyclists and pedestrians now use these adjacent streets, rather than using University, and their safe biking and walking route would be impaired by additional cars. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 68 Lowell I just want to make sure that the EIR will look not only at whether cars will be diverted from Newell onto adjacent streets, but whether cars will be diverted from University and Embarcadero, onto adjacent streets, and then onto the Newell bridge. It may be that the EIR will already consider these consequences, but I wanted to make sure. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 69 Mates I attended the recent meeting at City Hall. Given the current status quo, I think the choices presented for review were adequate. I strongly support replacing the bridge with the one-fane full off-set option. I believe it is the ONLY possible option for protecting quality Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 3.d Packet Pg. 88 of fife and safety for the future. 70 Mates I was astounded to learn of the possibility of 8 story development on the east side of the bridge. It is mandatory that that potential change in zoning be factored into any EIR. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 71 Mates My strong feeling, should EPA proceed with such high-density plans, is that the EIR consider the effect of a fifth plan: close the bridge and do not replace it. It is outrageous that EPA should even consider allowing a change that would so negatively impact the city of Palo Alto and our neighborhood for ever. Alternatives to the Project Remove bridge and not replace it 72 Mulvey These notes are to supplement my comments at the September 3rd EIR/EA scoping meeting. First and foremost, please know that I support all the Project Purposes (slide 9); and it would be very helpful if there were something like a “consumer reports” circle-chart illustrating the alternatives and the necessary tradeoffs when it is not possible to optimize all the purposes in a single proposed design. These thoughts are numbered for reference, not priority. Purpose and Need Assess how each Alternative meets the P&N 73 Mulvey BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 1. I would like to see any bridge replacement include two pedestrian sidewalks and two separate bicycle lanes (NOT sharrows). The addition of the East Palo Alto pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing for Highway 101 (Newell to Clarke) is expected to significantly increase walking and biking in the area, and those needs should be fully incorporated in planning the bridge design. Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 74 Mulvey 2. Additionally, the East Palo Alto “Bay Access Master Plan” anticipates a creekside trail and pocket parks along Woodland. Please incorporate design features at the Woodland ends of the bridge and for the pedestrian sidewalks that improve visibility of the creek and riparian corridor for walkers to enjoy. Project Design Considerations Pedestrian and bicycle design features at Woodland Ave 3.d Packet Pg. 89 75 Mulvey 3. Re my request for separate bicycle lanes, I am concerned that wide vehicle lanes with sharrows will be a magnet for increased vehicle use (not to mention higher speed vehicle use) compared to the current 1911 bridge that is celebrated as “the best traffic calming device in the city.” Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 76 Mulvey 4. For those traffic related concerns, please talk with East Palo Alto about seriously considering the idea of making Newell a dead-end before the West Bayshore frontage road intersection (like Seale at Embarcadero and Kingsley at Embarcadero in Palo Alto). This has been mentioned as a safety feature for the Newell/Clarke overcrossing and seems to have real merit. (I assume such a dead-end will also need to block cut-through traffic from accessing Newell via the adjacent commercial-area parking lots.) Project Design Considerations Dead-end Newell Road before West Bayshore Road in East Palo Alto 77 Mulvey 5. Please give special attention to showing the visibility changes/improvements for walkers, bikers, and vehicles for all suggested bridge alignments. I am especially concerned about turns from Woodland to cross the bridge, and I’m not easily visualizing the benefits of having the elevated roadway “padding” needed on both sides of the bridge for the higher bridge profile. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 78 Mulvey 6. Please give consideration to alternative pedestrian crosswalks on Woodland that minimize distance traveled. I like the cater-corner crosswalk at Newell and Hamilton as an example. Project Design Considerations Pedestrian cross-walks at Newell and Woodland 79 Mulvey DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL WIDENING 1. Given the current uncertainty about flood damage reduction planning upstream of Newell, I support eliminating the 900’ in-channel bottleneck downstream of Newell. But it will be important that the EIR/EA process fully address concerns about piecemealing the environmental review. Project Description Creek widening 80 Mulvey 2. Additionally, since we are told to expect more frequent extreme weather events associated with climate change, please be proactive in considering the need for additional flow capacity. Project Design Considerations Additional flow capacity 3.d Packet Pg. 90 81 Neff I attended the recent community meeting. This expands on comments I made there. In the options with 2way traffic, the roadway across the bridge was only presented using 14 foot lanes, with a class 3 bike route. This kind of bicycle facility is just a shared lane. It may be marked with sharrows to alert drivers to the possible presence of cyclists, but if there are no cyclists present, it may be driven as a full width lane. A 14 foot lane is wider than necessary just for autos, and will invite speeds higher than desired for a shared lane, and possibly higher than desired by the neighborhood. Of course, the stop signs at both ends of that block of Newell will moderate traffic. Project Design Considerations Shared bicycle lane design 82 Neff For a comfortable shared lane, the auto speed should be 20 mph or lower, and the auto traffic light. Is the projected traffic volume really compatible with a shared lane, or will the traffic drive most bicyclists away? What is the target speed and volume in this design? Project Description Target speed for bridge design 83 Neff Traffic speeds on Newell are an important consideration for bicyclists and neighbors, so alternatives to a simple, smooth, gently graded 14foot shared lane should be considered. Any treatment that narrows the apparent driving space will tend to make traffic slower, and more cautious. Project Design Considerations Shared bicycle lane design 84 Neff One possibility would be to implement 4 foot class 2 bike lanes (with a consistent travel surface, and no gutter pan, this can fit) with 10 foot travel lanes, matching the bike lanes further up the block. The center line may be removed, as is being done now on Matadero, with a goal of slowing traffic, and creating a safer shared lane. A currently experimental option would be to remove the center line and paint dashed lines 5 feet from the curbs, with an 18 foot 2way center area. The narrower center space slows traffic more. In this configuration traffic would have to adjust to oncoming vehicles, leading to lower speeds, much as auto traffic must slow on our narrow streets like Castilella today. City transportation staff are looking into this kind of dashed line treatment for some of the streets in Palo Alto’s bike network that are too narrow for regulation bike lanes. Project Design Considerations Shared bicycle lane design 3.d Packet Pg. 91 85 Neff I hope the DEIR will lead to a low stress bicycle connection across the bridge, connecting our two cities via this bridge and the new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over 101 planned at the end of Newell in East Palo Alto. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 86 Ngo We are strongly in favor of one lane bridge option. This option will preserve the current quality of life along the Newell Road. We are opposed to all other options as they will result in increased level of traffic, noise and danger to children along this highly used "bike/walk to school" corridor. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 87 Paladin I attended the scoping meeting regarding the Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project on September 3, 2015. This letter submits my thinking regarding what the upcoming Environmental Impact Review (EIR) on the bridge/alignment project should address. Please ensure the following items are included: Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 88 Paladin Public Safety of Current Bridge and Its Existing Alignment. Conjecture surrounds the alleged lack of safety of the existing bridge/alignment. The EIR should provide a historical accounting and analysis of any actual safety issues (i.e., number of accidents involving automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists over past 50~ years). This analysis will validate or refute the conjecture and provide fact based rationale for selecting the most appropriate bridge/alignment design. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 89 Paladin Traffic & Pedestrian Use. Newell is a major bicycle route for children going to/from Jordan Middle School, and a street crossed primarily yet not exclusively at Dana Avenue, by many children each day making their way to/from Duveneck Elementary School. Sidewalks along Newell are a major pedestrian walkway used by Crescent Park, Duveneck - St. Francisco, and East Palo Alto residents to stroll, jog or walk pets daily. The EIR must study current and projected automobile traffic on Newell due to different bridge/alignment scenarios and the impacts of each of those scenarios on 1) the safety of children bicycling on and/or crossing Newell, 2) the safety of and disturbance of residents walking on sidewalks and crossing Newell, and Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 3.d Packet Pg. 92 90 Paladin 3) the potential increases in noise, neighborhood disruption and ambience detraction. Noise and Vibration Noise impacts from increased traffic 91 Paladin Specific issues the EIR should examine yet not limited itself to include 1) overall traffic count on Newell (number of, composition of (i.e., cars or trucks) and time of day cars/trucks travel on Newell, 2) speed travelled, 3) obeying stop signs and speed limits, 4) yielding to pedestrians, and 5) driving behavior when passing bicyclists in bike lanes. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 92 Paladin Source & Destination of Traffic. The bridge/alignment project permanently impacts to character and ambience of the neighborhoods on either side of the bridge, yet the heaviest daily users of the bridge (today and more importantly in the future) may not live in the community. Crescent Park and Duveneck - St. Francis homeowners are being asked to shoulder consequences this project may bring to our neighborhoods in order to accommodate heavy users of the bridge who may not live in the community, possibly commuting from distant areas in the East Bay, or from San Jose, Redwood City, etc. The EIR must ascertain the homes an destination of current and projected users of the bridge and analyze the costs/benefits on the character and ambience of the neighborhoods relative to the usage of the bridge by the local homeowners. Traffic and Transportation Source of trips and trip generation 93 Paladin Escape Routes for Crime. Crime is an issue sin the Crescent Park, Duveneck - St. Francis, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods. It has been speculated that the Newell Bridge facilitates crime as it allegedly serves as a quick and easy escape route. The EIR should include Palo Alto Police Department current and historical data to validate or refute this conjecture. The EIR should also seek Palo Alto Police Department expertise and preference regarding which bridge/alignment alternative best serves the neighborhood to mitigate crime. Community Impacts Crime 3.d Packet Pg. 93 94 Paladin Multi Use Zoning & High Density Housing in East Palo Alto (EPA). EPA is studying the possibility of changing zoning to accommodate the development of multi-use buildings and high density housing. The EIR must study the impact and consequences that may result to the Newell Bridge and the Crescent Park, Duveneck - St. Francis, and East Palo Alto neighborhoods if such zoning and respective projects are approved. The EIR must request EPA city government transparency in disclosing its goals, its plans and its timing related to such zoning changes and development. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 95 Paladin Flood Walls. There appears to be much confusion regarding the benefits, consequences and impacts of flood walls on addressing the prevention of flooding. The EIR must provide clarity regarding the purpose and benefits of flood walls and educate the community regarding the options being considered. Project Description Flood walls 96 Paladin Interim Actions in Anticipation for Forecasted El Nino Weather. The current timeline indicates construction will not commences on flood control activity until 2018. With a predicted El Nino and the possibility of heavy rains this winter, the status quo presents a huge and undesired risk. The EIR must address (or must get the City of Palo Alto to address) this risk now and must provide general recommendations and specific and feasible actions that can be implemented immediately to mitigate the risk of flooding during the next 6-8 months. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. Non-CEQA/NEPA Interim actions for flood control prior to Project implementation 97 Price This email is in regards to the Newell/San Fransquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project. I think this project is a great idea and should be completed without delay. I use this bridge every day to get to work and it is currently very dangerous to vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. Import changes to the bridge include TWO LANES and a SIDEWALK. Realignment and whatever is needed to prevent flooding are also important considerations. Preference for Alternative Alternative 3 and 4 3.d Packet Pg. 94 98 Price Once the current bridge is taken down what is the estimated time for completion of the new bridge? My concern is that the bridge will be removed and then during construction something will come up, like lack of funding, and the project will be sidelined for several months. Project Description Construction activities/timing 99 Proctor Please give weighted consideration to Alternative 8, as the ONLY one under consideration that would eliminate the very dangerous blind zone affecting the confluence of the 2 principal arteries/directions involved--the southwest direction of Woodland & northeast end of the bridge on Newell. That is the principal flow of both cars and pedestrians whether going or coming from the Palo Alto side. Also, though EPA officials would not commit to rezoning plans for near future in the Woodland Triangle, the fact is that even now it takes upward of 15 to 20 minutes to get out of the locked in area via the University Avenue exit during rush hour in the AM, and makes Newell and Edgewood the only ways out in an emergency. Frankly speaking, the idea of converting the Newell bridge in to a one lane via, a la backwoods single lane lumber/fire break trail is crazy. There may have been a time when such a solution may have been practical but that time passed as soon as the EPA side of the creek built upwards, leaving behind the single family cottages that still dot the landscape. It is a solution more born of a barely repressed desire to be able to "raise the bridge over the moat" and keep undesirables out of the "keep" that is the Palo Alto side, than any real attempt at a solution for transiting safety and reducing flood danger. Perhaps those proponents are not aware of just how much gentrification has taken place here as a result of the Page Mill Properties fiasco that ousted many historical residents and replaced them increasingly with Stanford post-grads and techies. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 100 Rappaport Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the Sept. 3, 2015 meeting regarding the Newell Rd. bridge, but I wanted to get you my comments on the Notice about the meeting dated Aug. 12, 2015. Attached are my comments on the Notice. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 3.d Packet Pg. 95 101 Rappaport At the last community meeting a couple of months ago, the City staff admitted that to make the bridge more capable of withstanding possible concerns about flooding would not require the bridge to necessarily be made wider. This community DOES NOT WANT A WIDER BRIDGE. THAT SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR FROM EVERY COMMUNITY MEETING HELD OVER THE LAST 2 YRS. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 102 Rappaport Crescent Park clearly does not want more traffic through its streets, an increase in traffic using Newell Rd. or increase in vehicle speed on Newell Rd. These problems of an expanded bridge create more safety, congestion, and speed problems than is warranted when the main reason for considering a new bridge is possible flooding concerns. Pedestrians and bikers, as well as car drivers realize that caution must be used when crossing the bridge. This is why the current safety record for all traffic on the bridge has been so good. You must understand that the Crescent Park neighborhood does not want the character and peacefulness of this community negatively impacted by a much wider bridge. The flooding concerns can be dealt with without building a considerably wider bridge, which the City admitted at the last meeting. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 103 Rappaport These statements are mischaracterizations as the existing bridge does safely accommodate two way traffic which will not be true if a much wider bridge is built. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic will ignore the caution that has been exercised for so many years and the general neighborhood traffic and pedestrian safety will be lost. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 104 Smith J I highly recommend option one or two as I think it would tend to slow the traffic. A light at the bridge is probably the safest alternative. Cars travelling down Hamilton and Newell already speed through the neighborhoods. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 and 2 3.d Packet Pg. 96 105 Smith W I live at 25 Newell Rd in EPA. I wish to reiterate that Alternative 4 is the design that makes the most sense, is the safest and will actually make it easier to mitigate the assumed racing traffic down Newell. As it is now there are blind corners and since people can't see if there is someone coming from PA and is on the bridge, traffic coming from University down Woodland don't really stop but come on through and may or may not stop and allow someone on the bridge to complete their crossing before they begin their crossing on the bridge. Although it may be true that there have been few accidents it is only out of sheer fear of hitting someone or being hit that people may come to a stop and allow the pushy one to come on through. Sight lines are important and being able to see all 4 stops, all four drivers and make eye contact, allows for deciding if that other person who may have gotten to their stop sign after you got to yours is really going to stop. This Newell Rd issue has not been created in any other area of PA that I know of so it should be made standard for a 4 way stop ‐ clear sight lines makes for a safer bridge and crossing. That in itself will provide traffic calming. The bridge needs to be fully functional. Two lanes of traffic with standard widths for school buses (who use this bridge every day) to fire trucks to ambulances to garbage trucks and other wide loads such as UPS. Two bike lanes, one for each direction and two sidewalks for the same. And I liked the very early on drawing that included lamp posts and bump outs with benches for viewing the creek. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 3.d Packet Pg. 97 106 Smith W I would also like to have my question answered regarding the traffic calming effects, if any, of the 3 sets of stop signs between the bridge with Edgewood, Hamilton and Dana having 4 way stops. I would like to know if there has been a study done. I am sure there was a study done before the signs went in and perhaps there can be a comparison. If there are reports of continued speeding and running of the stop signs then perhaps more police presence is required. I do see them sitting off to the sides on Hamilton and Dana and I do see them stopping people. But I have also observed cars rolling through the signs and then turning onto Dana, Hamilton or Edgewood so the complaint could go both ways. It is not just EPA people that some are claiming speed down Newell and put their children in danger of death. Residents need to contact the police with any infractions they observe including a license plate number and car description if possible. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 3.d Packet Pg. 98 107 Smith W When I lived on Yale street in College Terrace and we wanted traffic calming and circles and other ways to keep people from cutting through to avoid the lights at Cambridge, California and Page Mill and entering CT at College and then turning left onto Yale, we had to do volunteer, on‐the‐sidewalk observations with clip boards and writing down license plate numbers to see who was coming down the street (sometimes at 45 miles an hour) and turning at the above streets. We presented these plate numbers to the PA police (all this was at their suggestion) so they could trace the resident addresses of the car owners to see how much outside traffic was using Yale St. It was a real eye opener. And College Terrace got their traffic calming and parking permits to keep mostly Stanford students and employees from parking all day on the streets. I wonder if the people in Crescent Park could do the same? Get together in teams, get out a lawn chair, a clip board, a hat and some sunscreen and chose an intersection with stop signs ‐ Dana, Hamilton, Edgewood, Newell Bridge ‐ and begin recording all the people who speed through the stop sign intersections, who do rolling stops or not yield the right away to their fellow intersection stoppers as they bolt ahead of someone who may have been there first. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 108 Smith W I feel that the Crescent Park folks are wanting to block a safe Newell Rd bridge claiming that the speeding and stop‐sign running is terrible now and will only get worse with a fully aligned bridge. I would like them to help in proving that it is bad now. They got their stop signs when they asked, now I would like them to help prove that they have not worked or take it as the truth that the stop signs have in fact helped to calm traffic. This bridge is used every day by many people on both sides of it. Let's make it safe for everyone. And we provide full drainage in this area of the fully running creek. Thanks for taking my comments. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 3.d Packet Pg. 99 109 Stauffer It is nice to see some small progress in moving forward to solve the flooding problem on the San Francisquito Creek. However, it is most disappointing to see the date for protecting the Crescent Park area moving out toward 2020. As we all know, the "choke" point in the creek is the Chaucer-Street Bridge. With such a huge potential monetary damage at risk, it would seem that something could be done to move faster in solving this problem which ultimately requires replacement of the Chaucer Street Bridge. Project Description Relation to Chaucer Street Bridge 110 Thompson G I live on Newell Road (since 1976). The traffic the past 5 years has increased exponentially. In addition, the speeds have increased and several cars each day slow very little for stop signs. This route is extensively used by school children on bicycles. Putting in a bridge option that would further encourage more traffic and speed would be to the strong detriment of local residents on both sides of the bridge. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 111 Thompson G I have followed the traffic several times and most of it is merely a shortcut for out-of-area commuters. Instead, they could continue on Embarcadero/101 and maybe take a few seconds longer. Please DO NOT make the problem worse. I cannot believe the EPA residents between Woodland and 101 are not experiencing similar traffic issues, especially the homeowners there. Traffic and Transportation Source of trips and trip generation 112 Thompson G One-lane is adequate for EPA and PA homeowners. We owe the out- of-area commuters nothing! Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 113 Thompson M I am strongly in favor of keeping the existing alignment of Newell Road. It is a speed deterrent. I live on Newell, and the traffic has increased during commute time! We have lived on Newell for 40 yrs. There has never been an accident. Cars have to slow down which helps reduce commuters who race through residential streets to get to Newell. What make me angry is that nothing has happened in 18 yrs. to avoid flooding!! All that's happened are meetings and paid consultants. Alternative 1 would help to mitigate traffic at commute time. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 114 Wee As a resident in the area, I wish to convey my choice on the Newell bridge to consist of only one lane please. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 3.d Packet Pg. 100 115 Wegbreit I have lived at the corner of Dana Avenue and Newell for nearly forty three years and have seen enormous changes in traffic. I am very concerned about the chance that a new wider bridge will bring even more traffic to an already overly busy street. When we first moved to Palo Alto we had three young children. They all had friends on the other side of Dana and rode their bikes or walked across Newell to friends on the other side of Dana. If I had young children today, I would never permit them to do so. The cross-Dana traffic is hazardous. I frequently walk downtown or to the Main Library and am greatly disturbed by the sight of cars driving from Channing toward the bridge at excessive rates of speed. The Newell corridor is important to our city because it is the gateway to Duveneck School, the Main Library, the Arts Center, the Children's Library and Children's Theater. These are the institutions that drew our family to Palo Alto. Access to them must be protected by insuring the safety of the Newell Corridor. Its is barely safe now and I am deeply concerned about the new wider bridge options. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 116 Wiley Since the proposed Newell Bridge (and the proposed 900' of channel widening) is an integral part of the SFCJPA's long-term plans to achieve 1% flood protection, and since the new program EIR for the reach between the University Avenue Bridge and Highway 101 that includes the Newell Street Bridge has not started yet, please include an analyses of the bridge size, height and design environmental impacts of all recently (2010- 2015) SCVWD and SFCJPA proposed 1% flood flow solutions in the Newell Bridge area. Specifically include the SCVWD and SFCJPA proposed plans to A. Achieve 1% protection by floodwalls between University Avenue Bridge and Highway 101. B. Achieve 1% protection by box culverts under Woodland Avenue between University Avenue Bridge and Highway 101. C. Achieve 1% protection by upstream diversion (multiple proposals) D. Achieve 1% protection by upstream detention (multiple proposals, including the hole in Searsville Dam) E. Achieve 1% protection by C. and D. Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 3.d Packet Pg. 101 117 Wiley Since this EIR will most likely be running concurrent with the new program EIR for the reach between the University Avenue Bridge and Highway 101 that includes the Newell Street Bridge, please include full analysis of all the solutions to achieve 1% protection proposed in the new EIR as it is finalized. In addition, please include the impact of the approximate 10% reduction in the 1% flow that the SCVWD staff, the SFCJPA staff and the ACE staff are currently anticipating. Cumulative Impacts SFCJPA projects 118 Wiley Finally, it is highly unlikely that residents of Palo Alto and Menlo Park will accept floodwalls between University Avenue and Middlefield Road. Please analyze in detail the impacts on bridge size, height and design if 1% protection is to be achieved without any floodwalls between University Avenue and Middlefield Road. Project Description Flood walls 119 Hallberg Thanks so much. I don't have any particular on the—I don't know about the environmental report and what needs to be done here. Just a general comment, and I haven't attended the other meetings that have happened on this topic. My house was flooded in '98. It's been a lot of years since then. It just worries me that I—it just seems that it takes a longer, it's incredible. I mean in that period that we've all lived in Palo Alto, the Bay Bridge got changed, right? We all saw that happen, right? This is a little Podunk bridge in a town of 50,000 people, and it's taken that long to do this. Just my view is compared to the danger we all face from this creek flooding, I frankly don't care what kind of a bridge we put in there. I live in the neighborhood, and I know we deal with parking issues and we've got another solution for that now. My only comment is let's do it. I don't even know how we're going to decide on this thing and when it's going to happen. Every meeting I've gone to, it has gone from 2014 to 2015, and now I'm seeing 2017. Of course, we're all panicking because we know about El Nino. So that's just my worry. Just do it, that would be my comment. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 3.d Packet Pg. 102 120 Wiley Hi, I'm Jim Wiley. I'm a creek-side resident. I live in Menlo Park, just downstream from the Pope-Chaucer Bridge. I wanted to talk a little bit about the flood-related issues related to this creek. This bridge project is being designed with the assumption that a flood wall system is going to be installed eventually to protect against the 1 percent flood upstream from University Avenue up in the direction of Middlefield. The flood wall, for example, that was proposed to be put in at the Pope-Chaucer Bridge would have been 6, 7 or 8 feet tall. You can imagine that that doesn't do much good for the environment of the creek. In fact, it would require removing all of the creek side trees, because you can't have trees near a flood wall because it undermines the flood wall. This has created quite an uproar in the community. Basically flood walls have been named as a non-starter, yet this bridge is still being designed as if the flood walls are going to happen. If the flood walls aren't going to happen, and I don't think they ever will, this bridge can be substantially smaller. You may not have to strip 900 feet of creek bank out and remove all those trees and put in vertical walls on the edge of the creek. In fact, the existing bridge alternative of do nothing may be fine if the alternative to the flood walls to solve the 1 percent flooding is upstream diversion or upstream detention. Those options are entirely viable and are being studied by a separate EIR by the JPA. In that case, you don't have to replace the bridge for flooding reasons. Now, there's other reasons you might want to replace a 103-year-old bridge, but flooding is not the reason, if flood walls aren't going to happen. Thank you. Purpose and Need Flooding 3.d Packet Pg. 103 121 Pan Hi, everybody. My name is Mike Pan. I'm the close family friend for Mr. Yang Shen. We just recently acquired the property literally right next to the bridge, 1499 Edgewood. Our main concern, obviously it's good to prevent flood for everybody. At same time, if you're going to align the road to East Palo Alto, our main concern is really safety. Right now, one reason we bought the property is that it's really a deter for people running stop signs or whatnot. If we can use the existing, just put up some street lights, even better, right? Cheaper. If we're not going to do the flood walls, then why spend money on something that we don't really need? There's people that mentioned about safety that right now even though you have a stop sign, people are still going to run the stop sign. Because there's not a straight shot, right, it's already deterring that. Worst case scenario, if we're willing to build something, maybe we can consider the first one. We agree. Some of our neighbors will talk about it is safety is our Number 1 concern. We have children, little children, live at the property. There's a lot of children around Crescent Park area. Not increasing the speed, maintaining a controlled environment, I think is our key and also save money on the long-terms. That's it. Thank you. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 122 Kelly Hi. My name's Doug Kelly. I live at 1535 Edgewood, which is about a block away from the bridge. I've got a couple of concerns. I too have a family with little kids, 10, 7 and 4. People, they already run stop signs in my neighborhood. I've never seen anybody stop for any of the stop signs in my neighborhood. I'm worried that a straight shot through the neighborhood just is going to make traffic unbearable. I'm really worried that anything other than a one-lane bridge is really going to change the character of our neighborhood. I moved in the neighborhood three years ago from Old Palo Alto, because you get a nicer piece of property and it's a quieter neighborhood. I really like it, and I love my neighbors, and I want to see them stay. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 3.d Packet Pg. 104 123 Kelly Here are my concerns that I think the EIR, environmental impact statement should address. I like the blind nature of the existing bridge, because it really is a natural break to traffic. You're suicidal if you do anything but a crawl over that bridge, and that's a good thing in my mind. I use that bridge twice a day every day. I know what I speak about. I've never seen an accident on the bridge; I've never seen a pedestrian hit on the bridge, because everybody is cautious. That's not a bad thing. I really think the traffic speed is a giant issue for us in the neighborhood. I think anything other than a crawl through that corridor is going to completely change the traffic, and we'll see people offloading from Hamilton trying to bypass University Avenue and drastically increase traffic through our neighborhood. The issue we have with people not stopping now is going to get worse. I'm just worried one of my kids is going to get hit. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 124 Kelly I also worry about crime in the neighborhood. There's been crime in my neighborhood before. My house has been broken into. I know from talking to police officers from the Palo Alto Police Department that in Old Palo Alto the crime was really directly proportional to how close you were to Oregon Expressway, because it's a great escape route. I do not want a fast-access escape route from my neighborhood. I'd like it slow and crawl, and that's why the crime rate we have is what it is. Community Impacts Crime 125 Kelly Noise is already an issue on Edgewood, and it's an issue over on Woodland as well. I worry that people kind of racing to make a light, and I see that after they get over the bridge, once they get on Newell, it's like a drag strip. Noise and Vibration Noise impacts from increased traffic 126 Kelly They have their own issues in East Palo Alto, because there's lots of little kids over there too. Again, I just think anything other than something that maintains the existing angle and keeps it at a crawl is really, really bad for the neighborhood. That's the extent of my comments. Those are things I'd like to see focused on in the environmental impact statement. Thank you. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1 3.d Packet Pg. 105 127 Smith W Hi. I live in East Palo Alto. As a result of some of the traffic calming requests before, two more stop signs have been put in on Newell in Palo Alto. Months ago I sent a note to someone here at City Hall and asked if somebody had done a traffic study as to whether or not those stop signs were working, if there was traffic calming. I'd like to know if that can be done regarding this environmental impact statement. I think that's a key component, because I hear everybody saying everybody's running stop signs. If you observe that and that is the case, then you need to complain to the police department so that they can provide more. I see them ticketing; I seem them hiding at intersections and waiting for people to do those slow roll through the stop sign. What kind of effect has this had? I think this would have an effect on the EIS as well. Traffic and Transportation Existing and projected traffic, speed, and driving behaviors 128 Smith W Also, I am in favor of full alignment, because I think visual sight lines for stopping at an intersection is primary. Not continuing to have sight lines that are around corners, that don't give you a clear view of who's coming, who is going to run that stop sign that you can't see as you stop and then pull out into the intersection assuming that someone else has stopped and they're not going to because you can't see them to judge your own procedure through the intersection. That's my comment about what I think would be the safest thing, then you do traffic control for an aligned intersection and maintain that traffic control. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 3.d Packet Pg. 106 129 Fisher Hi, Kevin Fisher. I live on Alester Avenue in Palo Alto. My house was flooded in '98. It was a traumatic event for my family and for all the others who experienced that. It's frustrating that almost 20 years on we really haven't done anything yet, and it's going to be at least 20 years from the flood until the first shovel full of dirt is turned over for this bridge. I do appreciate that we're focusing on solving the problem one step at a time. I think for the first ten years there was the idea about this grand plan and let's get $100 million and do a big project. This feels like the right approach; solve it one step at a time. This is a complicated problem, but at least right now we're talking about one bridge. I'm discouraged to hear the gentleman on the Menlo Park side trying to drag this one project into the overall morass of flood walls, upstream detention. Let's focus one step at a time. Little by little, we're going to solve this problem, but not if we turn it into a big circus involving 50 extraneous factors. Preference for Alternative Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 130 Huerta Bernardo Huerta from East Palo Alto, California. What I would like to see, I mean, East Palo Alto would be impacted if you were to widen the creek. Most East Palo Alto residents would not be for impacting the parking in East Palo Alto. Just that retaining walls or flood walls be the same height on both sides of the creek. I noticed that on the Palo Alto side there's a lot of cement block fences that would retain more water. If it were ever to flood, even though we fix it, it would flood in East Palo Alto. I'd like this environmental impact to look at that. If it floods, it floods on both sides, not just in East Palo Alto. I'd like to see, yes, that these meetings be also held in East Palo Alto. There's only very few East Palo Alto residents here. We want equal access, so please have your meetings also in East Palo Alto and sit down with us. Thank you. Project Description Creek widening 3.d Packet Pg. 107 131 Fisk Yes, my name is Bob Allen, and I've lived within 300 feet of the creek for the last 30 years. I even lived within that same period of time north of University in Menlo Park next to the creek. First of all, I'd like to thank the City of East Palo Alto for being so generous to the children of East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto children who live within 300 feet or even more of the creek are allowed to use the parks that are on Channing, the children's parks. They're allowed to use the library. That being said, the safety of the East Palo Alto children going across that bridge is paramount. The wider bridge with the sidewalks are really good for the children of East Palo Alto and for their safety. I heard in the presentation a comment that—I think it was from you, Joel—that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has suggested the bridge can be lowered in its height. I'd like to hear a little bit more about that if you can later. I would like to see the bridge fully aligned with the East Palo Alto side of Newell Road. It gives the best chance to see traffic coming along Woodland Avenue. Right now, when I'm coming from the library in Palo Alto and cross the bridge, I stop right at the bridge and then I ease about a few feet ahead and then look over to the north to see if there's a car at the stop sign. That's a problem that the fully aligned bridge would eliminate that. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 132 Fisk The other thing—and I think this is the responsibility of Palo Alto to pursue—is that a few owners ago, like three or four, of the property that we heard about from the gentleman that commented first moved the alignment of that fence to align it with Newell Road and not with the actual property line, which I think the City of East Palo Alto regardless of the alignment of the bridge should take back that land grab from 20 years ago, because that's really the case there and have the current owners move the fence and re-landscape the portion of the corner so that that isn't going to cause a time delay when the ground is struck to build this bridge in two or three years. Thank you very much. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 3.d Packet Pg. 108 133 Dinwiddie Thank you. My husband and I have lived in the neighborhood for 52 years now, so we've been there for a long time. It's a wonderful neighborhood, and we love it. We have two concerns. Can you hear me? Okay. Of course, we're concerned about flood, but I do want to point out the irony in the '98 flood was for our side of the creek, the Palo Alto side. The water that came down, came down a river on Hamilton, and it actually came from where the creek hits the Chaucer-Pope Street Bridge. Now, what came over on the other side, I realize, but I understand the reason it didn't come from where our bridge is, onto those properties on Edgewood, is because actually it's higher, the land is just higher there. Purpose and Need Flooding 134 Dinwiddie My biggest concern is traffic. We walk our dog all the time; we're always in that area. It's an area where people walk a lot; it's an area that has a lot of children, and it's an area that has a lot of elderly people like me, because we love it and we've lived there for a long time. I am concerned about the traffic. I think that the aligning the bridge is going to make a much bigger problem than we have now. What happens is people don't go very fast. That's the one stop sign we can be sure cars are going to stop at, because they have to kind of slow down before they come over that bridge and then they really do stop. I do think it's important to have a pedestrian pathway or two, because of children and of bicycles. I really urge you to take into the account the traffic. We're getting more traffic all the time, and it does become a safety issue. Thank you. