Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-15 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: August 15, 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. 788 San Antonio Avenue [19PLN-00079]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing 12,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and the Construction of a Four-Story Mixed- Use Building that Includes 102 Residential Units and 1,780 Square Feet of Commercial Space. Sixteen of the Residential Units Would be Below Market Rate. The Project Also Requires a Zoning Amendment to Apply the Housing Incentive Program at this Location. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00114]: Request for Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Facade Improvements to an Existing Tenant Space for O'Occitane in Building C at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301. Zoning _______________________ 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. District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@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 July 18, 2019. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 5.North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Board member Lew 6.Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review of Letter Adjournment _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Peter Baltay Vice Chair Osma Thompson Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Alex Lew 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 # 10570) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/15/2019 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, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions 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. Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects. 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 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 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. Attachments: Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (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 Baltay/Hirsch 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled egular7/18/2019* 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 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 3/21 - Baltay/ Thompson 4/4 - Baltay/ Thompson 4/18 – Lew/ Hirsch 6/6 – Furth/ Baltay July August September October November December 7/18 - Lew/ Thompson *Chair Furth’s last hearing is July 18, 2019 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics September 5, 2019 180 El Camino Real: Market Area (1st Formal) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10435) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/15/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 788 -796 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788 San Antonio Avenue [19PLN-00079]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing 12,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and the Construction of a Four-Story Mixed- Use Building that Includes 102 Residential Units and 1,780 Square Feet of Commercial Space. Sixteen of the Residential Units Would be Below Market Rate. The Project Also Requires a Zoning Amendment to Apply the Housing Incentive Program at this Location. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Consider the information presented and provide comment and continue item to a date uncertain. Report Summary The applicant, Ted O’Hanlon, on behalf of Yurong Han, proposes to demolish the existing buildings on two parcels located at 788 – 796 San Antonio Road. One of the buildings constructed in 1953 is deemed to be eligible for listing on the California Register for Historic Resources. The parcels are proposed to be merged, and on the new single parcel the applicant proposes construction of a four-story mixed-use building with a single underground parking level. The project would include 102 dwelling units and 1,779 square feet of commercial space. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The current zoning for the subject site does not allow for the project as proposed. An amendment to the Zoning Code is required to allow for the application of the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) on this site. The HIP currently creates a process to increase the floor area ratio to up to 1.5 in the CS zone along El Camino Real and a waiver of the lot coverage requirements (currently maximum lot coverage is 50% of the lot area) among other incentives to encourage additional housing. HIP also allows a floor area ratio of up to 2.0 in the CC(2) zone. On May 20, 2019, the applicant presented a less dense and smaller version of the project with 64 dwelling units to the City Council as a prescreening request for zoning amendments. Discussion at the meeting centered on the appropriateness of having housing along the San Antonio Road corridor and at more intense levels closer to 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). At that meeting, the City Council expressed interest in applying the HIP along the San Antonio Road corridor between Middlefield Road and East Charleston Avenue. The applicant has filed a zoning amendment application which is being processed concurrently with the Architectural Review application. The purpose of this report is to present the project in the context of having the HIP in place and a project with a FAR of 2.0:1. The project requires the completion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which is in its initial stages. Staff encourages the Board to provide comments on how the project does, or does not, meet the required findings. Background Project Information Owner: Yurong Han (788 SAPA Land LLC) Architect: Studio S Squared Representative: Ted O’Hanlon Legal Counsel: Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP Property Information Address: 788-796 San Antonio Road Neighborhood: Across from The Greenhouse Neighborhood Lot Dimensions & Area: 178’ x 254’ (43,414 square feet) Housing Inventory Site: Yes, 0.57 acres of the site has a maximum yield of 17 units and realistic yield of 11 units Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, 13 protected trees Historic Resource(s): 788 San Antonio Road (deemed eligible for individual listing in the California Register) Existing Improvement(s): 788 San Antonio Road: 6,200 sf; one-story; 22 feet in height; 1953 796 San Antonio Road: 11,633 sf; one-story; 25 feet in height; 1967 Existing Land Use(s): Martial arts studio; contractors office Adjacent Land Uses & North: Service Commercial CS (commercial uses) 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Zoning: West: General Manufacturing GM / PC 2711 (Commercial & multi- family residential) East: City of Mountain View – General Industrial MM (Automotive repair) South: Service Commercial CS (commercial uses, oil change facility) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google maps 2019 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (CS) Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial (CS) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, across San Antonio Road Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: October 15, 2018: http://bit.ly/788SA1stPrescreening May 20, 2019: http://bit.ly/788SA2ndPrescreening PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The project proposes to redevelop an approximately one-acre property located at the intersection of San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street with 102 for-sale residential units (32 studios, 63 one-bedroom units and seven two-bedroom units). Of those units, 16 (15%) are proposed to be restricted to Below Market Rate (BMR) households. The four-story mixed-use building would be 49’-10” in height. A single level basement would include 93 vehicle spaces (51 surface and 48 puzzle lift spaces), trash room, and elevator/stairwells. The required bicycle parking is provided at grade within the lobby and outside of the commercial space. The existing buildings are 6,200 square feet and 11,600 square feet respectively. Of that, 5,895 square feet is occupied by an exercise/training use, which is considered “retail/retail-like”. These buildings will be demolished to accommodate the project. As previously mentioned, the 788 San Antonio Road building is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. The proposed residential FAR is 1.93:1 (84,175.3 square feet) and the non-residential FAR would be 0.04:1 (1,779.5 square feet). The total FAR for the project is 1.97:1 (85,954.8 square feet). The 1,779 square feet of retail would be located on the ground floor at the street intersection corner. This space has a floor to ceiling height of 10’-6” and is only accessible from the exterior of the building along San Antonio Road or Leghorn Street. The project proposes a contemporary design using a combination of traditional and contemporary materials such as face brick, painted aluminum panels, painted smooth troweled 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 stucco, aluminum framed windows and curtain wall systems. At the north and south ends of the building along San Antonio Road, the building includes full curtain windows. The main pedestrian entry to the building along San Antonio Road includes an accentuated entry element. The rear of the building has alternating brick and painted stucco facades. The overall mass of the building is broken up by balconies, change of materials, and variation in colors. The vehicular entry to the basement parking is located off of Leghorn Street. The San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street intersection is signalized. Access to US 101 is provided for by heading east on Leghorn Street into the City of Mountain View or heading north on San Antonio Road. The basement has a floor to ceiling height of 12’-3” to accommodate the parking lift systems. In addition to parking areas, the basement includes 1,000 square feet for storage and trash rooms. The building is designed to have an open courtyard area in the center of the building over the podium deck, a large lobby area on the first floor fronting San Antonio Road, and a covered common deck on the fourth floor facing San Antonio Road. The lobby area will include the majority of the bicycle parking for the project. The remaining bicycle parking is located on the plaza area outside of the retail space. Each unit has access to its own balcony either looking away from the building or into the interior courtyard. Sixteen trees were surveyed for the project. Nine of the trees are street trees, three are adjacent, off-site trees; and four trees are on site. All but three are considered protected. Four trees (three that are protected) are proposed to be removed. Proposed landscaping includes street trees, interior trees, shrubs, ground cover, and vines. Accompanying the vegetation is hardscape in the form of walkways or paved areas. The plaza areas include colored concrete. 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. However, since this project includes other actions that require approval by the City Council, the Board will make their recommendation to the City Council. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Parking Reduction – PAMC 18.52.050 (Transportation and Parking Alternatives): Where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Examples of such programs may include, but are not limited to, 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 transportation demand management (TDM) programs or innovative parking pricing or design solutions. The Director may allow a reduction up to 20%. The project requests a nine percent reduction.  Partial Waiver of Retail Space: The process is set forth in PAMC 18.40.180(c). The Director may act or refer the decision to the City Council.  Amendment to Zoning Code: This is a request to apply the Housing Incentive Program to the area along San Antonio Road between Middlefield Road and Charleston Road. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80. Rezone applications are reviewed by the Planning & Transportation (PTC) and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The Site The one-acre site includes two parcels and two, one-story commercial/light industrial buildings. The structure at 788 San Antonio Road is 6,200 square feet and the structure at 790 - 796 San Antonio Road is approximately 11,600 square feet. The former structure was built in 1953 and is considered eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), due to the association of the property with the long-term operation of the California Chrysanthemum Growers Association, a Japanese flower growers’ cooperative that commissioned construction of the building in 1953. The latter structure was built in 1967 and according to the Historic Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull (March 2019), the structure does not meet the criteria for eligibility. Adjacent Areas To the west of the project and across San Antonio Road, there are three-story multi-family buildings that make up the 15-acre The Greenhouse neighborhood. The buildings are over 150 feet from the project site. The project site is adjacent and within the vicinity of several one- story commercial buildings. These low-rise commercial developments currently dominate the San Antonio Road corridor, however, the area is slowly being developed with buildings that rise to the maximum 50 foot height limit. Within the block, to the south, a new five-story hotel development (Marriott hotels) is under construction. Another notable development with similar mass and height lies at the intersection of San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road (Taube Koret Campus). 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Multi-Modal Access & Parking The nearest Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus stops are at Charleston and San Antonio Road, and Middlefield Road and San Antonio Road. There is no bus service on San Antonio Road between Middlefield Road and Charleston Road. The site is within a 5 - 20 minute bike ride of many major employers in the area and a 9 minute ride to Caltrain.2 San Antonio Road includes a Class III facility (no bike lanes and shared with through traffic). Class II bicycle facilities are found on Middlefield and Charleston. See Sheet A0.5 for a circulation exhibit in the plan set. The project includes one level of basement parking that includes 93 parking spaces. This is broken down into 51 surface spaces and 42 spaces within mechanical lifts. The project is currently 17 spaces short of Code requirements, however, the applicant is asking for a 15 percent parking reduction per PAMC Section 18.52.050. This reduction would be accommodated by the creation of a TDM plan that provides incentives, as necessary, to reduce peak hour motor vehicle trips by 20 percent. Bicycle parking is included on the first-floor lobby area (104 long-term) and outside of the retail space (11 short-term). Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is CS (Service Commercial), which is characterized in the Land Use Element as: “Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores and restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential FARs will range up to 0.4. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multifamily housing may be allowed in specific locations.” 2 7 minute bike ride to Google, 4 minutes to Space Systems Loral, and 20 minutes to the Stanford Research Park 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 The CS land use designation is categorized as primarily commercial in nature but permits residential in appropriate locations. The subject application proposes a mixed-use project with a small proportion of retail to residential. The residential designation exists on the west side of San Antonio Avenue, but would appear anomalous on the east side, which has a CS designation from Middlefield Road to Charleston Road. However, the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the San Antonio Road Housing Inventory Sites, which includes the subject site, should be removed in favor of concentrating density in Downtown and California Avenue areas. With this application, the Council would need to determine whether the project, on balance, is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, including the Housing and Land Use Elements. Presently, the Housing Element identifies the realistic unit yield for the combined properties as 20 units based on existing CS zoning and its requirement for housing in conjunction with a mixed-use project. As mentioned in the previous section, these policy issues will be discussed by the PTC in their recommendation to the City Council. Zoning Compliance4 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed Rezone To implement the project, a rezoning request is necessary and proposed. The project seeks to amend the Zoning Code to allow for the application of the HIP to be applied to the site. This would entail extending these housing incentives to the subject property and more broadly to CS zoned property adjacent to San Antonio Road between Middlefield Road and East Charleston Avenue. The zoning amendment request would specifically include the following: Establishing a HIP that includes a waiver to allow up to a 2.0 FAR for housing projects and changes to lot coverage restrictions; Eliminating maximum housing density requirements; Allowing rooftop gardens to count towards required open space; Excluding the first 1,500 square feet of retail or retail-like floor area from parking requirements; Amending the citywide definition of gross floor area to exempt certain area in subterranean garages from counting toward the floor area ratio; Amending the citywide retail preservation requirements to: o Modify the standard for a waiver from the retail preservation ordinance to allow exceptions for housing projects; or 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 o Establishing a minimum retail floor area requirement for housing projects required to replace retail or retail-like uses, but not require full replacement; or o Waiving all or a portion of the required replacement retail floor area from the maximum floor area ratio for housing projects. The proposed rezone is not within the purview of the ARB, however, the summary of the request is provided for context during evaluation of the proposed project and the required Architectural Review Findings. The discussion of the rezone will be taken up by the PTC at a future date. Architectural Review Findings The purpose of architectural review is to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2) Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Attachment B includes the ARB findings for reference. The following are areas of the project that could be enhanced and where staff seeks additional direction.  There are some large expanses of curtain wall windows and it is not clear if these are bird friendly glass features.  Does the project provide sufficient visual articulation along the street elevations?  Is the retail space designed in a manner that will lead to its success?  Are the open space areas designed to maximize their potential use?  Are the floor to ceiling heights appropriate for the building?  Are the windows sufficiently setback to provide relief along the wall(s)? The project will need to provide an illustrative wall section from parapet to foundation showing foundation, wall, windows, and cornice. Context-Based Design Criteria The project is subject to the context-based design criteria found in PAMC 18.16.90. 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. The project shall demonstrate consistency in the following areas:  Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 The site is within the vicinity of bicycle routes, commercial and employment centers. The bicycle parking is compliant with the City’s standards. A large lobby includes long-term parking of bicycles and shelter.  Street Building Facades The design of the building and use of a variety of materials appear to provide a strong relationship with the streets. Both San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street have large setbacks (24 and 15 feet respectively), which prevent a stronger relationship with the street. Staff seeks feedback on whether the project as designed maximizes the potential for prioritizing the connection with the street.  Massing and Setbacks Visual interest is provided with the use of color and materials. The site’s required setbacks place the building farther back, minimizing the impact of its mass on the street.  Project Open Space A courtyard in the center of the building creates common open space and all units include decks, which provide private open space. Additionally, the there is a fourth-floor common space deck fronting San Antonio Road. Staff seeks feedback on whether additional amenities are necessary to be consistent with this finding.  Parking Design Vehicular parking is provided below grade with its access taken from Leghorn Street. The project uses puzzle lift parking to achieve compliance with the parking requirements (if the request for a 15% reduction is granted).  Sustainability and Green Building Design The project proposes to be consistent with the City and State standards. The roof is designed for future location of photovoltaic panels. The ARB is encouraged to provide comment on these areas. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project requires the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because the existing building at 788 San Antonio is eligible for listing on the California Register and the project proposes to demolish the structure, which is considered a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA. In accordance with CEQA, a Notice of Preparation will be distributed and a Scoping Meeting may be conducted to receive feedback on the topics that would be evaluated in the EIR. When 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 completed, the draft EIR will be circulated and made available for public comment for a period of no less than 45 days. City Council will need to evaluate the EIR and make the necessary findings to certify the document prior to taking any action on the project’s requests. 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 August 2, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 30, 2019, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 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: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 18 Building 6 Building 5 Building 3 Building 8 OFFICES Building 9 Building 1 Building 2 Building 10 Building 10 Building 4 Building 7 Building 7 Building 12 Building 11 Building 8 Building 6 Building 9 Building 6 Building 5 Building 13 Building 5 Building 2 Building 14 Building 2 Building 4 Building 3 Building 4 Building 15 Building 1 Building 1 Building 3 H J G M F D E CS CS(AD) CS CS PC-2711 CS RM-15 PC 1 4 1 7 RM-15 -2 CN PC - 4918 SAN A NTO NIO ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FABIAN STREET SAN ANTON IO ROAD LEGHORN STREET FA EAST CHARLESTON ROAD SAN ANTONIO ROAD COMMERCIAL ST INDU STRIAL AV EAST CHARLESTON ROAD O A D This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City of Mountain View Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes abc Known Structures abc Zone District Labels Curb Edge 788 - 796 San Antonio Rd City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary 0'292' 788 - 796 San Antonio Road CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2018-08-27 14:54:35 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\gowen.mdb) GM CS City of Mountain View 2.a Packet Pg. 19 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 Context-Based Design Criteria PAMC 18.16.90 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 2.b Packet Pg. 21 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 788 San Antonio Road Table 1: CS ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON TABLE Zoning District CS (Existing Zoning) Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Proposed Project if HIP approved Regulation Required Required Proposed Minimum Site Area (ft2) None Required Not Applicable 43,390 sf (0.996 acres) Site Width (ft) None Required Not Applicable 234-255 feet (varies) Site Depth (ft) None Required Not Applicable 147-187 feet (varies) Min. Front Yard (Leghorn Street) 0 – 10 feet to create an 8 – 12 feet effective sidewalk width (1) Not Applicable 25 feet – 3 inches Min. Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Not Applicable 10 feet – 3 inches Min. Interior Side Yard 10 feet (for lots abutting a residential zone district) Not Applicable 10 feet – 3 inches Min. Street Side Yard (San Antonio Road) 5 feet Not Applicable 25 feet – 2 inches Special Setback Yes, 24 feet along San Antonio Road and 15 feet along Leghorn Street Not Applicable 25 feet along San Antonio Road and 15 feet along Leghorn Street Build-to-Lines 50 percent of frontage built to setback; 33 percent of side street built to setback (1) Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Site Coverage 50 percent May be waived by the Director of Planning 56 percent (24,266.1 sf) Maximum Height 50 feet Not Applicable 49 feet – 10 inches Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 May be waived by the Director of Planning 1.93:1 (84,175.3 sf) Maximum Non-Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 Not Applicable 0.04:1 (1,779.5 sf) 2.c Packet Pg. 22 Page 2 of 3 Table 1: CS ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON TABLE Zoning District CS (Existing Zoning) Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Proposed Project if HIP approved Regulation Required Required Proposed Maximum Combined Residential and Commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 1.5:1 1.97:1 (85,954.8 sf) Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15:1 Not Applicable 0.04:1 (1,779.5 sf) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Residential Density per Acre Sites on El Camino Real 30 units/per acre No Maximum Not Applicable 102.34 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space (percent) 30 percent Not Applicable 15,249.5 sf (35.1%) Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit) 150 sf per unit (9,600 sf) Not Applicable 155 sf per unit (15,823.86 sf) CS Zoning Notes for Mixed Use Projects (1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. (k) Housing Incentive Program (1) For an exclusively residential or residential mixed-use project in the CC(2) zone or on CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, the Director may waive the residential floor area ratio (FAR) limit and the maximum site coverage requirement after the project with the proposed waiver or waivers is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director finds that a project exceeding these standards is consistent with the required architectural review findings. In no event shall the Director approve a commercial FAR that exceeds the standard in Table 4 of Section 18.16.060(b) or a total FAR (including both residential and commercial FAR) in excess of 2.0 in the CC(2) zone or 1.5 in the CN or CS zone. (2) For a 100% affordable housing project in the CC(2) zone or on CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, the Director may waive any development standard including parking after the project with the proposed waiver or waivers is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director finds that a project with such waiver or waivers is consistent with the required architectural review findings. In no event shall the Director approve development standards more permissive than the standards applicable to the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District in Chapter 18.30(J). A "100% affordable housing project" as used herein means a multiple-family housing or mixed-use project in which the residential component consists entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code, available only to households with income levels at or below 120% of the area median income, as defined in Section 16.65.020, and where the average 2.c Packet Pg. 23 Page 3 of 3 household income does not exceed 60% of the area median income level, except for a building manager's unit. (3) This program is a local alternative to the state density bonus law, and therefore, a project utilizing this program shall not be eligible for a density bonus under Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus). 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Type Required Proposed Conforms? Multiple-Family 1 space per studio and one-bedroom; 2 spaces per two- bedroom unit Studio: 32 1-bedroom: 63 2-bedroom: 7 109 spaces 92 spaces* Yes, with use of mechanical lifts (48 spaces) & approval of TDM program Commercial 1 space per 350 square feet (First 1,500 sf exempted from parking) 1,779 -1,500 = 279 sf 1 space 1 space Yes Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit/ 100% Long Term (LT) 1 space per 10 units short term for guests (ST) 1 space per 3,500 square feet (20% LT/ 80% ST) 102 LT spaces 10.2 ST spaces 1 ST space Total Required: 102 LT spaces & 11 ST spaces 104 LT Spaces 11 ST Spaces Yes *Seeking a 15 percent reduction through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050 Table 4. (Transportation and Parking Alternatives). 2.c Packet Pg. 24 Page 1 of 4 Explore Real Estate 2625 Middlefield Rd, #101 Palo Alto, CA 94306 650.813.1077 July 9, 2019 Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2679 jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: 788-796 San Antonio Road Application for a Zoning Text Amendment Architectural Review Board Hearing Mr. Lait: On May 20, 2019, the City Council held a pre-screening meeting to consider a Zoning Text Amendment to extend the recently adopted Housing Incentive Program (HIP) to the property located at 788-796 San Antonio Road (Property). The City Council was generally supportive of applying the HIP to the CS zoned property adjacent to San Antonio Road between Middlefield Road and East Charleston Avenue, which includes the Property. The Council was also generally supportive of this housing project. The applicant requested that the HIP allow up to a 1.5 floor area ratio (FAR) or higher for housing projects, like the proposed project. Heights up to 50 feet are allowed in the CS zone and hotels are incentivized with a 2.0 FAR. Near the Property, a dual branded Marriott is being constructed. Due to the higher height limits and surrounding land uses, City staff recommended as follows: 1. Waive FAR up to 1.5 or 2.0 and lot coverage though the Housing Incentive Program, which would be an alternative to State Density Bonus Law; 2. Eliminate the 30 units per acre density limit and rely instead on existing height, setbacks and other development standards; 3. Allow rooftop garden area to count to 60% of the required open space; and 2.d Packet Pg. 25 Page 2 of 4 4. Exclude the first 1,500 square feet of retail from the retail parking requirement. As a result of City Council’s support for these recommendations, the project proposal was updated to maximize housing potential on the Property utilizing these development parameters. Project Summary The project proposes to redevelop the approximately 1.0-acre Property with 102 for-sale studio (32 total), 1-bedroom (63 total) and 2- bedroom (7 total) residential units. Of these, 16 units, or 15.3% are proposed to be dedicated for Below Market Rate (BMR) households. The 4-story structure would measure less than 50’ above grade. A single level below grade space would provide a total of 99 vehicle parking spaces (51 surface and 48 puzzle stackers). Bicycle parking is provided 100% at grade and consists of 104 for residents accessed via the main lobby and 11 short term spaces for guests. This residential project would replace two existing buildings with a mix of uses. One building, which is approximately 6,200 square feet, is currently leased by a general contractor to store equipment and materials. The other building, which is approximately 11,500 square feet is shared by a moving company for administrative offices and storage and an exercise/training facility. The exercise/training facility which occupies approx. 5,895 square feet is the only retail/retail-like use currently on the property. Based on a previous City Council suggestion, the project would provide a 1,779 square foot ground floor retail space in addition to the much-needed housing units. HIP Discussion In January 2019, City Council passed and effective May 1, 2019, various zoning changes to promote the creation of greatly wanted and needed residential units in Downtown Palo Alto and on the El Camino Real (ECR) corridor These changes, including the HIP, are the most significant response to date to the November 2017 Colleagues’ Memo Regarding Zoning Updates to Encourage Diverse Housing Near Jobs, Transit and Services. Specifically, the HIP encourages housing and provides an alternative to SDBL that retains more local control to the City in approving housing developments. The HIP has been called an important step to address the jobs-housing imbalance at a time where the City needs to aggressively adopt pro-housing policies. To avoid falling short of the City’s adopted goal of generating 300 housing units this year (and it is currently anticipated that the City will fall short), the City is considering (and has shown preliminary support for) a zoning text amendment to apply the HIP more broadly. Doing so will allow projects like this one to maximize the production of residential units on the Property to help the City meet its housing unit goals. The Property is located on San Antonio Road which is similar to El Camino Real in that each are classified as “Principal Arterials” by Caltrans and each connecting 2.d Packet Pg. 26 Page 3 of 4 Palo Alto with Mountain View (see embedded image). This Property and others on San Antonio are near transit and employment centers and provide an opportunity to create more housing for the City under locally created rules. In fact, the Housing Element identifies the Property as an opportunity site for mixed-use development with 30 dwelling units per acre. This proposal for a zoning text amendment to apply the HIP to this Property creates a greater opportunity for housing in the City. To avoid falling short of its housing goals, the City can do more to “go big” as recommended in the Draft Housing Work Plan by approving a zoning text amendment to apply the HIP to the Property. If the HIP as recommended by City staff is applied to the Property, we are proposing the new site plan that includes 102 residential units (including 16 BMR total) and a 1,779.5 square foot ground floor retail space. By unit count this is 72 more units than the existing zoning might allow. This creates both more market rate and below market rate units to achieve the City’s housing production goals, while the fully complying with the City’s locally created HIP ordinance. Project Details The building presents itself as a four-story form to both public streets with a 29,467 square foot below grade garage level. Following the HIP parking requirements, the project would require 109 total parking spaces. The proposed project provides 99 total parking spaces, using a 9% reduction of parking spaces of a maximum 20% parking reduction through utilizing a TDM program outlined by Nelson Nygaard. Only 44 parking spaces are proposed to be accessed with a parking stacker system intended for residents. The majority of parking spaces will be conventional stalls, including required retail, van accessible, standard accessible and EVSE parking spaces. The residential units are a mix of 32 studio, 63 1-bedroom, and 7 2- bedroom residential units, providing 102 total units. Of these, 16 will be designated for below market rate (BMR) programs for qualified moderate income households. Residential and common space areas total 84,776 square feet, with a 1.95 residential FAR. When including the retail space of 1,779 square feet and below El Camino Real San Antonio Rd 2.d Packet Pg. 27 Page 4 of 4 grade non-parking spaces (mechanical, retail and residential trash areas, electrical, storage, elevator shaft and stairwells) of 1,478 square feet, the total FAR of the project yields a 1.99 FAR. We look forward to the Architectural Review Board hearing and continuing to engage the City of Palo Alto and the community on this project and devising an excellent opportunity to address the housing crisis. Best Regards Ted O’Hanlon cc: Yurong Han, 788 SAPA Land LLC Leigh F. Price, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP Sheldon Ah-Sing, M-Group Architectural Review Board Members 2.d Packet Pg. 28 2.d Packet Pg. 29 2.d Packet Pg. 30 2.d Packet Pg. 31 2.d Packet Pg. 32 2.d Packet Pg. 33 2.d Packet Pg. 34 Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “788 San Antonio Road” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4575&TargetID=319 2.e Packet Pg. 35 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10525) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/15/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: L'Occitane Facade Remodel (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00114]: Request for Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Facade Improvements to an Existing Tenant Space for O'Occitane in Building C at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary This project involves the renovation of the tenant space occupied by retailer “L’Occitane”. The renovations consist of a new full height façade, new planter boxes, new storefront windows, a new seating bench, and updated signage. The changes proposed are cosmetic and will not change FAR, coverage, parking, or access to the site. Background Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Sargenti Architects Representative: Jason Smith – Land Shark Development 3 Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 180 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area: Various & 52.8 Acres Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site, none will be removed with this project Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s): Retail, Personal Service, General/Professional Offices, and Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes, see analysis below Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes, 1976 Guidelines Proximity to Residential Not Applicable 3 Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Uses or Districts (150'): Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project is a Board Level Architectural Review application to allow for an exterior tenant improvement, which includes a new exterior façade incorporating white and yellow- painted surfaces, horizontal wood slat boards, planter boxes, and signage. The project is subject to requirements outlined the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP, 15PLN-00040). The MTFSP for the Stanford Shopping requires a Planning entitlement if any standalone building or tenant space that faces a public right-of-way proposes exterior changes. The requirement for Board Level review involves tenant spaces with outward-facing façades greater than 35 ft long, while tenant spaces with façades under 35 ft long are subject to staff level Architectural Review. Tenant spaces with façades not visible from the public right-of- way do not require Planning entitlements for renovation but are still required to comply with the Program for the Shopping Center and obtain any necessary Building permits. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary application is being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. 3 Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the northwestern portion of the site, near the Sand Hill Road and Plum Lane intersection. The Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The site is surrounded by a hospital, retail, and multi-family uses. Stanford Shopping Center has an open-air pedestrian environment defined by a mixture of retail, dining, professional and general business offices, and personal service uses. The project is located within an exterior facing tenant space within Building C of the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposed project involves a façade over 35 ft in length and faces El Camino Real, therefore, requiring Board Level Architectural Review. Façade Changes The subject tenant space is located at the eastern corner of Building C, with facades facing Fleming’s Steakhouse and Vineyard Vines. The existing façade for the subject tenant space has an orange gloss panel design, squared by dark-colored matte finish mullions through the façade. There are two existing signs reading “L’Occitane En Provence” on each side of the front corner of the building along with window display graphics. The existing façade design does not extend the full height of the building, which is not complying with current MTFSP design standards. The proposed façade design will extend the full height of the building, effectively completing the updated row of tenant spaces along the El Camino Real facing side of Building C. The new storefront design features simple geometric forms liken to modern architectural design. The façade will be painted white with a generous portion of the upper façade painted yellow. The upper portion of the façade (across from Vineyard Vines) has wooden slats that frame the area above the lower projecting portion of the tenant space which features a green roof. This 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. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 upper yellow-painted façade is recessed slightly from the rest of the façade, functioning as a frame for this portion of the façade. Within the frame are LED light strips that will accent the recess during the evening and nighttime hours. The proposed design has more window surfaces, allowing more visibility to the interior of the tenant space. The support column will have new white paint, a circular bench, and a planter box for an improved finished appearance. In context, the proposed facade fits within the varied storefront designs along the El Camino Real facing portion of the Shopping Center. Adjacent tenant façades consist of a range of colored stone, stucco, metal, and wood. Signage designs vary tenant to tenant based on the business, all of which are indicative of the Shopping Center mixture of tenants. The façade design makes the tenant space stand out from the other tenant spaces, creating its own identity while drawing attention to the products and services offered by the tenant. The project’s design and materials are cohesive and consistent with those found within the Shopping Center while updating a corner of a primary entryway into the Shopping Center. Additionally, the project provides a new circular seating area that functions as seating or a waiting area for shoppers, contributing to the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center. Signage The proposed sign includes new walls signs and a new blade sign, both types reading “L’Occitance En Provence”. The wall signs are internally illuminated individual channel letters, with the blade sign having push-thru letters that are also internally illuminated. Sheet A-401 Dimensions Location Wall Signs 32” x 136”; 30.86 sf Façade Wall Blade Sign 15” x 24”; 2.5 sf Façade Wall The Master Tenant Façade & Sign Program (MTFSP 15PLN-00040) details the signage limitations for the Shopping Center. The primary wall sign would be limited to 36” maximum heights which 3 Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 the current design meets. Additionally, the proposed blade sign meets the maximum dimension for blades at 15” x 24”, resulting in the signage being consistent with Shopping Center signage. Planter Boxes/Landscaping The project includes new planter boxes, with one of the new planter boxes providing a green roof for the projection (existing) of the tenant space as shown on sheets LS-100 and A-103. The green roof consists of 46 Helichrysum Italicum, which are non-native flowering plants used in perfumes due to the intense fragrance the flowers produce. The other planters are located at the pedestrian level under the triangular pass through and storefront. Two lemon trees in planter pots are placed at each side of the tenant space entry, while the new seating area features a wrapped planter box for the Rosmarinus Officianalis (common rosemary herb). None of the proposed species are native to the region, however, they are all flowering plants that provide habitat for pollinators and have medium to low water needs as detailed in the table below. NATIVE SPECIES HABITAT SIZE WATER USAGE Citrus Limon (2) No Yes (butterflies, bees) 4-5’ Medium Helichrysum Italicum (46) No Yes (butterflies, bees) 3” Pot Low Rosmarinus Officianalis (25) No Yes (butterflies, bees) 2 Gallon Low Sheet LS-100 3 Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Though the planting selection does not have native plants, the plant selection and planters are very cohesive with the tenants’ products. The plants for this project are more likening to living storefront décor rather than typical landscape planting found at the Shopping Center. Staff requests that the ARB provide feedback and perspective on the selected plants and their locations. Consistency with Application Findings The project is consistent with the required findings as shown in Attachment B. For example, the project will renovate an existing tenant space and provide new outdoor seating areas (circular seating around the support beam) that will strengthen the Stanford Shopping Center position as a premier regional shopping center with distinctive businesses and an open, appealing pedestrian environment. Furthermore, the proposed green roof is a unique feature located at one of the primary entrances to the Shopping Center and contributes to the exclusive retail, dining, and personal service experience of the Stanford Shopping Center. Zoning Compliance2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.060(e)(3) states the maximum floor area for the Stanford Shopping Center is limited to 1,412,362 square feet. Staff performed a review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. The proposed project includes no changes to the floor area or site plan of the Shopping Center. This results in no changes to FAR, access, circulation, and parking. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes within the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment D provides a summary table of the zoning compliance information for this project. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation of Community Commercial. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Attachment B provides a detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has multi-modal access and parking which can be accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface-level parking lots with two multi-level 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 43 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. Throughout the site, there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 1 or an “Existing Facilities” exemption (Categorical Exemption 15301). This project meets this exemption due to the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building. 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 August 2, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 30, 2019, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Draft Conditions Of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment E: Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 44 Project Location 3.a Packet Pg. 45 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real, Building C 19PLN-00114 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. The proposal seeks to renovate the existing tenant space by modernizing the existing façade adding to the variable facades indicative of the Stanford Shopping Center. Program L4.9.1: While preserving adequate parking to meet demand, identify strategies to reuse surface parking lots. Program Program L4.9.2: Explore adding additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for retail at Stanford Shopping Center. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high quality regional shopping center. The project will not increase the existing FAR of the site, nor will the project impact parking and circulation at the site. The projects new façade will add to the mixture of tenant façade design. The project will refresh the façade for the existing tenant completing the update of Building C’s El Camino Real facades and will contribute to the look of a main entry of the Shopping Center with a modern design that adds to the exclusive mixture of tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center making it a distinctive regional shopping center. 3.b Packet Pg. 46 GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The façade is well designed and enhances the Stanford Shopping Centers open pedestrian environment. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. No change in use or building massing is proposed, maintaining the existing scale of the area and the proposed land use is consistent with the surrounding land uses within the site. The project would remain consistent with the zoning requirements and Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. The project will not increase the development area of the site in regards to height, floor area ratio, setbacks, and parking as the project involves only exterior cosmetic changes to the existing tenant space within Building J of the Stanford Shopping Center. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is proposing façade improvements that will enhance the pedestrian and tenant environment within the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposal will maintain the existing footprint of the building and will not increase the massing or encroach on any setbacks, preserving the pedestrian scale of the Stanford Shopping Center area. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project will improve the conditions along the pedestrian walk way by providing new planters and seating for pedestrians, improving the pedestrian environment. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a The projects proposed façade includes new larger storefront 3.b Packet Pg. 47 strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements windows over the existing windows, allowing for additional merchandise display encouraging pedestrian activity at this location of the Stanford Shopping Center while supporting an connection between the interior of the tenant with pedestrian on the outside. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will not change the existing buildings massing and/or setbacks. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding does not apply. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding does not apply. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The proposed project will not change the existing parking on site. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project See Finding #6 below. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project involves materials which are durable and of high quality finishes. The new façade will consist of a modern design featuring dark metal mullions, white and yellow painted surfaces, and wood boards. The design will enhance the character of the site and update the existing tenant to better fit with the surrounding tenant facades for El Camino Real facing portion of the Stanford Shopping Center. 3.b Packet Pg. 48 Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project will not impede vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic and access to the project site. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project includes three new plant species that are not native to the region, however, all three are medium to low water usage (only two lemon trees are medium) and provide desirable habitat for pollinators. The selected plants also work well with the proposed design of the project while having connections with the tenant’s product lines fitting the inside out connection. With the selected plants being suitable for the region’s climate, providing habitat, and complementing the projects design, this finding can be made in the affirmative. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting, and will compliance with green building energy code requirements along with the local construction debris diversion rates. 3.b Packet Pg. 49 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real, 19PLN-00114 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 52.8 Acres No Change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied No Change Rear Yard No Requirement N/A N/A Interior Side Yard (right) No Requirement N/A N/A Street Side Yard (left) No Requirement Varied No Change Special Setback 24 feet along Sand Hill and Arboretum Roads Varied No Change Max. Building Height 50 feet or 37 feet maximum within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site (4) Varied, 33 ft 2 inches at the subject tenant space No Change Max. Floor Area per 18.16.060 (e) for Stanford Shopping Center 1,412,362 net sf 1,362,607 net sf No Change (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. 3.c Packet Pg. 50 Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property There is no proposed change of business (use change) with this application. The existing retail tenant will remain and complies with permitted hours of operation. Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) (2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage: (A) Except in shopping centers… (B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 sf shall be subject to a conditional use permit. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) … Stanford Shopping Center is a “shopping center” as defined in Title 18, therefore this regulation does not apply. Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. The proposed tenant improvements meet the recycling storage requirements. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 3.c Packet Pg. 51 Table 3: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area for a total of 5,446 parking spaces on site 5,442 spaces 5,348 (No Change) Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf 40% long term and 60% short term) equals 523 spaces for the site overall. 265 spaces (93 long term, 172 short term) No Change Loading Space 3/70,000 -120,000 sf with 1 additional space per 50,000 sf over 120,000 sf. Total of 29 loading spaces required. 2 loading space would be required for this portion of the site. ~20 loading spaces No Change Table 4: Allowed Signs per the Stanford Shopping Center Master Sign Program Sign Types, Number, and Locations table. Sign Requirement Number Maximum Size Location Primary sign (wall sign) Required 1 Maximum height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height; no sign closer to 24” from demising wall or building corner. Primary facade Banner or blade sign (Projecting sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” height Primary facade Canopy or Awning Sign (optional) 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary facade Super-graphic (optional) Not limited None Flexible Secondary sign or Emblem (optional) 1 where applicable Secondary sign: Maximum height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: Maximum height is 24” in any direction. Secondary façade where applicable Advertising graphics and signs (optional) Not limited None Only on the inside plane of storefront window (s) Digital images (optional) Not 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront 3.c Packet Pg. 52 and digital signage limited window *Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. Logos are considered wall signs and can be utilized as a primary wall sign or can be a component of a primary wall sign. Logos shall not exceed the maximum height of a stacked sign, which is 36-inches. Logos shall be included in calculations of maximum wall sign area limits. Table 5: PROPOSED SIGN CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS) Sign Dimensions Location MTFSP Compliance Wall Signs (Two Signs) 32” x 136”; 30.86 sf Façade Wall Yes Blade Sign (One Sign) 15” x 24”; 2.5 sf Façade Wall Yes 3.c Packet Pg. 53 ATTACHMENT D CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real, Building C “L’Occitane” 19PLN-00114 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "L’OCCITANE EN PROVENCE,” stamped as received by the City on August 6, 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: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. (This info should be in the decision letter, ask attorney if it should also be in the conditions) 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 7. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City 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. 8. ELECTRICAL PERMIT FOR ILLUMINATED SIGNS. Illuminated signs require Building Department review and permits. Plans shall include sign location, wiring sizes and type, disconnect size and 3.d Packet Pg. 54 location of panel, conduit type and size, structural elements, etc. 9. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Given the proposed building will not increase FAR and only involves façade improvements, no impact fees are required for this project. 10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION The following items shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit: 11. The permit application shall be accompanied by all plans and related documents necessary to construct a complete project. 12. Exit from bathroom shall not pass through storage room. Adjust at building permit submittal. 13. Bathroom as shown doesn't appear accessible. Re-arrange if necessary to provide accessible bathroom per 2016 CA Building Code. Adjust at building permit submittal. 14. Structural and T24 calculations are required for exterior storefront design. PUBLIC WORKS RECYCLING 15. The business needs to plan for internal waste stations for common areas. A waste stations shall be made up of a black landfill container, a blue recycling container, and a green compost container. They shall container proper color-coded signage. Please contact GreenWaste of Palo Alto for signage (650) 493-4894 or pacustomerservice@greenwaste.com. If bags are used to collect compost than green compostable bags shall be used. 16. RESTROOMS. For restrooms, if paper towels are used, then the container is recommended to be green and contain green color-coded signage. Please contact GreenWaste of Palo Alto for signage (650) 493-4894 or pacustomerservice@greenwaste.com. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 17. Changes to the electrical load require the submittal of an Electric Utility Application. 3.d Packet Pg. 55 MASTER TENANT FAÇADE & SIGN PROGRAM Effective Date: April 23, 2015 Program Approval 15PLN-00040 Edited PCE 7/10/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 56 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Facades facing the right of way shall incorporate architectural design features in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk. Rooftop equipment, equipment enclosures, roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from public view by a roof screen or through placement. Green Lines indicate tenant spaces which require City review • Storefront > 35ft in length require Architectural Board Review (Public Hearing) • Storefront ≤ 35ft in length require Staff Level Review Major tenants and free standing buildings (shaded) require City Review • The type of review (Board level or Staff level) will be determined based on the scope of work. 3.e Packet Pg. 57 For the Tenants whose elevation is located on facades other than those listed above, review by the Architectural Review Board might be required depending on if the storefront is visible from the public right of way. Tenants are required to receive Landlord’s approval prior to filing for ARB approval. However, approval by the Landlord does not guarantee ARB approval. Furthermore, all comments provided by the ARB must be addressed and Tenant shall file promptly for resubmittal. Any deviation from Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program must receive Landlord’s prior written approval prior to submitting drawings to the ARB or for Planning Approval. Architectural Review Processing Procedure. The architectural review processing procedure for Stanford Shopping Center tenants shall be as follows: 1. The Landlord and Stanford University conduct architectural review of non-anchor tenant signs and facades for those locations within the shopping center interior to ensure that they conform to the Tenant Design Manual. 2. Planning staff and/or the ARB shall conduct architectural review of tenant signs and facade applications for locations at the shopping center exterior. a. Any façades or architectural components that extend beyond the height of the existing parapet wall or increase gross or net floor area shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). b. Two-story tenant facades intended for single tenant occupancy shall have a façade that is continuous between the first and second stories. If separate tenants occupy the first and second stories, the design of each façade shall be reviewed by the ARB. c. Tenant facades that are 35-feet in width or greater are reviewed by the ARB. Architectural review for tenant facades that are less than 35-feet in width may be conducted by Planning Staff. d. If there are no tenant façade changes and the proposed tenant signs are consistent with the Master Tenant Sign Program, Planning review at the staff- level occurs as part of building permit applications. Any signs that require an exception to the Master Tenant Sign Program shall be reviewed by Planning staff or the ARB. Examples of tenants that have continuous façade vs those that do not have continuous facades 3.e Packet Pg. 58 STOREFONT ELEVATIONS GLOSSARY OF TERMS GENERAL: • Base Building: Base Building Shell construction, common and service areas, including all work that is the responsibility of the Landlord. • Design Control Zone: The area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store, at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”), in which the Landlord controls design components. The Design Control Zone shall extend across the entire width of the store. • Neutral Pier: An architectural element separating two adjacent Tenant storefronts or a Tenant storefront from a finish controlled by the Landlord. • Vitrine: Shallow wall mounted display cases on the exterior of the façade and can house vignette displays, merchandise or seasonal graphics. The illumination of any vitrine shall be similar in color and intensity to the remainder of the Tenant storefront displays. All vitrines must be incorporated into the design aesthetic of the storefront vocabulary. Stanford Shopping Center is an upscale Lifestyle Center and requires Tenants to create a unique and contemporary storefront design. Tenants shall take advantage of the garden setting by creating storefront designs that bring a sense of the outdoors into their space. Tenants are required to present their businesses with distinctive architectural designs using the highest quality of materials and workmanship, and with creative lighting and signage designs. Typical Tenant storefronts extend between adjacent storefront finishes and shall extend to the height of the roof parapet. STOREFRONT DESIGN CRITERIA General Design Criteria Storefront The Tenant’s entire storefront, as per Zone, shall be designed, fabricated, constructed, installed and maintained by the Tenant at the Tenant’s expense. The storefront design shall work in concert with, and be respectful of, the Landlord’s building façade, thematic architectural expression, and landscaping. Tenant storefronts shall meet the base building parapet height and shall not exceed the parapet in overall height. Storefronts shall maintain a consistent height on each building. Tenants are required to extend their storefront design along all building facades. Approved architectural finishes, façade details, and additional components such as lighting and graphics, will visually activate all side of each Building. At a minimum, Tenants shall extend their exterior color palette across the solid portions of the exterior wall. A combination of super-graphics, showcase windows and/or vitrines are required and shall be the foundation of the Tenant’s aesthetic interpretation of the exterior walls. Closed Doors Tenant spaces shall be designed for closed-door operation as this is an open-air center. Tenant storefront doors shall remain closed during normal mall hours. Landlord piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront that are clad or otherwise designed as part of the Landlord building architecture shall be preserved without alteration by the Tenant. Unclad piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront shall be incorporated into the Tenant’s storefront design. The Tenants storefront windows and other large glazed areas shall include provisions for mullion articulation beyond a basic extruded aluminum profile. This may be achieved through applying cap and pan elements to the basic window assembly to add relief and dimension. 