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 3.d Packet Pg. 109 135 Mulvey Thank you. My name is Trish Mulvey. I've lived close to the creek since about 1951, when I was 8. I went away to college, so I was gone for a while. Anyway, a couple of thoughts. First, I would really like consideration of the opportunity for a separated bike lane. East Palo Alto is in the process of getting ready to construct a bike and pedestrian overcrossing over 101 from their end of Newell, that ends at 101 by the 7/11, from there over to the other side. The opportunity to do the kinds of things about building cross-community neighborhoods with more bike and pedestrian access, I think, is truly exciting, but I want to make sure when they get to the Newell Road Bridge, that the bikes and pedestrians have a safe environment. Project Design Considerations Separate bike lanes 136 Mulvey I really like what Kamal said about calling it Friendship Bridge 2. I've been thinking about it as Good Neighbor Bridge 1. Whatever we call it, I would really like to see design elements that allow in particularly the bike and pedestrian area for people to have a way to pause and enjoy just being by the creek. On the Palo Alto side, as you know, you can't really—the houses back up to the creek, so people don't have visual access. On the East Palo Alto side, the existing flood walls are high enough that you can't see the creek. The only opportunity to really know that there's a real natural creek there is when you're crossing the bridge. I'd like to see that recognized and celebrated. Aesthetics Visual impact of Project on natural creek 137 Mulvey My last question, with the addition of the Water District request to make those channel modifications, this has fundamentally, I think, changed the relationship of this environmental review process beyond just the bridge to in some fashion either duplicating or potentially threats of piecemealing the EIR process that the Joint Powers Authority has underway. I'd like the documentation and descriptions in future meetings to be able to be clear and explain why this is an okay approach since, as a couple of speakers have said starting with Mr. Wiley, the decisions that are being made about that downstream alignment and widening are fundamental to the overall JPA project. Thank you. Project Description Independent utility 3.d Packet Pg. 110 138 Barlevy My name is Al Barlevy. I live in East Palo Alto, actually closer to the Dumbarton Bridge than this bridge in question. Nonetheless, I do use this bridge, so I am a stakeholder. I definitely understand the concern of the residents of Palo Alto that you want to make sure that you don't get additional traffic, because you want to keep a quiet neighborhood. I don't believe that keeping a bottleneck bridge is the right approach. There's definitely other measures like a lot of stop signs, stop lights, speed bumps. The bridge is just dangerous in my opinion. Let's remember that when it was built 103 years ago, cars were called horseless buggies because most of the vehicles were horse carriages that were crossing the bridge. It's just not appropriate for today. We definitely need to replace that bridge, even if there was no issue with flooding. The bridge would have to be replaced just because you would never design such a bridge today. We don't have horseless buggies anymore. Finally, what I want to say is that it's important to keep in mind that the bridge is for not just cars but also for bicycles and pedestrians, as was said. We really have to make sure that it's the right bridge. The way the current alignment is, I don't know the history of the neighborhood, whether one side of Newell was built after the others, but it just looks like it's a (inaudible) the way that the alignment is. I think anything less than a full realignment doesn't make sense. Since we have to tear down the bridge anyway, we're not going to modify the bridge, we're tear it down, might as well make it right this time. Preference for Alternative Alternative 4 3.d Packet Pg. 111 139 Neff I'm Robert Neff. I've been across the bridge a few times. I live across town; I'm on the Bike Advisory Committee. I wanted to say I hope the EIR will consider traffic calming techniques to reduce the average speeds on Newell. Actually the bridge as it is, 18-foot wide, creates calm traffic because it's so narrow. That actually makes it quite safe. Not so good for pedestrians, but it's safe. The traffic has to go slow, so you end up with slow speeds and it's safer. If we replace that with 14-foot wide shared lanes for bikes and cars, for the cars it will look like a 14-foot wide lane which looks like a lane on El Camino Real. People, when they see wide lanes, they think that they might as well just drive fast. Even with the stop signs, the 14-foot wide lane and the improved grading will tend to make people drive much more quickly. I hope the EIR will consider ways you could redesign the roadway that would reduce speeds and that would be part of the process. For example, if you put in bike lanes that are 5-foot wide and then give yourself only 9-foot wide lanes to go across the bridge, that will tend to slow people down. If you take out the center line, then people think they should be driving near the middle, and then the oncoming cars becomes something that will slow people down as well. There are techniques you can use and, of course, we can always put in speed bumps. There are techniques you can use that would make the bridge look narrower and look slower and make people think, "Well, I shouldn't be driving so fast on this road. It looks a little bit tight." Project Description Traffic calming measures 140 Hammer Hi, I'm Xenia Hammer and live in Palo Alto. Several people mentioned the need for careful consideration of traffic. I certainly agree with that, to include traffic calming measures in consideration for this project. Project Description Traffic calming measures 3.d Packet Pg. 112 141 Hammer An earlier speaker also mentioned an issue of flood walls. I was really confused by that, because flood walls are not part of this project. There's no flood walls involved here. Moreover, as I understand from the work that the JPA is doing on other parts of the creek, you can get a tremendous amount of flood protection with no flood walls, and you can get hundred-year flood protection with other measures, such as upstream detention. I don't think flood walls is at all any kind of a relevant part of this project. I don't know—Len, do you want to add anything to that? I don't know if it's an appropriate time. Project Description Flood walls 142 Ball Ben Ball, lived on Edgewood Drive for the last 20 years, have raised half my family and still have two kids at home that we are raising. A couple of things specifically on the scoping of the project. Myself and several other of my neighbors have attended the East Palo Alto, in East Palo Alto. I'm sympathetic to your comments about sharing location for meetings, but spent a lot of time in East Palo Alto at their 30-year planning process, which has developed over the long course of our little bridge. Non-CEQA/NEPA Commenter qualifications/Introduction text 143 Ball Sadly and against the wishes of myself and many of the other Palo Alto residents, East Palo Alto has approved zoning in that area immediately adjacent on the other side of the bridge for eight-story multiuse development which will have a massive increase in traffic. The scoping of the EIR absolutely needs to address East Palo Alto's long-term plan specifically for that area. When this process started, we were told that we were crazy to assume that anything like that would ever happen, and lo and behold it's already been approved from a zoning perspective. The report absolutely needs to take into account that. Cumulative Impacts East Palo Alto General Plan 3.d Packet Pg. 113 144 Ball A primary concern for me with small children is Newell Road on both sides of the creek is a Safe Route to School, and so we need to address the traffic impacts of that. I could not disagree more with those who think that realigning the bridge is a good idea. It's an absolute disaster waiting to happen, because children will be killed. I run on that street, on Edgewood and Newell, every day. Every day there's cars going through that, and that's with no ability to start and ramp quickly with speed. Traffic and Transportation Pedestrian and bicycle safety 145 Ball While perhaps ugly to some, it is a natural governor, both the width of the current bridge as well as the alignment of the current bridge. That needs to remain, because that is the best traffic calming measure that we possibly have. In terms of those, I just want to make sure, yourself and others have intimated that this bridge isn't safe. By the City's own traffic statistics, there have been no vehicular accidents, no pedestrian accidents, and no bicycle accidents on the current bridge. It would be helpful when you refer to safety and those types of issues, that you cite the actual statistics, so people can draw their own conclusions from the data. Purpose and Need Traffic accident/issue data for existing bridge 146 Ball Finally, in the EIR please address the full width. I find your depiction of the bridge misleading unless you get out a ruler and try to do it. The current bridge is about 20 feet wide outer edge to outer edge. When you're talking about the proposed super bridges that you've got in there, 14 feet width is just for the car traffic. You also have said in the past that you have to have room for both bike lanes which would be additive to that as well as the pedestrian walkways which would be additive to that. You're talking about more than a doubling of the width of the current bridge. All of that data needs to be accurately forecast. Project Description Bridge width 3.d Packet Pg. 114 147 Ball Sorry, I said final, one other thing. I was assuming that the flooding issue was created by the buttresses in the bridge. Can the impact report address no increase in height, but simply removing the buttresses so that we're not necessarily trying to solve for a one-year flood, which is an artificial thing. Len, I'd be interested to hear because solving for one-year floods, I'm completely on the same page as Jim Wiley. It will mandate flood walls being upstream and downstream, because the natural creek is not big enough to support a one-year event. If you raise the bridges and that is no longer a choke point, there are going to be other choke points unless you build flood walls. This EIR should address don't increase the height of the bridge to assess the impact of flooding in that situation. Thank you. Project Description Bridge height 148 Wong Thank you. I live on Palo Alto Avenue near the Pope Street Bridge or Chaucer Bridge. I hear your concerns, everybody's concerns about not flooding and not having a lot of fast-moving traffic. I think that the gentleman who talked about traffic calming, maybe we could make the lanes narrow for the cars and have a separated area for the bikes. We're in the 21st century, and we have too many cars. We actually should be encouraging people to ride their bikes. Now, I would ride my bike a lot more than I do, except I am petrified on most of the streets where you cannot ride a bike. You should be able to ride a bike safely. Yes, we should not give so much room to the cars. Make them slow down, but that doesn't mean we should suffer and not have bike lanes and not have a nice bridge. Project Description Traffic calming measures 149 Wong In terms of worrying about flood walls, the lady, Ms. Hammer, talked about don't worry about the flood walls; there aren't going to be any. There might be, and I am very concerned there might be because it's across the street from my house. I actually sent in a letter to the Joint Powers to make my suggestions on how to avoid flood walls and how to make this. Basically I think it's important that this be considered in its entirety; the bridge over there and the bridge over here. What happens at the bridge at Chaucer does impact, because a lot of people are not going to want flood walls. If you don't have flood walls, how are you going to deal with it? Project Description Flood walls 3.d Packet Pg. 115 150 Wong I hear you say, "Oh, we can lower the bridge here." I wouldn't do that; I would make it as high as possible because that is the reason we are in trouble. Somebody way back decided to make a perfectly level, a lovely bridge, into a arched bridge, so they narrowed the bridge because it was artistic. That is why we got into this problem. Because they didn't have the foresight to say, "Well, if we make it artistic like a lovely European bridge and nice tunnel under the bridge that there would be flooding problems later on." I would not be narrow and short-sighted and say, "Let's make the bridge low," because you never know. I would make it as nice as you can, but don't lower it. Project Description Bridge height 3.d Packet Pg. 116 Newell Road/San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project Project Location The Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project is located on Newell Road at the crossing of San Francisquito Creek. The creek forms the boundary between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, as well as the boundary between Santa Clara County and San Mateo County. Project Vicinity Map No Scale Project Description The City of Palo Alto Public Works Department is managing a capital improvement project to replace the existing Newell Road Bridge at San Francisquito Creek (SFC). City staff is coordinating closely with staff from the City of East Palo Alto, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA), and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) on this project of regional significance and impact. The primary purpose for replacing the bridge is to maintain connections for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation across San Francisquito Creek at Newell Road while avoiding the diversion of a significant number of vehicles to adjacent streets, significant increase in the number of vehicles using Newell Road, an increase in average vehicle speed on Newell Road, provide a pedestrian sidewalk and improve bicycle access across San Francisquito Creek at Newell Road, improve safety for all modes of transportation across San Francisquito Creek at Newell Road, 3.e Packet Pg. 117 design a bridge that accommodates increased flows related to San Francisquito creek improvements to address anticipated flooding risk and upgrade the channel width beneath the bridge to allow 7,500 cubic feet per second [cfs] to pass. This flow is approximately a 70-year storm event or similar to flood of record that occurred on February 3, 1998. This flow also exceeds the criteria set on the Draft EIR which was to allow a 50-year storm event to pass. The existing reinforced concrete bridge, constructed in 1911, is also considered functionally obsolete due to its narrow width, severe vertical profile, and poor sight distances. The environmental report analyzed four build alternatives (Build Alternatives 1–4) and the No Build Alternative. Build Alternative 2 is the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and “the project” for CEQA purposes. Project improvements would extend approximately 300 feet along Newell Road (175-feet on Palo Alto, 125-feet on East Palo Alto) and 300 feet along Woodland Avenue. Newell Road is classified as an urban collector street and carries an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of approximately 3,450 vehicles per day. The existing bridge is a 22-foot-wide (18-foot-wide travelled way) by 40-foot long, concrete reinforced through girder structure. The existing bridge has no provision for bicycle or pedestrian traffic. The proposed replacement bridge will be a 41.50-foot-wide by 80-foot-long structure with two 14- foot-wide shared lanes (10-foot vehicle lane and 4-foot bike lane/shoulder), two 5-foot wide sidewalks and two 1’-9” Type 80SW Barriers. This configuration will greatly improve bicycle and pedestrian access and safety. Improved bicycle and pedestrian access across the bridge will fit in well with the City of East Palo Alto’s recently constructed bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of Highway 101 that will have its western landing at West Bayshore Road and eastern landing at Clark Avenue. The Newell Road bridge is within the reach of a study being conducted by the SFCJPA and the Valley Water to identify proposed channel and bridge improvements that will alleviate flooding issues and provide an approximate 70-year storm event protection for local residents and businesses. 3.e Packet Pg. 118 The new clear span between abutments of 80-feet matches the distance between the top of the San Francisquito Creek banks, allowing the new abutments to be constructed outside of the creek’s waterway including high flow events. In order to accommodate the 7,500 cfs, the capacity of the natural channel, Newell Road Bridge will need to be raised approximately 1.6 feet above the roadway profile both in Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. The road profile will need to be raised approximately 4- feet maximum on the adjacent segments of both Newell Road and Woodland Avenue on both sides of the bridge as well. This will result in a series of retaining walls at the back of sidewalk alongside the two adjacent single-family residential properties on Newell Road in Palo Alto and alongside the two apartment complexes at the Woodland Avenue/Newell Road intersection in East Palo Alto. The retaining walls are intended to hold up the raised road profile. The height of retaining wall will vary with an expected maximum of approximately 4.7 feet in East Palo Alto and 4 feet in Palo Alto. The profile of the retaining walls will mimic that of the roadway approaches on both sides of the bridge. A railing will be required along the top of the retaining wall in order to provide for pedestrian safety in areas where there will be a vertical differential between the top of wall and adjacent ground greater than 30 inches. Project Alternatives The project design team evaluated four basic project alternatives for the replacement of the existing Newell Road Bridge: Build Alternative 1: A one-lane bridge with two-way traffic (under signal control) on the existing alignment of Newell Road. Build Alternative 2 (LPA): A two-lane bridge (with stop signs) on the existing alignment of Newell Road. Build Alternative 3: A two-lane bridge (with stop signs) on a partial realignment of Newell Road. Build Alternative 4: A two-lane bridge (with stop signs) on a full realignment of Newell Road. Build Alternative 1 The following roadway improvements are unique to Build Alternative 1. Build Alternative 1 would remove the existing bridge structure and construct a new one-lane bridge with bi-directional traffic on the existing alignment. Only one direction of travel for vehicles and bicycles would be provided on the bridge at a time. To eliminate all potential conflicting vehicle movements, Build Alternative 1 would require complete signalization of the intersections of Newell Road with Woodland Avenue and Edgewood Avenue in order to control the direction of travel on the bridge and adjacent roadways. One additional signal would be provided for the sole residential driveway on the Palo Alto side of the bridge to indicate the direction of traffic on Newell Road at all times. Build Alternative 1 would provide bicycle access across the bridge via shared vehicle/bicycle lanes (sharrows), but bicycles would only be allowed to travel in the same direction as the vehicle traffic. Control of bicyclist movement would rely on the ability/willingness of bicyclists to obey the traffic signals at each intersection. 3.e Packet Pg. 119 The new bridge would be approximately 4 feet higher than the existing roadway profile at the bridge to improve flood hazard protection for the adjacent communities. Newell Road roadway would be raised 3.5 feet on the Palo Alto side in order to meet the higher profile of the new bridge. On Palo Alto side retaining walls (approximately 120 linear feet by 12 inches wide, varying between 1 foot and 4 feet in height) would be required on both sides of Newell Road to limit the right of way (ROW) needs for the Project. On the East Palo Alto side of the bridge, Woodland Avenue and Newell Road intersection would be raised 4.9 feet to meet the higher bridge profile and would require approximately 300 feet to conform to the existing roadway to the east and west of the bridge. Newell Road would also require approximately 125 feet of improvements. Retaining walls (approximately 490 linear feet by 12 inches wide, varying between 1 foot and 4.7 feet in height) would be required along the north and south side of Woodland Avenue and both sides of Newell Road to limit the ROW needs for the Project. The south side of Woodland Avenue would use the existing flood wall to support the raised roadway. Build Alternative 2 The following are roadway improvements unique to Build Alternative 2. Build Alternative 2 would remove the existing bridge and construct a new two-lane bridge on the existing bridge alignment. This build alternative would include bicycle access on both the northbound and southbound lanes of Newell Road via shared vehicle/bicycle lanes (sharrows). Two 5-feetwide sidewalks would also be provided. Build Alternative 2 does not realign the existing north and south intersections with Woodland Avenue, but clear sight distance would be provided through a combination of red-curb striping, providing either no landscaping or landscaping that does not exceed 30-inches in height, or bridge barriers would be either open spaced concrete walls or railings. The new bridge would be approximately 4 feet higher than the existing roadway profile at the bridge to improve flood hazard protection for the adjacent communities. Newell Road roadway would be raised 3.5 feet on the Palo Alto side in order to meet the higher profile of the new bridge. On Palo Alto side retaining walls (approximately 120 linear feet by 12 inches wide, varying between 1 foot and 4 feet in height) would be required on both sides of the roadway to limit the ROW needs for the Project. On the East Palo Alto side of the bridge, Woodland Avenue and Newell Road intersection would be raised 4.9 feet to meet the new bridge profile and would require approximately 300 feet to conform to the existing roadway on the east and west sides of the bridge. Newell Road would also require approximately 125 feet of improvements. Retaining walls (approximately 490 linear feet by 12 inches wide, varying between 1 foot and 4.7 feet in height) would be required along the north and south side of Woodland Avenue and both sides of Newell Road to limit the ROW needs for the Project. The south side of Woodland Avenue would use the existing flood wall to support the raised roadway. Build Alternative 3 The following are roadway improvements unique to Build Alternative 3. 3.e Packet Pg. 120 Build Alternative 3 is identical to Build Alternative 2, except that Newell Road south of Woodland Avenue would be partially realigned (approximately 30 feet) so that the degree of offset between the existing north and south intersections with Woodland Avenue would be reduced compared to the existing condition. Two five-foot wide sidewalks would also be provided. Build Alternative 3 provides an intersection where the centerline-to-centerline connection on Newell Road from Edgewood Road to Woodland Avenue is partially aligned, which would improve sight lines from Alternative 2 for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists entering the intersection. The new bridge would be approximately 4 feet higher than the existing roadway profile at the bridge to improve flood hazard protection for the adjacent communities. Similar to previous alternatives, the entire Newell Road roadway would be raised 3.5 feet on the Palo Alto side in order to meet the higher profile of the new bridge. Retaining walls (approximately 120 linear feet long by 12 inches wide varying between 1 foot and 4 feet in height) would be constructed on both sides of the roadway to limit the ROW needs for the Project. On the East Palo Alto side of the bridge, Woodland Avenue and Newell Road intersection would be raised 3.7 feet to meet the new bridge profile and would require approximately 275 feet to conform to the existing roadway on the east and west sides of the bridge. Newell Road would also require approximately 125 feet of improvements on Newell Road on the East Palo Alto side to conform to the existing sidewalks, driveways, curbs, and gutters. Retaining walls (approximately 490 linear feet by 12 inches wide, varying between 1 foot and 4.45 feet in height) would be required along the north side of Woodland Avenue and both sides of Newell Road to limit the ROW needs for the Project. The south side of Woodland Avenue would use the existing flood wall to support the raised roadway. Build Alternative 4 The following are roadway improvements unique to Build Alternative 4. Build Alternative 4 is similar to Build Alternatives 2 and 3, except that Newell Road south of Woodland Avenue would be fully realigned (approximately 90 feet) to eliminate the offset between the existing north and south intersections with Woodland Avenue. This build alternative would provide a standard four-way intersection at Newell Road and Woodland Avenue, improving sight lines for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at the intersection. The new bridge would be approximately 4 feet higher than the existing roadway profile at the bridge to improve flood hazard protection for the adjacent communities. Newell Road roadway would be raised 4 feet on the Palo Alto side in order to meet the higher profile of the new bridge. Retaining walls (approximately 110 linear feet long by 12 inches wide, varying between 1 foot and 4.5 feet in height) would be constructed on both sides of the roadway to limit the ROW needs for the Project. On the East Palo Alto side of the bridge, Woodland Avenue and Newell Road intersection would be raised 4.4 feet to meet the new bridge profile and would require approximately 325 feet to conform to the existing roadway on the east and west sides of the bridge. Newell Road would also require approximately 125 feet of improvements, including reconstruction of sidewalks and readjustments of an existing driveway and walkways. Retaining walls (approximately a total of 490 linear feet long by 3.e Packet Pg. 121 12 inches wide, varying between 1 foot and 4.2 feet in height) would be required on the north and south side of Woodland Avenue and both sides of Newell Road to limit the ROW needs for the Project. Bridge Aesthetics The design consultant has retained a bridge architect as a member of the design team. The elevated bridge profile will be visible from the westbound direction of Woodland Avenue. The roadway profile requires the use of a prominent vertical curve resulting in an arch-like bridge vertical alignment. The resulting aesthetic enhancement will add to the visual quality of the new bridge. The use of the Caltrans Type 80SW bridge railing is recommended as an additional aesthetic enhancement. The concrete columns of the Type 80SW barrier are spaced 6’-6” on center and provide vehicular protection and pedestrian comfort while the 5-foot-long by 11-inch-high barrier openings provide a visual access and open feel to the bridge. The opening are located approximately 1.5 to 2.5 feet above the road surface and will allow drivers and pedestrians to see vehicles crossing over bridge or pets on the sidewalk that are shorter than 30-inches. A photometric plan was prepared based on the existing lighting in the area. The plan is based on one light on Newell Road, Palo Alto, and two lights on the West side of Woodland Avenue, East Palo Alto. The average foot candle measured on Woodland Avenue was 0.91. This is consistent with what is required on a collector street with a medium pedestrian conflict area. Medium pedestrian area is typically used to describe blocks with libraries, apartments, neighborhood shopping, downtown office areas. Similarly, the average foot candle measured Newell Road is 1.45 fc. This exceeds the collector street with medium pedestrian conflict area. Public Outreach The City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division held several community meetings prior to filing the Notice of Preparation for the EIR/EA. These meetings are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Community Informational Meetings Prior to Notice of Preparation The City held its first community meeting on the project in East Palo Alto. The purpose of the meeting was to present preliminary bridge replacement alternatives which included existing alignment and fully aligned bridge with Newell Road June 27, 2012 The City held a community meeting to identify initial potential alternatives to the proposed project and committed to formally evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives through an EIR process. January 8, 2013 The City held a community meeting to present a broader range of potential design alternatives to be reviewed and to identify screening criteria for these alternatives. October 17, 2013 The City prepared a formal Alternatives Screening Analysis report and presented it to the community. February 27, 2014 The City attended a meeting of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (CPNA) to make them aware of the 5 alternatives that would be analyzed as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and to let them know they would have opportunities to provide public input during the release of the EIR. June 25, 2015 3.e Packet Pg. 122 The City formally began the EIR process in August 2015 by filing the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR/EA in accordance with CEQA and NEPA. The City held a scoping meeting on September 3, 2015. Verbal and written comments were collected from the meeting attendees and are summarized in the Draft EIR/EA. On May 6, 2019 and Information Staff Report was presented to council to provide them with background of the project prior to the release of the DEIR. In May of 2019 staff also met with the adjacent property owners to discuss the upcoming release of the DEIR and how the project may affect their property. The DEIR was released on May 31, 2019 and the comment period extends through July 30, 2019. Public comments have been received via email and made at community meetings held on June 12, June 18, and June 19, 2019. Staff also provided a brief status of the project at the June 27 SFCJPA board meeting. Information about the project is available on the project web site at www.cityofpaloalto.org/newell. Project Schedule Construction of Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project is expected to begin in Fall of 2020 and be completed by fiscal year 2022. 3.e Packet Pg. 123 Attachments 1 – Alternative 1 View 1 Simulated Conditions 2 – Alternative 1 View 2 Simulated Conditions 3 – Alternative 2 View 1 Simulated Condition 4 – Alternative 2 View 2 Simulated Conditions 5 – Alternative 3 View 1 Simulated Condition 6 – Alternative 3 View 2 Simulated Conditions 7 – Alternative 4 View 1 Simulated Condition 8 – Alternative 4 View 2 Simulated Conditions 3.e Packet Pg. 124 Figure 1. Existing View and Alternative 1 Simulated Conditions – Newell Road in Palo Alto Looking towards East Palo Alto 3.e Packet Pg. 125 Figure 2. Existing View and Alternative 1 Simulated Conditions—from Newell Road in East Palo Alto looking toward Palo Alto. 3.e Packet Pg. 126 Figure 3. Existing View and Alternative 2 Simulated Conditions—from Newell Road in Palo Alto looking toward East Palo Alto. 3.e Packet Pg. 127 3.e Packet Pg. 128 Figure 4. Existing View and Alternative 2 Simulated Conditions—from Newell Road in East Palo Alto looking toward Palo Alto. 3.e Packet Pg. 129 Figure 5. Existing View and Alternative 3 Simulated Conditions—from Newell Road in Palo Alto looking toward East Palo Alto. 3.e Packet Pg. 130 Figure 6. Existing View and Alternative 3 Simulated Conditions—from Newell Road in East Palo Alto looking toward Palo Alto. 3.e Packet Pg. 131 Figure 7. Existing View and Alternative 4 Simulated Conditions—from Newell Road in Palo Alto looking toward East Palo Alto. 3.e Packet Pg. 132 Figure 8. Existing View and Alternative 4 Simulated Conditions—from Newell Road in East Palo Alto looking toward Palo Alto. 3.e Packet Pg. 133 ATTACHMENT F Project Plans and Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (DEIR/EA) Hardcopies of project plans and the DEIR/EA are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents 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 to find “Newell Road Bridge” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, EIR/EA, Technical Reports and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: Cityofpaloalto.org/Newell 3.f Packet Pg. 134 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and David Hirsch. Absent: None Chair Furth: …. meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Jodie, would you please call the role? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: The first item on the agenda is oral communications. This is a time to speak to us about items that are not on today’s agenda. I don’t have any speaker cards. Is there anybody who wishes to address us on a matter not on the agenda? Seeing no one. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions. Staff is indicating they have no requests, board members have no requests. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City official reports, please. Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Yes. On the schedule here, we show that Board Member Baltay would be out on 6/20, and Board Member Thompson would be out on July 18th. Just let me know if there are any other vacations beyond that. Yes? Microphone. Board Member Hirsch: I am out on the 20th, too. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, Board Member Hirsch will be out on the 20th as well? Okay. And then, we have cancelled the July 4th meeting. Chair Furth: I will be out…. I will have resigned before the August meeting. Or I have resigned effective July 30th, so that will be my last meeting. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, July 18th, we have as your last meeting. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: June 6, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Furth: Right. And at the moment, we’re still… It’s getting quite close, so can we pretty much think we’re not going to have a second meeting in July, that we just have that one? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I believe we’ll just have the one. Chair Furth: Cool. Not that we don’t love it. We obviously wouldn’t do it otherwise. On June 20th, the agenda items are the Macy’s Men’s redevelopment, that is Wilkes Bashford and Restoration Hardware. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Furth: That’s a big project. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. This is its first formal. It’s had a prelim, but this would be the first formal, so we’re going to try and focus on the site plan for that. Chair Furth: Excellent. And then, 3000 El Camino Real, the Palo Alto Square Master Sign Program? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. A fair amount of signs for that project. Chair Furth: Those are the high-rise buildings and the theater? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Chair Furth: All right. Any other comments from anybody on the Board before we turn to our next item? A new personal record, I got through all of those items. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road [18PLN-00186]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review, and Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 18,000 Square Foot Vacant Restaurant Building and a 15,700 Square Foot Audi Service Building and the Construction of a Two-Story 84,900 Square Foot Automobile Dealership That Combines two Brands (Mercedes/Audi). The Applicant has Also Requested Zoning Amendment to Change the Zoning of the Site From CS(D) and PC to CS(D)(AD), and Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for Build- to-Line Setbacks. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From March 15, 2019 to April 22, 2019. Zoning Districts: CS(D) & PC-4846. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at efoley@m-group.us Chair Furth: Our first public hearing of the two that we’ll have today concerns 1700 and 1730 Embarcadero Road, otherwise known as the Ming’s site. This is a request for approval of site and design review and design enhancement exception, to allow the demolition of an existing 18,000 square foot vacant restaurant building and 15,700 square foot Audi service building, and the construction of a two- story, 85,000 square foot automobile dealership that combines Mercedes and Audi. The applicant has also requested a zoning amendment to change zoning of the site from CS(D) and PC – Planned Community, an obsolete zone – to CS(D)(AD) – AD is for Auto Dealership – and design enhancement exception for a build-to-line setback. Environmental assessment is a mitigated negative declaration, which is fairly complex. The public comment period on that formally closed on April 22nd. And I’m sure staff will tell us about previous reviews of this site. Before we do that, though, has anybody discussed…? First of all, have we all visited the site? Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Vice Chair Baltay: I have, yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: And I have, as well. Oh, and I should also note that the planners’ names are reversed on our two items today. It will not be Emily Foley presenting this; it will be Sheldon Ah Sing. Does anybody have any communications or discussions concerning this project to report? Osma? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I spoke with Jeff Levinsky and Karen Holman about their opinions on the project. Jeff Levinsky emailed all of us a report, so it was just explaining the report. And my discussions with Karen Holman were also about his report, and other opinions on the project. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: I just wanted to disclose that I did additional research with regards to the bike path option that we have before us. I did research on using, it’s called the Strava heat map. Basically, it’s a privately held GPS tracking company, and they track cyclists’ and runners’ movements. I did look at that to see where people were going. It was actually fairly useful. It did show that bicyclists are using that area very differently than runners. The bike path is actually for both, so I think we should actually consider it, factor that in. Chair Furth: Okay, so, that’s for the applicant to hear, that we’ve had this additional data on bicycle and runner traffic you may wish to address. What’s the name of this database you looked at? Board Member Lew: It’s called Strava, and they have a thing called a heat map, and it’s available… Chair Furth: Oh, this is the one that revealed the location of secret military bases because of all these guys running, wearing…? Board Member Lew: Yes. And it’s publicly accessible on their website. Chair Furth: It is available. Board Member Thompson: Did you find that a lot of… Chair Furth: Let’s not discuss it until we get to the hearing. Board Member Thompson: Oh, all right. We’ll wait to hear. Vice Chair Baltay: I’d like to disclose that I met two members of the public who expressed concern about compatibility with the Baylands Design Guidelines and pointed out some calculation issues regarding the FAR [Floor Area Ratio] calculation of the proposed project. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Nothing. Chair Furth: And I also did some additional research, and technically, it was just reading city documents. I took a look at the City of Palo Alto sea level rise adaptation policy recommendations adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2019, and the many, many, many documents that it links to concerning projections of sea level rise in this area over the next 20 to 30 to 40 years. And I have raised that question and concern before, so I think the applicant was well aware of that. And staff, too. All right. After all of that, Sheldon? Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Planner: Thank you for the introduction. Sheldon Ah Sing, contract planner. I do have a PowerPoint presentation today, a lot of information I’ll try to distill for you, but I’m also available for questions. The applicant is also here with a presentation. They also have a video. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Furth: Oh, Sheldon, one thing I wanted to say, this is a complicated project, and don’t rush. We need to absorb what you’re saying. Mr. Sing: Yes. It’s one of the first times I’ve actually heard that from people, not to rush. I will take my time, thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Sing: The project overview, it’s approximately a 4.82-acre site. It’s not only just the Ming’s property, it’s also the Audi property, so there are two separate properties, is something to remember. They are maintaining those properties, 1700 and 1730 Embarcadero. The request would be for a zoning amendment for the PC property to go to CS with a D overlay, an AD overlay. Chair Furth: Could you explain what those are? Mr. Sing: The “D” is a site and design combining district, and those are in places where they’re ecologically-sensitive, so it would be like in Hillside, or in this case, the Baylands. There’s separate criteria findings for that. The other portion is the Ming’s site is presently zoned CS with a D. Does not include the AD, for some reasons. All other properties in the area include the AD, but at the time when the hotel – I’ll go through that a little bit – hotel was evaluated, that AD overlay was not considered. Chair Furth: There’s no auto dealership overlay. Mr. Sing: That’s correct. That’s part of the zoning amendment. You have the site and design review, and that takes into account the special findings for being adjacent to the Baylands. We had to go to the Planning Commission – I’ll mention a little bit about that meeting. And then there is the design enhancement exception, and that is for the build-to-line setback because that is a requirement of the CS District. The other component that was a part previously was the tree canopy for parking lot shading. That’s been removed and withdrawn because the project now complies with that requirement, so it’s no longer needed. Background of 1730 Embarcadero. This is the existing Audi site. It has a PC, Planned Community 4846, and there’s a previous PC number on there that established the original dealership back in the ‘70s. It was updated to include actually the AD provisions. That was a few years ago. All of the auto dealerships that had PC on them were updated with the AD provisions, including this one. It does include a new showroom that was done a few years now, maybe three years ago. That was completed. They actually had a broader, extensive plan for the site. They only built the showroom component of that. That includes about a 19-foot setback and has a 21-foot ceiling. And why that is important is because under the AD combining district, showrooms have a max of 20 feet in height. That ends up being a non-conforming situation; to rectify that is to drop the ceiling to comply. That would be our recommendation. And we mentioned this in the last meeting. It just didn’t get a lot of traction with all the other things going on. Background for 1700 Embarcadero, the Ming’s site. As mentioned, it’s a CS(D). The existing former restaurant has been vacant now for a while. It’s a two-story building with a large parking lot. There are a number of trees in the parking lot. There’s a big setback along Baylands, primarily because there are these PG&E overhead lines. There was a plan to approve a plan for a hotel. That never went through, so the property got sold. There was an event to place a dealership on that property. This is the site plan for that. The showroom was oriented towards Baylands. Deliveries were along Embarcadero, similar to what we’re seeing now. The building had a 50-foot height. There was concerns that when we got to Council, about the compatibility with the surroundings. It was too tall. Wanted to evaluate the floor area ratio [inaudible], bird-safe windows, looking at Transit Demand Management. The landscaping maybe wasn’t appropriate for the area. There were also some cost implications of intersection improvements. That project was around 62,000 square feet, so by comparison, the building that’s on that site is approximately 55,000 square feet. Chair Furth: Could you say those numbers again? City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Sing: The proposal that went to the Council was 62,000 square feet, and the building that’s proposed on that site – because remember, they are two separate sites, so they are calculated differently – is around 55,000 square feet. For the City’s gross floor area. The math is about 7,000 square feet less. This area shows a little bit of the site context, the proximity to US 101. You can’t see the site based on some of the vegetation and elevation changes from 101. You come off of the off-ramp there, kind of come down, and you start seeing the site, and that’s in your packet. Some people would say this is the gateway. It’s not officially a gateway in the comprehensive plan, but nonetheless, it is a visible site because it is at a major intersection for the city. Surrounding that, you have the airport in the distance. You’ve got some large buildings with big setbacks, and those are characteristic of the zoning, which is the ROLM, and that’s the Light Manufacturing District. You have two car dealerships including Audi, so you have Honda next door. Then you have the golf driving range, and the Baylands are immediately adjacent to the Audi site. That is visible from the trail. A view from that trail at the rear of the Audi site. There are eucalyptus trees there now on the site. Those are to be removed and replaced with big-leaf maple and valley oaks, and those are regional type of plantings rather than the eucalyptus, which isn’t. I’ll have a simulation of what that will look like later on. As I mentioned, the project did go to the Planning Commission on March 27th, and there was a lot of discussion about the appropriateness of the use and the zoning, and that’s part of what the Planning Commission looks at, are those legislative actions. They did add a condition regarding migratory birds and replacement of mature trees, and those are included in the conditions of approval. They did not want to see the removal of the trees for the bicycle path. I have a few sites to kind of mention that, but that is definitely a trade-off on this project, is you have those trees that are along Baylands. They are mature. They provide some canopy there. However, if you remove those trees, you replace them, you can’t have any trees or structures that are over 15 feet because of the overhead lines. And PG&E could come in at any time and really lop those existing trees if they wanted to, just to maintain it. There was another condition added for lighting, regarding lighting levels in comparison to existing conditions. The applicant did come back with a pretty robust lighting study, and we can talk more about that in a bit. As I mentioned, they talked about appropriateness of the use of the area. They were concerned about the site being zoned CS, and the hotel, that didn’t go through. Now we have this dealership; what happens if the dealership doesn’t work out? They just wanted to get a better understanding of the use of that site. Of course, there were comments about the compatibility with the Baylands. The last meeting that we were here, April 4th, there were a number of things that the Board had concerns about, and the public had concerns about. There were concerns about the carwash noise. The carwash is an ancillary operation of the facility that would be used for, it’s my understanding, washing cars that may be displayed outside, or cars that are serviced, you know, as part of the service that they offer. The car wash is exterior, it’s located along the property line which is adjacent to the neighboring property, and the neighbor had concerns about the car wash noise. In response to that, the applicant, on their own, came up with an acoustical report. They had some recommendations on top of the mitigation measures that we proposed. Part of that was to extend the wall at the entrance and the exit of the car wash. These are solid walls that would be extended out. In addition to that, adding automatic closing doors, so when there is one car that is being washed on the inside, both doors are closed, and then, one would open up as you exit. That was found to reduce the noise of the car wash to an acceptable level. There were concerns about lighting, obviously, with the Baylands being adjacent. Lighting is a very sensitive issue for habitat. The applicant proposed very specific directional lighting and program lighting control system to adjust those lighting levels at those critical periods of the day. There were issues about street elevation to address more of a commercial aspect, to address more of the Baylands. You can see on the revised drawings – and I’ll go through those – that they included more screening – that was a suggestion that staff had – on the building. They planted a lot more plants. They now have a net of… I’m just counting. The shade trees, a net of 12 additional trees, and they have a lot more ornamental type of trees, as well. The building includes more glass. The parapets to the parking deck include some fiberglass, so that reduces the mass of the building. The color is, though they maintain their branding, but we believe, and look forward to direction from the Board, that what they chose was purposeful. Then, there was integration of the bike path. As I said, this City of Palo Alto Page 6 is really a big trade-off here. If you keep the trees, the only way to put a bike path is to put the bike path on their property. That’s really the only way to have that. You can’t do it as proposed because the trees are in the way. They straddle the property line, as well as some are in the City’s right-of-way. The bike path is over the property lines; I have exhibits about that. They also provided better renderings, and those are included in your packet. The applicant will go through a lot more of those. In summary, to reiterate again, the properties are to remain separate. The service drive really forms a break between the buildings there at the property line, and that upper floor of the building setback at that point, of where the buildings are close to each other. The major constraint from the site is the 80-foot easements along Bayshore. As mentioned, no structure is permitted there. It’s an above-grade easement, it’s a below- grade easement. Vegetation can’t be taller than 15 feet, or structures can’t be taller than 15 feet, so that’s a major constraint. That’s why you see a lot of ornamental types of plantings in that area. They’re adding western redbuds there. Those are the most appropriate, probably; maybe some other ones that the applicant will be open to suggestions for. The buildings are designed in such a way that there will be some crossover. The service drive can be shared amongst the two buildings. That would depend on how they want to integrate those services. The site, you can drive around the site and the perimeter. The plans include a traffic layout of how they would achieve that. The project, the base flood elevation for the site is 10.5 feet, and they have to raise the site by one foot. The finished building elevation will be at 11.5 feet. The car wash does not have to be in that same range, so that’s the one exception, but the site will be built up. Just a little bit of comparison. I’ll let the applicant go more into it of what they’ve done, but they’ve added more glass, they’ve changed some of the thickness of the horizontal elements, some of the coloring. In the renderings, you can see what they did there. The one that went before the Board in April had a very muted color, kind of tannish, and I think some of the comments were to make it more like a commercial building. It is a commercial building. So, they opened up that corner with some glass, and you can now see the stackers better. There are some louvers that were added to the side along Bayshore. You can see here some of the plantings. As you know in renderings, they can turn those on or off. It’s kind of hard sometimes when you have the landscaping; you can’t see the building. This is the difference between the showroom on the Mercedes. You can see that the horizontal roof element above the showroom is thicker. That was a comment from the Board previously. They have responded to that. And then, I think maybe the function of the rendering being better, you can see the variation of the landscaping there. They tried to take cues from the eye clinic across the street from Bayshore. This is along Bayshore here. You can see some of the changes that they’ve done. They’ve added those screening louvers to go towards the front of the building along Bayshore, towards Embarcadero. And then, that transitions, once you get past the stairwell element, that transitions to the louvers being screening with plant material on it. It’s more of an integration towards the Baylands. This is the rendering that shows the landscaping layer being turned off. This is from the rear of the Audi, looking at Mercedes. To the left, kind of behind it, would be where the car wash would be located. You can see here what those screenings would look like on the buildings. And then, you also see some of that fiberglass that’s being used for the parapet there, so you can see how that breaks up the mass. Below those fiberglass screening parapets would be some additional planters. Those were originally on the other submittal, so we feel like they’ve made a good attempt at integrating with the Baylands with landscape material on the building. This is strictly from the rear. They’re looking at the Audi building, and what they’ve done there, you can see the screening, you can see the car wash building to the left beyond the, I believe that’s an enclosure for the backup generator. And then, just to go over some of the site issues. The Audi site is adjacent to the Baylands. That’s obviously a big concern. The Mercedes site is buffered by the Audi site, as well as the adjacent building, so there’s no direct interaction with the Baylands preserve as the Audi site. There was a lot of attention that was made to adding more landscaping back there. You have the big-leaf maple, you’ve got the oak trees back there. Those are replacements of the eucalyptus trees. The 80-foot utility easement that I mentioned, the height limit is 50 feet, and that is a combination… I’ll step back a little bit. The CS District has a height limit of 50 feet. The AD overlay also would allow building sites to go up to 50 feet. So, while the rest of the area has an ROLM, and in comparison, they do have AD combined district, their floor area is .3 FAR. The base for AD is .4. If you’re going to have a dealership City of Palo Alto Page 7 building, you already have a bump up. Then there is, for the AD, you also have the inclusion of the showroom bonus of .2. Again, if you’re going to have a dealership, you’re going to have a bigger building than the rest of the buildings out there. The height limit for ROLM is 35 feet. The AD allows you to have a 50-foot height limit. There’s no build-to line setback for ROLM. There are no context design base criteria for ROLM. With the CS they are proposing and maintaining, you have a little more findings in there to get a better-looking building, so just to let you know, there are trade-offs there, whether it’s ROLM or the CS with the AD. They could propose what they’re proposing out there. The design has an exception for the build-to setback, but essentially, they can design what they have proposed. Now, with the bicycle path, there is a gap in the formal bicycle lane path along the frontage of the project to the Geng Road trail. We had suggested early on to bridge this gap somehow. We thought maybe they could do something on site. In discussions with them, they found that that was problematic because of some security, having people on their site. We did provide an alternative to have that go along the street. As you can see, this is one of the major constraints of, at the intersection is the tower, the utility pole, a number of utility boxes that are out there. And then, you can see here where the trees are, and the height. They’re obviously over 15 feet. What they did in this round, this iteration, was the existing trees are gone. As I mentioned, that’s the only way to put this design that straddles the property line. In this scenario, they maintained the number of trees, plus they added some additional trees. But they are smaller trees, ornamental trees. They’re the western redbuds. But those are compliant with the PG&E requirements. What you do have is an eight-foot path and a two-foot shoulder, the five-ten foot planter strip in places. This is something that we ran by our Transportation Department, and they are supportive of that. As I mentioned, there is a design enhancement exception. The build-to line just simply can’t comply with that along Bayshore with the easement. It could comply along Embarcadero, but as we have described in detail in the past, there’s better on-site circulation with the larger setback along Embarcadero. As I mentioned, the parking lot tree canopy is no longer an issue because of the added trees. I do want to mention with respect to design enhancement exceptions brought before the meeting, to my attention, that we are missing a couple of findings, so if there is a recommendation here, we’ll need to include those two findings with your motion. Thank you. Then we have the Baylands Master Plan. It’s a big component. They have a design guide in there, talking about the use. Only muted natural colors, choose materials and finishes that will not weather. Preserve the horizon line with low and horizontal elements. Mount fences, enclosures; reduce the size and heights of signs. And, design for practicality. And then, I provide this picture of one of the examples in the regulatory documents that shows this is a good example of the building. Here this project uses muted colors, a lot of glass, some roof elements, and I think if you look at the Mercedes project, we believe that there’s some complementary there going on. Is this building, the eye clinic, horizontal building, you know, it’s got a small footprint, but it looks like it’s taller than one story. The project site, typically in a dealership, you would have a smaller building, and then you would have a sea of parking around it. I think some would say that that’s a negative aspect of car dealerships. And I’ll go back a couple slides here. I guess we could look at what the Ming’s site is today. You’ve got kind of a modest-sized building, a big parking lot, and you’ve got a bunch of Audi cars out there right now. That’s an example of real-world, mock-up of what your typical auto dealership would look like. What they’ve done with this plan is, they’ve integrated all of that. They have very little surface parking for display, customer parking on the surface. They’ve internalized all that with parking structures that are exempted from floor area. So, yes, they do have a bigger building, but it’s because they’re putting all the negative aspects of the dealership inside. The project does include bird-safe windows. The plans are very clear about that. We may have some questions, more about that. They have addressed the lighting with a photometrics plan. They have a lighting control system. It sounds very sophisticated. If that needs to be adjusted throughout the operation, we can work with the dealership to do that. The project does include landscaping that is very consistent with the Baylands, consistent with the newer development in that area. In particular, with that buffer between the Audi site and the Baylands preserve. There was a mitigated negative declaration that was circulated between March 15 and April 22nd. We identified that there would be potential significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise and transportation. We City of Palo Alto Page 8 received one comment letter regarding tree canopies, and we believe that with the revisions to the project, that that concern has been resolved. We do have the response to comments. Those are before you. There’s a copy out on the table behind. Those are on the City’s website. We did hear a number of public comments on this project. We heard about massing, heard about FAR, height, noise, compatibility with the Baylands. And, I think as I mentioned previously, about the project will be a bigger building. I don’t think you’re going to get a one-story dealership anymore, based on the economics. But we have to make sure that we are designing it in a way that is compatible, and I think that’s why we are here today. These are all very valid comments for a project like this, and the AD District does allow for additional FAR. It exempts some floor area, allows for additional height, and that all equates to a bigger building. We don’t use volume as a measure. We use strictly floor area, and in areas where we had to make interpretations because of the stacker, for instance, is a kind of unique type of use of a floor area, we did that. If we need further direction on that, we’re here to take that, and work with the applicant on that. The next steps would be with the ARB to review the architecture, review the design enhancement exception, have a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council will review that. Adding discussion, public comment, [inaudible] majority, recommend approval with conditions. We know we want to add the additional design enhancement exception findings. If you can’t make the findings, then, you know, you’ll want to forward a recommendation of denial to Council. In any case, we just want to make sure that [inaudible] is very clear what those issues are. With that, I conclude my presentation, and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Sheldon. Just to be clear to us, usually we make recommendations to the Director of Community Development. In this case, because it’s a site and design review, this project has gone to the Planning Commission, it’s come to us, it will next go to the City Council, and that’s for the site and design aspect of it. In addition, there is a zone change. Is that right? Mr. Sing: That is correct. Chair Furth: And that concerns the Audi parcel. Mr. Sing: The subject change is for both properties because Ming’s does not have the AD. Chair Furth: Oh, Ming’s is without the Auto Dealership designation, and the other one is still a Planned Community. Mr. Sing: That’s correct. Chair Furth: Audi is still a Planned Community. Both of them would be… Audi is obviously already an Auto Dealership-designated property; Ming’s is not. Mr. Sing: That is correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: The Ming’s site was a PC before the… Chair Furth: Yes, I remember… [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: … and that’s why it doesn’t have the… Chair Furth: That’s why it’s missing the Auto Dealership. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: This is an area various city councils thought would be appropriate for auto dealerships. All right. Questions of staff before we hear from the applicant and the public. Anybody? City of Palo Alto Page 9 Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. A detailed question, Sheldon, about the height and FAR calculations. The height limit, is that measured from natural grade existing, or some variation because of the flood plain? Mr. Sing: The height is taken from the finished grade that’s adjacent to the wall. We don’t measure it from existing grade and penalize the site. Chair Furth: Wait a minute. If it’s depressed, I mean, if it has to be… So, even if they have to elevate the structures because of the flood plain, they don’t get additional height? They measure from the new finished grade, right? Mr. Sing: That’s not. Not the existing grade. Chair Furth: Not the existing grade, the new, improve grade. Mr. Sing: That’s correct. Chair Furth: And that’s a foot higher than the existing grade, in this case? Mr. Sing: Yes. Chair Furth: So it’s one foot above… Board Member Lew: No, it’s much higher than that. Chair Furth: I don’t think that’s right. Board Member Lew: There are sections in the civil drawings that show more like 4 ½ feet. Chair Furth: About 4.5 feet above existing grade. Board Member Thompson: Can you point that out because I looked at that this morning and it looks like just one foot. Chair Furth: I think it would be good to get this straight. One of our problems is we used to measure things from mean sea level, and now, that’s constantly changing. Board Member Lew: If you look in the packet, page C02.02, there are six sections that show existing grade versus the proposed grade. It’s taken from Embarcadero and East Bayshore and to the adjacent property on East Bayshore. And also, in back of the Audi dealership, towards the Baylands, and then towards the Honda dealer. It’s all there. Chair Furth: It is all there. Can you take one of those sections and explain to me what it’s showing in terms of change? Board Member Lew: Sure. Chair Furth: I see these dotted lines. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I know. It’s hard to read. I actually marked it up in color just to make it easier to read for myself. Basically, you’re going to see the grades stay the same around the property lines, and then it’s going to slope up as much as 4 ½ feet. Chair Furth: Towards the building site. Board Member Lew: Towards the building, yes. Ms. Gerhardt: And just to clarify that any building on this property would need to do this [crosstalk] up to meet the flood regulations. Chair Furth: Yes. That’s the point. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Vice Chair Baltay: My question, Sheldon, is where is the base line for the height of the building measured? Is it from the finished floor elevation – the FFE – of 11.5, or from the BFE of 10.5? You already said it’s not from the existing grade, but there seems to be about a four-foot difference there. Why are we measuring that from the floor of the building? Board Member Thompson: Sorry, can I make an extra comment? On CO1.00, if you look at the existing grade, it shows the existing contour lines, and it’s true that where the existing parking is is lower, but if you look at where the base of the existing building is, that’s being shown at 11 feet. It looks like they just extended that over so that they could keep the same floor. I think also the Audi dealership is at the… Board Member Lew: I think the difference is, when you go to Ming’s, you have to go up half a flight of stairs. Right? I think they’re actually… Because the new building has a bigger footprint, they’re raising more of the site. Board Member Thompson: But they’re keeping the existing grade of the existing building. Chair Furth: I think part of the reason we have a question, I mean, there are two issues that are of concern to us. Well, three. One is just trying to understand what we’re reading. The second one is trying to understand how this building and development respond to flood hazard. And the third one is trying to understand what people will perceive. Because people don’t perceive our formulas; they perceive the building as it is built. If the building pad is higher elevation than Bayshore, for example, they’re going to perceive that different. How does the building pad from which you’re going to…? The finished grade from what you’re going to measure, how does that compare with base line? I’m sorry. Bayshore. I know everybody else can read this, but I… Mr. Sing: Your existing building is about 10.76, just slightly above the base floor elevation. And they need to get a foot above 10.5, so that’s where the 11.5 comes in. And the height is measured from the adjacent point of the wall to the grade. There’s not a formula that says they need to be out a foot, or two feet, or five feet away, [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: And then, they are raising their pad around the building as well, so it won’t be this sudden pop-up. Board Member Thompson: They’re keeping this elevation. Chair Furth: On the one hand, that pad is three to four feet higher than the sidewalk. Am I right? They’re nodding at that. We’ll let them address that issue later. They know this almost as well as my colleagues do. Vice Chair Baltay: I was just hoping to have in the record that it seems like we’re measuring the height of the building from, essentially the finished floor of the main floor of the building, which is where the grade is just outside it. Is that right? Mr. Sing: It’s from, on the outside. It’s not the floor; it’s on the outside of the wall. That’s the grade. Vice Chair Baltay: That that is the same as the inside, in this case. Is that right? Mr. Sing: It could be, yeah. That could be the case, yes. Vice Chair Baltay: We’re assuming that the exterior grade is more or less flush with the floor around the perimeter of the building. Mr. Sing: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. The second question is, as I asked last time as well, about the car stackers, and how we count them, bulk versus volume. My understanding is that regardless of the height, the car stackers are counted once. Sort of like the footprint of them, because they’re not useable space inside. I City of Palo Alto Page 11 just want to understand if that’s the largest footprint, so to speak, or just the part of one floor. How do you go about really understanding how you apply the FAR regulations to the car stackers? Chair Furth: And just to be clear on what our question is… And we all understand that we did not write our code thinking about the latest in technology, which is constantly evolving. But this particular stacker has a footprint at ground level, and it goes up, and then it goes out. Is that right? It spreads to a larger area on upper floors, or not? Mr. Sing: There is a cantilever portion toward the front. Chair Furth: It has a larger area on upper floors. A larger footprint on the upper floors than on the ground floor. Mr. Sing: Yes, one component of it. Chair Furth: Thank you. Go ahead and answer the question, sorry. Mr. Sing: Right, so, in that case, it is kind of a new technology, and we made an interpretation of how to address that space, and we did it in such a way that we counted that as part of the one floor that was being cantilevered over. It wasn’t a separate floor; it didn’t cause for additional gross floor area. If that’s the case, maybe there’s a different direction, and then, if we’re going to take that, and if we didn’t have conversations with the applicant in the past, they’ll have to adjust accordingly. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m just trying to understand. I mean, it’s up to you to interpret the code, these kinds of things. But the car stacker counts once towards floor area. Which floor counts once? The smallest or the biggest? Mr. Sing: We counted the floor, and that’s like… That’s 10,000 square foot. Square. Chair Furth: The ground floor. Mr. Sing: The ground floor. Board Member Lew: They have all the calcs in the packet. On Sheet ZA102. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you, Sheldon. Chair Furth: And just one more question, Sheldon. I know this is in the report, but it’s so big. What code section were you interpreting when you did this? You can get back to me later on that. Ms. Gerhardt: You’re asking about FAR? Chair Furth: The floor area calculation. Is based on…? Ms. Gerhardt: It comes out of the definition, 1804. Chair Furth: I knew you’d know. Ms. Gerhardt: Gross floor area. And this is, I was saying this last hearing, but in the Research Park, we have many vaulted lobby spaces and things of that nature, so that’s the sort of rationale that we’re using. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: Also, the automotive, the relay section, has further clarifications on square footage, so it exempts, like, the covered passageway on the ground floor for cars. If it’s not used for servicing, it’s exempt. And that’s also where they mentioned the 20-foot height limit for dealer showroom areas. It’s very specific in the AD overlay. Chair Furth: Great. Any other questions of staff before we go to the public hearing? City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Thompson: I had a question about, it was sort of a pink and purple FAR calcs on Sheet ZA102. There are two vestibules that are shaded in the dark pink as dealership services, and I just wanted to double-check that those are still dark pink, or if those should be light pink. That’s kind of where the car, I think that’s where it goes into the little rotating thing. Mr. Sing: You’re talking about the two square areas and…? I apologize, I’ve seen a lot of iterations; just make sure we’re looking at the same thing. You’re saying purple? Or pink? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I’m just wondering if this is the latest, or if there was…? Because I saw a different exhibit that was showing them as light pink. I just want to confirm. Mr. Sing: Yeah. It should be pink. Board Member Thompson: It should be light pink? Okay. Mr. Sing: Yes. Board Member Thompson: These two vestibules… Chair Furth: Should be colored differently. In Sheet ZA102, the exhibit which colors different areas pink and purple, is an error, and the two vestibules to the right-hand side of the sheet that are adjacent to the pink area should be pink. Board Member Thompson: Because they’re considered showroom. Chair Furth: They’re showroom space. Okay. Could we hear from the applicant? Once you’re set up, you have 10 minutes to proceed. And I should note that we have a materials board up here, and a key to it. Mr. Sing: Just to clarify, this past week, we were making some… There were duplicates in the sheets and the plans, and that’s why you probably saw all different pink or purple. But the ZA100 summary sheet is an accurate depiction of what the floor area is. Board Member Thompson: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Sorry, this is or isn’t accurate? Board Member Thompson: He’s saying that this is inaccurate… Chair Furth: But the other one is right. The calculations are good. Thank you. Or accurate. [Applicant setting up PowerPoint] Lyle Hutson, Architect: Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board, staff. My name is Lyle Hutson. I represent YSM Design. We are the project architect for… Chair Furth: And once again, we have to ask you to spell your name for our transcriber, and feel free to speak slowly. If we need extend your time, we will. Mr. Hutson: My name is Lyle Hutson [spells name]. I am the project architect, representing YSM Design for the project in front of you today. Again, thank you very much, Madam Chair, Board members and staff. Again, staff has done an excellent job presenting this project. No way to do it in its entirety, so I’m sure there’s going to be plenty of questions, and I think we want to make sure that we get to all of your answers and all of the questions that you have. Separate from the presentation that Sheldon made, we have a little presentation, maybe showing a little more graphically what this project is all about. You’ve seen this before, so I’m not going to be overly verbose about what the concept is here. This is an automotive facility that shares two separate projects. The Audi project is an existing showroom and service facility. The existing showroom was approved and built a few years ago under the AD that you have been reviewing. The service department back behind that abuts the Baylands was also going to be City of Palo Alto Page 13 a separate phase in this that was never completed, and this project allows us the opportunity to complete that project, as well as utilize the adjacent Ming’s site for a separate franchise. These are two separate franchises. They have one ownership group. They operate independently, yet they have some back-of- the-house sharing of circulation only. They both have their own service departments, parts departments, refuse disposal. They do share the car wash in the back behind Audi, again, as well as circulation back behind. The challenge of this site certainly is, first and foremost, the circulation…. Excuse me, and the easement that we have with PG&E, which is further compounded by a significant number of utilities, both private and public, in Embarcadero and the Bayshore street frontages and shared areas. It’s been a challenge from the very beginning to put together a project that has enough viability to make use of this land. The hotel was a huge proposal. Didn’t work, wasn’t compatible, didn’t make it through. The previous car dealership, similar, same manufacturer, but a different approach. We’ve approached this a little bit differently. Rather than having the vehicles out in front, we’re taking advantage of technology and the opportunity to do something very unique here, and further the automotive business in the way they sell and service automobiles. That’s basically taken up with the interior car storage system, taking virtually all of the frontline display and taking it inside. We have one vehicle display out on the front, in the frontage area. There are some areas on the outside of the building that we would use for transition to drive cars in and out. Those could also be used maybe as some display, but essentially no car slots, no parking stalls, no city parking stalls are used for vehicle display, which is totally different than the Honda dealership or many others that you see. We’re trying to take advantage of the technology and a different way of selling cars. We’re taking those cars off of the front. We’re putting them inside. There’s no need to wash those cars every day, as most dealerships do, so you’ve got hundreds of cars – and literally, in this case, there are hundreds of cars on site – that will be within the stacker, not out on the parking lot in order to display those. I won’t go into the way the system works, but we’ve internalized that. That also allows us to minimize the vehicle washing. We have a car wash on site. We can go through the sound mitigation measures and the location of that as needed. We did take into consideration the previous Board comments very carefully, and concisely going through what our concerns and what your concerns were and trying to meld those two together. Sheldon did a very admirable job describing what we’ve done with regards to our materials and our finishes and our colors and our adaptation of the transition to the Baylands with the significant addition of the green screen louvers, both to the Bayshore side, the Audi side, and the rear of the Audi, and the rear of Mercedes. So, whether there is a visual connection from the Baylands to the back of the dealership, there was some comment about being institutional back there. I think we’ve addressed that, in addition to making that a transition from green to even greener in the Baylands. We did take into account some additional glazing in front and make this become the commercial project that we feel like it should be as it relates to the sale of automobiles. All glass is, as been described before, is bird-safe glass. We’ve committed to that 100 percent everywhere. We have glass, in an effort to minimize that. I will talk just briefly about our lighting. That was a huge concern last time, and we have a full comprehensive package for the light levels, the mitigation of any lighting towards the Baylands, which is a significant number, way less than one percent, or one-foot candle, which we maintain… There’s virtually no poles in the back behind Audi to facilitate lighting. We’ve eliminated any up lighting to the building in an effort to really trying to keep the product, the vehicles, the significant individual aspect, and not the building itself. We’re not highlighting the building with up lights or anything like that. Transitioning maybe to the bike path and the transit portion. You can see on the slide the yellow area, which is the bicycle bridge that goes across 101 and onto Bayshore, very close to where the Bayshore entrance is, and the bike path there. The proposal before you today still maintains the shared bicycle and pedestrian path that shares some of the private property and some of the public property along Bayshore and Embarcadero. The significance of that is that the existing trees need to be removed in order to provide the size path that’s required by City Traffic. I assume that that is an industry standard or a nationwide standard for when you have a combined path with pedestrians and bicycles. And you can see the same path basically in the Baylands itself, so it’s similar to that in size. That shares pedestrians and bicycles. The bicycle path is for any bicycle, and it basically takes the cyclists going one way – which would be north on Bayshore – off of Bayshore, onto our property behind the drive aisle, City of Palo Alto Page 14 across the front of Bayshore, around the power line structure, if you will, across Embarcadero, and then back out onto the street once it passes the Audi dealership. We’re basically circumventing that portion for pedestrians and the bicycles. We’re not making any judgment on that at all. We could be persuaded either way, but the presentation that you have before you took into account considerable effort by staff to get us to a point where we could get traffic – bicycle traffic, I presume – off of Bayshore and Embarcadero on that right-hand turn. This shows the location. I think you’ve seen a number of times where we are in relationship to the Baylands. We back up at the Audi project, backs up directly to the Baylands, and Mercedes does not yet. We’ve treated the back and the sides of both buildings similar to the point to where we are hopefully setting a precedent for other projects and other developments, that we can integrate the green with and habitat with the Baylands, even though we’re not either directly adjacent or visible from. The existing site, a number of comments have been made by the City. Public comments, we’ve talked about volume. There is no volume measurement as it relates to codes. That’s just not the way it’s calculated. Please pay particular attention to the fact that this is two projects, so the numbers maybe that have been reported are combined numbers and should be treated separately. We are actually a smaller project than certainly the previous dealership, and certainly the hotel. The fact that we have taken some 300 cars off of the street and put them in – between 250 and 300 cars – that would be, if you had city parking area with drive aisles, that’s approximately 70,000 to 90,000 square feet of parking area that we’re not using out on the street or in a parking structure. I just wanted to make sure that that was reiterated. And you can see, there is our massing study with the appropriate heights on our building and the adjacent buildings, and I think we very well complement the neighborhood and the transition from Embarcadero and Bayshore to the other commercial projects. You’ve seen this before. This is the massing elevation study between our building, which is four feet higher than the street elevation because the street doesn’t change, so we do have to make a transition to some 4 ½ feet from the street on Embarcadero and Bayshore up to our project. Chair Furth: Excuse me. About how much more time do you think you would need? Mr. Hutson: I’m just going to go through this. Maybe three minutes. Chair Furth: Is the commission willing to…? Is that acceptable to the Board? It’s my call, I say yes. You’re over by one minute, so try to wrap up [crosstalk]. Mr. Hutson: Okay. Mr. Sing: You have a video, too, by the way. Mr. Hutson: Site development, we’ve indicated before. Again, this is just a reiteration of the parking and traffic flow with the bicycle path and pedestrian path in blue. In front. This is an illustrative plan with the provided landscape and buffers between vehicle areas. And again, these are all in your package, so I won’t dwell on those. You have a material and color board in front of you with physical samples today. You can flip it over and see the… There’s another board as well that has the, they’re basically the same. You can just see what the materials and finishes are. There was a desire to have more illustrative renderings, and I’m going to go through those real quickly. This is the Audi. This is the front of Mercedes with the vegetation. This is without the trees, showing the redbud trees. Chair Furth: Could you do that one more time, please? Mr. Hutson: Oh, good question. Chair Furth: Don’t… Never mind. Mr. Hutson: It shows, typically. Thank you. With and without. Each one of these is showing with and without the proposed vegetation. It’s kind of hard to see the building, but… Chair Furth: That’s fine. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Hutson: Again, as it’s proposed from the corner of Embarcadero and Bayshore. And then removed. The corner; removed. We do have some cars that come out of those three doors. Those are our delivery vehicles. There are no parking spaces devoted towards new cars. This is Bayshore. Pretty much obscures the building. The lower half. The back portion. You can look at these a little closer to see the proposed louvered screens. They’re a green screen with plugged planting in between and irrigated. They don’t come up from the bottom. Each one of those areas is plugged for the vegetation, and those occur, some on Bayshore as we transition around to the back of Mercedes, along the back of Mercedes, and all along the back portion until we get to the rear portion of Audi. Audi has a different base color at the ground floor than Mercedes does. That’s a corporate identity issue. But additional vegetation that we’ve added, along with shade trees along the back where the car wash is. And you can see, without the trees. View from the Bayshore before; and view after. We are absolutely trying to hide the back of the building from visibility, yet still meet the transition and the vegetation to allow… We’re not just blocking it off. We’re integrating the back of our building, and the sides as well, to the Baylands. Chair Furth: [off-microphone] Mr. Hutson: Okay. Yeah. Chair Furth: You will have time to respond again after we hear from the public. Let’s ask our questions after we’ve heard from the public, shall we? We have some public comment cards. First is Jeff Levinsky, to be followed by Karen Holman, and then, Wayne Kumagai. To be followed by Don McDougall. We’ll call you out again. Mr. Levinsky, you have three minutes. Welcome. Jeff Levinsky: Good morning, Board members. It’s Jeff Levinsky [spells name]. I guess I’d like to talk about an issue that has already come up, which is the difference in size between this and the previous building proposal. As I put in my written comments, I believe this building is 51 percent larger in volume than what was proposed earlier. And the reason I’m using volume is because floor area is not a particularly good measure of how the public will experience the size of the building. First of all, as you know, about half of this building isn’t even floor area; it’s simply exempted from floor area, yet it’s there. Parts of the building aren’t being counted as floor area, although they should be counted as floor area. The ceiling height on some parts of this building is 40-plus feet high. And if it were the case that everything but floor area were invisible, then that would be great. But it’s all going to be visible to the public. The comment was made that we don’t use volume to measure buildings, but the fact is, that is how they are perceived. And, by the way, in the code, it doesn’t say you’re supposed to only use floor area to look at the mapping of a building. And, we do talk about building envelope in various parts of our code, the building envelope being the three-dimensional outline of the building. One of the rules we have is that when a building is grandfathered, it’s not allowed to increase its building envelope, and that came up with the building right across the street from here, where even though the floor area was going to be the same, the Council looked at it and said, “No, its apparent volume is going to increase,” and they turned that down. The Council and the public are sensitive, I believe, to these matters. I also have put in my comments on specific things about the showroom exemption, and you heard some staff remarks on that. The showroom exemption that was in the PC is not the same showroom exemption that is available if the sites get rezoned. Something that qualified under the old PC doesn’t necessarily qualify for the showroom exemption under the new one. Finally, I think that this project has the potential to be a good one if the right design perspective is there, but as it stands, this will be the largest, most stand-outish building of its kind in the Baylands. There is nothing else like it in terms of the size of the building, and although I think they’ve taken it out of your staff report, in the previous staff report they claimed that it wasn’t the largest, but we couldn’t find any measure on which this wouldn’t be the largest building around. Please keep that all in mind as you look at this project. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Levinsky. Karen Holman. Karen Holman: Good morning, and thank you. I concur with the comments of the prior speaker. By far the biggest concern with this project is the mass and scale. In spite of that, we still don’t have in the plan City of Palo Alto Page 16 set context drawings, context photographs. They still aren’t provided. FAR is not the driver here, but the massing is. It’s also an up-to. Heights and FARs are up-to’s. They are not guaranteed, and especially in a sensitive setting like this in the Baylands. I also disagree with the staff report where it says that this is not a gateway, technically. I refer again to the Baylands Master Plan, Map L4, defines Embarcadero Road east of 101 as a scenic corridor, and identifies the intersection of Embarcadero Road and East Bayshore as a gateway. It’s clear there. Also, there were comments last time about how this isn’t in the Baylands. It is. The guidelines talk about when reviewing or designing projects located in any part of the Baylands, the design principles and concepts should be applied in the service and commercial areas, as well as anyplace else in the Baylands. Twenty-three hundred East Bayshore started with a landscape plan, and that’s what helped soften that project. This project isn’t starting there. Another comment in the Baylands that this is a scenic route and gateway, and the importance of that compatibility. This is not El Camino. This is going to be a destination. I don’t think anybody here is trying to stop there from being a Mercedes dealership there. But this is a destination, so I don’t think there needs to be a big, showy building to attract people to it. It does not have a line of sight from 101. It doesn’t have a line of site along El Camino Real. This building could be moderated to be much more compatible and fit into the Baylands. This is, because it’s a rezoning also, you all have, in my opinion, more than the regular mount of discretion. A rezoning is very much a discretionary action, so you could require the trees to stay in the plan. Lighting and hours of operation are a big concern. The bollard lighting at the front are just hot spots of light. Even if you can’t see the source of the lighting, it’s still a hot spot of light, which is bad for migratory animals. The grade question has been raised. The large black tower, does it serve any purpose besides being a logo for the dealership? If there’s a monument sign in the front, that identifies so that when somebody gets there, they know this is a Mercedes dealership. Again, this is not a site that you’re going to be attracted to because you’re seeing it from 101 or El Camino. What’s the purpose of that tower? It’s a large, large element. And taking cars off of the street or the parking lot, I’ll give you that, but it’s a very large trade-off to then have a massive building where much of the space is not counted. It’s a trade-off. It’s not necessarily the perfect solution to getting cars off the street or off a parking lot. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Our next speaker is Wayne Kumagai, to be followed by Don McDougall. Jin: Good morning. Wayne has a doctor’s appointment and he has to be… Chair Furth: I’m sorry, you need to be a little closer to the microphone. It does adjust. Jin: He has a doctor appointment. He has to leave. He left. Chair Furth: He had to leave earlier? Jin: Yeah, he has a doctor appointment. Chair Furth: Oh, I’m so sorry. And your name is? Jin: My name is Jin [last name inaudible]. I’m the owner of the adjacent building, at 2479 East Bayshore. I want to point out, in my building, most of the tenants are [inaudible] residents. They are small business content, office. Many tenants came to me to speak of their concern for the car wash noise. They told me the existing car wash [inaudible] already generates lots of noise. They said that even closer to our side, immediately adjacent, no [inaudible]. They cannot afford that, so they consider to leave the space. Chair Furth: You represent the party next to this property, and the tenants include lawyers and small businesses… Jin: Small business…. Chair Furth: … and they have reported that the existing car wash operations create noise that is a nuisance and a disturbance to them. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Jin: Already, yes. Chair Furth: Already. Even when the doors are closed. Is that what you were saying? Jin: Mm-hmm. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Jin: Thank you. Chair Furth: Don McDougall. To be followed by Terry Holzemer. Don McDougall: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Don McDougall [spells name]. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. McDougall: I’m currently chairman of the Parks and Rec Commission, but I’m speaking on my own behalf, not on behalf of the commission. I’d like to comment that I think Mercedes and Lyle have done a very definite effort to accommodate the Baylands as neighbors. I think their spirit has certainly been correct. If anything, I’m disappointed that the Parks and Rec Commission wasn’t, at some point, recommended to be included in the conversation by either Planning or ARB, since we are the neighbors, and we are the stewards of the Baylands, and I’m sure that we could have participated in making this a much more optimized relationship for the city. I appreciate the replacement of trees and so on, but I think maybe it would have been useful if we had been included in the discussion. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Terry Holzemer. Terry Holzemer: Good morning, Commissioners. I’m here today… Chair Furth: I’m sorry, I still have to ask you to spell your name. Mr. Holzemer: [spells name]. I’m here today as a resident and as a regular user of the Baylands. This is something that I’ve loved about Palo Alto, it’s something that I care deeply about, and I think many of our residents do. I oppose the current design of the project, for several reasons. First of all, the building massing, which has already been described in much more detail than I’m going to describe it, but I believe it is one of the largest buildings in this immediate area, and it does not really fit in with the surrounding buildings at all. You’re asking residents to, every time they visit the Baylands, to be presented with this massive car dealership standing at the gateway to what we consider to be one of the pristine and special areas of Palo Alto. I believe that this building, even though it has some benefits… I mean, I’m not against a car dealership at the location. But I do believe that this doesn’t fit in with the surrounding community, or with the general ideas of what this area means to Palo Alto. Again, I would like to emphasize that I do believe this is a gateway to the Baylands, and this is a major environmental area to the citizens of Palo Alto. I’m just going to use one example. My wife and I regularly go out there and walk the paths, and one of the things we love about this area is that we feel that once we step into the Baylands, we’re in a new place. We’re not in the urban society that is really around us, but we’re in a different environment. And I think it does relieve some of the stresses of daily life that all of us face – the congestion, the traffic. And this has to be protected, and I mean in a special way. I think the gateway is something to be looked at, not just in terms of does it meet the definition of a gateway, but whether it truly fits in with the spirit of what this area means. Finally, I’ll just mention environmentally, I think it’s important that the lighting and the migratory birds be protected. I think that this is an important area that needs to be looked at very closely. And not only just the birds, but the other wildlife that live in the area. This needs to be looked at very closely in terms of lighting, and just in traffic that people will come there to. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Shani? City of Palo Alto Page 18 Shani Kleinhaus: Good morning. My name is Shani Kleinhaus. I’m the environmental advocate for Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. Chair Furth: And I still have to ask you to spell your name again. We don’t always have the same transcriber. Ms. Kleinhaus: [spells name]. I have talked to Lyle about this project as a representative of the Audubon Society. He showed me a sample of the glass. I think the glass is a good selection. The UV on the building that is already there, UV doesn’t work, a lot of the birds don’t see it, so this etched glass is a better solution. I also want to say that he has been open to other suggestions. I asked for more enhancement of trees in the back towards the Baylands, and the response was that we could put a few more [inaudible] small trees in the parking, but we can also contribute trees to the Baylands to put along the fence, or somewhere else where it makes sense. I’m going to meet with staff later next week to discuss what kind of trees, and they offered to provide irrigation for those trees, to actually create some enhancement, both visually and for the birds. I wanted to say that the conflict between trees and trails, the trails are winning and we’re losing our urban forest, and that’s a big deal for us. And it’s not only here. It’s a lot of different places, not only in Palo Alto, where, oh, the transportation trumps the trees and the urban forest. And that’s a big loss in [inaudible] trees. And I think we really need to think about to make… Applicants in general cannot just say, “Oh, we can only do one or another.” We find that to be very, very difficult because we see the loss. And in terms of glass in general, I think minimizing glass in general, not only on this project, really is really important for heating and cooling and saving energy. The American Association of Engineers, including refrigeration engineers, no more than 30 percent. You can get to 40 percent. Once you get beyond 40 percent, you cannot have a glazing that actually is sustainable. And we need to start thinking about it on any building, and have lights for your feet, to start minimizing glass. That’s really, really important for sustainability and for, in my opinion, also for aesthetics. But that’s just… And it saves birds. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Do I have a card from you? Male??: I’m with the project. Chair Furth: Okay, then I think we are ready to hear from the applicant again. You have another 10 minutes, and you may pick whoever you wish. Mr. Hutson: I am going to abdicate some of my time to my colleagues. Again, thank you very much. I just wanted to quickly comment on the – I have my notes here – on what was discussed here, earlier. Designation project is correct. This is a destination dealership, but it also is going to be more than that. Once someone is at this location, they have opportunity for them to, while they wait for their car to be serviced, to get introduced to maybe an area of Palo Alto that they haven’t seen before. Along those lines, I will share that the dealership has began a program with Audi to start with, since it’s there now, similar to one they do in another location, where they provide bicycles to people who have their car serviced, to be able to rent those bicycles. They can use the Baylands. And if we can get loaner cars off the street for a few hours or a few days, it’s a program that’s been pretty successful. It’s kind of a win/win. It frees up cars to the dealership, and it also provides an opportunity to use this. A similar project is in Colorado, and they back up to a wetlands as well. This is a program that will be coming. It’s already… It’s not impacted by this project, but I wanted to share that with you, that this is going to be more than a destination, as was discussed. The height is below the required. The allowable height limit is 50 feet. We do have a couple areas, and those are stair towers that are at 50 feet. The rest of them are down at 44. The comment about the black tower, that is a stair tower. We have to have a stair that goes down to and exits directly to the outside, and that is essentially the function of that one, and the other two stair towers. The car wash has been a continual discussion with our neighbors next door, and I think maybe there is some confusion. The car wash that is there now is nothing more than a detail area where they spray wash cars. It is not going to continue in this configuration. We are proposing an enclosed car wash that recirculates the water, captures the water that is used for the car wash. We have doors on the City of Palo Alto Page 19 car wash that will be closed. It’s automatic, so the equipment will not operate unless the doors are closed. Once the equipment is finished operating, the doors open up and the car moves out. We have effectively taken that down to between 55 and 65 decibels for our neighbors. And I might also share that the noise study that was done indicates that the ambient noise level in that back corner is now 55 decibels. We’re essentially about the same as the ambient noise coming from 101. That’s part of the larger package that staff has regarding the noise study. Finally, I just wanted to say yes, we did have some communications with Shani and the Audubon Society regarding habitat and opportunity. We’ve committed to providing additional trees off-site if that’s something that can be worked out within the City and Parks. Maybe that’s not something that can happen, but if there is an opportunity to put some additional trees on the other side of the property, we’re happy to commit to do that, and provide irrigation. With that, I want to turn it over to our landscape architect because I think they’d like to comment on the concept. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Puncerelli: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the ARB. My name is Ken Puncerelli [spells name], and I’m with LAI Design Group, and we are part of the team as landscape architects. A couple comments that I heard at our last hearing. I’m going to run through them, there are about 10 of them. Number 1 was increase the quantity of native plants; more plants and trees; provide a better buffer to the Baylands; provide trees and shrubs that are native and/or regional and comply with the Baylands, so essentially provide a nod to the Baylands; screen facilities from the Baylands, as well as our neighbors in the office building south and east of us. We want both the bike multipurpose path and trees. We want to also buffer the bicycle and pedestrians from the dealership. And then, we also want that to be a safe pathway for both bicyclists and pedestrians. And then, also, with respect to scale of the building, wanted to see more transitions, more color versus all white, and some way to relate to pedestrian scale. A couple of things that have come up here also include the massing. I’m going to go through those one by one very quickly because I know there is a concern on time. On our prior plan, we had 61 trees. This plan has 126. The existing Ming’s property had 52 trees. If you look at the combined properties – Audi and Mercedes – in the existing condition, we had about 19,000 square feet of shade canopy on both of those properties, in the existing condition. Today, on our proposed plan, we have over 63,000 square feet of shade canopy, which meets the 50 percent shade coverage per code. The prior plan had 5,300 plants. This plan has 7,300 plants in all of the landscaping areas. Effectively, what we have done is substituted all of our trees to native per the request of the ARB, and the same with the shrubs and grasses. The only places that are not native, that are accents, are in pots and containers near the dealership. We have increased the quantity of plants. Sheldon, if it’s possible to bring up the color-rendered Master Plan, you will see that the trees that were removed along Bayshore Drive were replaced with ornamental trees that comply with PG&E height requirements. Those will provide a nice transition between the building, parking, and pedestrian multi-use area. And then, there is layering with plant material, so we’ve got grasses that are three to four feet high between the parking lot and the multi-purpose trail, and then, there’s also grasses, the Mendocino grasses that we have that are between the multi-purpose trail and the street. Those are about two feet high because we can’t go over that because of visibility and safety and sight triangles. We’ve actually created quite a nice environment. And with respect to the building massing, the quantity of plant material, particularly with trees, cuts the massing significantly. And because the building is not right up on the zero property line like a building you might experience in downtown San Francisco, where it’s right at the property line and you look right up at a building, be it three stories or 20 stories, it does not have that feel. The building is set back from the property line, and you have adequate vegetation to transition so it doesn’t feel imposing to pedestrians. The other detail we provided is, if you look at the site plan, there is a textured surface in the drive aisle along Embarcadero and Bayshore, and that is to replicate kind of a cobblestone pathway. Those stones are, the sizes of them are 18 inch by 24 inch, so those are in an attempt to be authentic, and also provide another texture and detail relationship to pedestrians. That essentially summarizes the significant changes. It’s unfortunate that we couldn’t pull up the plan, but I know you have it in your packet. We also have some color- City of Palo Alto Page 20 rendered sections showing Embarcadero and the parking, as well as Bayshore and the parking, so you can see the relationship of the landscape and pedestrian realm. I hope that that satisfies items regarding landscape, massing, bulk plane. And I think as Lyle and Shani earlier mentioned, our team is willing to add trees out into the Baylands. We can easily add landscaping irrigation to those areas beyond the fence. Thank you. Chair Furth: You have another 20 seconds if you’d like to say something. Mr. Hutson: You want to talk about lighting? Chair Furth: Why don’t we wait and see? We have seen your lighting plans. Let me see if we have questions. You only have 20 seconds left, so let’s see if we have questions. All right. Thank you. I am going to take a five-minute break before we deliberate. We’ll be back promptly. Anything anybody else wants to say before then? Board Member Thompson: Are we asking questions after? Chair Furth: Yeah, I would like to ask questions after the five-minute break. We’ll be back in five minutes. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: I’d like to call the meeting of the Architectural Review Board back into session. We’re considering a proposal for a Mercedes-Benz and Audi dealership on Embarcadero, at the corner of Embarcadero and Bayshore. I think we were on questions. Peter, you’re up. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, to the applicant. I wonder if you could explain to me in more detail the lighting plans. It seems like you’ve done quite a bit of work on the lighting design. If you could walk us through that, please? Chair Furth: Do you think that was well cued? Mr. Hutson: Again, Lyle Hutson. Thank you very much. I’d like to yield this to our lighting consultant, who could answer any of those questions. Chair Furth: Thank you. And we will take a quick pause here for mopping up spilled coffee, then we will continue. [Cleaning up coffee.] Chair Furth: All right. If you could introduce yourself again. And spell your name for the transcriber. Frances Krahe: Good morning. My name is Frances Krahe. Madam Chair and members of the ARB… Chair Furth: Could you speak up? That mic is a very… You have to be very close to it. It will adjust to your height. Thank you. Mr. Krahe: As Lyle mentioned, we’re the lighting design consultants for the project. We completed a study, which I believe you have a copy of in your packet, which included a proposed lighting plan for exterior lighting on both the Audi site and the Mercedes-Benz site, which would comply with the requirements of CALGreen, the California green building code, current 2016 version. Our study looked at two issues that pertain to lighting. The first is light trespass, illuminates, which is the value of foot candles that would leave the property and be incidental on an adjacent site. We conducted a computer study with the proposed lighting plan, analyzing the value of vertical illuminates at the project property line, in particular looking at the light trespass to the Baylands, but we also analyzed the light trespass to the adjacent commercial properties and the adjacent street frontage. The plan that has been submitted complies with the requirements of CALGreen, which is limited to 0.74-foot candles at the commercial or street frontage elevations, and .09-foot candles at the Baylands. Those two values are determined from a City of Palo Alto Page 21 table within CALGreen that stipulates that all urban census areas in the state of California are categorized as Zone 3, which is 0.74-foot candles, unless there is an exception or unique circumstance that would change that standard higher or lower. We used the most conservative value at the Baylands, which would represent the value in a pristine native habitat setting, where there essentially would be no ambient light. This is far more stringent than the existing conditions, which include parking lots that are illuminated to a standard that predates this current CALGreen standard. The new building design would dramatically improve the light trespass from this property to any adjacent property, including the Baylands, by about a 90 percent factor over what is the current conditions existing today on the property. It’s a far greater improvement in terms of the environmental compliance of this proposed project versus the existing commercial uses on both the Audi existing property, and their adjacent neighbors on the two commercial properties flanking the Audi property, and the existing restaurant site. The second factor that we looked at is light with respect to glare and the brightness of the light sources, their visibility either off site or from, again, some sensitive use like the Baylands. Again, the project must comply with CALGreen, and there are very specific stipulations in CALGreen that regulate the brightness of the light fixtures that would be adjacent to any property line and visible off site. The lighting fixtures that are proposed in the plan meet that most stringent requirement for the backlight, up light and glare standard that’s part of CALGreen, and they are also directional and oriented from the perimeter of the property, internally. They’re not directed to any off-site location. Again, that’s a far more rigorous amount of lighting control versus what exists there today, both on the existing property or any of the adjacent properties. On the basis of that plan and our analysis we presented to you, the project would actually reduce the light trespass and glare substantially from what exists today, and it would certainly not introduce a new source of light trespass or glare. If I can answer any further questions. Chair Furth: Any further questions? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Chair Furth: Everybody seems to have it, so, starting on the left. Alex. Board Member Lew: I wanted to just follow up. Karen Holman had mentioned bollard lights, and I think there are some shown in the architectural renderings, and then you have the lighting plans which show them only in one particular location. I was wondering if you could clarify for everybody that [crosstalk]. Mr. Krahe: The architectural plan showed bollards at the bike path, pedestrian path at the project perimeter. If we were to locate those bollards on the project site to illuminate the bike path, that would be in violation of CALGreen because those lights would be projected across the property line to illuminate the public right-of-way to a value that exceeds the limits of CALGreen. So, we’ve removed them from the lighting plan. If they are to light the path, they would need to be located in the public right-of-way or the easement and not on the project site. Board Member Lew: Our code is tricky. Mr. Krahe: Yes. Board Member Lew: I have one other question, a follow-up question. Now you have, on the light fixture, type SA and SA1. I was wondering if you could explain how that light fixture works. I did look on the website and it didn’t really explain it very clearly. And then, on the fixture SA, which has the extra flood light, what is that extra flood light illuminating on your project. Mr. Krahe: If you look at the rendered elevations of the project that are at the back of the packet, you can see that the light poles that are along the Mercedes frontage to Embarcadero and Baylands, they are oriented… the distribution of those light fixtures is asymmetric, so it’s oriented from the light pole back towards the building façade and the roadway that’s internal to the Mercedes-Benz frontage. They’re just lighting the roadway. They’re really just for circulation… City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Lew: Internal circulation. Mr. Krahe: Correct. Board Member Lew: Great. And I think you said “Baylands,” but I think you meant East Bayshore. Mr. Krahe: East Bayshore, that’s right. Board Member Thompson: Are they on in this rendering? Mr. Krahe: They are. Board Member Thompson: And they are the tall ones? Mr. Krahe: Correct. Board Member Thompson: And they’re shining down on the ground? Mr. Krahe: They’re shining down, but they’re canted and oriented down and back towards the building. Board Member Thompson: So, the actual glass element of that light… Mr. Krahe: No. The glass is symmetrical and cylinder. Internal to the glass is an optical glass that orients the light in that direction. Board Member Thompson: The glass doesn’t light up. Mr. Krahe: Correct. It’s clear. It’s not a bright lens surface. The light source is above, within the opaque section that’s above that clear glass lens. Like I said, it’s directional. It can be symmetrical or asymmetrical. And in the case of the study that we presented, they are asymmetric. Board Member Lew: If I may ask a follow-up question. On sheet 23 of our packet, which is the lighting plan, or lighting rendering, what is illuminating the…? Mr. Krahe: There are lights within the exterior façade canopy. There is a canopy structure outside of the building glazing, and there are downlights within that roof structure that are lighting down, to light the walkway and the stairs and the platform that leads into the showroom itself. Board Member Lew: Okay. And I think that those don’t appear on our drawings. Mr. Krahe: They do appear on the lighting plan, that’s part of the lighting plan. Board Member Lew: I see. Mr. Krahe: It may be difficult to read because it’s quite small. Yes. A surface cylinder that’s mounted to the canopy structure of the… Board Member Lew: Okay, I think it’s just that we don’t have the fixture for that. Okay. Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Sorry. On that rendering, so, the bright strip at the base of the building, that’s not its own source of light? Mr. Krahe: Correct. It’s separate. Board Member Thompson: It’s reflecting the light. Mr. Krahe: Correct. Board Member Thompson: Off the canopy. Mr. Krahe: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Furth: And do I – excuse me, Osma – do I understand, if I look, for example, at Sheet 23, and it shows this, it looks like it’s an illuminated dance floor, that that’s not the way it would appear in real life? Mr. Krahe: I’m not sure I understand which…? Chair Furth: Look at sheet number 23. A very bright band along the floor. Mr. Krahe: Well, these are… Chair Furth: It’s the artifact of the rendering, not the actual experience of the lights? Mr. Krahe: Well, I would say it’s very difficult to represent night lighting in any sort of printed view. These renderings are generated from the calculations… Chair Furth: I’m not criticizing the rendering. I’m trying to understand the experience of driving by at night. Mr. Krahe: But to be clear, the lighting values inside the showroom are substantially higher than the light values on the roadway and on the path. In order for us to meet the threshold at the project perimeter, the lighting level at the pathway and the road is relatively low in comparison to the lighting level that is required and necessary for lighting the walkway up to the building, which is approximately 10 foot candles, and the lighting within the showroom, which is much higher. Those values are all established by code and by recommended practice of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, which is the professional standard that the lighting will be judged by if there’s any questions of performance or liability. Chair Furth: Well, let me ask a really dumb question. When this is closed, how brightly illuminated is it? Mr. Krahe: Well, it can be substantially lower in terms of the internal lighting. And I think we’ve described that in the plan, that there is a sequence of operations, and there is a dimming schedule which responds to the use of the facility. After dusk, it would be at one level; later in the evening it could be reduced gradually over the course of the evening. I think that after hours, late at night, there would be some internal lighting for security and safety for people inside the building, but it would be substantially less than it would be right after sunset. Chair Furth: And it would not be display-level lighting. It would not be designed to look at cars from the road. Mr. Krahe: No. Chair Furth: Thank you. Other questions? Board member Hirsch. David. Board Member Hirsch: You know, a major feature of the building is the stacking units. I’m looking at ZA400b, and I don’t see the stacking units in this at all. It’s a dramatic element in this building. Are you turning it off at some hour? Mr. Krahe: The plan is to illuminate the stacking units, again, from dusk… I mean, they’ll be illuminated during the day and the evening at a minimal level for safety, but they are rendered in the studies with some feature lighting after hours, after sunset, but that would gradually decrease that brightness as the building was less occupied. Board Member Hirsch: Building goes to sleep, in other words. Mr. Krahe: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Mr. Sing: Just to interject, on Packet Page 27, condition 6 is regarding lighting. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Furth: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: I have a question on lighting in a different area. The rooftop parking deck has long been a concern of mine, that it not be too brightly visible from off the property. Can you walk me through, how is that being lit now? And what are you doing so it’s not visible through the translucent parapet wall? Mr. Krahe: The lighting that’s proposed is mounted to the back side of the parapet wall where there are opaque sections, and projecting light across that parking deck surface from the perimeter. There are no light poles, there are no tall light structures above the roof deck. Vice Chair Baltay: All the lights up there are below the level of the parapet. Mr. Krahe: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: And when they are on, is the parapet wall brightly lit because it’s translucent? How much comes through the parapet wall? Mr. Krahe: I don’t believe where we’ve located it is where we have opaque sections, so that it’s not visible. And it’s not intended to light the parapet wall itself. It’s projecting light away from the parapet wall to the interior. What you’re seeing in these rendered views is the brightness of the light on the ground surface adjacent to the parapet wall, not the vertical surface of the parapet wall. Vice Chair Baltay: On rendering ZA400b, which is the nighttime view of the corner Board Member Hirsch was just referring to, would this be showing roof deck lights being turned on and it will still look this dark? Mr. Krahe: They are on in those rendered views, correct. Vice Chair Baltay: They’re on in that rendered view. Mr. Krahe: Yes, exactly. Vice Chair Baltay: Parking is on, and it’s still like this. Mr. Krahe: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: I have one more question. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: On page 24 and 25 of the lighting report, are the interior lights on to their full brightness that they would be during operational times? Mr. Krahe: Yes. In those rendered views, they are, yes. Board Member Thompson: As well as the parking above? Mr. Krahe: Correct. I should point out, though, the calculation for the exterior lighting at the property line includes only the exterior lighting. That is the regulatory standard. It does not include interior lighting. Board Member Thompson: That’s the numbers we’re seeing… Mr. Krahe: Correct. Board Member Thompson: … on the ground. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Mr. Krahe: Correct. Board Member Thompson: But the images here… Mr. Krahe: But the rendered views include both the interior and the exterior. Otherwise, the building would just be a black mass, so we included the interior lighting to illustrate the relative brightness between the exterior site lighting and the interior lighting. Board Member Thompson: Are there additional streetlights that are not being shown here for the sidewalk? Mr. Krahe: Correct. We didn’t show any of the public streetlighting or any offsite light that was adjacent. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thanks. Chair Furth: Any other questions before we turn to other areas? In terms of lighting? Vice Chair Baltay: In terms of lighting, yes. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Mr. Krahe: You’re welcome. Thank you. Chair Furth: At least you know we do read your report. Other questions? Let’s start with you, Alex. Or we can do them by subject matter; whatever you want. Let’s talk about the car wash. Let’s talk about noise. The only discussion of noise I heard concerned the car wash, it’s location and operation. Any questions on that topic? Vice Chair Baltay: To the applicant, could you…? Chair Furth: Board Member Baltay, for the transcriber. Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to understand how the automatic doors work when the car wash is in operation. Is it possible for the doors to be left open and the car wash to be functioning? Mr. Hutson: No. The automatic controls on the car wash are that the internal equipment, the car is driven into the door, tracked into the door, those doors are closed, and once those doors are closed and they are electronically noted as closed, then the operation can begin inside. That’s both the blowers and the car wash. Once that’s completed, the doors open up. They’re high speed. The manufacture is Light Tech [phonetic], but they’re a high-speed coiling door that goes up and down very quickly, intended for a wet surface and high cycle uses. Vice Chair Baltay: I just want to be really clear that, you’re making that statement into the record, and that’s something that is not easily changed later then. That the doors cannot be left open when the car wash is functioning. Mr. Hutson: That is the way that… Vice Chair Baltay: It’s automatically built into the [crosstalk]. Mr. Hutson: That is automatically built into the way we are planning the car wash. Ms. Gerhardt: And staff will be adding a condition of approval. Chair Furth: Will you specify a particular design, or just the function? Mr. Hutson: I think we had that as a mitigation measure early on, that we offer that… [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 26 Mr. Sing: If I could just interrupt. On Packet Page 29, Condition 14, has to do with the issue of automatic doors. We have that covered. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: I have a question about… Chair Furth: David, could you wait a minute, please? Board Member Lew: I have a follow-up, too, on the car wash. I just wanted to make a comment to my Board members. When doing a site visit, I did walk the property, the neighbor’s property at 2479 Embarcadero Road, and they do have, like, a patio out in the back, very close to where the proposed car wash is located. It seems like most of their open space is in the courtyard, and it seems like that patio table, I presume it’s for the smokers. It’s far away from any entrance door. It’s in the parking lot. It’s not like a… It’s like an afterthought. Chair Furth: It’s not habitable space that we should really be working extremely hard to protect. Board Member Lew: No, I actually disagree with that statement. The back of that property has a very low chain-link fence that looks over the Baylands. If that were being redeveloped, I would put the open space facing in that back area and not have it walled off in a courtyard. Chair Furth: Alex, is one of your points that this is a very valuable piece of this site, if and when it’s redeveloped? Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: So, adverse impacts from this project on that property, we should be thinking about that [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: We should think about, not just the existing conditions, but just the… I think we should factor in the potential for that project site. But looking at the noise study with the doors closed, it seems to make a dramatic difference. I’ve never seen a car wash with doors before, so… But the study seems to make it work. Chair Furth: Before I hear from the rest of you, I will say that I have never seen a car wash that didn’t have a lot of sociability around it. And maybe this is just one lone employee, driving it over. But they do tend to be lively, slightly noisy scenes. I’m concerned that… We tend to locate our nuisance aspects of our properties to the edges, and I’m concerned about that here. Mr. Hutson: Could I address that? Chair Furth: Just a second. David, you had a question on the noise issue? Board Member Hirsch: No, no. A whole other issue. Chair Furth: Okay, then we’ll wait. Osma, did you have any questions on this? Board Member Hirsch: But it’s [inaudible]. Chair Furth: In a minute. Board Member Thompson: Not on noise. On landscape. Chair Furth: Peter? Alex? Do you have any further questions on this issue? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, to state the obvious, I want to be sure there’s a roof on the car wash, so it doesn’t have an open ceiling. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Mr. Hutson: Yes, sir. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Hutson: May I address the Board? Chair Furth: I appreciate that. If you could identify yourself once more, for our transcriber. Mr. Hutson: My name is Lyle Hutson. Just to call your attention to the noise study, that the ambient noise level is very close in that area where we took readings. As it is now, as it stands today, for 20 minutes, I believe, the noise study was done that it’s, again, 55 decibels in that location now. I think we’re proposing maybe that it could be up to, in certain areas, at the end of the car wash, at 65 db. Chair Furth: Thank you. We appreciate that. All right. Those are our questions about noise. Those are our questions about lighting. Let’s talk about landscaping. Are there any additional questions of the applicant about landscaping? Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: A couple questions. The green screens that are being shown around the back of the whole project, how confident are you that those will be green and actual…? Mr. Puncerelli: Sustainable. Okay. The speaker is Ken Puncerelli with LAI Design Group. We’re very confident. We will run drip irrigation up to those areas. They will be irrigated and, of course, maintained with the rest of the property. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. And for all the other renderings that we have been seeing, are those pretty reflective of your design? Mr. Puncerelli: Yeah, I would say that the renderings that show the redbud trees, that’s for a period of about two weeks per year. We just actually experienced the redbud trees at our last board meeting, and for the rest of the year, they’re just a green, lush tree. They’re a nice little tree, and they’ll really soften the massing that everybody was concerned about. They don’t drop any berries or fruit, so they’re not a nuisance. Won’t impact pedestrians walking or cause a mess, either in the public realm or on the dealership property, with respect to a fruit, or yellow jackets that might be attracted to dropped fruit. They are actually quite a nice, low-maintenance kind of tree, and they are native to the area. Chair Furth: And at this elevation, they are evergreen? Mr. Puncerelli: They are, for the most part, yeah. Chair Furth: I did think on the elevations they looked like crepe myrtles. Mr. Puncerelli: Yes, and that was the choice of the renderer that selected that. Yes. Chair Furth: They were disturbing. Mr. Puncerelli: No, you are spot-on with your plant ID. I caught that at the last ARB meeting. Vice Chair Baltay: How confident are you that these really are what redbuds are going to look like? Because what’s shown in the renderings is crepe myrtles. Mr. Puncerelli: Yeah. That’s a valid question. The shape and the form of multi-stem trees, they look like that. I would say that, you know, those were conservatives. I would say that the redbuds will actually be more lush in terms of their tree canopy than what was shown. Vice Chair Baltay: It’s unfortunate, because the redbuds I think have a different foliage color overall effect. These are very bright pink. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Mr. Puncerelli: Well, that’s the flower. And I think that was legitimate. But the vegetation, the leaf is a heart-shaped leaf, and it’s about as big as my hands cupping around right here. Like a large cup of coffee. The circumference of that. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: I realize that there are a lot of constraints here, and while we don’t want fruits and things that will attract animals, I understand that you’ve got a lot of constraints here. I think of a redbud as being a bunch of sticks, some of the time of the year here. Mr. Puncerelli: Yeah, I mean, they are deciduous. Chair Furth: And that they don’t do any screening. Mr. Puncerelli: Yeah. They are deciduous a part of the year. That is true. And we do have a fair amount of understory that is evergreen. So, in every part of the site plan, there are layers of plant material, from shade canopy trees like the oaks and the big-leaf maple, to understory and ornamentals like the redbud trees, to then large shrubs and grasses that are evergreen and have winter interest. Chair Furth: Thank you. You have heard that there is great distress from many people about the prospect of removing trees, and I’m concerned with a building that goes up to 50 feet from a slightly elevated pad, I usually want to see significantly sized screening trees. And I’m not sure we’ve got that. Or landscaping. Whatever form it takes. Okay. But that’s not a question; that’s a policy statement. Any other questions on landscaping? Mr. Puncerelli: Yeah, and part of that, Madam Chair, just to respond to that, part of the locations where we have those redbud trees out in front of the building, you’ll note that we have that 80-foot PG&E easement. Chair Furth: We are well aware of that. Mr. Puncerelli: Yeah. And the elm trees that are there currently grow much taller than that, and they’ve already been hacked by PG&E, and they could come back and do it again. Chair Furth: We understand that they are at their mercy. Mr. Puncerelli: Yes. That it’s a great statement. Chair Furth: We had considered the thought that maybe PG&E would like some favorable public relations as of late, but we don’t think that’s going to help us here. Thank you. I think that’s it for landscaping. Bike and pedestrian circulation. Comments? Questions? I think we’re doing okay on landscaping, if you’d like to be seated. Mr. Puncerelli: All right. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any comments or questions on bike and pedestrian circulation? No questions? Okay. Questions on anything else? David. Board Member Hirsch: I’m wondering about access to the site, you know, and the site circulation traffic- wise, coming to the site for clients. The ones who come off Embarcadero are, is that the major entry? Or is the access road really the…? From Bayshore. Is that the major entry? Which way to come onto the site? Mr. Hutson: There are two entrances for the Mercedes site and there is one entrance for Audi. All three entrances are multidirectional, in and out. The majority of customers coming in for service would enter off of Embarcadero. Customers could enter off of Embarcadero or Bayshore, and likewise you could come from either direction. Bayshore coming the other direction is, south of Bayshore is also a two-way City of Palo Alto Page 29 entrance. Circulation is all along the front and not around the back for customers. Does that answer your question? Board Member Hirsch: Not 100 percent. I mean, I’m sort of concerned that, you’re coming off of Embarcadero to go straight into the service area, the doors that are between Audi and… Chair Furth: Sheldon, could you put a site plan up so we can see what we’re talking about? Mr. Hutson: The vehicular access can also turn right at that location to access the rest of the parking lot. Board Member Hirsch: Right. And there’s really no signage at that point to say where you’re going to park on the site. Mr. Hutson: I don’t believe we’ve addressed wayfinding signage at this point in time. Board Member Hirsch: But you would be doing that at some point? Mr. Hutson: There would need to be some wayfinding as you enter in, to direct sales customers, if you will, to the right, and service straight in. And there’s a fairly lengthy drive there, as well as inside the building, so we don’t anticipate any queuing and backing up cars and… It’s fairly lengthy. Board Member Hirsch: Right. Okay. You’re still maintaining an entry, although the major entry seems to be off the parking lot now. But you’re maintaining an entry in the, kind of center of the car display and the canopied area in the front? Facing Embarcadero? Mr. Hutson: No. There’s no entry there. Board Member Hirsch: There’s no entry there? Mr. Hutson: No. Board Member Hirsch: So, the exclusive entry into the showroom is from the parking lot. Mr. Hutson: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. That’s good. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: I might have more. Mr. Hutson: I’d just add to that, that that’s both vehicular and pedestrian at that location. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. The renderings show, in particular in ZA404, you know, the close-up renderings where the trees are not part of it, show the glazing, and we’ve been looking at the samples of the glazing. And you’re showing it as if it’s clear glass, so you’re going to really be looking through it. Is this just a rendering issue? Because normally glazing kind of gives you the sky, you know? There are some parts of the renderings that… ZA403a, for example, have a, a tone on the glazing which really more represents the, kind of the sky. How do you see that really working? Because it’s a really important aspect of this project. Mr. Hutson: The glazing is clear glazing. It’s dual pane, dual glazing, clear glass that’s also coated for performance. In addition to that, all the glazing will be the Avitech bird-safe etched glass. It’s not a film. We had some discussions with the Audubon Society about the films and applied bird-safe scenario, and that is not what we’re doing here. We’re promoting full etched glazing, so any of our exterior glazing would be of that type. What you see on that, on the color board. The additional portion is a fiberglass cow-wall that we’re putting, that’s basically up on top. You can’t see through it. You won’t really be able to see a car or anything through that, but it does provide a different surface and texture as it relates to City of Palo Alto Page 30 that upper level. And that was intended to bring the scale down a little bit and provide a little interest, along with our green area. Board Member Hirsch: It’s a glass material? Mr. Hutson: It’s a fiberglass. Board Member Hirsch: Fiberglass. Mr. Hutson: As you see on the material, that’s an actual sample. It’s transparent, but some… Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Mr. Hutson: And you can see, we kind of did it with an image behind it. There’s kind of a vehicle behind it. That’s pretty typical of what you’d see. Maybe a darker silhouette if there was a car there, or a person there, but you will not be able to tell if it’s a car. And that’s intentional. Board Member Thompson: I have a follow-up to that. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Is it okay if I ask my follow-up? Chair Furth: Can’t hear you. Board Member Thompson: The etched glass on the bird-safe glazing, the material sample, the pattern on the material sample is linear, whereas in the image on the packet, it’s a bit more [crosstalk]. Mr. Hutson: There’s been a couple different iterations. Early on, we had the more freeform bamboo portion. At this point, we feel like the building is still linear, and that may be more of an advantage of the linear pattern. There’s also a dot pattern, but all provide, by industry standards, as bird-safe glass. We’re open to interpretation, but we feel like the vertical etched lines provide the same purpose as an organic shape. And may be better for bird-safe situations being not organic and being more linear. Board Member Thompson: I just wanted to clarify that. Mr. Hutson: There is a discrepancy. It [inaudible], if you will. Board Member Hirsch: I have another question about your entry on the parking lot side. It shows rather heavy framed doorway within it. Am I looking at it properly there? Mr. Hutson: You are correct. The heavy-framed doorway further to the front of the building – Is that what you’re referring to? Board Member Hirsch: Mm-hmm. Mr. Hutson: Yeah, that would be our main entry into the showroom, and that’s somewhat of a corporate ID standard, that heavy entry with the block around it. Board Member Hirsch: Is it heavy like that for security reasons? Mr. Hutson: It’s not heavier than any other door. It’s a metal storefront door. The surround around it is the black metal that you see. There is nothing there for security. It’s no different than any… It’s just wider so we can get a vehicle inside. It needs to be wider than a pair of six-foot man doors. Chair Furth: All right. I’d like to shift this conversation now to materials. Thank you for the materials board. I thought they were particularly useful with the attached drawings and keys. The Baylands general design principals as they apply to this building say that the Baylands itself are a natural, have a natural color palette. It’s a study in muted tones, and in this building, they say use only muted natural colors, City of Palo Alto Page 31 choose materials and finishes that will weather without degrading. Anybody have any questions about the materials? Vice Chair Baltay: No questions. Chair Furth: I have a question for my colleagues here, which is, when I look at this, these very tiny samples – and that’s not a critique of the materials board – is this…? I don’t see a label on this one. Mr. Hutson: Well, there should be on the picture, if you look, if it has fallen off. That is the metal panel for Audi that’s existing now. Chair Furth: This one here? Mr. Hutson: Yeah, the representation there is kind of the…? No? Okay. That’s the Audi, it would be listed as the Audi Centrix silver. Chair Furth: And you’re proposing to continue to use this on…? Mr. Hutson: No, just representation of what’s there now. Chair Furth: You have a large X across it, in my view. Mr. Hutson: Okay. Chair Furth: And then, the ACM2, I understand that it’s in the recessed… I’m looking at the Embarcadero frontage; that appears in the recessed section of the elevation. Mr. Hutson: Correct. Chair Furth: How much of that is there? Of the [crosstalk]. Mr. Hutson: Actually, that’s not a significant material that we have. It’s just another… It’s the same manufacturer and same material so when we change a color, we’re not changing the attachment type and the way it’s done. It’s underneath there, underneath that canopy. Chair Furth: You just lost me. When I drive by, as a layperson, where do I see this? Mr. Hutson: You’re going to see it underneath the canopy of the front of Mercedes-Benz. Chair Furth: Okay. Okay. All right, any other questions? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I do have a quick… Chair Furth: What’s your subject matter? Board Member Thompson: It’s materials. The ribbed metal panel, we don’t have a sample of the actual ribbed, like, how thick that is, or…? In terms of the scale? Because that’s just the color, right? It’s not... Mr. Hutson: That’s correct. Yes. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Hutson: Yeah. We were limited today by your staff on the size of the material and the color board of what we could do. Last time, I had a physical sample that I brought, was 12 by 12, and that was dismissed. Chair Furth: We understand there are challenges; we do not have a … Mr. Hutson: Right, you do not have a profile sample of the ribbed panel on that board. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Chair Furth: All right. Other subject matter areas. Sustainability. Members of the public talked about not using too much glass. We talked about sea level rise. Sheldon, just for fun, while we’re talking about something else, would you put up the picture showing the city’s anticipated sea level rise during the life of this building? What do you anticipate the life of this building to be? Mr. Hutson: I don’t have an answer for you on that. Chair Furth: Well, let’s assume 20 to 30 years. Mr. Sing: I have the website that we discussed on Tuesday. This is at zero, no change. The diamond is the Mercedes site. Chair Furth: And the City is anticipating… We have a set of standards based on the state and area standards… Go ahead, Sheldon. Mr. Sing: Right. This is existing, so, as we go through whatever simulation you want to see, this is the existing condition. As we go with the higher sea level change and what that will look like, you’ll notice that the building is still under water because that’s the existing condition. But the other buildings around it that have been completed recently are done to the standards today, which is one foot above the flood elevation, which would be very similar to what this project would be. Chair Furth: Well, show us. Hit 25 centimeters. Mr. Sing: That’s 25 centimeters. Chair Furth: That’s the anticipated rise by 2050. Mr. Sing: That’s 50. Chair Furth: That’s 50. That’s a foot and a half. That’s two feet. Mr. Sing: Seventy-five. We’ll probably just keep it there. You’ll see the other buildings are peeking up above. Chair Furth: Kick it back to 25, which is our… We’re doing a study. I’m always impressed with the work that City staff and City Council have already done on these issues, but our new sea level rise policy really kicks in, in 2020, so this project is a bit ahead, and this may be in an area from which, as they say, we need to plan an orderly retreat. But it does appear that this building is of an elevation which is a reasonable one to do at this time, which was my big concern, that we weren’t [crosstalk]. Mr. Hutson: Our proposed building is not shown in this. This is the existing… Chair Furth: Right, but we’re looking at the islands, and you would be an island. Mr. Hutson: Correct. Chair Furth: Is what I believe this shows. Mr. Hutson: I think that’s the intention of the FEMA numbers and the numbers we were [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: We find that we’re not always in perfect sync with the federal government on climate change issues. Mr. Hutson: Is your anticipation – maybe I just ask the question – to be higher? Or…? Chair Furth: It’s constantly shifting. We do have a lot of publications referenced in our document. They have a range of predictions. The more recent predictions are for more sea level rise. This doesn’t particularly talk about issues of surge and loss of wetlands, which would lead to more flooding. And we won’t really have a City definite position probably until next year, but they are certainly chastening. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Mr. Hutson: I would think that traffic is a main concern because the roads are what drive the contours of your developed property. Chair Furth: I mean, a more longer-range theory is that we will be retreating to the freeway at some point, but who knows? But I did want to understand the relationship of our present standards to these current projections. The City sea level rise report has a range of things for the next 30 years, so that’s 2050. Remind me what they are. I lost that page. It’s about a foot, right? We’re predicting about a foot in the next 30 years? Mr. Sing: That would be correct, yes. Chair Furth: Yeah, so this is about, roughly. Mr. Hutson: So it would be said, if we only had a 30-year life span for the building, we can redo the whole area [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Yeah, you may not be able to… Well, if you’re not selling nothing but fossil-free fuels by then…. [crosstalk] Mr. Hutson: I’m pretty sure that will be a thing of the past, 30 years from now. Chair Furth: Okay. Show us 50. Because you’re in between. Those buildings are still above water. Because one of our concerns is that the more capital investment there is in that area, the more it’s going to be expected in terms of trying to protect it. And I’m not going to argue that a Mercedes dealership is as essential as a hospital, but it would be unfortunate to spend a lot of money on land that we had to abandon. Thank you. Okay. We’ve talked about on-site circulation for clients, landscaping, noise, lighting, glazing, materials, signage for wayfinding, sustainability of the design. Okay. Any other things we want to ask questions about before we bring the discussion back to us? Thank you very much. Anything staff wants to say? All right. Well, let’s begin discussion. Who would like to start? Board Member Thompson: If I could ask Board Member Lew to start, and then also discuss your research on the Strava. Chair Furth: All right, Alex. I’m going to try to take notes so we can keep track of our issues. Board Member Lew: Okay. On the running and bicycling usage in that area, it does show a lot of bicyclists using East Bayshore primarily, going north through east Palo Alto. But that data may be – what do you want to call it? – impacted by the creek widening that’s been ongoing for several years. But it does show people using the old bike path along the San Francisquito Creek, and it actually does show people using the new bike path that’s been relocated because of the creek widening. But I think the takeaway is that there should be something continuing across Embarcadero, going north to East Palo Alto. For the runners, it really shows them crossing the bicycle bridge just north of Embarcadero and continuing on to the Baylands, and going out to, like, Charleston Slough and Bixby Park. I think that proposed path is actually very useful for them. Did you have anything in particular? My takeaway is that I think it’s needed. Chair Furth: It’s crucial. Board Member Lew: I think it is. And I think we’ve gone through the tree issue before. When we had the golf course renovation, most of the non-native trees were removed, and the golf course was changed into more of a link style, windswept dune landscape, right? And they took out the… Chair Furth: A traditional, throw-back golf course. City of Palo Alto Page 34 Board Member Lew: Right. I think the City is on board. My take on it is that the City is okay with removing trees and going back to something more like a grasslands type of, and coastal sage scrub kind of landscape, instead of a more conventional suburban landscape. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: I have one last comment. I think there’s a proposed bottle-filling station in front of the Mercedes dealer, and I think that is really critical. Earlier, when I did several bicycle rides around San Francisco to Palo Alto, and the bottle-filling thing is actually very critical. There’s one in Burlingame, and then, all the other ones are really substandard. I think the station with the benches… [crosstalk] Chair Furth: … street furniture you’re in favor of. Board Member Lew: Yes. It’s not in the perfect location, but I’ll take it. Chair Furth: All right. Does somebody want to make a motion, or does somebody want to discuss issues? Vice Chair Baltay: Can I lay out some stuff here to my colleagues? Chair Furth: Yep. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m having a hard time with this project, ultimately. I just read through again the findings. Two, 3, 4 and 5 all address significant issues about design quality, contextual compatibility, functionality, some of the issues David was mentioning. The landscaping. Just too many places. I keep looking at this and feeling it’s just not there. I’ll go backwards. The crepe myrtle-esque trees on the front just don’t work with this building, and they certainly don’t work with the Baylands. They don’t look at all like that to me. The layout of this, this curved front with the front door in the middle of it, except it’s not a front door anymore. And the access to the showroom is sort of off the middle of this parking lot. The architecture is not telling me where to go, and this is something that we discussed last time. Just the overall choice of the materials just seems sort of bright, and modern, and Mercedes-Benz-ish. But it’s not the Baylands. I keep feeling like, wanting to just have something that tries at least to be toned down, natural-looking. Maybe not all of it, maybe the glass piece in the front can be different, but somehow… Almost every design decision keeps coming back to it being bright and shiny on all four sides of the building, everywhere we go. I just don’t buy the fiberglass panels up on the roof. I think they are going to be bright when they’re lit from inside, and they don’t look at all like the Baylands to me. The grass panels on the side of the building, I just cannot imagine those surviving the test of time. The maintenance on those will be horrific. You’ll need an elevator for the landscape guy to get up there to do anything. It’s not a realistic architectural solution. The Baylands is asking for permanent, simple, background, low, organic-colored buildings, and this design solution seems to take us away from that. Over and over again, as I’ve looked through these issues, I just keep saying to myself that the pieces aren’t coming together. I put it to my colleagues that, this is the third review, they’re asking us to make a decision, and I think the decision of let’s send this to Council to decide is the wrong one. I think we need to take a stronger stand, and perhaps just say no, this should not be allowed the way it is right now. Maybe the last thing, which I’ll end with, which is probably the most important, is, to me, the bike path. I think it’s not unreasonable that we need a real bike path there. I think it’s also not unreasonable that we want to keep those mature trees. This is a very large building; we already have some large trees that would otherwise be allowed. If we cut them down, Alex is right, that we could grow new trees, but the trees that we’re allowed to put there are really small and not appropriately scaled. They don’t fit with the Baylands, and they certainly don’t accentuate or complement this building. And yet, the solution is to fit both, and that requires the applicant to do some additional compromising on their property somehow. And I come back and say, look, 30 years ago, this would have been a PC application. What that means is that you’re making a trade. The applicant wants to trade the land use, so they’re doing other things to the public benefit. To me, the bike path is a clear and needed public benefit. I think the trees are also a City of Palo Alto Page 35 clear and needed public benefit, and I think if the applicant is asking to do a zoning change, asking to put a larger building than would otherwise be allowed, we need some public benefit coming back. I think we’ve made it clear and asked this several times. Again, the pieces aren’t dropping, so, at some point, we need to stop asking. And I think if we put this in front of the City Council, it’s going to be very hard for them to try to parse that kind of stuff out. It’s clear to us, it was clear to the Planning Commission, that the trees are needed, and the bike path is needed. I just don’t see the pieces coming together. Unless I can be persuaded otherwise, at the moment, I’m of the opinion that we should recommend denial. Thank you. Chair Furth: Okay. Osma. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thank you to my board members for their feedback, and also thank you to the applicant. This packet was a lot more detailed and it was a lot easier to read, so I really appreciate the enhanced renderings and the enhanced information that was in here. I’m also having trouble with this project as well. Actually, I think architecturally, you did respond to a lot of the feedback we were giving. I look at just the front corner view that you would see from Baylands and Embarcadero, there’s a lot more horizontal datums. You’re using two tones to break the scale of this massive thing down, which is effective in many ways. I will say, I’m not convinced by GL-2, which is that fiberglass material. In the renderings, it looks a lot more clear, so it looks like it’s breaking down scale, but when I’m seeing the actual material, it looks quite opaque, and it looks like it will blend into the rest of that wall and make that wall bulky. But if I were to just look at how this is currently being presented, I think a lot of effort has been put into reducing the scale, and in terms of all the iterations we’ve seen so far, I would say this is the best version of this dealership that I’ve seen to date, just given massing and sort of how the material treatment is, except for the GL-2, which actually is an important aspect of it. I’m not going to brush it off and say that it’s not, because if that part was solid, I would have a bigger problem with the design. And also, the green screens that kind of go around the back – and I’ve heard some conflicting opinions about that – that’s a really nice addition to the project. I almost wish it was more integrated into the front façade just because, you know, it kind of makes the back of the building look nicer than the front of the building, at least at the moment. In terms of architecturally speaking, if you’re going to have a dealership here, this is a decent iteration, with a few adjustments. That said, there’s a lot of public comment about scale, about massing. A lot of concern about how appropriate this project is, which shouldn’t be ignored either. I think that’s why I’m having a bit of a hard time, because architecturally, I think with a few adjustments, I could get to a place where I’m okay with this design, but it’s true in terms of how appropriate it is for the location… I don’t know. That’s sort of the warring part in me. At the moment, I’m a little split. But there are still two more people on the Board we haven’t heard from, so I’ll just leave it there for now. Chair Furth: Thank you. David? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I agree that this is incredibly better than what we’ve seen before, and I’m bothered by certain aspects of it. But a general look at the building, it seems to me that there’s a front of the building, and a sales area of the building, and the back of the building, and a service area of the building. I feel pretty strongly that there should be some distinction made between the two when you have an opportunity with the stair tower to make that separation between the two functions. However, I note that it’s 96 feet, 7 inches from the street front, and I’m wondering if you could actually push the… This is a detail, but it’s really important to me, that you somehow push that staircase out so that you make a distinction, because it will really make a significant distinction in the shapes of the sales and storage area on the front from the back of the building. That’s a smaller consideration maybe, but important to me. I think the manner in which, what you call the front of the building now; it’s a little hard to say what’s the front. There is a, sort of a strange relationship between the curved wall and the display areas and the real front of the building, which is the one you emphasize in most of your renderings here. The front of the building here seems to me to be from the parking lot, and it’s important to show the trees, and the trees ought to be appropriate to the scale, which I think they are. I wish they were the City of Palo Alto Page 36 same color all year long. I find that to be fairly successful. I agree that the panel at the top could just be glazing, some kind of a glazing, other than the panel that’s shown, so it keeps the crispness of the glass surface all the way to the top of the building. I think the rendering, actually, which I stated before, is a little bit inaccurate because it won’t be quite that transparent in reality. There will be kind of a skylight cloud layer on the glass, and I don’t think that would be a bad result. But it doesn’t come across too well here. In terms of the entry, I think that the entry ought to be more glazed coming in through that doorway. I really disagree to the Vice Chair that the building is not a successful building. It is a showroom, after all. The scale of it, the first-floor scale is quite high. Eighteen feet, I think, for the first floor. I think the scale and detail of the building is good for the product they are selling, which is a beautifully-detailed car, and there is some care – a lot of care, in fact – in the support of the roofline as an overhang. I almost wish that we could go back to a darker element above it so that the entry was more emphasized, but previously the Board decided that you shouldn’t have that much black on the building, so the compromise with a metal surface for the second level seems to me to be fine. And the scale of it shows up on the drawings, even though we don’t have a sample here today. I feel that the planting idea for the back of the building is not a success at all. I would really rather see the walls be entirely planted, or alternately planted on the back of the building. What is shown back there is really the back of the building, and admitted, but let’s have some consideration of the Baylands and the softness where it faces, and not put strong shapes on that wall that draw attention to it. I feel very strongly about that. I think you can plant a lot of the back of the building without having separate, smaller, vertical elements to it. And that would make a significant distinction, and it would be a pleasant place to actually be for those people who use that area. But don’t draw that kind of attention to it. It doesn’t make sense. But very important, I think, is the stair tower, pulling it forward. I don’t know how that works with the zoning, but if it were a freestanding wall of some sort, could that intrude into the setback? Is that setback a requirement? Then you have the symbolic symbol of the Mercedes facing the street there, but it’s pulled forward and you make a distinction between the front and the back of the building. Overall, I would say I feel this is a successful building. The materials are high-tech, the car is high-tech. I think they belong together, and I would like to see it move forward. Also, this is the last meeting we’re going to have for the Board, I believe, so it’s really important for us to be on board or not be on board. This is our last statement that we’re going to make, and I want to make a statement I think it’s a nice project and I want it to proceed. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex, do you have any other comments? Board Member Lew: Yeah. I’m fairly aligned with Board Member Hirsch on this one. Generally, I think this is a successful project. I do have some significant reservations, though. But I think I can get to recommend approval with some additional conditions of approval. Largely, I think there have been several revisions, and I think they were done thoughtfully, and I think they were done well, since our last hearing. I think generally, I will say that if I look at the rendering proposed here, if I look in our Baylands design guideline book with the project across the street, that they are compatible, generally, in terms of massing. If I look at the building footprint size, if I compare lengths of facades of this project to the neighbors, I think they are fairly similar. I don’t necessarily think this project is over-scaled, even though it is taller; I will definitely acknowledge it’s taller. But at least from the public’s point of view from the street, that it’s stepping, and you’ve broken up the massing. I think the curved element makes the design linkage to the project across the street at 2450 Watson Court. I think we do have some issues with the colors. I think the black stucco color is not acceptable, and I do have issues with the black metal panel as well. I think it makes the façade much too dark. I will acknowledge that there are some other high- contrast colored buildings on Embarcadero Road. There’s one across the street next to the golf course, 1755 Embarcadero, which is a light-colored concrete and has black glass. So, there is some precedent for darker colors, even though they don’t necessarily comply with our Baylands design guidelines. I’m okay with the car wash if it has the closed doors. I think the landscaping, I’m very happy with the increased native plants. I think that that’s actually done really well, and I think that the bunch grasses make a design linkage to other recently done projects nearby in the Baylands. I think the lighting plan was done City of Palo Alto Page 37 really well, as well. Thank you for making those revisions. I think we do need the cut sheet for fixture SD, which is not in our set. And I think we do, as Board Member Baltay had asked previously, that we do need the top floor of the garage, the parapet lighting, I think resolved with the glass guardrails. I think we should do the bike path, pedestrian and bike path. I think that’s critical, and I’m willing to forgo the existing street trees. I’m a little concerned about the curb ramp at the corner as it’s shown currently, so maybe we can follow up with staff on that later. It seems kind of unusual in there. And then, I think my main reservation is just on our findings. I alerted staff that we’re missing findings 2 and 3, the DEE findings, and I think that’s absolutely critical. I think we do have to address that. If we don’t address it, I think that we’re looking at trying to get… I think people would appeal our recommendation just because those are missing. I think those are critical. Also, I think Karen Holman had mentioned that contact space criteria, and I mentioned this at the last hearing. I don’t think there’s anything in the staff report except for setbacks with regards to the contact space criteria in CS zone. I think we do need to do that. There should be some documentation, photos or street elevations that show this building with the neighbor’s and how they are compatible or make design linkages. And then, lastly, I have two broad comments. One is that the auto overlay was intended to allow car storage, so I think it’s fully… I think the intent of the code is to figure out a way to get vertical car storage in on these lots, and to keep auto dealers in the city for tax revenue purposes. And then, secondly, at our last hearing, I think there was a lot of concern about where the Baylands start and where’s the gateway. If you actually look across the street at Watson Court, there is a Baylands Gateway sign, and I think the intent is that all of the landscaping from the freeway all the way out to the Baylands is part of Baylands. And I think if you look at things like the new Facebook Building 20, or if you look at some of the, there’s the North Bayshore-specific plan in Mountainview. I think our neighbors are really on board with making suburban development part of the Baylands. Like the Facebook Building 20, you have a nine-acre roof. And like Shani Kleinhaus has been documenting, they’ve been counting all the birds for the last three years up on the Facebook roof, and sort of tracking it and how well it’s working. I think they’ve found that the native plants and trees attract more wildlife than non-native trees. And they actually have the numbers to back it up. In Mountainview, Google is removing some buildings entirely for more egret habitat, and then, they’re building taller buildings elsewhere. I think they are making big design moves and they’re not afraid of having a bigger building if there’s more habitat. I would argue that we should do the same and not try to hold on to a 1950’s notion of what Embarcadero Road currently looks like. That’s where I am. I would not be able to make the findings with the black. I think black is just a bad idea anywhere. I would support a dark gray, an integral color stucco. I could get there. With the metal panel, I could go with a charcoal, but I can’t do the solid black. So, that would be a “no” recommendation if those aren’t changed. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you to the applicant, thank you to members of the public, thank you to staff. I know you’ve been through a lot of iterations of these plans, constantly moving. I hope we’ve been consistent up here. I know we are in our own minds. Starting with the land use. The City Council has been ambivalent about this location for auto dealerships. We actually recommended approval of one and they said nope. But that was about a particular proposal, councils change their minds. I’m operating under the assumption that the proposal before us is for an auto dealership that the Council wants here, or believes could be well done here, and it is consistent with the general plan. I do favor indoor car storage. I think it is a much better use of land than having asphalt heat sinks with cars moving around on them. Or ferrying them from Freemont, or wherever they are ferried from these days. So, I am willing to accept a larger building because you put the cars inside. And I will not get into discussions about how the floor area ratio should be calculated because I defer to the city attorney and the city staff and the City Council on those issues. I will say that I think that the building should not be any bigger or appear to be any bigger than it needs to, so it shouldn’t be doing grandiose elements. I do think the bicycle path is essential. I’m bothered that we can’t do both. I spent a lot of time working on pedestrian and bicycle access over private properties with Stanford, and if there was a design that gave us better landscaping and a bicycle path, both of which I think are essential, that’s what I would favor. I think that the siding and elevations are acceptable given the present level of our planning. It’s an interesting choice to build a building of this scope and intensity in that location. I believe that lighting has been adequately addressed. City of Palo Alto Page 38 I believe that it is possible, it is likely, that the noise abatement will work with respect to the car wash. I wanted to ask, what’s the landscaping, or buffering, or whatever, of the car wash on the adjacent property? Is there any? It’s right up against the fence, right? Board Member Lew: It’s a chain-link fence. Chair Furth: I don’t think that’s okay. I don’t think it’s okay to put that use smack up against your neighbor without an attractive wall or landscaping, so that location is not acceptable to me. I couldn’t make the findings with regard to that. Landscaping. I agree that it’s better to go up than out, if you also provide habitat, whether it’s [inaudible] boxes on the roof, or significant landscaping on the site. I don’t think I see that here, do I, Alex? Do you think there’s a big increase in the volume of green and tree? Significant? Board Member Lew: They’re adding a lot of oak trees. Chair Furth: You think that could be a significant help? Board Member Lew: Oak trees are considered… Chair Furth: Oh, I think oak trees are great. Board Member Lew: … considered, like, a keystone, or whatever. Keystone plants for attracting wildlife. Chair Furth: Yeah. With respect to the green screens, I like the idea of greening those walls. I do not think that is a good way to do it. I don’t know that down in the Baylands, you plan ficus all over it and let it climb, but I think that that landscaping should be simpler. And we didn’t talk about what plants might be plugged in there, but I just don’t believe that that’s feasible or likely to be habitat-useful, or any of those things. But I think it would be possible to plant those walls significantly with plants that would be useful. Judging by the number of birds nests I find in the vines on my wall. That could be modified to be useful. I agree with you about the water bottles. I don’t find the materials… I don’t understand how to make the findings about muted natural colors and materials that weather nicely with this materials board. They don’t match, to me. It would need to be changed. It looks too bright, it looks too shiny, it looks too high contrast. I tend to go look at the sites again the morning before the meeting, just to remind myself of what’s out there, because it’s amazing what I forget. And I drove north – what I think of as north – on East Bayshore, and I was really startled to see how much architectural harmony and landscaping harmony there is along that road. I mean, admittedly the flying club is a little bright, but it’s also very small-scale, and a flying club could be a little frivolous. But you do see Baylands tones, you do see a lot of grasses, you do see a lot of sycamores, you do see a lot of… And we have an interesting issue here because Baylands, left to their own devices, are all marsh and very few trees, but I don’ think you can... If you’re going to have buildings, I think you need to have trees. There’s more harmony than I thought, which hardened my feelings that the building we see here is going to leap out in a way that I think is undesirable, so I would want those colors changed. I will also say that, you know, the Baylands design guidelines, some of them are clearly designed just for the park that we were building, and our other improvements over there, but some of them clearly – equally clearly – apply to the whole place, as we all know. One of the things I found myself thinking is – if I can go find page 11 again – in addition to the bright and shiny materials, identity signs should be low to the ground. And that, in my mind, doesn’t mean you can only have monument signs on this building. But it does mean that I’m opposed to seeing a Mercedes logo in the sky as I drive along that building, that road. I don’t want that element; I don’t want signage up there. I want it way lower. As to the beauty or integrity of the building itself, I do think it looks much better [inaudible] materials. I’m not convinced – and I believe the landscape architecture needs more work. I believe that the car wash needs to be visually, aesthetically insulated from its neighbor. I think they’ve addressed sound, but that’s not the only element. When you put an unattractive… I don’t mean it isn’t a beautiful little building, but when you put a less-desirable use next to your neighbor, you need to make it attractive. It needs to be really good-looking and operate in a way City of Palo Alto Page 39 that doesn’t make them feel like they are in your corporation yard. I don’t know… There was much discussion of the location of utilities, and I found myself thinking, you know what? It costs money to locate utility boxes, but it’s not impossible. It’s just money. And if the Council decides that they wish to go ahead with this, I would hope that they would give direction that we put significant time and energy, and if necessary, somebody’s money, into doing what you need to do to have significant landscaping screening this very tall building. And, good pedestrian/bicycle access. I don’t Know how that’s done. I don’t think we’re there yet. So, would somebody like to make a motion? MOTION Chair Furth: That was a rather loud sigh. Board Member Lew: Why don’t we let Peter try to make the motion, then we’ll see where that goes. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I’m not sure I want to make a motion yet, but I want to just talk to my colleagues. This is the third review. They want us to give them an answer. I don’t think we’re there with an answer yet, unless it’s an enormous list of conditions as well. Maybe it’s worth asking the applicant if they want to take one more try, come back to us again, see if staff will tolerate us extending this yet another month. Because I agree with everybody that it’s a project that could work. It is a handsome building. It’s more a question of compatibility. And it’s really a shame not to try to make it work. So, through the Chair, could we ask the applicant and staff what they think we should do? Chair Furth: This would be continuing to the first meeting in July. Right? Vice Chair Baltay: I don’t know when, but just to see… Chair Furth: Well, you wouldn’t be here. Vice Chair Baltay: … see if the applicant would like to have a chance to try to address once more some of these concerns. Chair Furth: Having heard our discussion up here, would you like us to vote this up or down today with respect to our recommendation, or would you like to come back one more time? Mr. Hutson: We would come back one more time. Chair Furth: We’re always happy to engage. Ms. Gerhardt: I just want to clarify that, you know, if we came back on 6/20, that would be very quick. It wouldn’t give us any time for changes. Chair Furth: Well, we also would be missing two people. Ms. Gerhardt: So then, we’re talking about July 18th. Board Member Thompson would be absent at that time. Board Member Lew: Let me ask staff, when were you thinking that this would go to Council? Like, if they have recess, as well, during the summertime. Ms. Gerhardt: Well, exactly, and because we were at three hearings and we’ve had some preliminary reviews on this project, the Director was certainly hoping to take this project to Council before their summer break. That’s the direction that I’ve been given so far. If the applicant agrees and the ARB wants to recommend a fourth hearing, I will bring that to the Director. I mean, I would assume that if the applicant is on board, it probably would go over a little more favorably. Chair Furth: Well, I do think it would be much better for the City Council to have a positive recommendation from us. City of Palo Alto Page 40 Ms. Gerhardt: And I do think that Council definitely looks to the ARB for design comments. It would just be if there are policy concerns. Then we would leave that to the Council. Chair Furth: Well, I think that when we sit here, we assume that this is a use and a project that the Council has indicated they want to have happen, and that we’re not arguing that this isn’t the use that should happen here. And as far as I can tell, we’re not arguing about square footage calculations. We’ll let you deal with that and City Council. I think we’re pretty clearly dealing with the findings that we’re required to make, and the fact that this is in the Baylands. I think one of the things we often deal with is the context issues, and we are still missing those elevations and drawings, which they’re going to need for the further steps of this process. Is that right? That’s a missing piece of the packet. Board Member Lew: And the DEE findings. Chair Furth: And the DEE findings. And, of course, we want to be sure that the many things that the applicant has told us that they are committed to doing are all properly reflected in the record. You had a comment? Mr. Hutson: Yes, if I may address the Board. Before you do make your decision, I’ve taken notes here today, and we see quite a few varying comments. I hope that we can come to some agreement as to what you’d like to see when we come back because I feel like we need… [crosstalk] Chair Furth: You’re completely entitled to a consensus, so we’ll do a quick series of straw votes and see where we are. Okay. Board Member Lew: [crosstalk] comments, as a senior member here… Chair Furth: Absolutely, and even as yourself, Alex. Board Member Lew: [crosstalk] … seen, and I’ve seen the Board make different types of recommendations on this situation… Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: … and I would just point out one example. There’s the College Terrace Center, which was a PC zone, so it was going to everybody in the city. And the Board was under pressure to move it along to the Council, and it did, and we made a long list of conditions of approval. And in the end, that building had a lot of problems with color, and lighting, and whatever, and those were all addressed after the fact that staff had been spending a lot of time resolving the lighting problems, the building was repainted… Chair Furth: And the building owner has been spending a lot of time addressing those problems. Board Member Lew: Right. So, it just gets to the point, like, where the Board was okay with the massing, but we had reservations with a lot of the other details, and we let it all sort of slide down the road. And the problem is, when we do that, we don’t necessarily get to, we don’t really get the follow-through on there. I think on really prominent sites, we actually do need to follow through. If it were a smaller project mid-block somewhere, and, you know, most people wouldn’t notice. But on a very prominent site, I think it’s really important that we do address all of the issues. Chair Furth: Okay. I’m going to start going through them, and the ones I miss, you can tell me about. The first one would be the black metal… Let’s talk about materials. We do want you to pay serious attention to the requirement in the Baylands Design Guidelines with respect to colors and materials. Nobody wants them to use Corten steel, right? We don’t need your Mercedes logo in Corten steel. But the black metal panels and façade are not acceptable. They are too dark. The GL-2 material, which is the parapet edging, is not acceptable. What is it that you want, guys? Go ahead. City of Palo Alto Page 41 Board Member Thompson: With regard to the GL-2, I find that it’s too opaque for the way that it is currently presented. It sort of contradicts what’s in the rendering. I could be okay with an opaque material so long as it’s differentiated in some way. Right now, it seems too similar. Chair Furth: You don’t want it to appear to be an extension of the material below it. Board Member Thompson: Or next to it. Chair Furth: Or next to it. It’s supposed to contrast with other materials. Is that right? Any other guidance on that material? Board Member Hirsch: My sense is different. I would like to see a glazed material. I think it reduces the mass of that area, makes it lighter feeling. I prefer a glaze material, which you can back up with opaque behind it. Chair Furth: I’m sorry, so, you want glass? Board Member Hirsch: I think it should be glass. Board Member Thompson: I could be okay with the see-through material. Chair Furth: If it’s see-through, are we seeing cars? Board Member Hirsch: No. No, it’s not see-through because you’re going to be looking at the ceiling anyhow. Board Member Thompson: [off-microphone] Board Member Hirsch: Oh. This area. Oh. Oh, I agree. Okay. It’s not the one that… Okay. Board Member Thompson: Are you okay with the potentially opaque material, which is different from the parapet? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew: Could we actually, maybe point exactly where you’re talking about, so that staff understands the location? Board Member Thompson: I’m looking at Sheet ZA404. Chair Furth: [off-microphone] … on the board. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, it’s used as part of the parapet around the parking. Chair Furth: And in the drawing, it shows it as, I mean… Board Member Thompson: It looks very different. Chair Furth: It looks very different. Board Member Thompson: In the material board, it looks very similar. Chair Furth: [off-microphone] … the photograph, not the material board. Board Member Thompson: Unfortunately. Yes. [Board Members looking at materials board.] Board Member Lew: Okay, and I think GL-2 needs to be resolved with the lighting. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Board Member Thompson: Agreed, yeah, we wouldn’t want it to spill, spill light from up there. Chair Furth: [off-microphone] We don’t like spill over… Ms. Gerhardt: Microphone. Chair Furth: Sorry. We don’t want it glowing in the dark, nor do we want it blending into the materials. We like the fact that it presents a marked visual contrast in the materials board photograph. Board Member Thompson: It’s nice because it breaks down the scale. That’s why we like it. Chair Furth: It does. Actually, they have us looking at the clouds through it, which may not be realistic. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: But it needs to not blend into the adjacent materials. Okay. Board Member Thompson: Can we talk a little bit more about the black material? Chair Furth: Why don’t you do that, Alex? Board Member Thompson: I have a note, an addition, but I just wanted to chat about it with the Board because it might be a little different than maybe what you’re thinking. In the past, when we commented on more muted tones, especially in the iteration before this, we kind of got a beige that did not work at all. It’s a question to the Board. I wonder if it might be worthwhile to ask the applicant to maybe bring a couple ideas forward, because there’s a danger, if you come out with one and it’s potentially not a good solution, we might deny it again. But if you come forward… Because I think, you know, the thing I like about the black is that it’s bold. And it’s true, black sustainability-wise is not a good choice; in the Baylands, it’s not appropriate. But I think another bold color like orange, or something that could be bold… Okay. I see your face. That’s fine. [Laughter] And nobody has to agree with me. I’m also the only one that loves the green screens in the back. You know, something that… There’s a potential hit-or-miss situation here because it’s such an important part of breaking that [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: I’m going to say to you, I like bright, bold colors. I have a really hard time identifying the bright, bold color that’s going to work on Bayshore with respect to the guidelines. I do believe that with great color consultants, you can get, you know, two different shades of cattail that look great together, that are contrasting, that are natural. It could be a rich brown. I mean, there are all kinds of things that could work. But I will be opposing it if I don’t think it fits in that basic daylight… Board Member Thompson: That’s fair. That’s totally fair. I just… [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: … ask the applicant to come back with more than one solution, given that it’s, it’s a bold choice. Right? Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: I would support that. And I think I agree with your assessment about the way the color is applied now, emphasizes the horizontalness, and it breaks up the massing. I don’t want that to change. I think that’s all working really well. I’m on board with that. Board Member Thompson: There’s a danger that if you go to, like, a muted beige and a muted gray, that could all blend in together… Board Member Lew: No, no, no. Chair Furth: We agree [crosstalk]. City of Palo Alto Page 43 Board Member Lew: My thought was just lighter and not necessarily making it all the same. Ms. Gerhardt: Are we saying the placement of the colors is…? Chair Furth: Here’s what we’re saying. We’re saying that we like the fact that they have designed it in a way that it breaks up the elements, it’s not monotonous, they do a good job of handling that huge building in a way that makes a lot of changes. So, we do not want monochromatic. It’s not like you want earth tones, we’ll show you earth tones. We don’t want it monochromatic. We do want contrast. We do want liveliness, I’d say. Ms. Gerhardt: You just want the black to be muted. Chair Furth: This particular black is going to lose at least three votes. You can count. So, lively, beautiful, with these kind of massing shifts that they’ve managed to do here, but not this bright and shiny. And not that black. Is that fair? I’m getting nods from at least three votes here. Board Member Hirsch: The palette here is a black and light contrasting palette, but I think that you can get subtleties with black and a darker gray, or something like that, that would work with what they’re showing. Chair Furth: Well, I’m not convinced that you can do that and meet the design guidelines, but I think there are dark shades that could work. Vice Chair Baltay: To me, it’s just a matter of being, the Bayshore design guidelines call for earth tones, muted colors. It’s grays, I mean, browns and greens, more than blacks and whites. And I just think we have to find something that fits that design guideline. It’s not optional. We have to meet the design guidelines. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so, related to materials, I think bringing some color options is good. I think, you know, there are regulations on the size of the material board for us to keep. There’s no regulations on the size of materials that you can bring into the hearing. Chair Furth: You just have to fit in a file drawer. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. But you can bring… Chair Furth: But feel free to bring in… I mean, Stanford has come in with four-by-four feet. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. You can bring in a sample to the hearing of any size that the applicant can carry. I’m hearing no Corten steel. Chair Furth: That’s a joke. It’s because the Baylands – I shouldn’t joke – the Baylands guidelines talk about Corten steel as being sort of the ideal weathering material, and this is not part of the design here. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. We’ll take that out. Chair Furth: It would be interesting. Ms. Gerhardt: And then, about the GL-2 parapet. The photo on the materials board is more the transparent see-through look, and that’s what we’re going for. We want it differentiated from… Chair Furth: I think we have a complicated problem here. One is, it can’t glow in the dark. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, and the lighting [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: There’s a lighting issue. The second one is that there’s cars behind that, right? You may not want to see things particularly clearly. But the third one is, we like the way they have differentiated the levels and made the building look lighter and a little more fun. City of Palo Alto Page 44 Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, and it helps to break down the scale with the differentiated materials. Chair Furth: It does. Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. That’s materials. Mr. Hutson: Relating to the materials, this is now the third time that we’ve gotten the same, we like black/we don’t like black, or no, we don’t like black, we do like it, we don’t like it. Maybe there is a way we have a working session, because this sounds like you all want to be included in picking colors and materials, and we’d like to be able to accommodate that, but I’m just not sure if we come back with… You know, maybe there’s a way to do this collectively and get through this, and not just kick it down the road and be, you know, let the City Council manipulate the findings the way you’re doing. I just want to be… Chair Furth: I could appoint a subcommittee to go consult with you about color options. Vice Chair Baltay: Good idea, actually. Mr. Hutson: This is a big part, and… Chair Furth: I don’t think it violates the Brown Act. Ms. Gerhardt: I think if we’re headed towards… If we’re heading… [crosstalk] Ms. Gerhardt: If we’re headed towards the fourth hearing and we bring options to that hearing, I think that serves the same purpose. Chair Furth: All right. I leave it to staff. I assure you that we don’t want to pick the color. Vice Chair Baltay: I think it’s a great idea, Wynne, to let maybe Alex and Osma work with them a little bit more. Chair Furth: If the city attorney doesn’t object, if staff could work with Alex and Osma, who I will temporarily appoint to a very temporary subcommittee on the issue of materials, that would be great. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: … figure out a way to work. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, we will ask. Vice Chair Baltay: Do you need a motion to do that? Chair Furth: No, I’m doing this. I have the authority to appoint the subcommittee. I know that. Because I sympathize with the confusion. All right. Landscaping. Green screens. I am still concerned that there is a better tree than a Western Redbud to be used in Palo Alto, because my experience of them is that they are pretty sketchy some of the years. I would like either better evidence, or a better tree. Mr. Puncerelli: Can you point to one that you like, Madam Chair? Chair Furth: [Laughs] But we have really skillful people on the staff, so if staff could work with applicant. And the goal is it has to be clean and tidy, it can’t provide, you know, a danger to pedestrians or bicyclists, you don’t want undesirable insects. But we want as much year-round biomass as we can get there. And if there’s more than one tree, that’s fine, and if they, you know, in many places, we want deciduous trees because we like trees that show what the season is, provides good lighting. But in the case of this building and that street, I want trees. Given the… And, you know, may have to keep pruning them. I mean, I realize we’ve got many problems but… trees. The goal here is that when I drive down City of Palo Alto Page 45 that street, when I get close – drive up the street, north – when I get close, I think, oh, there’s this beautiful dealership there, and look, it’s a Mercedes dealership. Not that I see the sign from a great distance, or that it drags my eye away from everything else that’s happening. Ms. Gerhardt: You’re discussing the street trees on…? Chair Furth: They’re not exactly street trees. I was talking about the Bayshore frontage. Whatever is on the Bayshore frontage. Ms. Gerhardt: East Bayshore frontage, yeah. And we’re looking for evergreen trees and doing [crosstalk]… Chair Furth: We’re looking for green mass. Ms. Gerhardt: And do we have…? Chair Furth: Do we have consensus on that? Ms. Gerhardt: Do you want to do a straw vote? Chair Furth: Alex disagrees. Okay, Alex. Let’s get this hashed out quickly. Board Member Lew: My understanding with the redbud trees, and there are a whole bunch of non-native ones, or, like, United States-native ones. But they’re one of the last trees to drop leaves and one of the first trees to leaf out, so I don’t really understand the comment. Chair Furth: Okay. I’ve been looking at some redbuds recently that are very stick-like, but, you know, good documentation, I’ll be convinced. Board Member Lew: They are stick-like. They’re not really large canopy trees. I think of it more like a, more like an accent. More of an accent-size tree. Chair Furth: Do you think there’s room for anything bigger? Board Member Lew: Fifteen feet is nothing for a tree. And when you get into evergreen trees, it’s even fewer. You have far more choices with the deciduous trees than… Chair Furth: [off-microphone] Pretty much oaks. Board Member Lew: Well, magnolias, [crosstalk]. Mr. Puncerelli: My other concern, just to bring to the Board’s attention, is meeting the 50 percent shade canopy criteria. If we eliminate those and put in evergreen trees, we won’t be hitting that. Chair Furth: Oh, I don’t think we’re talking about firs. I don’t think anybody is going to argue for that. Mr. Puncerelli: Or we go to a non-native and we shoot for an evergreen there. That’s why I was looking for some direction. If you had a penchant towards something, we’re happy to plug it in. Chair Furth: It’s completely covered with – what? – Chinese elms now, or something? Mr. Puncerelli: Yes. Which are non-native, and they were hacked, but they still look cool. Board Member Lew: There are London Planes across the street. Those can be pruned… Chair Furth: They can be [crosstalk]… Mr. Puncerelli: Yeah. In France. Board Member Lew: Yeah. I would think that maybe that’s possibly an option. City of Palo Alto Page 46 Mr. Puncerelli: They don’t look that great. Chair Furth: That could work, actually. It would strongly tie it in to the rest of the trees out there. Most of us think they are native. And they could be maintained to be… I know it’s seasonal, but they can be pretty spectacular. And they are French. Board Member Lew: Well, there’s a California sycamore, as well. But I think typically the London Plane is specified here in Palo Alto. Ms. Gerhardt: Should we do a straw poll on the trees? Vice Chair Baltay: Is there any support on the Board, insisting on keeping the existing trees? Chair Furth: I don’t think we have the power to do that because I don’t think… I don’t think there’s a design that preserves the trees and the bicycle path without a big change in the design. Board Member Lew: They’re also doing a huge grading project here, which doesn’t really help the survival of existing trees. Chair Furth: And I think the Council, if they wish, could address that issue and say you need to put a path through right here, or there. But I don’t think we have that power. I think those trees are very much at the mercy of PG&E. I think one of the things that’s happening here is that as we shift to indoor parking, we’re losing some of the canopy trees that we had before on these sites. I mean, right now, it looks like a woodland. So, I wouldn’t be able to support that, except as a comment to Council. And I do think the bike path is really important. Anybody else? Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll support Alex’s comment about the trees and the idea towards, things like the London Plane trees, I think are a right direction to go. Chair Furth: Yeah, so, trees that are as big and significant as possible. If they’re deciduous part of the year, that’s a legitimate trade-off for good cover the rest of the year. Mr. Puncerelli: I just would hate to spec a London Plane tree and have expectations not met, because the only way they actually look good when they are pollarded is when they’re above 12 to 15 feet above the ground. And then, you have a mass above there, which is almost like a tree wall. Chair Furth: I have a question. What about the landscaping between the edge of the PG&E easement and the building itself? On that frontage. Mr. Puncerelli: There are grasses between, as the understory for the redbuds, between the trail and the parking lot. And then, between the building, our building is right up against the PG&E setback, so anything that we have underneath there is, again, limited to 15 feet. Chair Furth: This is what’s driving me bonkers. It’s why I wish it was three feet back. Ms. Gerhardt: The landscape plan is on L3. Chair Furth: Right. Ms. Gerhardt: There does look to be some space outside of the easement. Chair Furth: That’s what I thought when I looked at it one day, but…. Ms. Gerhardt: There are four trees proposed in that area? Chair Furth: In those little finger junctions, right? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, there’s a live oak… City of Palo Alto Page 47 Chair Furth: Is that where the oaks are? Ms. Gerhardt: There’s one live oak. Mr. Puncerelli: I mean, where we can, we will absolutely add some canopy trees, but I know the civil engineer has been adamant about underground utilities as well. Chair Furth: On your site? Mr. Puncerelli: Yes. Chair Furth: I’m talking about close to your building. I’m talking about close to your building. Mr. Puncerelli: Yeah. There are BMPs in there, as well, for storm drainage. Board Member Thompson: Maybe it’s something the subcommittee could discuss. You know how you were saying that we…? Chair Furth: We can’t have one or two people think about it. We can’t have one or two people work with them. Board Member Thompson: Right. Anyway… Chair Furth: This is expressing my frustration point of view. Mr. Puncerelli: Let’s find another tree or trees to mix in, and if they are not natives but they meet the objective, then let’s plug that in, and hopefully you’re open to that. It’s tough to find all of… You know, I’ve got many masters, and I want to please you all. Board Member Lew: But some do design by committee. Let them come back. Chair Furth: You can come back with it, but the standard that I’m thinking of is that I want significant softening of that prospect with landscaping in various places, so that when I go back there, I do not feel overwhelmed by bright, hard surfaces, but I feel amply buffered by green [inaudible]. All right. Mr. Puncerelli: That’s fair enough. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair Furth: Next. Alex, you had a comment about the curbed ramp at the corner. Board Member Lew: Yeah, that’s just a minor detail. Chair Furth: Well, let’s get it out. You’ll talk to staff about that, or…? You said it was odd. Board Member Lew: It’s very unusual. Has Transportation gone through that really carefully? Mr. Sing: Transportation has looked at the plans, but what particular sheet are you referring to? Board Member Lew: It’s right at the corner of Embarcadero and East Bayshore. It’s just the connection of that to the proposed bike path, is unusual. I think it’s a minor detail that staff can resolve. I don’t think it’s a board-level issue. Chair Furth: All right. Have we told you enough about back wall landscaping, back side landscaping? Do you want more thoughts from us on that, or are you clear? Vice Chair Baltay: Can we be clear on these green panels on the back sides of the building, mostly? I feel strongly that those are very inappropriate. Chair Furth: Because they’re too busy and…? City of Palo Alto Page 48 Vice Chair Baltay: I don’t think they’re functional, and I don’t think they go with the Baylands. It needs to be something much more integrated, and something that’s much lower maintenance. Board Member Hirsch: I want to second that. Mr. Hutson: Can I just comment on that? Chair Furth: Please do. Mr. Hutson: That was one of the things that we had a communication with the Audubon Society, about providing incidental habitat as well, and that was something that we felt like we could participate in and provide some habitat area. I walked next door to Honda and saw the nesting swallows up inside the canopy area and causing problems, and dropping, and everything else. One of the things that the Audubon Society and I discussed was the opportunity to use the back half of those green screens as they angle away from the wall, and be able to provide a horizontal area that they… We wouldn’t provide the scenario, but it would give nesting opportunity and a place to do that. That seemed to be a nice option that we were looking at. I am participating tomorrow in the review at Building 20, to look at how they do that and how we might incorporate those. I’m fully happy to remove them all and put it back the way it was. I don’t think it’s a good opportunity to have green growing up from the ground, and that’s why we have the planters at the top of the space. Those are our BMPs that we treat the water from the run-off at the time, up there, as opposed to sending it back down. This was a continuation of doing landscape on that wall. I’m perfectly open to it, but I will tell you that that was one item that was looked at from a design standpoint, and a habitat provision. Vice Chair Baltay: Let me throw at you an attempt to sort of architecturally explain my thought process here. If I were traveling through the Italian countryside and I looked across one ravine to another, I might see an old stone building that climbs up the side of a wall. It’s fairly large. And you might see a bunch of landscaping growing on or integrated with that building, which feels really integrated into the landscaping. And if you got into it closer, what you would see is that the wall is actually stepped back. They make places for pockets of landscaping, pockets in other parts of the building. Within that architecture itself, the way it climbs out of the ground, even. What you have here is a 30, 40-foot tall concrete wall, and now you’re trying to decorate it with some landscaping. And what I think you need to do is get a little more modulation in your architecture, your building, to then allow all these wonderful things you’re talking about to take place. That’s what I think we’re asking for by integration. Mr. Hutson: In the original proposal last time was you can see the planting areas up high at the roof deck area, that we do have there. We’ve kept it low because we didn’t want to have cascading plants over the side that look like some errant window box. But it’s serving multiple purposes for habitat, as well as softening that edge and treating our water. If the desire is not to integrate the wall and the landscape with… And we were kind of given direction that we wanted not to see your building at all, as opposed to sort of that transition. We kind of did it both ways. Again, I understand what you’re saying, and we’re trying to work with the Board and the concept. I am not one for application of element or application of ornamentation. I will not do that. I won’t suggest to my client that we do that. And that’s not what this is. This has a very specific purpose and a use of why we angled them away and why we did them the way we did. The heights can be adjusted there. We played with that a couple of times. But again, they were very purposeful. They mimic the louvers that are on the side of the building, at the glass, in gesture, as we translate from Bayshore to the back of the building. That was our anticipated transition. Certainly not the same element, but simple vernacular of the louvers. And they’re not moveable, so I should probably indicate that. But again, we’re here to absolutely, whether it’s a committee or we ask for a vote to move us on, you know, we’re comfortable either way. I just want to make sure that we get some clear direction because it just kind of sets us up for not being able to, you to be able to recommend one way or the other, and us not to be able to satisfy the concerns of the [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Okay. Go ahead, Osma. City of Palo Alto Page 49 Board Member Thompson: Well, I do think maybe not all of our heads are in the same place here, because I actually think that that part of the building is pretty awesome. I like the angles, and I like that it’s kind of architecturalizing the landscape. It’s not trying to be landscape; it’s trying to stylize it in an interesting way. And now that we’ve heard that there’s this relationship with the swallows, that it could have… As long as it doesn’t get VE’d out. That was actually my only note here, that because it looks like an appliqué, it looks like something that could easily be taken out later. I think I agree with Board Member Baltay… Sorry, VE is Value Engineered… Chair Furth: I know that now, but I don’t know if the general public does. We don’t want it cut out as a cost-saving measure. Board Member Thompson: Yes. Which we wouldn’t want to happen. But I kind of agree that, you know, I like them there. I think the building greatly benefits with them there. Without them there, the building is a lot harder to look at. But if there could be… It sounds like maybe – and correct me if I’m wrong, Board Member Baltay, but you want something a bit more integrated, rather than something applied to the façade? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I suppose integration is an important aspect to that. Chair Furth: Alex, do you have any comments on this aspect? Board Member Lew: Generally, I’m in support of the green screen. I’ve used it a lot, and we’ve seen it on a lot of projects here in town. To me, it’s all in the details, on how it’s done, because it can look really tacky, or it can be beautifully integrated into the building. And I haven’t seen enough yet to see if, you know, to see that it’s actually integrated well into the building. Like the mounting brackets. If they are end caps, how is the edge that’s projecting out from the wall, like, how is that supported? Because normally there would be a big mounting clip. But I am in support conceptually of the design that you have today. Chair Furth: David, do you have a comment on this? Board Member Hirsch: Well, yes. I feel that as a rain screen, it could be done many different ways. That you have a series of bays in the back of the building with transparent material on top of some of them, and others more solid. You ought to really integrate the idea of how those planted areas work with what’s above it. I don’t see the reason for it being a separate rain screen off the wall. I don’t know if the Audubon Society ought to be telling us which way to put those on our buildings. Maybe I’m not familiar with exactly how they function entirely, but if they are off the way, then the screen could be related to the bay, and answer Peter’s comment here as well. And it really ought to start from some base. The base is clearly black, and we have these rain screens kind of hanging over it. And the pattern really doesn’t have any meaning to me at all whatsoever. I think if you have it, the more green, the better, so do it bay, by bay, by bay, and follow the pattern that you already have. Chair Furth: All right. I favor greening these backsides. I’m fairly skeptical about, I mean, I’m not trying to garden this. I think that they are tricky to do, and tricky to maintain. But that is your choice as to whether or not you are comfortable undertaking that, and if you believe you can maintain it, I believe you can. I think that Alex is right, that really well-designed materials and finishing and plant choice which would be more about what has good habitat value than anything else, I would support that when you came back with it. Mr. Hutson: I think we’re moving towards a real opportunity here, to make some suggestions and to refer this. We’re happy to do that, not only with the colors, but with this. If we make it as a non-louvered, you know, green screen, adaptable wall in every other bay, or something like that, you know, allows us to manipulate that and do that and use that as a, you know, a simple condition of approval. I think we can get there. It sounds like. I think we’re all… This is kind of what I was hoping… City of Palo Alto Page 50 Chair Furth: I think you can get there. I wouldn’t argue for kicking it out today. I’m sorry. We’re just not going to go there. But, yes, most of us, you have at least three of us who believe some kind of screening application that has good habitat value, you consulted with the appropriate people, you figured how to maintain it; you’re good. Mr. Hutson: Can I ask, how do we then get, if staff has said that there isn’t a guarantee that we get an additional meeting, I mean, what is the…? Chair Furth: Then the Director will just take it to City Council. Right? Staff? Yeah. They’ll just say they don’t care; we’ve heard enough from you. But we would like to get it finished at this level with the details [crosstalk]. Mr. Hutson: Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. If we could do something and conditional it today, and everybody… Chair Furth: And I’m telling you that I don’t have consensus on that. Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Could I clarify, just to clarify your interpretation of what you’re hearing from us on the green screen? I don’t think anyone wants less green on that wall. Chair Furth: That’s correct. Yes. Board Member Thompson: Right? So, if you were to have… Because I think what you have shown in your renderings, it’s nice because it’s, a good percentage of your façade on the back is green, and I don’t think we want any less than what you’re actually showing right now. Chair Furth: Good point. Board Member Thompson: I heard you say take it away from one bay and put it somewhere else, but that would give you a big hole that doesn’t have green fill. I just wanted to clarify that I think we’re all in support of the amount of green you have there, and… Chair Furth: At a minimum. Board Member Thompson: At a minimum. Yeah. Chair Furth: Okay. Anything else? Board Member Lew: We do have some green screen on parking garages in town. You might want to look at VMware, and also Stanford Shopping Center. And then, there are lots of smaller applications that you’ll see here downtown, like on University Avenue and High Street. Chair Furth: Well, also the city garage at the corner of… What is that? It’s the street that dead ends into the Apple store. Across from [inaudible]. Board Member Lew: Oh, it’s not Kipling, it’s the other one. Chair Furth: What is it? Male??: [inaudible]. Board Member Lew: No, no, no, it’s the… Chair Furth: [crosstalk] Castle? No. Board Member Lew: It’s okay. We understand. [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 51 Chair Furth: …But that’s an interesting green screen because it’s completely overwhelmed the sculpture in it. Board Member Lew: Oh, you’re saying Bryant. Across from the senior center. Chair Furth: Yeah, Bryant. Board Member Lew: Okay. Chair Furth: Has an exuberant green wall. With bird sculptures. If this could have real birds, we’d be real happy. Anything else, folks? I think we’ve given our direction on the big issues. We have a group of two people for staff to consult with. Yes, Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: I think we’ve talked about colors and landscaping. On the car wash, do we have that page, Sheldon? We just want to show you on the car wash that right adjacent to the car wash is a solid wall, but on most of the perimeter it would be that open fencing. Is that acceptable, that it’s just solid by the car wash itself? Or do we still want to look at that further? The perimeter fencing is what I’m talking about. Mr. Sing: Yeah, if you look at Sheet 408. Ms. Gerhardt: It’s hard to see, so we can get some more images in the next set as well. Mr. Sing: That shows the exit of the car wash. Chair Furth: I’m still looking for Sheet 408. Which sheet is it in the packet? Mr. Sing: It’s 408, CA408. Board Member Lew: The other sheets just say existing fence to remain, so I was presuming that was all chain-link. Mr. Sing. Yeah, I think the idea is that the fence would remain, and the reason for that is the footings of the solid wall would impede some landscaping, so to get more landscaping, maintaining that fence was a better option. Board Member Lew: And I would say, at least in the plans, the coffee berry is, like, a 10-foot plant, and there’s a five-foot landscape area, and there’s a footing, and then there’s like a two-foot grade change. I think that that’s all… At least in the set that I was looking at, it didn’t seem resolved yet. Chair Furth: The planting that’s proposed wouldn’t fit. Board Member Lew: Also, too, I just want to comment on the… Chair Furth: Excuse me, Alex, before you… Were you saying that the coffee berry wouldn’t fit in the indicated space? Board Member Lew: Yeah, it’s like a 10-foot plant in a five-foot space, and there’s a footing for the car wash, presumably. And also, there’s the existing chain-link fence, and part of it has barbed wire. I was wondering if we could remove the barbed wire because that’s not allowed in our, it’s prohibited in our fence code. Chair Furth: What’s anybody’s view on the side of the car wash, or the frontage adjacent to the other commercial property there? Not the Baylands exposure. I’m trying to find a good… Board Member Hirsch: You know, the plan on O-3, you really can’t put the car wash anywhere else. Chair Furth: No, I’m not arguing for relocating the car wash, but isn’t that…? City of Palo Alto Page 52 Board Member Hirsch: There’s space between the car wash and the fence to the neighboring property. Chair Furth: And is that landscaping that I’m seeing? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: There’s a whole bunch of bushes. There’s all these little bushes shown on Sheet 003. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Mr. Hutson: We have a 10-foot setback there, so we’re set away, a good way [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Okay, there’s ample room for landscaping there. [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: Absolutely. Yeah. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: That’s what I was asking staff, and that’s not the answer I got earlier, I didn’t think. And the plan shows what? Is that where the coffee berry goes? Board Member Lew: I don’t think it’s 10 feet. I scaled it yesterday and I didn’t get 10 feet. Chair Furth: All right, let’s confirm that, that we think it should be 10 feet back. Perfect. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. It is. Chair Furth: Okay, we’re going to specify that it’s 10 feet back, it should be landscaped. We’re not going to argue, settle that here. They say it’s 10, I’m going to go for it. If it’s less than 10 feet, then we need to figure that out. Are we talking about the same…? But there needs to be sufficient space of adequate landscaping or attractive fencing. Yes, we need to wind this up. Okay. Anything else we need to say or can say? We really need to go. Yes, Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: I was just making sure if there were any other issues, but I think we’re good. Chair Furth: Would you like us to continue this to a date certain? MOTION Chair Furth: I’ll move that we continue this to a date uncertain. Can I have a second? Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: All those in favor? All those opposed. It passes 5-0. If staff wishes to do something [inaudible]. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you for patience. I know these aren’t fun hearings when you’re dealing with a complex project, but we appreciate that it’s in a very sensitive area. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 375 University Avenue [19PLN-00103]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Renovation of an Existing Approximately 13,000 Square Foot Restaurant Building (Former Cheesecake Factory). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial With Ground Floor Retail and Pedestrian Overlays). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us City of Palo Alto Page 53 Chair Furth: Next item is a public hearing on 375 University Avenue, recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the renovation of an existing 13,000 square foot restaurant building, formerly the Cheesecake Factory. It’s exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with guideline section 15301, existing facilities. May we have the staff presentation, please? Emily Foley, Project Planner: This is, as we mentioned, 375 University. This is an architectural review application. They are updating the façade of, as we mentioned, the former Cheesecake Factory. There’s no change to the FAR or the overall building height, and as I’ll get into a little later, on the rear they have added a new window and light fixtures on the alleyway. The site is located downtown in the Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian and Ground Floor combining district zone. It is between the Crepevine and Paris Baguette restaurants on University Avenue, and there are retail and office uses in the surrounding area. This item was previously at the ARB on March 7th as a preliminary application. Graham Owen was the planner at that time. If you recall, overall, the changes were perceived as an improvement. However, there was a need to look at additional modifications on the alleyway, and I will get into the changes that have been made to address that. This is the site plan. They aren’t changing the building footprint, but they have applied to divide the space into three devisable, rentable spaces. On the exterior, they are proposing to obviously remove the Cheesecake Factory branding and make it more generic to accommodate a variety of potential tenants. The proposed material includes a stone veneer, which is a light color, as seen from the samples, with a darker color acting as a base at the bottom. The stone veneer wraps about 14 feet around the sides, and then it transitions to a painted cement plaster in the same general color tones. There’s also metal awnings added to the front, along with that kind of grate pattern at the top of the building. This also shows the rear elevation which has the window where the Cheesecake Factory logo sign previously was, as well as adding two light fixtures to the alley. This shows the side elevations. The height of the building is not changing from what is existing. The project is generally in compliance with the required findings. However, there is no landscaping proposed as a part of this project, so Finding #5 for landscaping may need to be discussed. And then, in terms of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, this is considered a place alley, so, as previously mentioned, they are adding a window and light fixtures on the alley, and they are also going to be able to store the waste bins inside the building and not have them on the alley. As previously mentioned, this is exempted from CEQA, and staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval to the Director. Chair Furth: Thank you. Has everybody viewed the site? All Board Members: Yes. Chair Furth: Everybody has viewed the site. Does anybody have any extramural discussions to disclose before we proceed with the hearing? All Board Members: No. Chair Furth: May we hear from the applicant, please? You have 10 minutes after you spell your name. Steven Ohlhaber, C2K Architecture: [spells name]. It’s great to be back in front of you again. We were here a couple months ago with a preapplication meeting. I don’t know if you remember. We got great feedback at that time, so I think we were trying to address a couple of the items that were brought up. But, for the most part, the design has just been further refined, and basically kept as we were with the preapplication, except for a couple modifications. Would you like me to go through it for the record again, the presentation? Chair Furth: Only anything that’s changed, I think. Mr. Ohlhaber: Okay. The existing Cheesecake Factory building did encroach over the property line, it did have an encroachment permit on there. And then, working with Public Works and Planning on the building, it has been pulled back so that the façade is in line with the property line along University City of Palo Alto Page 54 Avenue. One of the other comments that came up was about dumpsters on the place alley behind the building. All dumpsters are currently inside the building. They were with Cheesecake, and they will be going forward. If you do go to the site, take a look at the dumpsters that are out there, are not part of this project. There is an inside service yard that is enclosed behind the rolling gate on the back of the building, and that’s where all the recycling and trash and composting will happen. Also on the service alley side, there was a comment if the building could provide a little bit more lighting to help enhance the service alley. We did go back through the site. There is a streetlight back there, but we are proposing two downlight sconces, one at the service alley entrance right by that, and the other on the other side of the building where there is actually another entrance. We’re adding two light fixtures to the back of the building to help add to that service alley presence and make it a little more appealing, but not over-lit. Apart from that, we did do a minor refinement with the base detail. As we got into looking further into the details of the… please keep going forward. [Adjusting slide presentation.] One of the other charges was to take a look at the base detail for the building. Looking at the character of the building, it’s a very modern building. We’re using very recta-linear forms. One of the things that we think is very neat about the detailing is how we have these sort of steel portal frames that go around and create the openings and frame the openings into the building. In looking at the base of the building, we decided to keep the base in plane with the stone up above, so the effect is that the stone itself recedes right by the steel edge, so we have this perfect insertion right by it. And to play the difference in material is to use a reveal in the base stone so that the top stone comes down, stops at a point, there’s a reveal in the darker gray base stone, and then, it continues on to the same profile. So, when all that returns back to the steel, we have a very clean line, we don’t have any overlapping materials, and it looks like almost the whole building has bene machined to fit together. Roxy just wanted to point out that the rear window is actually, in an earlier version of the building, were existing where they are today, so we’re sort of bringing back a little bit more of the presence of the prior versions of the building. I’m happy to move the materials. Does anyone want a closer look? Chair Furth: Yes, if you could bring them up here, please. [Moving materials board]. Mr. Ohlhaber: Okay. The stone on the base that you’re handling now is a flamed granite. It will have a texture on it, as well. The stone up above it is a variation of a Mexican limestone. This is the color palate for the stucco cementitious plaster repainting of the building. The body of the building will be in this P-2 color. The accent is P-3. You only see that at the back, and what it’s trying to do is duplicate the idea of base around the back and the alley side, give it a little more base to the building. What you see here is the underside of the main awnings at the front. The intent was to try and provide a little bit of a natural, woodier tone to soften up the experience as you walk underneath the canopy at the street level. And then, this is the painted steel structure. This is a mock-up of one of the window frames in progress. The idea is to bring up more of a bronze color, a dark bronze, then up here, black. I think in our original presentations, we weren’t even going pure black. We’re trying to pull out some of the red tones that we see in the stone, and we see in the paint colors. Board Member Thompson: [inaudible] Mr. Ohlhaber: That’s the base. Correct. Board Member Thompson: [inaudible] Mr. Ohlhaber: This is the accent at the back. And the rest of the body is this color here. All the dark colors will be matching [inaudible]. What I was just explaining was where the different paint colors go. The P-3 color, which is the darker of the two paint colors, is only in the rear alley area and acts as the base for the building, trying to mimic the stone that we have on the front. The P-2 color will be the body of the building, and again, that color is chosen to sort of work in harmony with the new face stone that happens on the primary elevation, so we have a cohesive-looking building from a distance, and as you City of Palo Alto Page 55 get closer to the University side, you then can see the stone elevation. Oh, that’s a good point. One other part of the packet that we wanted to show, there was a comment about the fire department connections on the front of the building, making sure they are within the four-inch projection that’s required by ADA. What we are doing here is showing you a cut sheet of a fire department projection that has a four-inch maximum projection. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Is there anything else you’d like to tell us before we open it up for public comment? Any public comment? Roxy Rapp: [inaudible] Chair Furth: For the benefit of the microphone, Mr. Rapp likes the project. Anything more from staff? Ms. Gerhardt: I did want to reiterate, on packet page 79 in the staff report, this alleyway is meant to be a place alley, not just a service alley. It is meant to be a gathering place for pedestrians, so we are, in a sense, trying to clean it up. Any comments related to that would be helpful. Chair Furth: I have one comment for staff, which is, on page 88 it says: “The existing trash facilities in the service alley will need to be brought into the structure to meet current stormwater standards.” But I understood the applicant’s architect to say the existing trash is handled in the building, that the unfortunate trash receptacles that we see in that alley are not from this building. They are from other buildings. Is that correct? Mr. Ohlhaber: Correct. Chair Furth: People are nodding their heads, so that is a yes, so we should correct that item in the report on page 88. So that we don’t cast aspersions on an innocent building and its owner. Okay. Questions or comments? Vice Chair Baltay: To staff, could you address, please? The plans show that the sidewalk is being replaced. Can you confirm if that’s the case? Ms. Foley: The issue with the sidewalk is that the engineering department determined that the existing pavement was in good shape and did not need to be replaced. Ms. Gerhardt: No, the sidewalk will be replaced. It will be City standard, similar to what is in front of Design Within Reach. And it will have just a basic gray color with the brick trim. Chair Furth: If I could editorialize, which will go very well with the building. The restored sidewalk. Thank you. All right, we’ve clarified it on trash, we’ve clarified it on the sidewalk. Anything else? Alex? Board Member Lew: I have a comment on the light fixture, the one, I think it’s F-1, that’s mounted up high. I think my comment is, can that be…? Chair Furth: Alex, could you refer me to a page? Board Member Lew: Yes. Exterior lighting is on the front. It’s Sheet A320. Fixture F-1. The cut sheet says it can be either up light or downlight. I was wondering if we could do downlight. Or, I guess my question is, if you wanted an up light…? Mr. Ohlhaber: Yes, you could. The intent is up-down. Board Member Lew: You want both. And staff can correct me – I think we’re trying to discourage up lights. In our performance standards. Maybe the performance standards don’t trigger in this particular location because there aren’t residences nearby. Generally, we try to discourage up lights, although you can go around downtown and you’ll see them. Anyway, that’s my only comment. We’ll see what other Board members have to say about that. City of Palo Alto Page 56 Chair Furth: Peter, any comments? Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Mr. Rapp, for bringing forth such a nice project. I think this is really high- quality materials, high-quality design, and I’m sorry you had to wait so long to get your turn. But I can fully support this project. I have one change on the findings, just the verbiage on page 84, for finding number 2, the last sentence. The height of the existing building, it improves the existing street scape, etc. I’d like to say the height of the existing building, and by incorporating design techniques typical of older one-story commercial buildings on University Avenue. It’s just justification for the design. So that this whole finding would then read, “The area is comprised of various commercial, retail and restaurant buildings, one and two stories in height. The proposed project maintains the overall feel of existing streetscapes by not changing the height of the existing building, and by incorporating design techniques typical of older one-story commercial buildings on University Avenue.” That’s it. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other comments? Board Member Thompson: I would agree with my fellow board members. It’s a really nice project that you have here. I don’t really have very many comments. I think I made a comment back in the day about it, but I’ll ask again. The storefront that’s facing University, are any of the fenestrations high up, are they operable to release hot air? Nope? Did you guys look into that at all? Mr. Ohlhaber: The building is designed to re-use the existing MEP systems with the appropriate economizers to bring it to code. There wasn’t really any demand for making those operable. It seems like an interesting feature, but there really is no need for it in the building and how the mechanical system works. Board Member Thompson: Okay. I still think it would be nice, but I don’t need to fight anybody about that. It’s just more passive, it will save you more energy probably if you have it, and it doesn’t sound like it would compromise the design at all. That’s my only comment. Oh, for up light, I could go either way, for trying to reduce more up light. The building will still look really nice if that fixture shows down. That’s where I’m at. Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch, do you have comments? Board Member Hirsch: No, it’s basically the same question about the lighting. If that fixture allows it, it could be somewhat up lighting as well as down lighting. But I wouldn’t emphasize the up, but it might make an interesting feature out of it, to have it both up and down. But mostly down. That’s about it. I like the project very much. Chair Furth: All right. I like the project, too. I’m glad to know that the trash is fine, I’m glad to know that the sidewalk will be changed. I agree with Osma that buildings are much more charming, let alone efficient, when they have windows that are operable in the upper story. And if you could add operable windows without compromising the HVAC, I would be in support of that. On the up-down issue, staff, are we indeed trying to eliminate up lighting? Or reduce it? Ms. Gerhardt: We’re not near an airport or other things like that, so there isn’t a true regulation, but most cities are always trying to reduce up lighting to allow the natural sky to show through. Board Member Lew: There’s something in our performance standards about up lighting. The issue that’s not clear in my mind is if the performance standards are required in this particular location. Ms. Gerhardt: The performance criteria talks about minimized visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites, and from adjacent roadways, so it does discuss roadways. Chair Furth: But that’s not… Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 57 Board Member Lew: Roxy has up lights on some of their buildings downtown, and others [inaudible], and it does look… And it is attractive. Mr. Rapp: Right. At the corner of Bryant and University, where [inaudible] is. I like it, especially at night. Pedestrians walking down will be able to see the column. I wanted to make the column stand out. I would lower them a little bit. I think the architect has them a little bit higher; I wanted them a little bit lower, like maybe three feet lower. And then, also we have, in the sidewalk, to shine up on the column, so I think it really causes some interest. It makes the building safer when pedestrians walk by. It’s not dark. We plan to leave those on. Chair Furth: All right. Thank you. Well, that brings up an interesting point because I tend to agree with the owner, that those light fixtures, if they are indeed going to shine up and down, would look good a little bit lower, so they have more building to illuminate. I’d be in favor of letting staff and the applicant agree on what the height of those light fixtures should be. I note that there is good pedestrian seating right next to this building on the corner; therefore, it doesn’t need a bench. Not that I’m letting go of my drive for mobility downtown. I had one other thing… Well, it can’t have been that important. Oh, what about the window? Osma and I believe that upstairs windows on a façade like this, at least some of them should open transom style, or casement style, or whatever, so that in the future, if somebody wants to let the hot air out, they can do that. Any thoughts? Do we have a third vote? Board Member Lew: No. Chair Furth: Okay, that’s a no. Vice Chair Baltay: I support your concept, but I just don’t see the architectural findings to support insisting on them. I agree in principle, but… Chair Furth: We would just say it’s for sustainability. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, it’s more of energy-saving [crosstalk] future functionality. Vice Chair Baltay: But I think the HVAC system is probably a lot more efficient if you don’t mess with it by opening the windows. Just leave it alone. That’s what the engineers will tell you. They’ve told us in the past. Chair Furth: And you guys always believe the engineers. We’ve so noticed that. Mr. Rapp: The other problem with operating windows, I don’t want to say I’m anti-restaurants, I just feel that we have enough restaurants downtown. Next door, the larger space is going to be a non-restaurant use. Beta [phonetic] is going in there, which has all the latest technology, etc., which I’m very excited about. And I wanted to get a bookstore, but because of the length of time, I lost them. And as you know, retail is really hard. I’m talking to a very exciting use, which is a, it’s called the coffee bar. In the daytime, it’s coffee with health food, things like that, and at night it becomes a wine bar. If you have food, it’s not good to have windows that are open where the flies could fly in and everything. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: The other thing with natural ventilation is humidity. I’ve worked in a naturally ventilated office, and it had the benefit of skylights and windows on two sides of the building and having that was really critical in trying to keep the building cool. But even then, once you put people in, especially with restaurants – less so, I would imagine with retail – even if you got all the windows and things, it still gets humid and… Chair Furth: I think we’ll accept it as given, thank you. We don’t have the three votes. MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 58 Chair Furth: Would somebody like to make a motion? Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we approve this project as submitted. Board Member Hirsch: I second that. Chair Furth: Okay, I’ll just note to staff that you’re going to correct that one thing in the staff report, about they are not presently littering the alley. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. You passed. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Chair Furth: Let the record show we didn’t hold you up at the ARB. Mr. Ohlhaber: Thank you so much. [The Board took a short break.] [Board Member Hirsch left the chamber.] Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: We have minutes, but we need to go, so we’re going to kick over the minutes. Is that all right? All right. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2019. Chair Furth: Is there a motion to approve the minutes of April 4, 2019? If you have any clerical corrections, give them to staff. I don’t care, we have a quorum. Let’s go. Board Member Thompson: I don’t remember seeing these. Chair Furth: Having completely lost track of… Board Member Thompson: When did these get sent to us? Chair Furth: … lost control of the… They’re on the agenda. Board Member Thompson: Oh, it’s in the packet? Chair Furth: Well, that’s not going to work. I’m sorry, Jodie, we’re going to have to continue them. Three of us read them. All right. Would one of you two make the motion? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I’d like to correct, please, on page 21, Packet Page 122, I am quoted following Alden saying, “it’s approximately 43 feet,” then I say, “I want to be sure I understand this, it’s a 43-foot- tall volume that’s counted only once.” Not “discounted.” Chair Furth: All right. Any other corrections? Motion please. [Board Member Hirsch returned to the chamber.] Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we approve the minutes with that correction. Board Member Lew: I’ll second. Chair Furth: Okay, motion by Baltay, second by Lew, to approve the minutes of April 4th. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. Any abstentions? Ms. Gerhardt: Is that a 5-0? Chair Furth: Yes. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. City of Palo Alto Page 59 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2019. Chair Furth: All right, what about the minutes of the 18th of April? Vice Chair Baltay: Those were good. Board Member Thompson: I was not present, so I will abstain. Chair Furth: You will abstain. Motion, please. Vice Chair Baltay: Move that we approve the minutes of April 18th. Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Motion by Baltay, second by Lew, to approve the minutes of April 18, 2019. Thompson will abstain because she was absent. The rest of you, all in favor say aye. Opposed, none. Passes 4-0-1. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. Subcommittee Items 6. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00265]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Increase Pedestrian Pathways, Outdoor Seating, and Reduce Signage Sizes. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: There is a subcommittee, and I will leave them to that. Board Member Thompson: Who is on the subcommittee? Chair Furth: Peter is. Who else is on this? We appointed it at the time. Ms. Gerhardt: Who got it in their packet? Board Member Thompson: It wasn’t me. Chair Furth: I did. Ms. Gerhardt: Uh-oh. Chair Furth: Oh, shoot. [Laughs]. Ms. Gerhardt: You can pass it to someone else. Chair Furth: All right, I’m going to just let Peter handle that. I have to… Vice Chair Baltay: [inaudible] Chair Furth: Okay, I’ll come. We’ll get it done. Are they here? Ms. Gerhardt: I texted them. I hope they arrive soon. Vice Chair Baltay: To be honest, I find that it’s okay the way it’s been submitted. Chair Furth: We’ll take a very quick look at it. Ms. Gerhardt: It will be a very quick subcommittee then. Vice Chair Baltay: We can do it right now. City of Palo Alto Page 60 Chair Furth: Just get the applicant over here. All right. Thank you all. Board Member Lew: There’s one other item. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Alex, any reports? Board Member Lew: The North Ventura May meeting was cancelled. The next meeting will be… It was done on purpose. The next meeting will be a joint meeting with the Council next Tuesday, and I think… The Planning Director wants Council’s direction before they spend any time or money going down a dead- end road. Chair Furth: All right. Thank you. Any other reports, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: Tomorrow there is a meeting at Lucie Stern with Scott Wiener to talk about housing. Chair Furth: Yes. Well, my thanks to the Board members for your persistence and patience and courtesy during a difficult hearing. And also during a very simple one. We are adjourned. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Board Members Alexander Lew and Osma Thompson. Absent: Vice Chair Baltay, Board Member David Hirsch Chair Furth: Good morning, and welcome to the deferred regular meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto, for June 20, 2019. My apologies for the unavoidable delay this morning. Staff, could you call the roll? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications. This is a time to address any item not on the agenda but is within our subject matter here, our purview. I don’t have any cards. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on any matter? No? All right. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions – not addressed City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City official reports. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. We just have the schedule. The July 4th meeting is cancelled. And then, July 18th, Board Member Thompson will be out, but I believe everyone else will be here. Also, July 18th, Chair Furth, it would be your last meeting, right? Chair Furth: That’s right. Ms. Gerhardt: We’d like to schedule a celebration of sorts. We’ll talk more about that offline. Chair Furth: Thank you. I feel like I just have to say, I’ve never been late before. The movers just arrived. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. And then, for the next meeting on July 18th, it shows six items in the packet. It has gone down to a more reasonable four items. I believe the wireless items are dropping off and will not be heard that day. Chair Furth: We have 565 Hamilton Avenue, which is a return to us. Is that right? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: June 20, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, second hearing. Chair Furth: A preliminary hearing on 486 Hamilton Avenue, and a subcommittee meeting on the brick and lighting at the Public Services Building. Is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. The new road/bridge. Board Member Thompson: Actually, I just remembered, I actually might be here on the 18th. I had some funny things happen with my planning, so it’s possible I will actually be at that. Ms. Gerhardt: That would be great. Either way. Chair Furth: I’m sorry, a new road/bridge replacement. Okay. Board Member Thompson: I need a packet for that. My flight is coming back on the 17th, but I should be here. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Furth: All right. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3000 El Camino Real (18PLN-00277): Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program to allow three monument signs, six directory signs and thirteen directional signs and a Sign Exception to exceed sign height and/or area for free standing 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). Zoning District: PC-4637. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: We’re ready for our first public hearing, which is a quasi-judicial hearing. The address is 3000 El Camino Real, and staff is recommending that we, that they would like approved the applicant’s request for major architectural review for a Master Sign Program to allow three monument signs, six directory signs, and 13 directional signs, and a sign exception to exceed the sign height and area for freestanding and directional signs. This is better known as Palo Alto Square. This is exempt from review under CEQA. These are accessory structures. The zoning is PC, which, of course, is a little obsolete now, but still valid. The applicant is Stanford University, presumably through a master tenant. Could we hear from staff, please? Danielle Condit, Project Planner: Thank you. Good morning, Chair Furth and ARB Board. My name is Danielle Condit, I am the project planner on the application. The application you have before you today is a request for the Master Sign Program sign exception. The applicant wishes to install one new monument ID located at the corner of El Camino and Page Mill, two new theater tenant signs located at the drive aisle entries off El Camino and Page Mill, and six new directory signs located interior of the site, along the perimeter of the existing buildings, as well as 13 new pedestrian and vehicular signs, directional, located throughout the site. We are before you today because the proposed signs deviate from the previously approved Master Sign Program established in 1994, and some of the proposed signs actually exceed what is allowed per today’s development standards. On the slide you can see the sign types that will actually exceed what is allowed for the development standards of today. Sign Type B, which is the theater tenant sign, exceeds the maximum allowed sign area. Sign Type E, which is the building ID signs, they will exceed the allowed sign area and sign height. Sign types G and G.1, which are the vehicular and pedestrian directional signs, will exceed the sign height. To give you a little history on the property, as we City of Palo Alto Page 3 established, there was a Master Sign Program previously in 1994, and this site was refaced in 2008 with a staff-level ARB review. The site is approximately 15 acres in size and is home to six individual buildings, ranging from one to 10 stories in height. The Master Sign Program being applied for is the result of a site-wide change, which deviates from what was previously approved, the sign exceptions, and to standardize the height… The goal of this is to standardize the heights and designs throughout the site. Key considerations, is that the property was developed under a Planned Community 4637. The PC allowed for the development of two 10-stories office buildings that are at a height of 159 feet, which would exceed today’s development standards. Primarily, the property is – excuse me – is surrounded by the service commercial zones and the Research Park. In the service commercial zones, the maximum height allowed is 50 feet, and in the Research Park it is 35 feet. In the service commercial or CS zone, that is more than three times the amount, and in the Research Park, more than four times the amount today. Staff feels that due to the existing structures on the site and their enlarged scale, the signs are appropriately scaled for the subject property. As you can see on your screens, this is the previously approved Master Sign Program. The sign locations for the new Master Sign Program in 2018 have approximately the same location as before. Sign Type A, which is the new monument sign at El Camino and Page Mill, you have your existing and proposed. Sign Type B, which is the theater tenant signage, you have your existing and proposed. The new directory signage, which is Sign Type B. The new directional signage for vehicular wayfinding. These are two new signs that were not existing before. Sign Type G, which is for your building monument ID signs. These are your building ID signs for directional. And interior directional pedestrian, directional signage. That concludes staff’s presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Seeing none, if we could hear from the applicant. [Applicant setting up presentation] Chair Furth: Good morning. If you could introduce yourself, and we have a transcriber, so if you could spell your name for the record, that would be great. You have 10 minutes. Danny Moran, Luxury Services: Great, thank you. My name is Danny Moran [spells name]. I’m with Luxury Services, which is the design firm that designed the Master Sign Program, and also Corporate Sign Systems, which is the fabricator for the sign program. We’re actually requesting to increase the height of the signage over the previous ARB approvals, based on our design of the signage. I’d like to briefly explain how we derived the design. Basically, the design is based… I don’t know if you guys read through the… Chair Furth: We read the materials. Mr. Moran: Okay. Would you like me to explain about Palo Alto and how…? Chair Furth: Say whatever you like. Mr. Moran: Sure. I will just read off the script here. For this Palo Alto landmark property, Lux proposes a clean, simple and meaningful design that is a fresh break from the somewhat hard concrete architectural forms that are inherent to the property. Consideration came from the origins of Palo Alto’s name. In 1976 [sic], Palo Alto was named after the giant sequoia called El Palo Alto by Spanish sailors who traced the route from the Galleon Manila and Manila. The name was assigned by the size and the high visibility of the tree as seen from the San Francisco Bay area when the sailors arrived, and served as a reference point to know where to stop and rest, prior to returning on the difficult trip back to the Philippines. The voyage was made once or twice a year. The sailors were generally different from the previous year, so it was necessary to use clear geographical references for the changing crews, hence docking near El Palo Alto. Today, El Palo Alto is the official seal of both Stanford University and the city of Palo Alto. Vertical linear design ties together the historical use of the tree as a landmark for reference point and location. Our design is inspired by the sequoia tree’s texture, the movement of its bark, its proportions, and overall City of Palo Alto Page 4 importance to Palo Alto’s history. Basically, you can see all these things, but this is just the rendering, basically referencing what I just mentioned. And here are some of the sign types that were mentioned. This one is undersized. This is the corner monument. The theater sign, which is a lot smaller than the existing theater sign. These are the directories. This is the monument building ID. Basically, this is one of the signs that’s over the previous height restriction, and we feel that it is appropriate because, again, it emphasizes the linear verticalness on Palo Alto. We feel that the signage is really not that tall compared to the overall mass of the buildings. That’s it. Chair Furth: That’s it? Mr. Moran: Yep. Chair Furth: All right. Are there any questions of the applicant before we discuss these matters? Is that a no? Board Member Thompson: Are there any material samples? Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Mr. Moran: Yes. Board Member Thompson: We do? Oh, good. Board Member Lew: I have a question. I was wondering if you could clarify the Page Mill Road driveway, and I think there’s a shared entrance with the neighboring property, and they have a low multitenant sign in the median. I was wondering if there were discussions with the neighboring tenant on how to share that location with regard to signage. Like, why did they get to put it in the median and yours is on one side of the road? Bryan Panian, Corporate Sign Systems: My name is Bryan Panian, project manager for Corporate Sign Systems. I know the entry that you’re talking about and that is outside of the property line, so it does fall on the other property. I know that it is a shared driveway. And no, we haven’t discussed with the other tenant about that. I don’t think that it was ever a concern before. I think that the wayfinding existing works. It directs people in, and then there’s another wayfinding sign at the end of the drives that directs them right or left, depending on the property. Our goal with this sign program overall is to improve the wayfinding and to assist visitors to the Palo Alto Square, to avoid this confusion that you’re talking about. Potentially, they don’t know where they’re going. Our goal with the exemption on the height is that you can see and identify these buildings and properties more easily as you enter the property, so that you’re not confused on which way to go. Hopefully that touched on what your question was. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Chair Furth: Osma, did you have any questions? Board Member Thompson: No, I think I’m okay, now that I have the material board. Chair Furth: All right, thank you. If we have other questions, we’ll ask you to come back. Mr. Moran: Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Anything further from staff? Board Member Thompson? Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I can recommend approval of the project today. I would throw out one thing for the Board to consider, and that is that the pedestrian access to the site from the sidewalk and the bus stops is really inadequate, and I think that, you know, this is just a sign program, it’s not a building project, but I think I would argue that we should add some sort of signage, you know, directional signs from the corner to the first building, the first…whatever you call it. Campus City of Palo Alto Page 5 corner. Because there’s actually no pedestrian access from the two driveway entrances, and the pedestrian access is just a little slot through a berm. There’s nothing indicating that that’s really the one and only access point for pedestrians. Also, just for the applicant, I think that that accessible route that is drawn in there is not completely accurate as it connects… Chair Furth: Which one are you looking at? Board Member Lew: This would be Sheet 3 or 4. Four. Yes. As I looked at the site yesterday, I think the accessible route goes to the corner. And as it’s drawn, it sort of shows it’s going midway to Building 4. But otherwise, I think that the signs are very handsome. I personally find it hard to read condensed fonts on vertical signs, but I think the vertical proportions sort of tied into the building. The building has vertical fins that are very distinctive on that style of building, so I think the signs do fit into the design of the project. And on findings. I think we understand that Stanford has their own internal design guidelines that discourages wall signs, and that the Palo Alto is sort of geared actually more towards wall signs than it is to monument signs. Even though these are taller, there really isn’t an overabundance of signs. Also, the buildings are set back, as I estimated, about 200 to 300 feet from the street, and there are large landscape berms, there are large mature trees that really limit the views of the buildings. Chair Furth: This is to be added to the sign exception findings, Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Furth: On page…? I agree with you. If staff could make a note of those, we’ll see they [inaudible]. If there’s a consensus on that. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Sorry, I was looking for it. What’s the change? Chair Furth: Alex, you might as well talk. You have a voice. Ms. Gerhardt: Packet Page 24. Chair Furth: These are the findings for the exception to explain why we’re saying yes, it’s necessary for them to have a sign exception. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think that would probably be added to 1, right? That there are special circumstances. Board Member Thompson: And can you repeat again what we’re adding? At the end of it? Chair Furth: Yes. We’ll let staff deal with the punctuation. Board Member Lew: Yeah. The buildings are set back 200 to 300 feet from the street, approximately. There are large landscape berms, and there are large mature trees that limit views of the building. And then, I had previously mentioned that Stanford has their own internal design guidelines, but that applies to all properties in the Research Park, so I’m not sure if that’s… I don’t think we need. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Because Stanford doesn’t get to modify the codes. Board Member Lew: They have a higher…. Yes. I think I would argue they have a higher standard than the City’s sign code. Chair Furth: They do. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, looking at that. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Furth: Thank you for your presentation. I certainly think that the height of these buildings, or as tall as they are, justifies the taller signs. I think the existing ones tend to be a bit inadequate. I’m always surprised when I turn left off Page Mill going west that it’s not… I need to figure out where the driveway is, and when I’m coming the other way, it’s even more confusing, just because there’s a lot of landscaping and other good things. I agree with Alex that we should add a requirement that there be pedestrian wayfinding signage, subject to staff’s design approval. Because when you get to the driveway, there’s no sidewalk. It’s a problem. If you’re going to walk there in a reasonably correct way, you have to not take the driveway, and there is no way you’d know where the berm is. It’s quite a way away. So, adding a condition that adequate wayfinding signage be added for pedestrian access to the buildings? Would that be a sufficient direction? Ms. Gerhardt: I think it would just be helpful if we understood maybe at least a few locations where we think it’s most critical. Chair Furth: I’ll tell you, if you take a look at page 4 – Is that the right one? Or 3? Board Member Thompson: Probably page 4. Board Member Lew: It’s 4, because 3 is existing, so 4 is the proposed. Chair Furth: If you look at the corner… Alex, why don’t take us through. Board Member Lew: Okay, we’re talking about the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino, and that’s where the bus stop is located, and I think there’s about, maybe four or five bus lines right there at that corner. And then, any pedestrian traffic you have from Caltrain, whatever would be coming through at that point as well, I think that they just somehow need to know that that is the main pedestrian entrance to the site. And then, I think I would argue, once you’re in on that path, I think self-explanatory, but then you’re arriving at the corner of Building 4, and there’s no signage. Chair Furth: Building 4 or building…? Isn’t this Building 4? Board Member Lew: Well, the font is really blurry, I can’t… [crosstalk] Chair Furth: This is Building 3, right? The one that…? Board Member Lew: Three. Chair Furth: … and this is the… Ms. Gerhardt: Correct, Building 3. Board Member Lew: At Building 3, you have to make a choice of whether to go left or right because there’s a grade change, so you can’t go straight into the project site. I would argue that there should be, or try to do something there, or… Chair Furth: I have a question for the applicant. Do you understand what our concern is, and do you have any comments? Mr. Panian: I think I understand… [crosstalk] Chair Furth: … more signs. Mr. Panian: Yeah, and that’s a good thing. You guys want to, it’s directing the pedestrian traffic from the streets, El Camino and Page Mill, into the property from the… I see an entry at the corner, as well as I City of Palo Alto Page 7 think there is another one further down El Camino. But the point is that being able to direct the pedestrian from the street or the sidewalk into the property, and then, once at the sort of crossroad…. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: [inaudible] Mr. Panian: I’m sorry, what? Chair Furth: Yes. Mr. Panian: Yes. And at the crossroad at Building 3, direct them overall, a greater understanding of which way to go for which building. Chair Furth: That’s one of the challenges of large campuses, is that if we dutifully, you know, ride our bikes, take the bus, walk, you get onto the campus, which is really geared for cars, and you don’t know which way to go, and walking an extra 300 feet is more time consuming than the other. We’re looking for pedestrian signage to direct the public, particularly that arriving by bus or from Caltrain, into the pedestrian way, and into the buildings. The audience is walkers and… Is that right? If you could add that condition. We’ll let you and the applicant figure it out. That should not require any sign exception. Mr. Panian: And I think that falls under our Sign Type E, which we denote as both a directional signage for vehicular and pedestrian. If we add more of those at the property locations to help direct… Chair Furth: Thank you. Will you need more exceptions if you do that? Staff? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, the directional signage do exceed the allowed sign heights. Chair Furth: All right, then why don’t we say that we believe that the basis for that would be the difficulty of pedestrian wayfinding – I hate that word – from public transit, and that the size of the site requires an exception for those pedestrian wayfinding signs. Board Member Thompson: Are Signs E and G.1 basically the same? Mr. Panian: Yes, they are. I’m sorry, G.1 is classified as pedestrian. Sign E is vehicular, but they are identical signs, although they have slightly different classifications. Board Member Thompson: And materials, it’s this top-right material? Mr. Panian: That is correct. Board Member Thompson: And that? Mr. Panian: That’s correct. Chair Furth: Are we ready for a motion? Board Member Thompson: I didn’t get to talk. I didn’t get to give my evaluation, but I don’t have too much to say. Yeah, similar to my other board members, this is a pretty handsome project, and I very much appreciate the story and the relationship, Pal Alto’s future story. I think that’s really important in designing, and it’s important in having good aesthetics, and it’s important in getting us to understand your design really well. I want to thank the applicant for that. You don’t get to see that much these days. It’s true. Over there, I’ve gotten lost a few times as a pedestrian, and even just to park anywhere and try to figure out where that theater is. Initially, it was a little difficult. I remember my initial concern being that we’re not really adding any new signs, which I felt like we needed to, but I did see that we are adding G.1 and E. As for this pedestrian wayfinding, I don’t know that that warrants much more than one sign. I don’t think it does. We can defer that to staff. Chair Furth: I apologize for forgetting to ask your opinion. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Thompson: That’s okay. Chair Furth: There’s only three of us; it’s so confusing. Anything more? Board Member Thompson: No. I think that’s it. Chair Furth: I neglected to… Usually we tell you before you start your hearing that we’ve all visited the site. I think it’s clear that we’ve all been lost on the site. Mr. Panian: Me, too. Chair Furth: And we look forward to clearer signage for pedestrians. It’s been a while since you took that picture. Dinner with [inaudible] was showing quite a while ago. Now, staff, any comments? Do you have enough direction from us? Ms. Gerhardt: Just related to the pedestrian signs. It looks like there’s a bus stop on El Camino. It’s a little bit off of the corner, so I’m thinking that it would be good to have a sign there, just showing where the pathway is. Chair Furth: I would support that. Would my colleagues? Board Member Thompson: Is that very close to where Sign A is? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, it’s just down the way from it, maybe just a few feet. [Looking through plans.] Ms. Gerhardt: Just to clarify, the distance from Sign Type A to the bus stop, it’s about 155 feet. Chair Furth: That’s not going to help us get anywhere, is it? Sign A? Board Member Thompson: That is the corner that I think is closest to Caltrain, as well. Board Member Lew: Right. There are actually several bus stops in the area, but it seems like this is the one that people would use. There’s a bus stop farther up there, two others farther up on Page Mill Road. I’ve looked at bus routes and it seems like this is the one that would actually be useful. Board Member Thompson: I guess it kind of depends where it’s put because Sign A, the way that it’s designed right now, looks really good on its own. Chair Furth: You don’t want it to be diminished? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, like, it kind of has this, like, nice relationship with the landscape, and… It almost sounds like a little flag sign right next to it wouldn’t look very nice. But I guess it would depend. Board Member Lew: I have two relatives who are disabled, and it’s constant frustration when you actually are pushing a wheelchair, or they are pushing themselves, if they go and say… Okay, I get off at the bus stop here at the corner, and as I go… I see this big entrance further down on El Camino, I’m going to go down there. It’s, like 700 feet. That’s like two city blocks downtown. And you realize there’s no way for me to get into the site, and now I have to go back to the corner. To me, that’s not acceptable. And I’m fine if it could be just a little three-foot-high… Board Member Thompson: Like a shorter…? Board Member Lew: … something totally minimal, and it doesn’t have to be the street sign. It doesn’t have to be right there at the monument sign; it could be at the bus stop. I’m sure there’s a way of making it low profile. Board Member Thompson: A shorter sign over there might make more sense. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: Well, I’m going to suggest that we… Do you have any comment? Mr. Panian: I think there are two pedestrian paths, one at the corner and one at the drive, at El Camino. Board Member Lew: I was there yesterday. I didn’t see it. I was looking, I was actually looking for it, and I didn’t find anything that was useful. If you’re not in a car. Board Member Thompson: I think we’re talking specifically an accessible route. Board Member Lew: Isn’t it just a continuous berm? Mr. Panian: Maybe I’m mistaken, yeah. Board Member Lew: Anyway, there could be something there. I didn’t see it. If it was there, it wasn’t obvious enough for me to notice that it was there. And there’s nothing shown on the site plan. Mr. Panian: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: If we’re asking about El Camino, it’s the corner, and it’s the driveway. Those are the only ways to get in. Otherwise, it is a berm. Chair Furth: Yeah. And the driveway is for cars. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Board Member Thompson: I think a shorter sign works there. Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. For me, clarity about where to go when you’re on foot, when you’re using a wheelchair, when you get off the bus, when you get off the train, is an important issue that needs to be addressed. And I would like to believe that you could do it without interfering with the design elegance of the bigger signs. I think we have to do both. We have to have both those big signs and pedestrian-oriented sign because this is a site that is pretty impenetrable unless you are a car. Board Member Thompson: Could we…? I don’t know how you feel about, since potentially this might be a new sign type, that would be the shorter sign type, should we subcommittee it? Chair Furth: Pleasure of the board. MOTION Board Member Thompson: I move that we approve this project, subject to the conditions in the report, and also add that we move one item to subcommittee that involves a smaller pedestrian wayfinding sign type at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino. Chair Furth: Would that be with the additional findings previously suggested by Board Member Lew? Board Member Thompson: Indeed. Board Member Lew: I will second that motion. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. Chair Furth: Thank you. You are approved, with a referral to subcommittee on the issue of adequate pedestrian signage. Thank you very much for your application. Mr. Panian: Thank you for your time. Chair Furth: They are pretty signs. I look forward to seeing them. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Panian: Thank you. Chair Furth: There’s probably a technical term for that. Elegant? 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center for the Construction of a new Three- Story Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 Square Feet, two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 Square Feet each and Construction of a New Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximate 28,000 Square Feet are identified as (Total Square Feet 78,500). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez @cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Our next item is also, Stanford University is the applicant. This concerns the Stanford Shopping Center. This is also a quasi-judicial hearing. It’s the consideration of a major architectural review to allow demolition of the existing almost 95,000 square foot Macy’s Men’s building, and the construction of a new three-story standalone retail building, approximately 43,500 square feet, and two additional retail buildings of approximately 3,500 square feet, and the construction of a new building on what is currently parking lot, of a size of 28,000 square feet. This is exempt from the provisions of CEQA in accordance with the replacement or reconstruction rule. The zoning district is Community Commercial. Does anybody have any conversations to report before we have this…? Board Member Thompson: No. Board Member Lew: No. Chair Furth: Anybody have any additional site visits since we last had this before us as a preliminary? Board Member Thompson: I don’t think I’ve seen this one before. But yes, I’ve been to the site. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: I visited the site on Tuesday. Chair Furth: And I visited the site again on Wednesday. Staff, I need to go clear my throat. I’ll be right back. I was going to say we could let the applicant set up, but that won’t work. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: Mr. Gutierrez. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning to Chair Furth and board members of the ARB. My name is Samuel Gutierrez, I’m the project planner for this project, and the planner assigned to the shopping center. That’s why you see me for every shopping center project. As we enter in here, you can see on the title slide, it’s just the updated renderings in this package of the proposed buildings, and also the proposed site plan, which we’ll dive into. To remind everyone, this is the Stanford Shopping Center. This is located at the corner of Sand Hill and El Camino, that portion of the shopping center between Sand Hill and Pistache Road involving the Macy’s Men’s building. Here you can see the different perspectives from the public view, and of course, this is the Macy’s Men’s building as it sits today. As stated earlier, this project involves the demolition of the Macy’s Men’s to redevelop this area of the Stanford Shopping Center to construct new tenant spaces and buildings, one being a Restoration Hardware building in roughly the location of the Macy’s Men’s building. Another being a new Wilkes Bashford where there currently doesn’t exist a building in the parking lot, along El Camino and Pistache, which is the entryway into the shopping center after Sand Hill. And then, there will be two new tenant City of Palo Alto Page 11 spaces adjacent to Building J, where I believe LaBelle Spa is currently location. That would, again, be in the general location of the existing Macy’s Men’s building. Just to remind everyone, this project did come before the Board for preliminary review on February 7th of this year, and the ARB did comment on the site planning, parking, landscaping, pedestrian access and architectural design. I do want to go over a pretty large constraint that exists at this site. There is an original water line that is located across Sand Hill and El Camino that intersects at that corner of the parking lot that is existing, which would limit the location of new buildings and excavation, being that it is such a large utility line and to build and construct over it is not really feasible. This is the proposed Wilkes Bashford building. The rendering is far more refined than what the Board had previously seen during the preliminary review. There is new landscaping added, pedestrian features such as a trellis. Here you can see the site plan and some of the pedestrian walkways that have been revised and put into greater detail along this corner of Pistache and El Camino. Here you can see the pedestrian path could go down along Pistache, along the longer portion of Wilkes Bashford as you enter into the shopping center. Or, you could move across the frontage of Wilkes Bashford along El Camino on this new path behind some of the trees that are shown there, with some seating. And as you loop around, you would face the parking lot that exists. Here you can see that the pedestrian pathways are wide. They do narrow to roughly about 10 feet, but that is meeting some of the Board’s comments about the pedestrian pathways throughout the shopping center at least being eight feet. Here is the other perspective views of this proposal. The upper left corner is a view from El Camino. That’s what you would see as you enter the city from El Camino and you pass Sand Hill and head toward Pistache. On the lower right, this would be that Pistache entry and the El Camino turnoff, and you can see that the building has been revised with some storefront windows and landscaping within a planter area. Again, these are just blowups of the other sides of the Wilkes Bashford proposed design. Again, you can see landscaping, new trees, planter boxes, and along the corners there’s these display windows, which seem consistent with what we see in the shopping center. There are these pedestrian corners, and we have displays as you get towards entries. Moving on to the Restoration Hardware building. You can see here that the site plan has been slightly changed from what was viewed before in the preliminary application. The building slightly shifted, and there are, again, pedestrian pathways off of Sand Hill now, on Sand Hill on this end. Entering off of Sand Hill, this kind of forms a U-shape around the Restoration Hardware building, where, again, the pedestrian pathway varies from approximately 10 feet up to 35 feet. That would be at the entryways of the Restoration Hardware building. It has entries on either side, and when those entries are open, the pathways would be much deeper there. But even when the Restoration Hardware building wouldn’t be open, we still have at least 10 feet of pathway around the perimeter of the building. Here is the renderings of the proposed building. You can see there’s a lot of trees proposed, and greenery on the building. It’s very open, so you can see views into the retail floor of the Restoration Hardware building. This is a zoomed-in portion of, just to the south of the Restoration Hardware building, where these two new tenant spaces would be, and there is a new drive aisle proposed there that’s elevated. Here you can see a detail of these outdoor seating areas along each corner of the new buildings, again, enhancing the pedestrian experience of the shopping center, but still maintaining at least a 10-foot-wide pedestrian path around these edges, where it also varies from 10 feet up to 20. Here is a rendering and elevation of these proposed buildings. Again, you can see the walkways, a bit of a planter area, this elevated drive aisle, and the outdoor seating for these proposed tenant spaces in this location. And then, the lower elevation, you can see, again, there is a clear view of a lot window spaces to show that it is a retail experience that’s being maintained there. There’s not very many solid walls other than the center, kind of common back-house entry, where that has been treated with a bit of a green wall treatment. Key considerations for the ARB are: Access to the site; the site planning; location of the buildings’ pathways; pedestrian furniture; drive aisles; and utility placement; and again, safety of pedestrians, bicycles and automobile traffic; and compatibility with the site, and this would be the compatibility of the proposed buildings’ scale and design relative to the site, which is, of course, the greater Stanford Shopping Center. Staff recommends that the Board review and provide formal comments to the applicant. That concludes staff’s presentation. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Furth: Thank you. I forgot to mention at the beginning of the hearing that this project is not ready for recommendation at this point from us. There is insufficient information. Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Chair Furth: Anybody have questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? I just had one, I had one question, which is, when I look at Sheet A.1, the context aerial map, as a layperson looking at that, it looks to me that, as I’m driving south-ish on El Camino, the Wilkes Bashford building is heavily screened. But when I look at the slide you show us, I’m driving south, it’s not. Could you explain to me what I would be seeing or what I wouldn’t be seeing? Mr. Gutierrez: You’re referring to these elevations here, correct? Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Gutierrez: That would be likely due to the blending of trees, different heights and the exposure between the tree canopies. Chair Furth: Which corner is that I’m seeing there? Is the lower one coming down Sand Hill? Mr. Gutierrez: No, the lower one is actually El Camino and Pistache. Chair Furth: Pistache. Got it. Sorry. Mr. Gutierrez: If you were looking at… Chair Furth: Thank you for explaining that to me. This is very fine print. Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, so, if you were looking at Sheet A.1… Chair Furth: This is what you see going north-ish on El Camino. Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. I was trying to figure out how there could be so many trees in one and not the other. I apologize. All right, any other questions of staff before we hear the applicant? Could we hear from the applicant, please? [Applicant setting up presentation] Matt Klinzing, Simon Property Group: Good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. Mr. Klinzing: Nice to see you guys again. My name is Matt Klinzing [spells name]. I’m an architect with Simon Property Group. Tim Wong, Restoration Hardware: My name is Tim Wong [spells name], and I’m the vice president of architecture and design at Restoration Hardware. Mr. Klinzing: We remember we have 10 minutes, roughly 30 seconds a slide, so we will be brief. Thank you, members of the Board. Ms. Thompson, you weren’t present at our last one, so if you have any specific questions, I know we can answer them. The goal this morning was to respond to a lot of comments that we had at the previous ARB, the ARB that we had in February, and they focused on a few different topics: Architecture, placement of some of the buildings, and some of the parking issues that we see on the site. We spent a lot of time over the last four months delving into those, and I wanted to go over some of that in detail. One of the comments was specific to the placement of the Restoration Hardware building. And I realize this print is finer than I intended to be, so, sorry for that. There was City of Palo Alto Page 13 concern raised about the proximity of the Restoration Hardware building to Sand Hill, so we did look at moving that south. Chair Furth: Excuse me, could you give us the sheet number? Mr. Klinzing: Sure. Oh, they don’t see the same thing that…? Male??: LS-100. Chair Furth: Thank you. It’s even finer on our… Thank you. Got it. We’ll add the time. Mr. Klinzing: All right. On LS-100, if I scroll over, the building that’s on the left here is Restoration Hardware, and there was some concern about the proximity to Sand Hill. We tried to move it a lot greater south. The issue that we ran into was that per building code, we need to maintain a 60-foot separation between adjacent buildings and this building, so it’s moved approximately a net of about seven feet south from Sand Hill. We moved it as far as we could. We also looked at addressing the other concern about the proximity of the Wilkes Bashford building to El Camino, and we really tried to move that west, away from the street. Unfortunately, with the required parking, with the placement of bio retention areas, as well as landscape, we’re limited in where we’re able to do that. But we have gone back, as Mr. Gutierrez mentioned, and we buffered some additional landscape areas and amenity areas, and some additional landscaping to help improve that, and obviously make sure that the heritage oak that is located to the northwest corner of that building is obviously, we’re outside of the drip line, we have temporary protection, and we have a specific sidewalk design that honors all the root conditions there, so we are sensitive to that. The other issue that was brought up was the placement of EV or electric vehicle charging, which are required by code. There was a concern that in this lot that’s north of the Wilkes Bashford building, due to the amount of EV charges we need here, that that would be even harder to park in. What we’ve done is we’ve actually taken half of the required amount, and although offscreen, we’ve located them to the west of Restoration Hardware, so that what you end up with is an area along the northern aisle of this parking area along Sand Hill that has EV charges, but everything else has been moved to the west. Trying to free up that parking, somewhat. I’m going to go to the next page now, which will not line up with your package. This is HSEE. I have no idea what page it is in your packet. This specifically is the drive aisle that curves south of Restoration Hardware and north of the end cap buildings. As you might remember from our previous presentation, this is a flush curb condition. We have a raised enhanced parking area, the potential for periodic activities to happen. There was some concern about the arrangement of the parking. Previously we had perpendicular parking located in this area and there were concerns about it backing up into the traffic flow. We’ve actually taken out the majority, probably 75 percent of the spaces that were in this area, found other areas to place them, and we’ve now located them as parallel parking spaces with curbs along it. Gets a little bit of parking into this area to help with required parking, while at the same time, we think it takes away that concern about the traffic confluence as people went through it. The other issue we wanted to address was the overall parking provision. This is not something that’s in your packet. It’s something that was provided as a supplement to Mr. Gutierrez, and I have printouts if you’d like to look at it. We spend a lot of time actually serving tenants to, to look at the amount of employee parking, we look closely at bike spaces, public transportation, rideshare activities, and we’ve come up with what we think is a comprehensive plan to alleviate some of the parking concerns we have on site. Most notably, one of the biggest issues we had, we found from the tenant survey is, there are daily between 400 and 600 employee cars that are located on site, which, as you can imagine, of our total parking, is a significant amount. Currently, per the tenant guidelines, they are allowed to park along the perimeter of Sand Hill and El Camino. What we’ve done is we’ve revised that to limit their parking to just the upper levels of the decks that are down along… I forget the lower street. Now, it’s great if you have a policy; less effective if it’s not policed or enforced. So, although not implemented yet, we’re also looking at some other programs we’ve done throughout the country that monitor the parking activities, to try to basically enforce that. That’s obviously a careful line we have to go through because we value very much our employees and want City of Palo Alto Page 14 them to not be reprimanded. At the same time, we’re very sensitive to the amount of spaces that are available to patrons that come, and we want, through the finding we have, to obviously make parking convenient for everybody. We are going through that process right now. Like I said, I have these packets if you would like to look at them, and they illustrate exactly what we’ve done, what our findings are, and how we’re moving forward. Chair Furth: If you could give that to our staff, yes, I’m sure we would look at them. Mr. Klinzing: Great. Chair Furth: We won’t read them right now. Mr. Klinzing: Okay. I’m going to go to another page now, which is page A-2. Apparently I’m all over the place with you guys. What this is, is there was concern raised last time as to the relative height of the building - Restoration Hardware and others – how they were in context with the overall elevations. Although, again, fine print, what you will see here is there’s overall contextual elevations along Sand Hill, as well as El Camino. And I’ll show you the relative heights of those adjacent buildings. I think it’s helpful to see where we are in context and how it’s portrayed. I offer that up for your review. With that, I’m going to turn this next piece over to Mr. Wong, who will talk specifically about Restoration Hardware. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Wong: First of all, thank you for allowing me to present this project to you today. I trust you’ve already reviewed the drawings, but let me recap what I think you’re probably already familiar with. At our age, we call this our next generation design gallery. Within the walls and the gardens, we attempt to blur the lines between a retail experience and our hospitality experience, in an inspiring space with natural light that surrounds all four walls. Our general layout includes a garden entry on both sides, flanked by enclosed gardens on either side where we have our display of outdoor furniture. There are two floors of retail, and on the second floor, we have our, sort of our newest concept, which would be the interior design studios. On the third floor, which you can see at the top there, is our restaurant, in a glass conservatory surrounded by our roof garden filled with trees and a lot of landscaping. The massing, as you can see, sort of steps back as it goes up, so to relieve the overall appearance of the scale. All four sides are articulated with metal awnings and trees and metal balconies. The site plan has [inaudible] carefully so we can preserve most of the existing trees along Sand Hill Road, and we have a lot of greenery and landscape on the front and rear façade. Overall, we’re pleased with the design, and we hope that you are inspired, too. Mr. Klinzing: Just for your benefit, I’ll page through the next couple pages here, which you obviously have in your packet, but which show, as Mr. Gutierrez mentioned, some updated elevations that increase the transparency of the building, as well as better illustrated some of the questions that were brought up previously about the hedge row, the openness, and how that engages the sidewalk as we go forward. Anything you want to go over? Mr. Wong: I can review some of the interior spaces. Chair Furth: Your time is up, but yours is a big project, so please, take another two or three minutes. Mr. Wong: Two or three minutes, okay? I can describe this page a little bit. This page is just the main space. The idea of the glass of the restaurant is this glass conservatory that you could see, starting in that slide here. This is just more materials that would help sort of describe the building feel, which would be the plaster façade and metal balconies, as I mentioned, and open trellis. These are examples of our outdoor space and different stores. This happens to be Melrose, here. This is our latest one, down here in the lower right-hand corner, which is the art gallery in New York. This one is, sort of this glass conservatory is in Portland. This is just some landscape plans, and sort of the description of some of the landscape that we propose for this project. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Klinzing: I realize we’re out of time, but just as we go through… Chair Furth: If you need another minute or two to do your coherent presentation, please take it. Mr. Klinzing: I’ll be brief. Wilkes Bashford building, as we discussed previously, since it is a long building, our goal here was to break down the length of it and animate it with different quality materials. We have brick, we have some wood, we have stone veneer, as well as what we’re now introducing, which is a green wall. One of the concerns that was raised in the previous meeting – and this is the view you were asking about earlier, Ms. Furth, and this is traveling south along El Camino – was the importance of this building in the context of Palo Alto specifically. Because this is the first building you really see when leaving the county to the north and coming to the south. We understand the importance of this specific corner. We spent some time trying to enhance this with what we see now, is a green wall, as well as the Wilkes Bashford name stated here. The other thing we wanted to also show was the context that’s placed within. We obviously have a very significant row of trees that’s out there, and the heritage oak, which we really feel are the stars of the center, and those obviously won’t be touched by any of this. It’s important, I think, to understand the context. You had previously asked about this elevation on the corner, the southeast. We’ve [inaudible] it up with storefront and glazing, and additionally, as we move around the other corners, the touchpoints, and obviously the major places that one experiences the building, we made sure that we had transparency or animation so that we’re consistent with the village architecture feel of all of Stanford Shopping Center. This is some detail you’ll find in the packet on the living wall, which we have at a few of our centers, and it is actually that. There’s irrigation, there’s plants, it requires some maintenance, so, we feel this really captures what Stanford’s best known for, and it’s this great flower program, and great landscape program. This is really a way to present this at the front door of our project and announce that attribute that we think everybody enjoys. Building EE, the endcap building, has not changed significantly since our previous discussion, but still plan on animating that with restaurants and outdoor café seating. I think I’m done. Okay. Sorry. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex, do we have any speaker cards? We have no speaker cards. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to address this issue, this matter? Apparently not. I’ll bring it back to the Board. Staff, do you have anything you want to add? Ms. Gerhardt: I think we’re just hoping to focus a fair amount of time on the site plans and make sure that we get that right, and then, go into the architecture as time allows. Page C2 has a clear site plan that you can take a look at, and just let us know if there’s any concerns about that. We had noticed that there are some parking spaces fairly close to El Camino Real, so we’d like your advice on that. Also lately, we had some late-breaking comments from Utilities. Actually, maybe Sam can go a little more into that, because utilities… Chair Furth: That’s never happened before. Ms. Gerhardt: … utilities are going to need to move around a little bit. So, we can talk about that. Chair Furth: Why don’t you tell us about that right now, before we talk. Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. On page C2, when you look at the new elevated drive aisle between the Restoration Hardware and the two new tenant spaces, the corner as you enter that drive aisle, that would be to the left side of this site plan. There is, on the Restoration Hardware side, a bio retention detail. Just adjacent to that in the drive aisle, as you would be existing that elevated drive aisle, there’s actually a little square you might see there. It’s very small, but there’s a small square there, and that actually… Chair Furth: Are you talking towards El Camino or away from El Camino? Mr. Gutierrez: Away from El Camino. That would be a vault with some utility equipment that would need to shift. One of the locations that is being postulated at the moment is in that bio retention area, so that would be utilities that would need to be vented in the air. There might be some type of CMU wall that City of Palo Alto Page 16 we’ll treat with some type of green screening, which would actually match some of the green walls that are already part of the Restoration Hardware, but we haven’t worked out those fine details yet. That’s just something to note, that may appear different in the next round when we come before the Board again. Chair Furth: Before we start talking, I have a question. What term are you using to refer to the space between Building RH and Building EE? I keep thinking it as a cut-through, but you have a different term, right? Mr. Gutierrez: I refer to it as the elevated drive aisle because it is raised about the other drive aisles. Chair Furth: Okay, and I had one more question before we started. In looking at the El Camino Real Design Guidelines, it says that all parked cars should be screened with walls, landscaping or berms, three to six feet above the parking lot surface. That’s something that we usually try to do at this place, right? The shopping center? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. That’s all I need to know. Thanks. Board Member Thompson: I had a quick question. That elevated drive aisle, is that going to be the main way to get to the parking lot in the back? From…? Mr. Gutierrez: It’s a part of that loop that forms in that area. If you miss the Sand Hill turn for the shopping center and you continue down Pistache, that would be the fastest way to get to the other side, I guess the back parking lot area that you’re referring to, towards where, like, American Girl is, and The Melt. That area. Otherwise, you’d have to drive around the whole shopping center to close that loop. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so we’re assuming this will be heavily frequented by vehicles back and forth. Okay. Mr. Gutierrez: It does have that potential, yes. Chair Furth: Who would like to begin? Alex, you’ve seen it before, why don’t you start? Board Member Lew: [inaudible]. Chair Furth: Oh, you ready to go? All right, go. Board Member Thompson: As someone who hasn’t seen this before. Chair Furth: It’s a fresh eye. Board Member Thompson: I suppose, yes. Okay, I’ll start with the site stuff. Now that I know that that roadway would be pretty heavily frequented, the existing vehicular pathway to get to the other side is pretty busy right now. A lot of people use it to get around. Initially when I was looking at this, it seemed like it was much more of, like a pedestrian through-fare that was wider, and a bit more comfortable. That kind of gives me some pause because it sounds like there will be a lot of pedestrian flow there. It kind of silos Restoration Hardware from the rest of all the pathways. I mean, in the site plan that we’re looking at, it’s a different color. It’s not gray like the regular vehicular stuff, which I think is why I was thinking that it might be more of a pedestrian-friendly thing, something that you could close off if you wanted to. I guess I’m not sure. I don’t know. It’s one of those things that, as a vehicle, I’m not sure I’d use that, but I don’t know if that’s the point. In terms of that, I guess we’ll still wait because there’s a transformer that could potentially…. Or what was that box? Ms. Gerhardt: We can ask the applicant and have them explain a little bit more, but my understanding is that this elevated drive aisle is both, you know, for pedestrians, but also for cars if they need to look City of Palo Alto Page 17 around the shopping center. It’s sort of for both of those purposes. As far as the transformer, I think the initial direction was to put it under the street, and unfortunately that’s not going to work. It needs to go in a landscaped area, so that landscape needs to… And that landscape is being used for stormwater retention, so that stormwater retention is going to have to move somewhere else. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Well, if that’s the intention, then I think that’s pretty nice. Because it sounds like it’s already being elevated, it’s kind of deterring cars from using that pretty regularly, because when you go up, you have to be a bit more careful. And if people are going to be walking freely through there, then… I think that’s an asset to the site. Even though at the moment that is my preferred way to get around. Anyway, I can get used to something different. I’ll go to architecture because that is really the stuff I focused on when I was reviewing this. I’ll just go building by building. Restoration Hardware, I don’t really have any significant comments on it, other than I think it’s quite nice, and I think it will be a nice addition. I like how much greenery is integrated. There is a nice relationship between the green and the building, and I really hope that’s maintained and executed, and in its execution, it’s very integral to the design. I appreciate that, and the design intent, and I really hope it just follows through in actual construction. Interestingly, I feel like for Building EE and Wilkes Bashford, it has a bit of a foil in terms of the level of detail. I’ll start with Wilkes Bashford. That corner that we were looking at, with the green wall, I love the green wall details, and I really like that you’re incorporating that. I don’t know if that corner is the best location for it because that’s the corner that’s going to face the street. Right next to that corner, I’m not looking at it right now, but right next to that corner, there’s a blank wall. Really, the interest doesn’t start until much further into the site, and as Palo Alto is changing and there’s more people on the street, it seems like the opportunity is really at the street, to have a lot of the glass and a lot of, you know, the way that you’re going to capture someone’s interest is by putting it there. Because at the moment, they kind of have to know where their going, and a lot of people do these days, but in terms of what’s nice to look at on the street. I say keep the green wall, but I think a different location might be better. I’m not sure how the interior is configured but I really think you want to make the El Camino experience really nice. I’m not saying to change any of the landscaping around there. I think the screening is good. Definitely keep the green wall because it looks so cool. I just think its placement isn’t right as it relates to the site. And then, architecturally speaking, you know, the elevations definitely feel a little bit… Initially, when you’re looking at it like this, it feels really kind of up and down. And I know that when you’re on the street level, it really breaks down the scale. But, I wonder if there isn’t something more that could be done to kind of create a bit more relief and detail. The green wall is creating a really nice texture, and it’s kind of foiled with something solid, but I feel like a little bit more of that interplay could, the elevation could benefit from a little bit more of that interplay. Because in the renderings, it kind of looks a bit flat and a little stark. Restoration Hardware has this level of detail and richness, and then, when you look at even the rendering on our front page of Wilkes Bashford, it just looks a little bit too shoeboxy. There’s more that could be done there. At first glance, I would say that current building is the biggest one that could use a little more development. And then, for Building EE, the configuration is really good, and I like the relief, especially in the second to the right. I’m looking at page A-EE3. It’s kind of broken into the five, and the two in the middle are the ones I was a little unsure about. They’re a bit plainer than the others. But the second from the right has that extra level of depth, which is good, so I would encourage that if you decide… To look at Building EE more and kind of… Also, elevate it a little bit more in terms of how much relief and depth you’re adding to there. Love the green wall. Love the green wall. And that is my comments on the architecture. I’ll stop there. Thanks. Ms. Gerhardt: If we could go back to Restoration Hardware for a second – I’m finding the sheet here – A- RH2, there were some previous comments about the shrubbery around the building. I didn’t know how you felt about that. Board Member Thompson: What were the comments on the shrubbery? Ms. Gerhardt: Just that they’re fairly tall shrubs, so it sort of blocks off your view to the entrance, which is unlike other buildings in the center. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Furth: I think the… Board Member Lew: [inaudible]. Chair Furth: Well, it was primarily Peter, which was that the high shrubs create outdoor rooms from the point of view of the store, but they block the view of this very pretty building. The thought was that they were too high, that we’d like them to have that privacy and sense of enclosure, but something you can see through. Because the building that we see, the front elevations we were looking at, we wouldn’t see. Those are the comments. Board Member Thompson: Okay. I might deviate from my board members’ opinion on that. I really like the shrubbery, and I like the outdoor room, and I think the greenery is a big reason why this building works. If other board members also feel like that shrubbery isn’t right, I feel like something else equally green… You know, maybe it’s kind of like one of those plantings that have more see-through branches. But I wouldn’t forego the greenery in any way. Chair Furth: I don’t think anybody wanted to be without greenery. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you for your presentation. I think the revisions look good. Most of my comments are about the site plan, and I don’t have that many comments about the building. I think generally the buildings are looking fine. On the site plan, my overall comment is that it seems like the individual pieces aren’t really adding up into a greater whole, and it seems like a set back from what the shopping center has been doing in the past. I think the staff report asks, like, could we still meet the findings? And I think my answer is yes. The comments that I have are, I think what’s shown on the C-2 plan, I’m not crazy about the sidewalk that’s being shown at the moment along El Camino. I’ll go into that in a minute. The street trees on Pistache Place, I think you’re showing trees on the Wilkes Bashford side that are sort of along the curb, but the existing trees on the other side are inboard to the sidewalk. The elevated pedestrian street, I do have concerns about how that all actually looks when it’s all done. You’ve got bollards; I think you’re showing trees. Typically, you would do tree guards so they don’t get damaged by cars backing up. You’re showing some raised planters. I’m just wondering if you’re actually defeating the purpose of having the appeal of an elevated street because you’re adding so much clutter that it’s actually potentially unattractive. Staff hasn’t mentioned, I think the shopping center way is getting narrower at this location to match up with the shopping center farther down to the south. I think that’s probably a good idea. I did consider the… I think Peter suggested moving Building EE, so I did stand over by Muji and Pottery Barn and look down on access to see, to try to understand what he was thinking about. And I can see his argument for that, for shifting the elevated street down to a line. I can see the logic of that. On the sidewalk, the City probably has certain ideas about that, and I think Stanford and Simon may have different ideas about that. I would just throw in my two cents, which is that it should work together in context with the Stanford campus. They have a perimeter trail, and that’s different than our El Camino 12-foot sidewalk, and it seems to me that it should be tied into a regional system. What they have along Sand Hill Road and along El Camino is different. In some places it’s a mixture, so if you’re down near the athletic fields, there is a narrow sidewalk, and then there’s a low chain link fence covered with roses. And inboard to that, there’s a multiuse trail for running and bicycling. There can be some sort of hybrid to keep everybody happy, but I think I want to not just think of it just for this one project, but how it ties together. To my mind, that’s how people use the Stanford perimeter, for long runs, or bicycling, to get farther up the foothill. I’m looking at it more as a big picture and not as some sort of isolated project and trying to have a retail presence and sidewalk along the street. And then, staff, you mentioned the utilities. I think there’s something that I did want to point out that didn’t work on the recent addition. Over by the Anthropologie store, I think there’s some sort of fire standpipe in the sidewalk, and it got covered over with a giant cage, and it looks awful. That just looks like the City of Palo Alto Page 19 biggest screw-up. I think we do need to focus on that on this particular project, where all of those utilities are. Sometimes it’s hard for us to read it in here, but I think the Board does need to weigh in on all of that because that turned out, that’s a disaster. And I don’t really have that many comments on the building. They look good. I would only point out that the laminate shown on the Wilkes Bashford building, my understanding is on the Tenant Design Manual, that you guys are discouraging laminates. And here on the board, I think Board Member Baltay is usually concerned about the outside corners whenever we have these very thin materials. I’ve been looking at a lot of projects that are using this, and I think I’m in agreement with him. I mean, the laminate looks better if it’s on an interior recess and you don’t have any of those exterior corners on it, because it’s like a dead giveaway that this is, like, a fake material when you have these little plastic corners on the building. But I’m not opposed to the laminate as an accent material. That’s all that I have. I’m generally in support of the project, although I am a bit disappointed in the site planning. Chair Furth: And Alex, with respect to the site planning, the disappointment is the failure to align with the other buildings, and the inadequate bike…? Board Member Lew: Generally, we’re trying to encourage thoughtful, long-term planning and make long- term decisions that will stand for a hundred years, and I just don’t see the site plan as doing that. You have lots of little bits of parking lot, a lot of streets that don’t align; you’re adding more intersections, which makes it more confusing to people, to the cars. You’re adding some parking spaces in areas where we would normally try to not have parking, you know, to allow for queuing and stacking of cars at peak times, like at Christmas time. I think that’s all, like, not that great. But, to me, it would still meet the findings. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may just get a little more clarification. You were talking about the sidewalk along El Camino, and it sounds like people are using this more for biking and running. Are you thinking more of a multiuse trail idea versus a standard city sidewalk? Is that what I was hearing? Board Member Lew: I’m going to pull up Sheet C-2. Ms. Gerhardt: Because El Camino does have the, you know, down the rest of El Camino, there’s the 12- foot sidewalk requirement, and here, too. That’s what we were trying to abide by, was the El Camino guidelines. Board Member Lew: South El Camino Design Guidelines are sort of for California Avenue and farther south. Ms. Gerhardt: True. Board Member Lew: And we just had the El Camino park reservoir project, and we didn’t really put in a 12-foot sidewalk right across the street. On our own city project, we didn’t do it, so I’m not sure why we would start. If you look here, it looks like they’re trying to put some of the existing oak trees in tree wells, and there’s the sidewalk, but there’s the existing oak tree, so you have to sort of curve the sidewalk around the oak tree. It seems like it doesn’t look good, and it doesn’t really work very well with the existing oak trees. And the additional seating area next to Wilkes Bashford, like, I’m not sure who wants to sit there with all the traffic on El Camino. It just doesn’t really add up to me. Chair Furth: It’s me, needing to sit down. Board Member Lew: Right. You want to sit there? Of all the places you would sit, like, that’s not where I would want to… Chair Furth: I just want to be able to sit every couple hundred feet. Board Member Lew: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Furth: Not when my ankle’s working. Ms. Gerhardt: But I can see your point about a bench to sit down versus a whole, sort of amenity space. Chair Furth: Yes. I mean, I do think it’s… Let Alex finish, and then I’ll give my comments. Board Member Lew: Well, I think, like, the trees look good in berms and naturalistic areas. They generally want to have the oak leaf mulch around them. They don’t really want to be in an urban tree well and integrate. And I think we’ve come across sometimes that the County won’t let us put trees within seven feet of the curb. This needs to be really well thought out, and I’m not sure that it’s really there yet. I think my point previously was that I would rather have this tie in to Stanford’s way of doing trees, or to impact multiuse pathways, than to pull Palo Alto 12-foot sidewalk with London planes in tree wells. If we want to go that way, I think we need to do it, and then, cut down the oak trees. Just bite the bullet and make it part of Palo Alto. It’s like half and half now, and I don’t think it’s really working. Ms. Gerhardt: And on the utilities, we would agree with you, that Anthropologie was an afterthought, so we’re trying to get ahead of that. You talked about street trees on Pistache, and I didn’t hear details on that. Board Member Lew: The existing condition is that the trees are inboard of the sidewalk, and there are no trees along the curb, in the planting strip. And they are proposing to change it on one side, but they’re not really showing what they’re doing on the other side of the street. You’d be mismatched at the moment. Ms. Gerhardt: And then, on the elevated aisleway, I agree with you that there would likely need to be bollards and tree guards and things, so, we just need all of that shown on the plans so we can have a better review of that area. Board Member Lew: Because it may be so ugly that we would rather have a regular curb. I’m not saying that it can’t be done, but it’s just that… What is the term that some of the planners are using? Woonerf? Ms. Gerhardt: I learned that all the way back in college, yes. Chair Furth: Me, too. Board Member Lew: I mean, that really, you’re putting faith in people, right? To drive and park correctly. And I don’t necessarily think that always works. But once you start adding all of this stuff, you start to lose the beautify of the [inaudible]. That’s all I have to say about that. I would say one other thing, too, on that. There are, like at Santana Row, they’ve fully monetized…. There’s, like, a little median in one section, and they’ve monetized that. Every inch of it is in a lease to somebody, like Blue Bottle, or whatever. But it is attractive. And I guess on this one, I’m not really seeing the attractive part of it yet. Ms. Gerhardt: And Building EE, you were agreeing with Board Member Baltay about, I guess it was really the alignment of the elevated aisle. Board Member Lew: Correct. But I can see this would be very difficult on Stanford’s part. If you move the building, then the LaBelle Spa, then you’ve got this big, blank wall exposed, so then you have to do something with that. And it is better to have retail on both sides of the street, generally. I can see the argument for the way they’re doing it. And I generally support Simon’s, like putting restaurants and cafes on corners. I know you were saying this could be pop-up retail as well, but I think generally, that’s attractive Having outdoor seating at corners attracts people, and more people attract more people, so I do support that idea. That’s all that I have. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, thank you for the additional elevations and street scapes so that we could see better what you’re doing, and what you’re proposing. I agree that Restoration Hardware is a handsome and interesting building. I think that Wilkes Bashford is improved. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Did you all have any comments, other than the comment on the laminate, about materials? It’s okay with you? Meets the standards? Board Member Thompson: I think the palette is fine. I think it’s really more like a, my comment was more about adding a bit more detail. Chair Furth: I was just going through the findings and realized we hadn’t said anything. I realize it’s primarily site plan that you wanted, but if we had comments, I thought we should give them now. I’ll tell you about what concerns me, and generally I share the views of my colleagues. I particularly share Alex’s view about the perimeter and the sidewalk space. I do not think that the South El Camino Guideline 12- foot sidewalk is a particularly appropriate standard here. In 1997-98, when Stanford was re-doing Sand Hill and building on the previously unbuilt-upon creek side, one of the things they were required to do was a lot of bicycle and pedestrian paths, and think really hard about bicycle and pedestrian access so you have them both at the creek side, you know, the really good bicycle and pedestrian Class 1 paths going west on Sand Hill. Across the street you have the City’s linear El Palo Alto Park. In between, you have Stanford land, which is both a park and a huge reservoir, for which we’re grateful. I think that’s what we should be emphasizing, is the presence of the last free creek on the peninsula that runs to the Bay. The plants that grow around that, I hope we could stay with the well-done oaks rather than moving to containerized trees. And, reflecting on the fact that lots and lots of people come up from the east to bicycle up towards the hills or up towards friends in Menlo Park, and vice-versa, and that’s something we want to encourage. That’s what I would be going for, rather than the South El Camino guideline. I do think the El Camino guideline that talks about not having a view of parked cars from the street is something we should be mindful of and be sure that the parking is designed so that that’s attainable. Looking at your plant palette, I see lots of plants that would help us meet Finding #5, about regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat. It can be maintained, but I also see a lot of other plants, so I wouldn’t be prepared to say yes at this point. It’s sort of a dead giveaway when the plant name includes, “European.” I don’t think that’s at the point where I would approve that yet. I’m glad you have some, but I think Restoration Hardware particularly still isn’t quite with the program. I don’t know how I’m supposed to tell I’m in Palo Alto as opposed to Los Angeles or Portland. Both of which are lovely cities that I’ve lived in. I’m thinking about what you said about parking. I suspect that better parking management would be helpful, and of course, we’re supposed to find that you’re doing it adequately for employees and customers. That means they’re looking for a plan where it’s not enforcement that makes your employees go there, but it’s the rapid little golf cart shuttles, or whatever. It’s an attractive option, so if it’s late at night, you feel safe going there. And I realize it’s still an imposition on people who probably have burdens of commutes because they’re going to have to walk further. But we would be interested in seeing how it appeals to people. It isn’t just another burden on people who work there. On the elevated drive aisle, I’m having trouble with that. And indeed, the whole circulation. I mean, maybe you’re going to have signage at Pistache that’s going to direct people to the south towards San Jose, but I also go the other way. It’s more attractive, it’s easier to get there. It’s better looking, it’s easier to move. And we’ve now created this dead end with the Wilkes Bashford parking lot. Do we need, you know, reader numbers, locate reader numbers that say, “No parking this direction. Go that way if you want to park.” Which is a possibility. That’s one thought, because I really do think we want to avoid… You want to run your shopping center, and I realize it’s your business to, for maximum efficiency, we can just give you local experience, which is that if we knew – I’m not saying you have to be as elegant as the Portland airport parking lot, but if we knew where we might find parking, it might help with some of that dead-end problem. I still don’t understand how the raised drive aisle works. I do remember the word “woonerf” from my early sitting of planning commission meetings. But right now, it seems to me there’s too much going on. The fact that you have a raised drive aisle means that there’s no grade separation between the sidewalk and the drive aisle, and cars and pedestrian are at the same level. Is that right? And sometimes I think you’re just trying to do too much in this space, and sometimes I think it’s just not well designed yet. But I want to know that when I’m absent-mindedly talking to friends, I have pretty clear signals where I’ve got to step off the curb, and where I’m going to City of Palo Alto Page 22 step into the flow of traffic. And people, you get a lot of repeat customers, but people driving through here know they’re going to have to do it at five miles an hour, and that they do that, so it’s not a lethal speed. Anything else anybody wants to say before we say “thank you” and let them get on with their lives? Board Member Lew: Minor detail. Tree number 93 is an oak tree, and it’s called out as a privet. Mr. Gutierrez: Tree 93? Board Member Lew: Tree 93, and it’s in the shopping center way, at the Macy’s Men’s store entrance, at the porte-cochere. Chair Furth: Just in case you thought we didn’t read your plans. Anything else before we…? Would you like to respond? You have another 10 minutes if you’d like to talk. Feel free. Mr. Klinzing: You’re not sick of us? Chair Furth: It’s a big project. We care. Mr. Klinzing: A couple of things. As I was sitting there and hearing, talking about the displacement of the building, I was encouraged to hear Mr. Lew say, even though he’s disappointed about the arrangement of the streets, he would go with the findings. Our experience has been a little different with vehicular traffic flow. When people tend to have a straight run, they tend to go faster, which is not really a safe thing to happen between patrons and vehicles. I actually think this is much better, a little bit, because it encourages more turns and encourages more cautious driving. Completely hear you guys on the raised street. If the consensus is it’s too much and too little, then more than happy to get rid of it. We were trying to create an environment that was hospitable to both cars and pedestrians. I’ve done it personally at a number of centers across the country and it works very well. We use a mix of concrete planters, some bollards, sometimes they’re lit, though in case it wasn’t. Street trees. And it creates an environment where both co-exist. But, understand if there are concerns about it, you know, we’re not wed to it. We want to make sure the Board is pleased, and we can move on. That’s really it, what I heard. Hear you completely on everything else, and we’ll make sure that we respond accordingly. Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: Would the Board be interested in looking at, maybe two different options next time? About a regular drive aisle versus the elevated? Chair Furth: Speaking for our colleagues who aren’t here, probably yes. As well as those who were here. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. MOTION Board Member Lew: Okay. I will make a motion that we continue the project to a date uncertain. Board Member Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Furth: I don’t care if there’s further comment. All those in favor say aye. It passes 3-0-2. With board members being absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 3-0-2 Subcommittee Items Ms. Gerhardt: We do have minutes and things, but we are going to have a subcommittee at the end. The subcommittee item did not make it on the agenda, but I have confirmed with attorneys that subcommittees are not subject to the Brown Act. However, we did post it out front to give people as much notice as possible, and it’s 744 San Antonio, which is the proposed Marriott building, is what we would be discussing. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Furth: And it’s about window treatments? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, it’s down to the window trim. Chair Furth: Thank you. Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: We have two sets of minutes to approve, May 2nd and May 16th. Board Member Thompson: [off-microphone] [inaudible] Chair Furth: They’re printing [inaudible]. Do you want to boot that set or…? Board Member Thompson: No, no, [off-microphone] [inaudible]. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: I took a look; I have no comments on the minutes. Chair Furth: Okay, I don’t either. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2019. Chair Furth: Could I have a motion to approve the minutes of May 2nd? Were we all here then? Okay. Then we have a quorum. Motion? Board Member Lew: Okay, I will move that we approve the minutes for May 2, 2019. Board Member Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Furth: Motion by Lew, second by Thompson. All those in favor say aye. It passes 3-0-2. MOTION PASSES 3-0-2. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 16, 2019. Chair Furth: Next, the minutes of May 16, 2019. Board Member Lew: I will move that we approve the minutes for May 16, 2019. Board Member Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Furth: Motion by Lew, second by Thompson. All those in favor say aye. Passes 3-0-2. MOTION PASSES 3-0-2. Chair Furth: We will now adjourn as a Board and the subcommittee will convene. Thank you. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Lew: I would mention that the… Two things, right? The Mercedes-Benz project is going to Council on Monday, and the North Ventura CAP [Coordinated Area Plan] project was supposed to go to the Council on Monday, but it’s being pushed back to August. They’re trying to change the schedule and they’re working out additional service agreements with the consultant. They really do want the Council direction on where to go next, for the next step on the project. I will attend the Mercedes-Benz hearing. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. I got several phone calls from people who were puzzled by the procedure since we did not recommend approval at our last meeting. I basically referred them to City staff and the attorney. And Alex will be there to explain how far we got, and what our major concerns were. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, staff did put out a staff report related to Mercedes-Benz. I believe we also have another memo coming out, and we’re responding to questions from councilmembers. The main idea on that was we respect the ARB’s opinion, but we felt like there were some larger rezoning and massing questions that only the Council could answer. That’s why the Director felt the need to bring it forward, but we are recommending that Council approve the project, but then send it back to the ARB for the items that you had discussed and wanted to further review. Chair Furth: Since last time we recommended approval and the Council then said no, then I think this is probably a useful exercise. We will defer to staff and Council on procedure they wish to follow. Anything else before we adjourn? I will not see you on July 4th, but we will see each other on the third… Ms. Gerhardt: Eighteenth. Chair Furth: … third Thursday in July. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Chair Furth: And I apologize for my voice, but these things happen. Take care. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Adjournment Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10395) Report Type: Meeting Date: 7/18/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 250 Sherman: Sub-Committee Review of the PSB Brick and Lighting Title: 250 Sherman Avenue [17PLN-00256]: Subcommittee Review of Brick Sample(s) and Bollard Lighting for the Council Approved Public Safety Building. Zoning District: Public Facilities. For More Information Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Confirm the lighting and brick samples submittal addresses the ARB concern and meets the condition requiring resubmittal of the plaza pedestrian lighting specifications and brick sample for ARB review. Background On November 5, 2018, the City Council approved the subject project, with a Councilmember comment that the design was consistent with Council expectations. The adopted Record of Land Use Action required certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee, as recommended by the ARB. The ARB subcommittee had reviewed several of these items in October 2018. The October 2018 ARB staff report with attachments is attached (Attachment B) and found at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67276. ARB meeting minutes are found at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67471. The ARB meeting video is found at this link: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-10182018/ A video recording of the Council meeting of November 5, 2018 is available online: https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-11052018/ The Council staff report is viewable online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67439. Council meeting minutes are viewable online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68129 6 Packet Pg. 221 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 This subcommittee meeting is follow up of Record of Land Use Action Planning Conditions 5a and 5b. The tower antenna attachments design has not yet been completed, so Condition 5c will be addressed at a later date. The City Council held a brief discussion regarding Condition 5d as reflected in meeting minutes. Planning Condition of Approval #5 states, “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). Lighting to Address Condition 5a: The attached narrative (Attachment A) describes the proposal for plaza lighting, briefly repeated here. The lighting:  offers pedestrian level plaza lighting to illuminate faces and provide a sense of security/safety in an intimate and subtle way;  has the light source screened in the primary direction of movement, which is north/south along the Birch Street sidewalk;  will not present a direct view of the light source to pedestrians;  is strategically directed at the level and in the direction needed, without extraneous brightness or light pollution;  will illuminate the public art installation on the east side of the pocket park; and  has been used previously by the design team to great success (precedent photos are included in the package). Brick Samples to Address Condition 5b: The ARB is requested to verify the custom brick is in conformance with the approved design intent. The applicant’s narrative (Attachment A) states that the color, texture, proportions, variations and general design approach for the PSB exterior brick have been previously approved by the ARB. This was approved at the October 18, 2018 ARB meeting. The proposal is to create a custom brick mix/firing approach to match the approved aesthetic characteristics as represented in project renderings. The applicant provided photos of current samples and will show actual brick samples to the subcommittee. The brick samples are thought to achieve the project’s goals:  A wide aspect-ratio brick, significantly shorter and wider than a traditional brick  Surface variation on the face of the brick to provide visual variety and texture  Intentional imperfections to evoke the patina of age/time, producing a brick that looks like it has been around for years 6 Packet Pg. 222 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3  A darker tone—similar to manganese ironspot—but with hints of rust and terra-cotta infused in the final finish. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 planner.name@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: 2019-05-24 PSB ARB Subcommittee Narrative (PDF)  Attachment B: October 2018 ARB Staff Report 250 Sherman Ave ID# 9699 (PDF)  Attachment C: Council RLUA (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 223 5/24/2019 Public Safety Building ARB Submittal – Subcommittee Review Exterior Light Fixture and Brick Narrative Plaza Pedestrian Lighting Specification — Overview Narrative As per ARB request, RDC is re-submitting the specifications for the plaza pedestrian lighting. The purpose of the resubmittal is to offer an explanation of the design intent and clarify the proposed product specification. The goal of the proposed lighting design is to offer pedestrian level plaza lighting that illuminates faces, provides a sense of security/safety, but does so in an intimate and subtle way. Previous renderings showed a “cigarette light“-type fixture, and the concern was of potentially viewing a bright light source. The current specification/renderings represents a fixture that addresses this concern. The proposed fixture has the light source screened in the primary direction of movement, which is north/south along the Birch Street sidewalk; pedestrians will not be faced with a direct view of the light source. The fixture’s side illumination strategically directs light at the level and in the direction that it is needed, without extraneous brightness or light pollution. The lighting direction will also successfully illuminate the public art installation on the east side of the pocket park. The proposed fixture has been used previously by the design team to great success (precedent photos are included in this package). Brick Samples — Overview Narrative The color, texture, proportions, variations and general design approach for the PSB exterior brick have been previously approved by the ARB. As the next step in moving forward on this approval, the design team is proceeding with creating a custom brick mix/firing approach to match the approved aesthetic characteristics as represented in project renderings. This custom brick fabrication is currently underway. The attached photographs show current samples. The actual bricks will be available for review in person. The brick samples represented in these photographs are successfully achieving the following ARB approved design goals: - A wide aspect-ratio brick, significantly shorter and wider than a traditional brick - surface variation on the face of the brick to provide visual variety and texture - Intentional imperfections to evoke the patina of age/time, producing a brick that looks like it has been around for years - A darker tone—similar to manganese ironspot—but with hints of rust and terra-cotta infused in the final finish. The goal of this resubmittal is to verify custom brick is in conformance with the approved design intent. 6.a Packet Pg. 224 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 6.b Packet Pg. 225 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: x An optional finish for the board-formed concrete, x Review of the patterning and layout of the sand-colored tile, and x 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 6.b Packet Pg. 226 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: x Attachment A: Revised Record of Land Use Action (DOC) x Attachment B: ARB Excerpt Minutes from September 20, 2018 (DOCX) x Attachment C: Bollard Lighting Specifications (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6.b Packet Pg. 227 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 6.b Packet Pg. 228 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: x 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. x 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, 6.b Packet Pg. 229 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, 6.b Packet Pg. 230 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, ƒ 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. ƒ 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: x The right-of-way improvements will improve circulation; employee automobile ingress from/egress onto Jacaranda Lane is compatible with the design concept and functions; x The new facilities and amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles are an improvement from the existing facilities as to safety and convenience; x (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: x 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). x 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; x On Park Boulevard, four additional 24” box sized Strawberry trees are proposed behind the street trees; x Six Strawberry trees are proposed in the employee courtyard near Jacaranda Lane; x Plan sheet ARB AM11 provides technical details associated with the tree mitigation plan. 6.b Packet Pg. 231 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: x 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; x 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: x The materials were selected for quality, durability and to convey warmth; x The new structure’s materials and construction techniques are appropriate for the use; x 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: x 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; x 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.b Packet Pg. 232 6 x 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. x Sherman and Park frontages receive raised planters with integral seating, an area of rain garden planting. x Sherman Avenue and Birch Street receive wider sidewalks allowing for street trees and benches. x The entry alignment of the Birch Street ramp connects with Jacaranda to allow a landscaped front yard plaza on Birch, x The landscaped setbacks accommodate seating and shade for individual passive activities along Birch, Sherman and Park frontages; x 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: x 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) x 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: 6.b Packet Pg. 233 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 234 8 x 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. x 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 235 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. x 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 6.b Packet Pg. 236 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. x 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. x 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. x 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. x 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: 6.b Packet Pg. 237 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 6.b Packet Pg. 238 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. x 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 6.b Packet Pg. 239 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 240 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 6.b Packet Pg. 241 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.: x site-specific soils report will be required to be submitted for the building construction permit. x 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. x 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 6.b Packet Pg. 242 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 6.b Packet Pg. 243 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 244 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). 6.b Packet Pg. 245 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 x Inlets should be labeled with a ‘Flows to Adobe Creek’ message. 5. Stormwater treatment measures x Consider using low-maintenance permeable pavers in the plaza to be part of the demonstration area. Appropriate specs must be followed. x 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. x 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. x Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. x 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 x 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. x 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) x 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. x 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 x Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. x Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). x Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. x 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 6.b Packet Pg. 246 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 247 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 248 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 6.b Packet Pg. 249 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 250 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 6.b Packet Pg. 251 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 6.b Packet Pg. 252 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 6.b Packet Pg. 253 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 254 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… 6.b Packet Pg. 255 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 6.b Packet Pg. 256 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? 6.b Packet Pg. 257 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 6.b Packet Pg. 258 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 6.b Packet Pg. 259 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 6.b Packet Pg. 260 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 6.b Packet Pg. 261 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? 6.b Packet Pg. 262 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 6.b Packet Pg. 263 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 264 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 6.b Packet Pg. 265 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 266 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. 6.b Packet Pg. 267 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 6.b Packet Pg. 268 Product description /XPLQDLUHPDGHRIDOXPLQLXPSURƄOHV DOXPLQLXPDOOR\DQGVWDLQOHVVVWHHO 6DIHW\JODVVZLWKRSWLFDOVWUXFWXUH 6LOLFRQHJDVNHW 5HƅHFWRUPDGHRISXUHDQRGLVHGDOXPLQLXP 2SWLRQDOOXPLQDLUHZLWKDQFKRUDJHXQLWRU PRXQWLQJEDVHPDGHRIKRWGLS JDOYDQLVHGVWHHODFFRUGLQJWR(1,62 $QFKRUDJHXQLWZLWK FDEOHHQWULHVuPP 0RXQWLQJEDVHZLWKHORQJDWHGKROHV :LGWK}}PP”[PPVSDFLQJ :LWKLQVHUWHGGRRUPDGHRIGLHFDVWDOXPLQLXP 'RRUODWFKtVTXDUHVSDQQHUt ZUHQFKVL]H}PP &RQQHFWLRQER[ IRUWKURXJKZLULQJtIRUFDEOHVXSWR}u}# ZLWKIXVH1HR]HG'”$ /DPSKROGHU* (OHFWURQLFEDOODVW ((, $  }9[}+] '&}9 '&6WDUWt}9 6DIHW\FODVV, 3URWHFWLRQFODVV,3 'XVWWLJKWDQGSURWHFWLRQDJDLQVWZDWHUMHWV ,PSDFWVWUHQJWK,. 3URWHFWLRQDJDLQVWPHFKDQLFDO LPSDFWVMRXOH U}t6DIHW\PDUN F}t&RQIRUPLW\PDUN :LQGFDWFKLQJDUHD}}P :HLJKWNJ 35 0 0 12 0 0 80 0 54 0 14 5 29 0 × 8 5 95155 5 2 1 0,5 0,3lx m036912 3 0 3 6 6 889931 T16 28 W Application /LJKWEXLOGLQJHOHPHQWZLWKUHFWDQJXODUSURƄOH DQGGRXEOHVLGHGOLJKWH[LW /LJKWEXLOGLQJHOHPHQWVDUHOXPLQDLUHVZKLFK FDQGHYLGHDQGVWUXFWXUHDUHDVLQH[WHULRU DSSOLFDWLRQ7KH\KDYHDQRULHQWDWLQJGLUHFWLQJ DQGGHPDUFDWLQJIXQFWLRQ Lamp )OXRUHVFHQWODPS 7”:”* 7”:”* 2VUDP/80,/8;7+(: OP 2VUDP/80,/8;7+2: OP 3KLOLSV0DVWHU7/+(: OP 3KLOLSV0DVWHU7/+2: OP 3OHDVHQRWHWKHODPSPDQXIDFWXUHUV RSHUDWLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQV Article No. 88 993 &RORXUJUDSKLWHRUVLOYHU JUDSKLWHtDUWLFOHQXPEHU VLOYHUtDUWLFOHQXPEHUA Light distribution 10 4 2 1 0,5lx m036912 3 0 3 6 6 889931 T16 54 W 3URMHFW”5HIHUHQFHQXPEHU 'DWH 88 993 /LJKWEXLOGLQJHOHPHQW  ,3 ”7HFKQLFDODPHQGPHQWVUHVHUYHG U %(*$*DQWHQEULQN/HXFKWHQ.*”3RVWIDFK”0HQGHQ”LQIR@EHJDFRP”ZZZEHJDFRP 3URGXFWGDWDVKHHW 6.b Packet Pg. 269 1 ACTION NO. 2018-16 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 5, 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 5, 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. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 33A6FF4C-874E-4DC9-B355-F80B9A67FB04 6.c Packet Pg. 270 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10517) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 7/18/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3000 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Palo Alto Square Signage Title: 3000 El Camino Real [18PLN-00277]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Installation of Pedestrian Signage at the Pedestrian Access Route. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC-4637 (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at Danielle.Condit@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 and Discussion On June 20, 2019, 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:  Provide additional pedestrian signage near the pedestrian access route onto the site. Applicant’s Response: 7 Packet Pg. 291 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 In response to the condition set forth in the Planning & Community Environment approval letter dated, Corporate Sign Systems + Luxury Surfaces is proposing two new sign types (G2 & G3) to assist in the functional direction of pedestrians to the site from the only accessible pedestrian path near the bus stop on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The aim is to safely and accurately direct pedestrians to their desired locations with limited confusion and maximum accessibility. Pursuant to the ARB meeting on June 20, 2019, they are proposing (6) such signs in the attached drawings to present to the Subcommittee. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-6202019/ 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 Danielle Condit, Planning Technician Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2242 (650) 329-2575 Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Applicant Response Letter (PDF)  Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 7 Packet Pg. 292             JULY 9, 2019    City of Palo Alto, Planning Department  Subject: 3000 El Camino Real (18PLN – 00277) Master Sign Program    To Amy French,    In response to the findings set forth in the Planning & Community Environment approval letter  dated, June 25, 2019. Corporate Sign Systems + Luxury Surfaces is proposing a two new sign types  (G2 & G3) to assist in the functional direction of pedestrians to the site from the only accessible  pedestrian path near the bus stop on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The aim is  to safely and accurately direct pedestrians to their desired locations with limited confusion and  maximum accessibility. Pursuant to the ARB meeting on June 20, 2019, we are proposing (6) such  signs in attached drawings to present to the subcommittee on July 18, 2019 for approval.      Best Regards,      Dustin Passalalpi  Project Manager        7.a Packet Pg. 293 Attachment B 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 “3000 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4610&targetID=319 7.b Packet Pg. 294