3.e Packet Pg. 59  Doors within the storefront assembly may be articulated in a similar manner or may include further customized elements to enhance the overall design and building identity.  No alterations, additions, changes, or modifications to the Base Building finishes or construction shall be permitted without obtaining Landlord’s prior written approval (such approval must be requested by Tenant under separate cover from Tenant’s drawings). If permitted, all work shall be performed by Landlord at Tenant’s expense.  All Tenant construction, including storefronts, must be of non-combustible materials. Treated fire-resistive materials are permitted only with approval by local jurisdictional authorities.  All Tenant storefronts and floors shall be watertight and must properly slope to drain and to meet flush with Landlord’s finishes and/or pavements at the storefront. All exterior Tenant storefront materials must be suitable to outdoor weather, use, and wear.  Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Storefront Finishes Tenants shall maximize the use of glazing with the storefront area having a minimum of 70% transparency, measured across the width of the Premises. Full height opaque areas of the storefront shall be minimal. Where possible, a constant height opaque sign band, extending across the entire storefront width, is not acceptable. Varied glazed show window heights and/or projections should be incorporated. 3.e Packet Pg. 60 All storefront materials shall be high quality, durable, exterior grade finishes with minimal maintenance requirements. Acceptable Finishes:  Stainless Steel, Solid Brass and Copper  Wrought Iron, Cast Iron and Steel  Marble, Granite, Limestone, Brick, Textured Masonry  Finished/protected premium grade hardwoods  Precast Concrete, Cast Stone, GFRC, GFRG  Homogenous porcelain tile  Sandblasted, frosted, etched, textured, leaded glass, spandrel glass (in limited quantities)  Glazing (tempered) *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Finishes:  Simulated Brick, Wood, Stone  Plastic Laminates, Metal Laminates, Plastic Panels  Mill finish  EIFS  Plexiglas or plastics  Field painted metals  Ceramic, glass or quarry tile, used as a field or background. Note: Storefront canopies and marquees must conform to project location specifications and will be reviewed for conformance with material and color selection, location, projection and overall design effect. Fabric awnings are not generally permitted. 3.e Packet Pg. 61 Each Tenant shall provide a solid canopy above their entry. Canopies are to be a minimum of 3’-0” deep and must at lease cover the width of the entry alcove. The finish of the canopy is to compliment the Tenant’s overall storefront design aesthetic. Storefront and glazing graphics, film, animation techniques and projection techniques must be clearly shown on Tenant’s Drawings and are subject to Landlord’s approval. Entrance Alcoves & Closures Store closure is limited to hinged or pivoting doors only. Out-swinging or pivoting doors cannot extend beyond the storefront Lease Line. Coiling grilles and shutters are prohibited. Doors glazed with true divided slites are encouraged, as are doors or clear tempered glass and doors with decorative leaded or patterned glazing. Tall entrance doors of 8’-0” height or higher are encouraged; standard height doors with overhead transoms are also permitted. The following requirements shall apply without exception:  Tenant is responsible for exterior floor finish within the entry recess and must provide a minimum transition of less than ½ inches from the sidewalk elevation to Tenant floor finish.  Tenant is solely responsible for the design and construction of the slope in the recessed entry area, as well as compliance with any applicable code requirements for same. Exterior floor shall have positive drainage to the sidewalk at a minimum 1% and maximum 5% slope.  Tenant’s recessed entrance shall meet or exceed the finish specifications in the Design Criteria and Design Control Zone. The finish must be Tenant’s own material - matching Landlord’s sidewalk finish will not be permitted.  Recessed entrance location, presentation and temperature control are subject to Landlord approval. Tenant’s drawings shall include details for drainage, foundations, interior /exterior slab conditions, weatherproofing and finishes. Landlord shall not be responsible for ponding water in the recessed entry. All storefront doors must be framed. Frameless glass doors will not be allowed due to outdoor environment. Each Tenant shall display the space number posted in accordance per the local Fire Code and per City of Palo Alto Building Department Standards and shall install the mall standard ADA address plaque, provided by the Landlord’s designated vendor. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Storefront Bases The storefront base shall be a minimum of six inches (6”) in height. The base shall be constructed from highly durable non-porous material appropriate for exterior use, such as stone, tile, substantial gauge metal with a powder-coated finish, stainless steel, or other material as approved by Landlord. Storefront base material must be specified to withstand contact with cleaning equipment and solutions as well as exposure to the elements. Entry Floor Floor finishes at the entry shall be hard, high-quality, durable materials. At the entry, the floor finish shall be a non-slip material. Vinyl and/or rubber-resilient flooring or sealed/stained concrete systems are not allowed in the design control zone. If carpeting is proposed, 32 oz. nylon fiber minimum specification is required. The finished elevations at the store entrance must align with Landlord’s finished and/or pavement elevation of the exterior walkway, with a weather-proofed threshold of minimal thickness (not to exceed ½”) provided at the doors. The use of vinyl or metal reducer strips is prohibited. Tenant should provide a metal-embedded transition strip flush with the hard surface flooring at all transitions to other flooring types. No trip hazards such as reducer strips, thresholds or other noticeable transition devices shall be permitted between different flooring materials. 3.e Packet Pg. 62 Storefront Lighting Tenant Interior Lighting – Tenant interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from and/or intruding into nearby properties Tenant Exterior Lighting – Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Bird-Friendly Facades Tenant facades with glazing covering a large area shall utilize a bird-safe glazing treatment. The bird-friendly treatment can be invisible to the human eye. Typical treatments include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns are generally at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. Noise Producing Equipment Any noise producing equipment should be screened from public view and must comply with noise limits. Storefront Design Control Zone The Tenant Storefront Design Control Zone is the area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”) across the entire width of the store. Since the appearance of this zone is critical to the overall store appearance, design solutions, and materials are expected to be of the highest quality and will be closely reviewed by Landlord. Tenant music systems, speakers and sound systems are not permitted to be installed within the Design Control Zone. Speakers/ sound systems located behind the first 5’-0” of the entry shall have a separate volume control that can be set to the Mall Managers’ specified level. The backs of Emergency Exit signage/lights (over the entry doors) shall not be visible from the exterior. Storefront security systems, if used, shall be unobtrusively incorporated into the Tenant’s Design Control Zone. Storefront security system design and installation details shall be included in the Tenant storefront design and drawings submitted to the Landlord for approval prior to installation. Security grilles or gates behind storefront show windows or entrance doors are strictly prohibited. All walls within the Design Control Zone shall be provided with high quality finish material – plain painted surfaces are not permitted. Materials such as stone, tile, wood panels, the use of trim and other decorated treatments shall be utilized. Slat wall and grid wall are not permitted. All plants shall be shown on Tenants drawings, and identified by species as well as whether living or artificial. Plants on storefronts shall have photographs submitted as part of Tenant’s drawing submission to Landlord for approval. Depressed or slab-level plantings are prohibited. All plants installed by Tenant shall be properly maintained by Tenant at Tenant’s expense. (Self-watering pots with a bladder system shall be used to ensure no leakage onto the hardscape). Gross Floor Area. Permanently covered tenant patio spaces count toward gross floor area, but uncovered tenant spaces do not. 3.e Packet Pg. 63 Store Display and Merchandising Within the Design Control Zone, the side walls and show windows shall be dedicated for use as a high-quality show window display. A creative display is required – standard merchandise racks, and wall finishing materials such as slat wall and prepackaged wall-mounted grid systems are prohibited. Distinctive, high-quality and appropriate display techniques which best showcase the Tenant’s merchandise must be used. At the storefront entry, display fixtures and merchandise must be placed at least 3’-0” behind the Tenant’s entry door/ closure line. Merchandise rack and display features must not block customer traffic flow in and out of the store. Television monitors proposed to be installed at the storefront or within the Design Control Zone require specific approval by the Landlord, and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If approved, monitors shall be incorporated into the overall storefront design and are to be encased within attractive display fixtures to conceal all surfaces except for the screen surface. They must be mounted a minimum of 3’-0” behind the storefront glass and must incorporate slow fade type graphics with no sound, animation is not permitted. Maximum screen size is 42” measured diagonally. All cables and wiring must be concealed from view. Show Window Safety Logos Repetitive safety symbols (graphically designed) or lettering may be applied to the inside face of storefront glazing as approved by Landlord for identifying transparent surfaces for customer safety purposes. Emblems, logos, and lettering must not exceed 3” in height and the font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 3” in height. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Tenant shall provide signage at the exterior side of the service entrance. Font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 2” in height. The length of the sign shall be proportionate to the sign height limit. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. General Sign Criteria Building permits are required for all illuminated signs and the Tenant shall be responsible to obtain any and all permits as may be required by the local jurisdiction. 3.e Packet Pg. 64 Sign Requirement Number Max Size Location Primary Sign (Wall Sign) Required 1 Max Height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height. Signs discouraged closer than 24” to demising wall or building corner Primary Facade Banner or Blade Sign (Projecting Sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” in height Blade: 24” projection x 15” in height Primary Façade (Blade signs to be located either under an awning or a façade wall not directly adjacent to an existing sign) Canopy Sign Optional 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary Facade Super Graphic Optional Not Limited None Flexible Secondary Sign or Emblem Optional 1 (where applicable) Secondary Sign: Max. height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: max. height is 24” in any direction Secondary Façade (where applicable) Advertising Graphics and Signs Optional Not Limited None Only on inside plane of storefront windows, Digital Images and Digital Signage Optional Not Limited 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront windows 3.e Packet Pg. 65 In additional to the criteria herein, Tenant signage shall comply with the current version of the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the City of Palo Alto’s Design Guidelines. All signage shall be of the highest quality design and construction. Tenant signage shall be designed to be proportionate in scale to the elevation to which it is affixed. Sign design and placement shall be well integrated with the tenant façade and hall be designed to complement the storefront design and general building design. Wall signs and sign area are defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PMAC) 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. When wall area exceeds 5,000 square feet, sign area may be increase by seven (7) square feet for each additional 500 square feet of wall area, but no sign shall exceed 203 square feet. All attachment hardware which supports and or powers the signage must be concealed from view and be weather resistant. Sign illumination must be connected to a 7-day / 24 hour time clock to be set to the hours specified by Mall Management Acceptable Primary Storefront Sign Types (required):  Dimensional wood, metal, glass, or other material with a permanent appearance, internally illuminate only. Flood lights are prohibited.  Reverse channel letter with halo illumination, opaque letter-sides and faces and non-reflective background.  Internally illuminated individual channel letters with acrylic faces.  Signs that are incised, cast into or carved out of an opaque material, indirectly illuminated.  Sculptural iconographic elements contextual to the storefront design, internally illuminated. *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Primary Storefront Sign Types:  Box or cabinet type signs.  Signs employing audible equipment, and/or moving, flashing, or blinking lights  Signs employing exposed raceways, ballast boxes, or transformers  Luminous vacuum-formed type plastic letter signs  Exposed neon  Cloth, paper, cardboard signs or signs of other temporary or non-durable materials  Signs using highly reflective finish materials (i.e. polished brass, chrome, etc.) 3.e Packet Pg. 66 Blade Signs Tenants can elect to use a variety of media for their signs; however, blade signs are required to meet the following criteria:  Sign panels can be a maximum of 3” thick and constructed of wood, metal, glass or other solid surface material. Plastics are not permitted.  Sign panel shall be supported by a bracket attached to the Tenant’s storefront or under an awning with a complimentary design, color and finish. At no time may the blade sign panel be attached to the Landlord’s neutral pier or building facade.  Perimeter of the sign should fall within a 24” (h) x 15” (w) envelope, including the support bracket. Tenant shall determine a creative sign shape.  Minimum clearance height to sidewalk is 9’-0” above the sidewalk plane.  Wording of the blade sign is limited to the Tenant’s trade name (DBA) and logo.  Tenant’s customary signature or logo, hallmark, insignia, or other trade identification will be respected and reviewed on a case by case basis for use as the blade sign design.  The graphic element of the sign may be paint, enamel, appliqué, dimensional graphic/lettering or may be pushed out of the panel material for a three- dimensional appearance (routed or incised is also approved).  Blade signs may be illuminated by concealed methods only. Building Mounted Banners and Projected Signs (optional – in lieu of Blade Sign) This type of sign is vertically oriented and is mounted high and perpendicular to the building and may or may not be illuminated. Maximum width or projection shall be 24” from the face of the Tenant storefront and the height cannot exceed 60”. Bottom of banner must be 9’’-0” clear ground plane. Signage of this type, if permitted, is usually restricted in number and location. Projecting banner signs shall not be placed in a manner that will allow the banner sign to exceed the adjacent parapet height. Canopy Signs (optional) Canopies are defined as heavy-framed protective and/or decorative structures over entrances. Tenant may elect to use the canopy sign as their primary storefront sign. The sign shall conform to the “Acceptable Primary Sign Types” as indicated above. The canopy sign may be illuminated internally only. The maximum height of any capital letter of a canopy sign shall not exceed 9” in height. Traditional fabric awnings are not permitted, however, taught contemporary awnings shall be allowed only with prior Landlord approval. Show Window Graphics (optional) Vinyl lettering and/or logos may be applied to the face of storefront glazing, provided that the sign communicates the Tenant Trade Name only. Advertising panels, banners or signs with opaque backdrops are prohibited. Signage Approval Process Landlord’s approval of Tenant’s storefront signage shall be based on the size and style of the sign and lettering, the location of the sign within the storefront, and the cohesive integration of the sign into the overall storefront design. Approval of the Tenant’s preliminary design or Working Drawings by the Landlord shall not constitute review and approval of the Tenant’s signage. Tenant shall submit one (1) set of the Tenant’s sign shop drawings for review and approval by Landlord. Fabrication or installation of the Tenant’s signage shall not commence before the Landlord’s approval of the sign shop drawings. 3.e Packet Pg. 67 ATTACHMENT F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “180 El Camino Real, L’Occitane” 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: http://bit.ly/180ECRLOCCITANE 3.f Packet Pg. 68 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, David Hirsch and Osma Thompson. Absent: None Chair Furth: Good morning. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto, for July 18, 2019. Would you please call the roll? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: The first item on our agenda, as always, is oral communications. This is the time for anybody who wishes to do so to speak to the Board on a matter not on today’s agenda. Do we have any speaker cards for this item? We have no speaker cards. Seeing no volunteers, we’ll go on. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Staff, are there any agenda changes, additions or deletions? Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: No changes. Chair Furth: Thank you. 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. Board Member Thompson, we weren’t sure if you were going to be here, so we had you as absent. We’ll fix that on the agenda, because you are here. Thank you. Board Member Thompson: I almost wasn’t here. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, after a late flight, so, we appreciate that. Or an early flight, really, right? As far as future agenda items, we will be hearing the 702 Clara Drive, which is a three-unit project, and the 788 San Antonio has been moved off to the next hearing. And then, 486 Hamilton is a prelim that we’ll hear, and then there is a subcommittee for 3265 El Camino. That will be on August 1st. Chair Furth: I have one question. Has the Council appointed a new ARB member? To replace me? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: July 18, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: Unfortunately not. We are going to be, given this is your last meeting, and we’ll do a little something at the end, we will be a four-member board for a little bit, until Council comes back from recess and is able to do the interviews and take a vote. Chair Furth: Recent project decisions. Alex, you went to represent the Board before the City Council on the Mercedes-Benz project. Could you report to us on that? Board Member Lew: Sure. This is the – let me get the address – this was in June. On June 24th, for 1730 Embarcadero Road, which is the Mercedes and Audi dealers, the City Council approved the project on an 8-1 vote. The outstanding items that the Board had identified will come back as a separate project, so we’ll only be reviewing that, just those items as a new project. In general, they supported the project. Chair Furth: Just to be clear, we did not recommend approval, we continued it. Staff and City Council elected instead to review the project. They looked at it and said the open items that were still concerning us, they were sent back to us as a separate…? Board Member Lew: Right, but the project is approved. Chair Furth: But the project itself is approved. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: Okay. Anything more from staff on that? Ms. Gerhardt: Just the main, the massing of the building, the zone change, those sorts of things are what’s approved. And then, as Alex said, the details that you wanted to still review will come back to you. Chair Furth: They’ve made it clear that this is a project that they want in this location, in this general form. Ms. Gerhardt: In the general form, yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else on that before we go on? Thank you, Alex, for being there, and reporting, to them and from them. Action Items 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 Chair Furth: I believe that takes us to our first action item, which is a public hearing. It’s quasi-judicial. It concerns 565 Hamilton Avenue. It’s a recommendation on the applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed-use building with 19 rental apartments, and up to 7,500 square feet of office space. Three existing parcels would be merged. A variance is requested to allow protrusion of the roof eaves, a fin wall, and a first- floor canopy into the Hamilton Avenue special setback. There’s been an environmental assessment, finding that this particular project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This is infill housing, is that right? Yes. Sheldon, I forgot to make a note of who the applicant is. 4.a Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mr. Sing: The applicant is Brandy Bridges. Chair Furth: Thank you. My first question to my fellow board members is, has everybody seen the site? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I visited the site. Board Member Lew: Not since the last hearing. Chair Furth: Right, but we’re all familiar with the site. We have inspected it. Some of us more recently than others. My next question is, does anybody have any conversations or other research to report that pertains to what we’re hearing today? Board Member Thompson: No. Chair Furth: Nobody does. Okay. Thank you. Well, having established that, could we hear the staff report, please? Sheldon Ah Sing, Consultant Planner: The applicant is also here with their presentation. To start off, I understand, Madam Chair, this is your last meeting with us, and just wanted to thank you for your guidance and levity on the issues. You are going to be missed. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Sing: This project is at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Webster street. It’s an area of transition from the commercial area to residential area. What’s proposed are 19 rental dwelling units and about 7,500 square feet of office space. The site does include right now three properties in two different building districts. The properties will be merged. The office component will be confined to the CD portion, while the residential units will be on all levels of the site. The project as introduced includes a major architectural review, joint use parking, as well as a variance. The project did go before the Board previously on April 18th, a few months ago, and there were a number of items the Board wanted to see the applicant try to address and come back with. A lot of those have to do with the privacy and some of the daylight for these spaces on the interior. That had to do with residences that are along Webster, as well as the interface with the unit and the Redwood Terrace space at the back, which is solely for the use of the office space. And then, some of the other interior layouts for the upper level of Units 15 and 16. Also, it wanted to see some bicycle parking added at the grade where possible. Also, to review the overall height of the building in relation to some of the floor to ceiling heights, to consider adding an accessible ramp at Webster Street, and to finally review some of the lighting throughout the project. The applicant has a pretty extensive presentation on how they addressed each of those issues, but in summary, we believe that they have addressed those. A couple of them where – the height, for instance – there’s some constraints that the applicant has mentioned about the elevator, so maybe we could seek some other comments about that, how to further address that, or maybe it’s okay as is. In summary, the project is a three-story mixed-use project. There is an offset in the floor area ratio. That’s for efficiency of the project, that some of the utility spaces are, trash spaces are included more on the larger parcels, more access to Webster Street, versus having that on a smaller parcel. Trying to get access on Hamilton. Thought it was a good idea to do that. For a better project, there’s some offset in the FAR on the site that way. The project is proposed rental units, so, therefore, the project would pay just the impact fee for affordable housing. The project does include a level of basement parking, and it does include a lot of those in the mechanical types of lift spaces, and those are allowed by the code. The code does require 60 spaces; the project does provide 55. But with the project’s joint use parking request and their company transit demand management plan, we believe that the reduction is okay. This diagram shows what I mentioned previously about the FAR distribution. The shaded areas are the utility and trash rooms, so they’re accommodating both the office and the retail on that space. That just makes sense. There is access straight to Webster there. Otherwise, there is a courtyard in the middle of the project for open 4.a Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Page 4 space, and as I mentioned, there is the terrace area in the back that preserves some of the on-site mature trees. That is for the sole use of the office space. There are a couple areas for the variance application. There’s a 17-foot setback, special setback along Hamilton. Any protrusion in there would require a variance of some kind if they want to do it. In this case, we believe that these are warranted, they are okay, there are canopies, as well as a fin wall that is designed, that can be detached if for some reason the City needs to use the space within that special setback area. The canopy, of course, is above ground, so we believe this variance is warranted given the restrictions in the area. This just provides a cross-section of the project and some of the floor plates that we were trying to describe. They are a bit generous, but I think the idea is to have a clean aesthetic for the roofline, as well as there’s some limitations with the elevator that shows it. It does have a low profile amongst other types of elevators, but again, the applicant can describe that. I’ll show one rendering here. This is along Webster and the changes that were proposed. They did add more landscaping there to add more privacy. The rendering above is the previous version that was shown in April, and below is the new one. In conclusion, the project does respond to the ARB’s comments, and the variance request is acceptable. The revisions proposed and implemented increase the consistency with the required findings. With that, we do recommend approval of the project to the Director, based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation; I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Sheldon before we hear from the applicant? Board Member Thompson: Is it possible to pass the material board up? [Staff hands materials board to Board Member Thompson.] Chair Furth: May be hear from the applicant? You’ll have 10 minutes once you have everything set up. And if you could, as always, spell your name for our transcriber. Roslyn Cole, Aidlin Darling Design: Yes. My name is Roslyn Cole [spells name]. Chair Furth: I’m afraid you need to speak even more closely to the mic. Ms. Cole: Okay. Is this better? Chair Furth: Yes. Ms. Cole: All right. Okay. I’m Roslyn Cole, Principle at Aidlin Darling Design, and I’m pleased to be here again with you today. We have looked at all of your comments and would like to run through that quickly, so I remember them. Also with me today is Lauren Ewald with Fletcher Studio; she can answer any landscape questions you might have. As Sheldon mentioned, we had a good deal of feedback from you, which is really helpful, and we’d like to walk through that one by one. The first item is the suggestion that we increase the privacy to the ground floor residences at Webster Street. We looked at this carefully. The image that you see up here is different from the one in your package. It was very hard for us to actually render it within the rendering we had. It got very muddy in the background, so we thought it better to start fresh with an image that would show you more of what it would look like. What we’re doing is we’re proposing a revised planting, which would provide a greater height and privacy for those residences, while still providing an openness. As you might recall, we started this project a year or so ago, providing fences along those units to provide privacy. At your suggestion, we pulled them away to really provide a more urban context. And I think we went a little too far by making it too low. In the last go-around we feel like we’ve achieved a balance here that allows for the privacy for the unit, as well as the openness that we would like to keep. One of your other items you suggested we look at relates to this. This is looking at those two units for the daylight and privacy from within the space. We have provided some images of what that looks like when you’re looking from the living out to that terrace area, and then, back to the courtyard. We recognize that there are different people, and people who look for very different things in the apartments that they choose. We think these are apartments that would be very applicable for the urban dweller who wants a direct connection to the outside, and more of a 4.a Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Page 5 direct connection to the street. With that said, we have provided translucent glazing at the door, as well as shades at the windows for privacy, should that be desired. That is typical in all of the units. For Unit 3, which is the corner unit by the Redwood Garden, we have also shown you here a typical kitchen casework elevation. I think there was a comment on how the casework and the window might work together, so we’ve designed the casework to sit above the window at this location, which provides space for a shade pocket, to provide a direct connection to the exterior. At this unit, the kitchen – which is located here – has a landscape buffer of six to seven feet before the terrace starts. That landscape buffer provides a distance and some height of planting, and there’s also two magnolia trees there to allow for a little more privacy for that unit. For Units 16 and 15, we thought it was really helpful to actually re-look at this in terms of the privacy of the unit. We have relocated the window for Unit 16, and then, reoriented the planters to provide more privacy between Units 16 and 17. In addition, we’ve changed the landscape material to a taller chain fern, which basically will grow three to five feet, to provide additional privacy between those terraces and the walkway. We have taken your suggestion to add more parking at grade by adding two more spaces at the corner entry. This brings our short-term parking count up to six from four, and four is our required minimum. I’d like to spend a little more time on this one, so I’m trying to rush through some of these other ones, because obviously, looking at the height was something we did very carefully. It’s a little bit of a complicated issue. Chair Furth: We’re happy to give you a couple more minutes if you need it to make it clear to us what you’re doing. Ms. Cole: Okay, all right. I’ll slow down. There are a couple driving factors in setting the building height at its 40 feet. The first is that our first floor is set by being one foot above the base flood. We then have two elevators in the buildings, each with their overruns, and that sets the height of the third floor at the residential unit, and then the second floor where the office elevator comes up. Now, what we’re specifying is a Schindler elevator, which has a 12-foot-7 overrun, and it’s the lowest that we’ve been able to find. Most are in the 13-2- or 14-5-foot height range. And even with these, we’re not bringing our typical floor plate over. We’re having a very special acoustical separation at that location, where we have a residential unit. And then, at our roof, we’re popping up just a little bit but still where you’re not able to see it from the street. The last floor basically in this sandwich is our first floor, and that right now has a clear space of 10-foot-4 in the office, but that is before the mechanical ductwork. That mechanical ductwork will add at least 12 inches to that, to lower down in those locations. We feel that’s as really low as we can go with an office space. For these reasons, we are asking to keep the height where it is. We’ve also taken a step back and looked at the project. We haven’t looked at these images for a while. They’re in your package, but they have not been part of your presentation. Just to look at this building in the context of its neighbors. And it is truly, as Sheldon said, a transition building. It transitions from these taller buildings. All of the neighbors are taller than it. Obviously, the church is 70 feet, but our adjacent neighbors and the neighbor across Hamilton. And then, we have our lower residential neighbors. We’re addressing that by opening the building at the top floor, creating a glazed corner, and then, bringing that third-floor line to align with that roofline of that building. We feel like the building, with this 40-foot height, still really deals with the transition at this corner. You suggested that we look at adding an accessible ramp to the Webster Street entry, and we think this is a very good suggestion. We have added this in. It’s a straight ramp, a 1:12 ramp, but added it in by adding another planter and layering it in, so we still have the cascading steps that come to that corner. We think that is an improvement to this corner, for many reasons. Accessibility, of course, being the primary one. Here, you asked us to look at the central terrace and the light levels. We think that this space is going to be quite nice. It’s 30 feet by 32 feet. We have two analogous spaces that we’d like to show you. Here is the Stanford Central Energy facility, and that space is scaled very smoothly. You can see the courtyard through the center of the space here. And then, the Oakland Museum and it’s front entry canopy. This is much longer, but daylight appears along the side, and then in the back, and in a similar proportion for this space here. I think both show that this space can feel light and not dark. At the third floor, we looked at the lighting, and thought it was actually very helpful. We went back and looked at finding a new fixture for this, and this fixture has brought down the lighting level significantly, but it still provides an even level. We haven’t changed the number of fixtures, but the lighting level is even. In looking at the controllability, we’re proposing to provide that through both a photocell, and then, through the ability to have it dimmer for occupant use. 4.a Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Page 6 The intention is to keep it low, and then, if an occupant needs to use it higher, then it would be set higher. We were concerned about the on-off occupancy sensor and the flickering of that through time. We have also looked at the landscape buffer going north, and after meeting with our neighbor, we have added two additional trees along this boundary property. We have a utility line that runs into our utility space here, so we’re unable to add any more trees along this area. But the coffeeberry shrub that is located and proposed here can grow up to 15 feet, so we think that it itself will also be a good buffer along that northern neighbor. There are a couple of planning requested changes. As Sheldon has mentioned, we now have updated things to show how we meet the new ordinance, between lowering the stall count from 67 to 60. Then, increasing the open area. The increase for the RM-40 parcels includes from 1,300 to 1,950 square feet, but I think it’s important to note that we have 2 ½ times that amount for this project, so we’re well within that. Lastly, we have pulled the building back a foot from the property line. Originally, the building itself sat at the property line and we had window projections, as well as eaves, moving into that to provide depth of the building. We’ve worked with Planning. We feel like that depth is really important to the façade, so we have taken a foot out of the courtyard and a couple inches out of the units to pull the building back, so those windows are no longer in the setback. We have also worked very closely with Planning to allow for the fin to extend, but basically have separate rebar cages, and be able to be cut off if it needed to be in the future and still be structurally sound. The remaining images are just the elevations. Here is the street elevation; the elevation with the new ramp. The Webster Street elevation. And that elevation with the new ramp. And planting. And then, a view from Hamilton; a view from Webster; the central terrace; and then the corner. With that, I look forward to hearing your comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant’s architect before we go on? Do we have any speaker cards? Yes. Just one? John Carl Fredrick, [phonetic] please. You have three minutes, Mr. Fredrick. John Carl Fredrick: Thank you. John Carl Fredrick. I live in Barron Park, but in the last 50 years that I’ve lived in Palo Alto, I’ve lived about half of that time on the north side. I’m here to speak in opposition to this project, and a denial of the approval for demolition, for a number of reasons. Number one, I think the work to this point by City staff is inadequate in describing the historical character of the building and the attending landscaping. I think this project is way too invasive. I think there’s no reason to grant a variance for the 17-foot setback on Hamilton. I also don’t think that the inventory of the trees is adequate, and I’m sort of surprised it’s not contained in this report. Especially Tree #4 next to the existing building to the west, which is unique in Palo Alto. And even in the elevations, I did not see evidence of what the problem of removing all the magnolias on the street will be. And then, the fruit trees that are going – three orange trees, a fig tree – many bulb plants, and even the redwoods, which this report claims to protect, I would doubt that finding given what’s happened to the redwoods at the corner of Ravenswood and El Camino in Menlo Park. And to build unground parking, in truth, that closely the property line or the public parking area, it’s going to create problems in the future there. I also think that the character of the building itself on the corner, if you had elevation pictures of it, you would see that this is a remarkable change. It’s a magnificent building. I have an affection for quads because I grew up in one, back in Milwaukee. This might be the only one left in town, and it’s beautiful inside. Clear hard redwood, hardwood floors, a foyer… I mean, I don’t think any of you maybe even went inside the building there on the corner. And the loss then of nine units of affordable housing – and I would put it at higher than that because of the little brown shingle house that is scheduled for demotion if this permit is granted easily holds two people, two families. The garages alone are substantial pieces of property. What I think was lacking in this plan, and your review of it, is the fact that this property has a large amount of space without demolishing the corner building, in which 16 units of housing could go in there. Now, I don’t know how you could find, given the environmental problems, a negative CEQA finding that there’s no impingement of the general welfare of the people of Palo Alto if this demolition permit goes forward, and I would recommend that you continue or deny. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Fredrick. Just to be clear, Tree #4… 4.a Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Fredrick: It’s a unique pine. It’s right up against the building there, behind the brown-shingle house. It’s the only tree other than the redwoods on the property line. Chair Furth: Any questions of Mr. Fredrick before we…? Mr. Fredrick: And the other tree is the big avocado. Go over there and sit in the back yard and see how much open space is going to be lost by the granting of demolition here. Chair Furth: Thank you. Does anybody else which to speak? The applicant has 10 minutes to respond. Brandy Bridges: Good morning. My name is Brandy Bridges [spells name]. I’d like to say thank you to the Board for hearing our project today, and thank you to members of the public who came to comment, and others we have heard from in preceding hearings. I understand the concerns that were just voiced. I think, though, that there’s a lot to like about the project that we’re proposing. The existing site holds nine units of housing. That’s true. They are in a state of disrepair, and we’ve had a property condition report done, and they’re not appropriate for long-term, ongoing occupancy. Our project proposes to replace those with 19 units of new housing, code compliant, energy efficient, and safe for occupancy. We have had the property also studied in terms of looking at the historic nature of the property. It’s been analyzed by multiple parties. In fact, the City’s historic planner looked at the project. A third-party historian was hired by the City to review the project, and the landowner also hired a consultant to review the project. All three of the reviewing entities agreed that the three properties were ineligible for listing on the registers, and also ineligible for listing not only on the California register, but the City’s register. So, they’re not considered historic resources for the purpose of CEQA or for permitting. All of this information was reflected in the minutes from the hearing that we attended on a voluntary basis with a historic review board back in 2018. I don’t disagree that the buildings, they are quite lovely. I also have an affection for the nature and character of particularly the yellow building. But, I think that we have to acknowledge that there’s an existing life span for structures, and I think what we have to look at with these is that we have an opportunity to increase the housing supply, which, in a fashion that increases supply, I think is part of the equation to improving our housing crisis here in the Bay area. The landscaping that we proposed, that was another topic that was raised. The existing landscaping on the site, the front yard is primarily grass, which takes a lot of water consumption. Our project that we’re proposing will have primarily native and drought-tolerant planting. We actually are proposing to remove the trees. When we met with the City arborist, we looked at it in terms of asking them, “What is it that you think we should do?” We had an arborist who looked at it, the City’s arborist looked at it. The existing magnolias are in a state of decline, so their preference was for us to remove the trees. With the replacements that we’re proposing, we’ll actually have a net increase in the urban canopy, a significant net increase that’s reflected in the plan sets that you have before you today. I think replacing the water- hungry grass with some native plantings is, on balance, a good thing. I’m not sure about the numbering of that particular tree that was brought up in the comment, but I do have here before me the arborist’s report. I believe that the tree in question might be the Japanese black pine because that’s the only pine that I see listed. That tree was noted by the arborist as poor retention suitability due to poor structure, so that’s not one that we focused on much before because the arborist has already commented on that. The redwoods, preserving those redwoods is very important to us. We’ve made great effort to ensure that our building will not damage the redwoods. By pulling back the full garage, and then, we have in that area, the landscape plan shows wood planking. That’s to let the air reach the roots of the redwoods, and also to let the water kind of go down and reach the roots of those redwoods. We really want to protect those. We think it provides a great buffer between this project and the large city garage that’s next door, and does kind of a nice screening job, but also, they’re redwoods, and we just want to protect them because they are gorgeous. Other comments. I think I’ve addressed… Oh, the variance. The variance request, really, what we’re trying to achieve with that is getting some depth in the reading of the façade. This property does have some unusual characteristics that make a variance appropriate. Namely, we have the historic neighbor next door at 530 Webster, so, we wanted to make sure that we set our building back far enough that we’ll stay in alignment with 530 Webster, instead of stepping too far forward. We’ve compressed our building back along that Webster frontage more than is required by the City’s setbacks. And then, on the other corner of the building, we’ve pulled in to kind of get away 4.a Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Page 8 from those redwood trees. So, with being pushed in on the Webster side, and then, also being pulled in on the redwood side, it just creates a condition where it’s hard for us to push the building any further back without getting closer to 530 Webster, which is something we don’t want to do. With the variance, we can let the roof eaves, and kind of extend out. And also, we can do a nice canopy over the commercial space, and I think that’s a good trade-off to make. With that, I guess I would close by saying that, you know, we first visited with the Board, I think it might have been just over a year ago, and I feel really good about the project that we have before you today. I think it’s very different than the project we originally presented. The feedback, the loop of the process has been great in terms of receiving the feedback. Each bit of feedback has helped us make this project better, so I’d just like to take this one last opportunity to say thank you. I think it’s been a good collaboration with the public, with the Board. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant before we bring it back to the Board? David? Seeing none, any comments from staff before we start discussing this project? Who would like to begin? Okay, we’ll skip Osma. David? Board Member Hirsch: Generally speaking, I do like the project, but I do have some reservations. A minor one was the suggestion I made last time, was to use the Hamilton side to provide a skylight, or possible light down to the parking lot, but I don’t see that that’s included in any way in the presentation right now. I just find that underground parking isn’t really pleasant. It’s a personal issue for me, to add as much light as you can get in. Now, I know, of course, the entryway is well lit because of the break in the platform of the deck, etc., allows the light to come through, but it was a suggestion that I thought would enhance the parking facility. But it’s a minor concern. My major concern here is that in order to maintain your parapet and your corniche look to the building, and because of the elevator, as you mentioned, it has to have an override. You have a humongous height to the top floor of this building. I frankly just don’t understand. I think if I were looking at this as a developer, I would think that somehow we’re spending an extra three feet all around the entire building in order to allow for that elevator override being within the frame of the box of the building itself. It doesn’t seem logical to me, and actually, it makes some of those apartments uncomfortably high. Kitchens, bathrooms with ceilings quite that high don’t make any sense at all. And that’s a major concern, I think, for me, that the height of that floor is really ridiculously high. That’s speaking from the point of a person who owned a brownstone and had an 11-foot ceiling and thought that was quite adequate for a brownstone, but when you exceed that in a new building like this, I don’t think it’s sensible. Last time, I also mentioned Unit 14 and the ones above it, where the kitchen faces the courtyard in the rear. I simply don’t understand why, when you put a kitchen in most of your units closer to the front door, in this case, the kitchen is on the perimeter wall, where you could simply have windows, but you choose not to do so. If I understand the plan, that’s the plan I’m looking at, unless you’ve changed it and there is a new plan. That unit, those units, all of them that face the rear court have the kitchen misplaced on the outside wall. If I’m wrong, correct me, please. Ms. Bridge: Unit 14 has the kitchen on the outside wall, but it does also have windows. We could show an image of a similar condition if that would be helpful. Board Member Hirsch: No, I…. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Why don’t we hold that until we hear from everybody, if we need further enlightenment. Board Member Hirsch: All right. My personal objection is that the light that you get into the kitchen directly really isn’t the same as if you had a living room with a larger amount of window, and that the windows that you do have in the area of the living room, which are on the corridor, simply are not private windows, and you have to diffuse the glazing at that point. Let’s address it later on. In all other respects, I think you’ve answered the questions that we had at previous hearings. But those three issues, with a minor one being a skylight, have been well addressed here. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson. 4.a Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Board Member Thompson: Thank you for this project. I am struggling a little bit with the renderings. I’m looking here at the material palette, and Metal 1 in the material palette is this sort of dark metal color. And in the renderings – I’m looking at Page A5.3E – it’s sort of the main fascia at the top and bottom, and it just looks brown. I think that’s actually kind of important, to not show it that way, because it’s not going to be brown, it’s going to be black according to this. And even your main panel boards, fiber cement board color 1, in the renderings are showing very brown. This is more of a taupe. It doesn’t have the warmth that I think that brown color would have when I’m looking at this material board. In terms of all the other items that you’ve addressed – the privacy on the ground floor, and the slew of other things you went through – I feel pretty good about that in terms of the revisions that you’ve made. But, just looking at this again, you know, the renderings look really nice, but I don’t buy that, with these materials that you’ve chosen, that it will actually look like this in real life. I kind of want to alert the rest of the Board to my concern on that because, you know, otherwise this project seems to otherwise be looking pretty good. I think this is an important item that we would actually have to look at later, just because, you know, the wood soffit batches, the renderings, the main panel board, which is the heart and soul of your project right now, that’s what everybody is going to look at, is this material that seems otherwise a lot like the concrete, and I don’t know that that’s the design intent. It sounds like you want that differentiation between your concrete at the base to kind of you give you that grounding, and then, something warmer and lighter above. And I don’t think this material is the right choice. That’s my only note right now. Otherwise, I think you guys have done a pretty good job in this package. I’ll leave it there. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex? Board Member Lew: I can recommend approval today. Thank you for the revisions. I think they look good. I think, on previous Board member comments, I think the, with regard to the height, I do understand the comment. I do think there’s a balance we have to strike because this is mixed use. You’re talking about, you know, that it’s too high for residential, but they have office on Hamilton, so there has to be some sort of middle ground. And the heights that they are proposing are a little bit low, they’re on the low side for office. I think the architect has it correct, that if you look at the context-based street elevations, the building looks fine in context with the church and the office building across the street. I think that’s the main thing. And however many floors, or whatever, the height, and the interior configurations, interior elements relative to the windows and stuff, that’s all sort of internal, and to me, that’s not really part of the Board’s findings. I mean, I don’t disagree with you about all that, but it seems to me that that’s the architect’s problem. On the skylight to the garage, I think that’s all very nice. I think we’ve commented on that kind of thing before on other projects, on commercial projects, and I think that’s all desirable. I don’t know if it’s feasible on this particular project. And then, I think to Osma’s comments about the materials, I didn’t sort of pick that up until you brought it up. I think that the rendering… yeah. I get that. I was thinking that, when I look at the renderings, it seemed to me that the color that’s shown on the renderings looks like the church across the street, to me. I haven’t matched anything, but this one, I think you’re, I mean, when you point it out, I think the material here doesn’t really quite do that. Maybe if we come back to subcommittee, maybe there’s a different way of doing this. I don’t know. There may not be a lot of options of this as an integral color material. I would think having an integral color material is better than painting it. If you want to do one more rounds to subcommittee, I would be okay with that, but I would imagine that that’s… I mean, I do trust architects generally to pick the best color of the ones that are available, and I don’t have any better suggestion. Seems like this is better than, like, Hardie [inaudible] options, and the Hardie panel range. Anyway. And then, my last comments are clean-ups on the findings. For staff, on page 15, on item L3.1, it says, “second floor,” and I think you meant third floor. On page 19… skip that. Page 21, item number 6 mentions “Cambridge area,” and I think you mean Webster, or Hamilton. I think that was just a cut and paste issue. I can support the variance findings, although that’s really the purview of the planning director. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay. 4.a Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you for the excellent presentation, and thanks to my colleagues for their insightful comments. I’d like to focus on two things, I think. One is Osma’s comment about the materials, and the second one is about the height of the building, which I agree with David. I think what Osma was driving at is that the elevations don’t really depict the way these materials will play out on the building. And I think she’s right, that this fibrous cement has almost a pinkish-reddish tone to it. Which, you’re right, Alex. It’s like the church is now, but they just painted it. And unfortunately, they just painted away the beautiful textured, aged concrete, and now it’s got this pinkish hue I suspect they regret. Chair Furth: We know that you do, in any event. Vice Chair Baltay: I certainly do. The building was lovely for years and years with this aging character to it, and probably was leaking, so they had to do something. But it’s got this industrial-looking, pinkish concrete coating on it now. And I’d hate to see that happen to this building. Osma is correct that these side panels are large, and they would be very visible. I think what Alex is suggesting is right, that it might come back to a subcommittee to review that, and perhaps the architects may want to consider that. When you correct the coloring on your elevations, you may realize it’s a bit too pink, in my opinion. The same with the brown crim band. That’s the one color in this palette I find is not that rich-looking. It’s not typical of one of your buildings in your firm. The bigger issue for me is the height. You’re quite correct, Alex. I agree that it’s not for us to lay out the interior of the building or select the plate height. It is important for us to make sure the building is contextually compatible, and I find it really is not with 530 Webster. All the other buildings in town, it works great. It’s not too tall for Palo Alto; it’s not that the building is too massive. But perhaps you could pull up for me, someone, one of the elevations, the view from Webster. Is that possible to get that on the screen? [Staff looking for slide.] Vice Chair Baltay: Hold on a second. If you look at this image here, and look at the right-hand side of the building, compared to 530 Webster… Alex is holding up the actual architect’s rendering from the corner of 530 Webster, but if you also look at this one that’s on the screen now, very small, you can 530 Webster in the background. And I think you can see that this building is substantially larger than 530 Webster. Visually, it really seems to overpower that building. And that building in particular to me has a real sense of presence on the street, a real character to it. And I think the building next to it is just a little bit too big. And then, when I hear the reason it’s a little bit too big is really to do with the technical thing about elevators, and it strikes me that it is possible to configure so that the elevator overrun goes through the roof, and you have a bump-out somehow. I would rather see a small bump-out on the roof, with the roof plate being lower, than I would see the entire building be substantially taller. To me, it seems that the building should come down maybe a foot from each of the two residential floors. And we can ask the architect to revise the way the elevator overrun on the roof works through the roof, and then, in the third floor, you have to find a way for your residential unit to accommodate that overrun somehow, if you can’t find a different elevator. But, to me, the building is just too tall vis-e-vie its relation to 530 Webster, and that is very much our province to solve that. I’d like to see us request that building get pushed down. I think we can still recommend approval with that condition. I can support the variance findings. I think it makes good sense, and the design itself is wonderful, I think. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you to the applicant for an interesting, attractive project, and for really clear documentation, which has perhaps made us more focused in our critique than we might be in less- clear work. Both have been an advantage and disadvantage for you, but we, of course, think it’s an advantage, because we think the truth will set us free, eventually. Thanks also to the members of the public who have spoken to us, both today and earlier. I wanted to talk briefly about Mr. Frederick’s comments. I took notes on them. And of course, we don’t disagree with you, that lovely gardens and existing buildings are lost with this project. Relatively affordable housing is lost with this project. We don’t have power to address those things. That’s beyond the scope of what we do. The City used to have ordinances that made it uneconomic to destroy existing rental units – although in this case, we’re actually getting new rental units rather than condos – and the State of California took away the authority that we were using. The City Council adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the Palo Alto electorate 4.a Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Page 11 repealed it. Efforts to have more tree protection than we do have also failed, so we need to work within the context that we have. Our question really is: How is this building, in this context, as an aesthetic object itself, as a place to live, as a place to walk by? And I would say that I think, particularly if it’s designed to look like its elevations, it’s a very attractive building, and it will be a good place to live, and it will be a good place to walk by. Which is no small item here. I have been to a lot… I have heard Emma Kirkby sing in that cathedral-like church – for a Methodist church, it’s pretty cathedral-like – across the street. It’s a heavily traveled corridor, on foot and otherwise. I think this is a good building and a good use to put here. We’ve been very concerned about the effect that it will have on the buildings to its right on Webster. I do think that you’ve done a good job of addressing our concerns, which come up a lot in new residential projects, of how you have ground floor units that relate to the street, but yet have an adequate sense of privacy. I think you’ve done that well. I like your increased parking. I like that your parking is underground. I agree with David that some natural light in underground parking is great. We have some good examples, I’m thinking, at the corner of Lytton and Emerson, for example. And there are some counter examples on Everett. And I am concerned about minimizing the height while maintaining attractive uses. And I very much appreciate… I realize I’m easily seduced by beautiful drawings, and I appreciate Osma’s commentary on the materials board. I think this project is ready to… Oh, and I do find the variance findings compelling. You mentioned that the fin wall would be removable in the future if the City needed it to be. Is that a condition of approval of the variance? It needs to be? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. We’ll ensure that that is a condition. Chair Furth: You can’t just say we’re taking it back unless the applicant has agreed to leave that right with the City. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. The point is that it is going into a special setback, and should the City ever need to use that property…[crosstalk] Chair Furth: You will be sure that the approval documents, that the property owner needs to have a covenant that they will do so that runs with the land. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you. Chair Furth: Okay. The applicant is indicating they are fine with that. I would suggest referring three items to a subcommittee. The first would be the materials, and as I understand it, we like the elevations more than the materials submitted, so the goal would be to come up with something that works. But, the guidance towards to the subcommittee from us would be that we… How would you phrase it? Board Member Thompson: I think mainly the design intent – and please correct me if I’m wrong – the design intent does seem that there’s kind of a cool base and a warm, you know, middle-upper. And at the moment, the materials palette, you know, it doesn’t seem to reflect that design intent. I don’t want to necessarily stipulate what that material should be, but it should be something warmer to reflect that design intent. Chair Furth: You’re describing the upper floors which, to me, look brownish, pale brown. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: And the bottom floor looks creamy? Board Member Thompson: Well, the bottom floor is all that board-form concrete. Chair Furth: Right, but when I’m looking at the elevation, that’s not what you see at all. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, it looks white. But in their precedent imagery, they’re showing a lot of wood for the wall panels. I remember first seeing this project and kind of believing that this would be a 4.a Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Page 12 really heavy wood project, you know, because wood has that warmth. I don’t know. I think that was the contrast they were trying to make between the wood and the concrete, the heavy and the light, the warm and the cold. Chair Furth: Are you saying that one of the things you’d be looking for is contrast between the upper and lower floors? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. But I would say I don’t have a problem with the board form concrete. I think that’s good for the base for the cold [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: My only concern, one thing I know for sure is I know I’m not going to be on this subcommittee. But I think it would be useful for the… Maybe you can just decide that any two of you, working with a very skilled architect, have the capacity to do what needs to be done here and just say, “nothing further,” that we’ll just review the colors. It looks like you’re happy with that. Okay. For the subcommittee to review the materials, in light of the comments today; to review the height, with the goal to reducing that by a couple of feet, if possible, even with a preference for having an elevator that pokes through the basic form, if necessary. How would you say that? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, to get my vote, I’d like to say not review the height. We already asked them to do that and that didn’t get us anything. I’d like them to reduce the height by at least a foot on each floor of the upper two floors. It’s two feet total. Chair Furth: By two feet. Vice Chair Baltay: And again, I hate to be prescriptive on this, but we did… [crosstalk]… Chair Furth: Two feet or more. Vice Chair Baltay: … and we didn’t get much result. Chair Furth: Okay. And then, to review the garage lighting. And I put it that way because I agree with David, that daylight is wonderful if you can do it. I’ve been really impressed in the last few years with the great basement-level, parking-level lighting that can be achieved with LED fixtures. I think the Medico… Is it the Medico-Dental building? Whatever. The building across the street from City Hall has a beautifully lit garage. Best I’ve ever seen. And that’s done without natural light except from the driveway. I don’t know what the solution is. I agree with David. It needs to be, basically shadow less. But garage lighting would be the third item for referral. Board Member Lew: No, that’s not a… I think that’s beyond our purview. Chair Furth: Well, if we can require exterior lighting. Vice Chair Baltay: I believe David was referring to skylights, natural lighting in the garage. Chair Furth: Right. I agree. Vice Chair Baltay: And that’s a rather large change for the architects to try and incorporate right now, I think. Chair Furth: Okay, so, what’s the consensus of the Board on that point? Vice Chair Baltay: And whether they brightly light it with electric lights or not… Chair Furth: None of our business. 4.a Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Vice Chair Baltay: I think David’s recommendation is wise, but maybe… Chair Furth: You don’t support it. Vice Chair Baltay: No, I just think it’s not reasonable to ask the architects to change something like that at this point. Chair Furth: I would call that not supporting it. Vice Chair Baltay: Not supporting it. Ms. Gerhardt: From a findings standpoint, we do have Finding #4, which is the design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operation. Chair Furth: Yeah, if I thought, I mean, we often comment on the interior design of garages if we don’t think they’re functional. I think I’m hearing from everybody but David that they think it’s good enough for the findings. I’m seeing some nods here. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, it meets the same standard we’ve applied to other similar buildings. Chair Furth: Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? Or comment? Ms. Bridges: Commissioner Furth, may I make a quick comment regarding the height? Chair Furth: Yes. You need to be a little closer to the mic, however. Ms. Bridges: Okay, I apologize. With regard to the height, the recommendation in terms of what the committee would be looking for, I was wondering if we could make it a bit less specific than saying one foot per floor. Because what’s challenging for us on the residential floors is that that middle floor. When the office elevator comes up, we kind of have to maintain that height, because we have looked at every elevator out there, all the major manufacturers, and we selected one with the lowest overrun. That middle floor, we really can’t play with that height much. If we need to reduce height, the place to do it is, as you were mentioning, would have to be at that top floor, by doing a bump-out. I think if we could leave it a bit more flexible in terms of how we look at that when we’re in committee, that might be helpful to… [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I think we were saying two feet overall. Ms. Bridges: I’m sorry, I’m just looking to the architect for direction in terms of… Board Member Lew: You can’t be demanding. They have to engineer the building. They have to work out… Chair Furth: I understand they do. One of your colleagues suggested a two-foot requirement. You don’t support it, right? Ms. Bridges: If we might say a goal of two feet and leave it to the folks in the subcommittee, and perhaps the people most concerned, maybe one of those could sit on the subcommittee. Just a suggestion. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: To my colleagues. By the time this gets to subcommittee, it’s pretty well fixed. I think we need to decide now. It is possible to eliminate a closet in that apartment and let the bump-out take 4.a Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Page 14 the place of a closet. It’s possible to shift the four-story elevator slightly further into the building so it gets picked up with the mechanical screening. And I understand the architect is frustrated by that, but understand our frustration. We brought this issue to your attention, and it didn’t seem like we got more than just a bunch of elevator specifications on it. We understand and appreciate that. It’s technically complicated. I completely agree with Alex. The last thing we want to do is tell you specifically what to do. Our concern, my concern – and I believe the Board, the majority – is the relationship to 530 Webster. And the building now is just a little bit too tall to relate to that building. I think you can’t take two feet off the top floor and leave the middle floor that height. It will look wrong. We’re not the architects. Your architect needs to address this situation. Chair Furth: I think what we need to do is have somebody make a motion and see what the Board supports. Mr. Frederick: Excuse me, Madam Chair. As a point of information, could you clarify that, in fact, part of this is, in the approval for demolition, that the 17-foot variance is acceptable under CEQA? Chair Furth: Yes, we have said that. Thank you. Mr. Frederick: Thank you. Chair Furth: Did you have a comment, Osma? Board Member Thompson: Yeah… Board Member Lew: I think we should also comment, we’re not approving the demolition permit. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: This is ARB. Chair Furth: We’re just approving the design of the new building. Board Member Lew: Demolition is a separate… Chair Furth: And we’re asked to review the environmental documentation. Board Member Thompson: Do we know if the height… Chair Furth: I mean, one of the things that’s confusing to the public is that what the caption says is that we’re asked to approve a project which involves the demolition of buildings, but we don’t actually issue demolition permits. Go ahead, Osma. Did you have something? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, sorry. Chair Furth: I still want one of you to make a motion. Board Member Thompson: I’m not ready yet. Sorry. Chair Furth: Go ahead. Board Member Thompson: I’m looking at A5.2C. Chair Furth: Could you put that up? 4.a Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Thompson: This is 530 Webster, right? This one? Do we know the height? Oh, it says it right here. Sorry. It’s 69 feet, .6, versus 85.1. Are you saying that lowering the height by two feet will make a difference in terms of how it relates to that building? Vice Chair Baltay: I believe so, yes, Osma. I think right now, the third-floor plate line itself is above the height of 530 Webster. And there’s that trim band that relates those two. Usually what we’re looking for is let the neighbor building go up a floor, but this one seems, to me, sort of aggressively more than a floor. The 13-foot floor on the second floor is a little bit too tall, and then, the whole thing pops up another 13 feet. Board Member Thompson: Your issue is not with the 85 total, it’s just where the datum for the top of the second floor is? Vice Chair Baltay: No, it’s both. I think the datum should line up better with 530 Webster, and then, the roof itself, having these very tall plates, I think sort of accentuates the situation. If we reduce the request from two feet to one foot, would that be more palatable to you? Board Member Thompson: I’m kind of in a place where it seems like the height difference is so much that I don’t know that it would make that much of a difference, whether it’s one foot, or two feet, or zero feet at that point. Because it’s so much further lower, it looks like it’s at least 15 feet lower. That whether it’s 14 feet or 13 feet, I think the main context that we’re seeing, like the bigger street, I guess… I don’t know. It seems that… I guess I just kind of accept that it will be a change. But I guess my bigger question was, I think in your original comments, you mentioned a change in massing, where it would step down. Or was that…? No? Vice Chair Baltay: No, absolutely not. No, no. Board Member Thompson: Okay, good, because I would not agree with that. MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. I’ll make a motion that we recommend approval of this project, including recommendations regarding approval of the variance, with two conditions. One, that the materials be returned to subcommittee, in particular the fiber cement siding selection. Two, that the overall height of the building be reduced by a minimum of one foot. With no stipulation how that gets done. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Would you like to speak to your motion? Vice Chair Baltay: No, I think we’ve said everything about it. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. My concern is that one foot really isn’t significant enough. I think that the second floor as well needs to be reduced more than that. When we actually see this building in construction, we’re going to regret the fact that we have been lenient about the heights here, and that they really are quite excessive in each of the floors. And that what’s ruling this whole decision is that the elevator overrun is an issue. As Mr. Baltay pointed out, planning could take care of the elevator for the office space, and a bump-out on the roof could take care of the elevator on the third floor. I think that actually we’re going to regret the look of this building, quite so massive, and that reducing it will not affect materially the exterior, the good image that the exterior has on the street. 4.a Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Page 16 AMENDED MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. I’d like to amend that motion and say the building height be reduced by two feet. I’ll need a new second, I think. Actually, am I allowed to…? The motion was made and seconded. Ms. Gerhardt: It would need to be seconded. Chair Furth: Feel free. You would like to amend your motion. Vice Chair Baltay: Let’s try for two feet and see if it flies. Chair Furth: I’ll second it for the purposes of debate. My question is, I agree with David, that this frontage on Webster shows a building which is much higher than its neighbor. And it’s the neighbor, incidentally, that I’m most concerned about its interaction with. I’m not concerned about what it’s going to do to the parking garage, the large office building, or the very large church. And it is true that generally when we add an additional floor, you can see the horizontal continuity between the top of the second floor and the adjacent second-floor building. One of the findings we’re required to make is about context. One of the biggest critiques we get from the general public – which don’t spend quite as much time thinking about this as we do; at least not individually – is that we don’t pay enough attention to context. I don’t know if two feet is enough to accomplish a sense of not looming. I also understand that whether this building makes 530 Webster look comfortable, or if it makes it look like the building that’s next scheduled for demolition, has a lot to do with the design of the edges. I would appreciate some guidance from my colleagues. Board Member Thompson: I was going to mention, I know we’re spending a lot of time on this, but… Chair Furth: It’s a big building. Board Member Thompson: … how do we know that that smaller building won’t be up for demolition and for a higher building height anyway? We’re spending all this time… Board Member Lew: That’s actually irrelevant. We have to… Chair Furth: Our job is to make it work. Board Member Lew: …make it work as-is. Board Member Thompson: Right. Board Member Lew: The context is what it is today. And what happens tomorrow is absolutely irrelevant. Chair Furth: Way beyond our control and not what we design for. Board Member Thompson: Sure. Chair Furth: Or review for. Ms. Gerhardt: However, the building is historic, so more likely to remain. I also, just from a factual standpoint, the parapet of the adjacent building is 69.6 feet. The finished floor for the third level would be 72 feet. That’s the finished floor versus the parapet. Board Member Thompson: That’s, I guess, above the metal panel fascia that we’re looking at? Chair Furth: When we look at that elevation A5.2C, could you point out what you’re talking about on the proposed building? 4.a Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. Gerhardt: There’s an elevation on A5.4, and that’s where I’m getting those numbers from. Chair Furth: Right, but if you look at A5.2C, the lower drawing, there’s windows, there’s a horizontal element. Where’s the finished floor that you’re referencing? Ms. Gerhardt: The architect could probably help us with that. Vice Chair Baltay: This is the finished floor, at the top of the brown trim. Chair Furth: The top of the brown trim? Ms. Cole: The top of the trim is the floor height. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. Board Member Thompson: Do we know the depth of the trim? Like, what’s the bottom of that trim? I’m only asking because in the elevation on A5.4, it looks like it lines up with that parapet. Chair Furth: Yeah. Ms. Cole: It’s 1 foot, 8 ½. Chair Furth: One foot, 8.5 inches? Thank you. To confirm, the adjacent building is 69.64 feet high? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. The parapet of the adjacent building. Chair Furth: Sorry, above sea level. That would be a pretty high three-story building. Vice Chair Baltay: [inaudible]. Chair Furth: If you have a question of the architect… Board Member Thompson: That would make the bottom of that fascia at 70 foot, four. It would be about… Chair Furth: Could we have further clarification from the architect? Peter, why don’t you ask your question? Vice Chair Baltay: To the architect. You’re a very strong, design-oriented architecture firm, and we feel very resistant in telling you what to do. Do you have a response to how make the building integrate just a bit better with 530 Webster? Ms. Cole: I think that we have looked at that a lot, and I’m not trying to be defensive about it. I do think it’s an important condition, and I agree that that is what makes a project. I don’t know… We can look at it further as to what we could do to try to integrate more at that corner. The height, my fear of lowering the building and exposing the elevator is it has a much greater negative effect on the other elevation in terms of the feeling of the building and the consistency of it. I’m not saying I know what the solution would be, because I don’t think it’s really to bring that pop-up so close to the front edge, and then it’s constrained by the garage. I mean, this has been a puzzle of a building, so we’re trying to piece all these pieces together. I don’t have a solution for you here, so, if you’d like us to look at how to make this better contextually with 530, we can do that. Ms. Bridges: If I may just add to what Roslyn was commenting on. When they presented the images to us, one of the things that they kept emphasizing was the metal panel that you all were just asking about the dimension on, and pointing out how important that was to try to keep that, kind of close in line with 4.a Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Page 18 the top of the 530 Webster building, because that kind of draws it together and helps it sit more contextually. I think that that’s pretty important, so, I think if we’re trying to look to a dimension, making sure that we don’t offset too much to lose that relationship. Another thing that, as we were playing with it and trying to flex on the issue over the last few months, one of the things that we were realizing is that, we felt it was pretty important to try to keep the relationship of the windows equal on the second and the third floor if at all possible, because the proportions matter. We were struggling with that a bit because as we, we actually did look at possibly having the office elevator run into, up into a closet, and kind of modifying that unit. If we bring that level down, then it changes the proportion of the windows. So, I think to keep it contextual, those are the things that we’ll have to play with as we work with the subcommittee, to make sure that we don’t lose the elegance of the architecture, and to make sure that we kind of keep that alignment of that metal panel somewhere near the top of the 530 Webster building. Chair Furth: I have a question for you. How high is the landscaping supposed to be between those two buildings? How tall? Ms. Bridges: Are you speaking of the landscaping kind of along the privacy fence? Chair Furth: Uh-huh. Ms. Bridges: The coffeeberry can grow to 15 feet. And then, I’m going to look back to our landscape architect for the height on the… [crosstalk] Chair Furth: …how many feet above sea level? Since that’s the data [crosstalk]. Ms. Bridges: Oh, my gosh. [Laughs] Chair Furth: Where I’m going is, my solution is also plant it out, which is not very respectful of architecture. But what’s driving us are conflicting desires to have your building look well proportioned, have it respectful of the building next to it so that it doesn’t diminish that building as its experience, and I’m curious as to how high. I mean, I have coffeeberries, not very big ones, so I’m really asking you, is that landscaping intended to get as high as 530 Webster, or not? Ms. Bridges: The height on the 530 Webster building, again, is…? Roslyn, can you help me? Twenty-four feet. So, no, it would not be as tall as 530 Webster because we would only be 15 feet tall in the front area. In the back, we do have trees which would grow higher. It does bring up an interesting issue about privacy. One of the things that I liked about where the building landed in relation to 530 Webster is that at the… We’ve got the landscaping at the ground level hiding those windows. Then, we carefully placed the windows in the mid-tier. And then, where we have the top level, we’ve studied those angles, and if you look at those angles, because it’s high enough up, you don’t see down into the units at 530 Webster. And that’s something, I met with the 530 Webster owner, and we reviewed that in detail, and I think that they were quite happy with how that was turning out. Chair Furth: Thank you. We appreciate that. Ms. Bridges: Thank you. Chair Furth: These are all drawings and plans. Any consensus? Vice Chair Baltay: I was going to, with permission of the Chair, offer to the applicants, I think the votes are here to reduce the building by two feet, if not more. Or, I’m open to continuing the project, and you guys go back and work your magic and show us something that aligns better, height notwithstanding. Which would you rather do? Through the Chair. 4.a Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: At this point, would you like to come back to us one more time, or go to a subcommittee? With a condition of reducing the project height. Ms. Bridges: I think our preference would be to advance to the subcommittee and work through the issue there. I think that we can find a way to… We will find a way to reduce the height by the two feet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Bridges: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: So then, I’d like to add to that motion one additional statement, which is to say that the trim band at the top of the second floor on the new building better align with 530 Webster. That is direction to the subcommittee. Chair Furth: Could you take me through your motion at this point? AMENDED MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: The motion is to recommend approval, with the condition that (a) the material selection come back to subcommittee, specifically the selection of fiber cement siding; and (2) that the overall height of the building be reduced by two feet, with the additional caveat that the trim band at the middle of the new building better align with 530 Webster. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Ms. Gerhardt: Chair Furth, you seconded last. Unless we’re starting over. Chair Furth: Right. I’ll second for the purposes of… Well, not for the purposes of discussion. Okay. Why don’t we vote on that one, and if that doesn’t pass, we’ll have another vote? All those in favor? Vice Chair Baltay: Aye. Board Member Lew: Aye. Chair Furth: Aye. Board Member Thompson: Aye. Board Member Hirsch: Nay. Chair Furth: Well, what do you know? Four to one. MOTION PASSES 4-1 Chair Furth: Okay. Congratulations. Your project is referred to subcommittee. Thank you for all the hard work. Thank you for all the good design. Thank you for all the neighborhood participation. Look forward to seeing it. We’re going to take a five-minute break, till 10:05. [The Board took a short break.] 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 Alto and Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Construction of a New Bridge Along the Same Alignment That Meets Caltrans Standards for MultiModal Access. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report 4.a Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Page 20 (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. Chair Furth: Item #3, a public hearing on a Newell Road bridge replacement project. We are asked to review the environmental impact report, allow for public comment on that impact report, so, essentially, we’re holding the public hearing for the environmental impact report on this project. And, consider a major architectural review application to allow for demolition of an existing two-way bridge on Newell Road between Woodland Avenue and Edgewood Drive, and construction of a new multimodal bridge on the same alignment that meets Caltrans standards for multimodal access. The public comment period on the environmental assessment – this is a combined federal and state environmental review document, incidentally, so everybody uses slightly different words. But the public review period ends on July 30, 2019, so those who wish to comment should do so before that. The adjacent property – in the city, at least – is R-1[10,000]. Could we hear from the project planner, please? Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning, Board members. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner on this project. The project before you today, as you noted, is a Newell Road Bridge replacement project. Newell Road Bridge crosses San Francisquito Creek at Newell Road, between Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto. To avoid repetition, I’m going to just give a brief overview of the project description, and then let Public Works Engineering speak to more detail about the purpose and objectives of the project. The City is required to identify a proposed project for the purposes of CEQA. After thorough review, Alternative 2 in the environmental analysis was selected as the proposed project. That was done in coordination with other responsible agencies for the project, as well. The plans before you today reflect that alternative, which includes replacement of an existing two-lane bridge with a two- lane bridge along the same alignment. The new lanes would be wide enough to meet Caltrans standards for “sharrows,” which are shared bicycle and vehicle lanes. And also includes a sidewalk on each side of the bridge. The existing bridge is being razed to allow better flow capacity beneath the bridge. The project also raises a portion of Woodland Avenue and Newell Road Bridge, and it includes some retaining walls to support that road being razed. For informational purposes, we’ve also included a site plan in the plan set for the other three build alternatives, so if you look in your plan sets and you see Alternative 1, 3 and 4, those are the other potential alternatives being considered. Public Works Engineering is also going to provide a bit more information on each alternative that was evaluated in the draft EIR/EA [Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment], and the staff report also provides a little bit more information on those alternatives as well. This is just a quick view of the bridge from Newell Road in Palo Alto. This is a view of the proposed bridge from East Palo Alto, on Newell Road, again, looking over Woodland Avenue. Part of the purpose of this meeting is to provide another opportunity for public comment on this project. As you noted, the circulation period for the draft EIR/EA is ongoing right now and ends on July 30th. This is the fourth and final public hearing during that review period. But we’re also here to request that the ARB provide comments on the design of the proposed project. Any thoughts you guys have on the bridge, the railings, the retaining walls, the landscaping in particular, would be very helpful. And then, any comments you may have on the draft EIR/EA are also welcomed. I also want to note that to the extent that you have comments relating to the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act], Caltrans is here today to answer any questions as the lead agency for NEPA. In terms of next steps, as noted, the draft EIR/EA comment period ends on July 30th, and then we’ll prepare responses to all of those comments. We’ll be returning to the ARB for a formal recommendation on the project, and then, going to the Council for Council decision. With that, I will turn it back to you, and recommend that you hear from Public Works. Chair Furth: Thank you. I had one question. The other responsible agencies in this case are…? 4.a Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Ms. Hodgkins: There are several other responsible agencies. City of East Palo Alto is a responsible agency. Santa Clara Valley Water District is a responsible agency. Regional Water Quality Control Board would be a responsible agency. There are a number of different responsible agencies involved. Chair Furth: This is like landing on an aircraft carrier. Okay. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: And you said this is the fourth public hearing. What are the hearings on the environmental document, what have the other hearings been for? Ms. Hodgkins: There was a Planning and Transportation Commission hearing on June 12th. And then, we had a community information meeting on June 18th. What was the next one? I’m sorry? Michel Jeremias, Public Works Department: Hi, Michel Jeremias, City of Palo Alto, Department of Public Works. I’m a senior engineer, working on this project. A third meeting was scheduled for June 19th, and it was a Public Works Transportation Commission meeting in East Palo Alto. We also gave a brief presentation at the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Board, and we’ve had a separate community meeting for the City Council of East Palo Alto that was done earlier in the week, on July 16th. Chair Furth: Thank you. First, to my fellow Board members, has everybody seen the site? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Thompson: I have not. But I looked at it on [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: All right, everybody but Board Member Thompson has been able to be there in person. Does anybody have any conversations they wish to disclose before we hear from this…? No. Thank you. Would you like to go ahead with your report? And spell your name for the transcriber. Ms. Jeremias: Thank you. My name is Michel Jeremias [spells name]. As we change our presentation here, bear with us a minute. Thank you. Chair Furth: We run your clock from when you’re ready to go. Ms. Jeremias: All right, thank you. The purpose and need. The project has been inspected over time by Caltrans, and Caltrans has determined that the bridge is functionally obsolete, meaning it does not meet the current Caltrans standards for either the upper travel lanes, or provide access for pedestrians through sidewalks. It also, it’s not providing any accommodations for cyclists crossing the bridge. In addition to that, the bridge has a couple of issues that are a concern. There is a stopping sight distance that’s obscured by having – as you can see on this photo – by having the trees and landscaping block the line of site. In addition to that, there is a vertical profile as you approach the bridge, crossing into Woodland, and that increase slope creates a visibility issue with the intersection of Woodland and Newell on the East Palo Alto side. Primarily, one of the bigger concerns on this project and how this is tied to an upstream project is that the bridge has a limited capacity. It can only allow 6,600 cubic feet per second to flow underneath it. The Pope-Chaucer project, as some of you may know, had flooding issues in the past. In 1998, one of the storm events that occurred. Pope-Chaucer has only capacity to allow 5,400 CFS. Santa Clara Valley Water District, in conjunction with the JPA, are working on a project to replace that bridge. However, that project cannot commence until this project is replaced. Commencing that project would transfer the flooding issue downstream to any residence affected adjacent to Newell, so there is an urgent need to replace this project so that we can proceed with the upstream project. And, it would benefit the community by reducing the flooding risk that affects our neighborhoods. Project objectives. As we have described our need, we also tried to identify, what are the objectives? How do we identify which 4.a Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 22 are the options to be considered for the EIR? Several items were considered. The first one primarily was vehicles maintaining a connection between both jurisdictions, allowing not only vehicles to pass through, but creating sidewalks and providing for multimodal. With those, there is, in line, looking into, let’s not increase traffic in either direction, and let’s not increase speeds. Those are items that were considered. The project before you is something that takes into account that should not increase speeds, or traffic, or divert traffic to other intersections. We also looked at increasing the capacity of this bridge. Increasing the capacity to something that is inline with the upstream project, and also, based on the largest storm of record, which is the 1998 storm. We’re proposing to bring this up to 7,500 CFS. That’s the capacity of the creek, as well. So, if you were to eliminate any constraints in the creek, that’s how much flow could get carried just through this creek, from upstream all the way out to, now the Bay. Recent improvements also downstream have allowed us to increase these capacities. As you’re aware of, there’s a project that took place to widen the levies. With these purpose and needs, we also – excuse me, objectives – we were able to narrow down – and this is following several community meetings that have occurred in the last seven years – to identify five alternatives. The fifth alternative, not shown here, is to leave the bridge in place. But the alternatives that were considered was, the first was a – in my next slide, I will be able to show you a depiction of what these entail. But for the purposes of the public, the first alternative considered was a bidirectional one-lane bridge. The second was a two-lane bridge on the existing alignment. The existing alignment maintains the center line. We would replace the bridge using the center line as a control line, so the bridge would widen from the current bridge dimensions. I think I forgot to mention earlier, the current existing bridge is 22 feet wide. That’s from outside of the barrier to outside of the barrier. The travel lane is only 18 feet wide, so we would replace the existing bridge on the current alignment as Alternative 2. Alternative 3 looks at the same bridge, but a partial realignment, shifting the center line over 30 feet for closer alignment to the Newell Road and East Palo Alto. Alternative 4 is two-lane alignment with a full realignment, a 90-foot change. Alternative 1, a little bit more detail for you guys to look at. This depiction shows what Alternative 1 would include. Alternative 1 is a bidirectional bridge. It’s only 60 feet wide; it provides five-foot-wide sidewalks that would accommodate the multimodal for pedestrians. But, in order to accommodate 16-foot, traffic in two directions, 16 feet wide, we need to install traffic signals. A total of 15 traffic signals would be needed. A majority of them would be located in East Palo Alto. The traffic signals would allow traffic to flow in one direction at a time. One traffic signal is needed on the Palo Alto side, and that’s to accommodate this driveway approach right here. Vehicles would only be able to travel in one direction at a time. There would be long-term operation maintenance cost associated with this alternative for the fiber and for the power that’s needed to run the traffic signals. The area of disturbance for purposes of comparison, it’s 45,000 square feet. Alternative 2. Here is a site plan that shows Alternative 2 and where it’s in relation to the existing bridge. It’s really difficult to tell, but you can see, here are the foundations of the existing bridge. This is, again, two 14-foot-wide lanes, two five-foot-wide sidewalks. It would be stop controlled. The area of disturbance, again, is 45,000 square feet. This is similar to Alternative 1, but in this alternative, one of the items that I want to, as we proceed through the slide, I want to make note of. We were looking at the bike lane terminating at the end of the driveway approach here. We would then stripe within the 14 foot wide, four feet off from the curb. We would stripe a shoulder line. That would create a 10-foot travel lane. The shoulder lane would act as a bike lane. I know we’ve had a number of comments through the ongoing meetings that we received regarding adding measures, so this is a little bit of a change. We’ve added more information on these slides for your purposes, to show that the travel lanes in both directions still maintain at 14 feet wide, but four of those would be shoulders, and that could be used for cyclists. Another thing to make note of, as Claire stated, we are raising this bridge by 1 ½ feet, which also requires raising the approaches on both sides – on the Palo Alto side and the East Palo Alto side – by a total of four feet. That would reduce the vertical profile that currently creates a problem as people are driving over the bridge. Alternative 3. This is, again, two 14-foot-wide lanes, 5- foot sidewalks, partially realignment with 30 feet shifting. Again, stop-controlled, and the area of disturbance increases. As you can see on the site plan, you can see where the existing bridge is in relation to the proposed bridge. Alternative 4 is a full realignment. Similar to the previous alternatives, 4.a Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Page 23 we’re looking at two 14-foot-wide lanes, two 5-foot-wide sidewalks, with a full realignment. The area of disturbance is higher, 55,000 square feet, so as part of the EIR, analyze anything we have to mitigate at a later date. For the purpose of the meeting, we’ve added a few slides to kind of clarify the trees that are to be removed. On the slide, the items circled in red are the trees that are to be removed. Of those nine trees that are located within Palo Alto, I’ve identified the variety. We’ve got four eucalyptus trees that are right adjacent to these corners; a buckeye that I know a lot of people are in favor of; and of course, live oaks. These are the trees to be removed. Several trees to be removed also as part of this alignment would be located on the East Palo Alto side. The proposed project, again, this is showing you, we’ve made a few changes over the course of our presentation. We have an existing streetlight in place. That streetlight would need to be replaced because we are lifting the road. The proposed retaining walls that are needed would be located behind the sidewalk, so those retaining walls would not be visible from the public. But, for the most part, they would be visible on the East Palo Alto side by the residents of those areas. On our side, what we intend to do is also provide some screening. This area does not create the line of sight concerns. The concern with line of sight is located on Newell, on Woodland. That’s the area we try to avoid to add more trees. We’re proposing right now to provide a California buckeye, a blue oak, and Western redbud in this area. If you have opinions as far as what we would want to place, please provide us any comments and let us know. I thought there was a need of placing another buckeye, and we’re providing two buckeyes in this location. Proposed project, also we talked about the concrete retaining walls. As stated, the concrete retaining walls are located behind the sidewalk. This shows where the retaining walls are shown, in red. The retaining walls on the Palo Alto side would again be located behind the sidewalk, as we’re raising the road. The location of the trees are shown in green in this proximity. And apologies; this isn’t a landscape plan, this is an engineering plan that has been added with a few details to depict where the trees are to be located. We also would look at guardrails to be installed. Guardrails are required to be installed per the CBC [phonetic] where the separation between the adjacent grade is 30 inches or higher, so we would try to provide those. For the purposes of the project, I think we are assuming retaining walls would be needed along this stretch, about 100 linear feet of retaining walls. We probably wouldn’t need guardrails the entire stretch. We’d probably only need, as we conform to the existing grade, the guardrails would be eliminated. A little more detail as far as the bridge itself. As you stated, this project is funded by Caltrans and they are reviewing it. We’ve got to comply with Caltrans’ requirements. Their standards for the bridge barrier is a Type 80SW for the sidewalk width on this. This is an area of what the guardrail would look like. The full height is over three feet. There are openings in the middle of the guardrail which would allow also for vehicles to be seen as people are driving across from Woodland. This would allow us to improve the line of sight concerns that we have. Other areas we’re looking at on the Palo Alto side, where the picture of the guardrails would be installed. The guardrail would be located in the retaining walls, any areas that are taller than 30 inches. That wraps up my presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we go on? Before we go on to the public? Yes? Vice Chair Baltay: Two questions, please. As I understand it, you want to increase the flow of the creek under the bridge to 7,500 cubic feet per second. Is it possible to do that by somehow widening the channel, rather than raising the bridge? Ms. Jeremias: Unfortunately, it is not. Widening the channel, we have to remove the two barricades, the foundations that support the existing bridge. We’d have to remove those foundations to do the widening of the creek. So, there is no way of us to widen the creek in that vicinity and allow the flow to pass. Vice Chair Baltay: I’m sorry, you said if you remove the foundations of the existing bridge, then you could? Ms. Jeremias: If we remove the foundations of the existing creek, that would increase the capacity, but we’d also have to raise the bridge to allow that 7,500… Vice Chair Baltay: There’s no way to not raise the bridge and increase the width. 4.a Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Ms. Jeremias: No. Vice Chair Baltay: Second question. Have you or anybody researched the actual statistics of traffic incidents, accidents, pedestrian, bicycle problems, at this bridge right now? I understand it’s considered to be a dangerous intersection as you come over the bridge into East Palo Alto because it drops and you don’t have good sight lines. Is there a record of actual accidents occurring there? Ms. Jeremias: We do have a record. I want to say it was minimal, the number of accidents. I want to say it’s negligible. I don’t know offhand, though, but I think it was… We did not only information from the City of Palo Police Department, also East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, and I think we received, maybe a total of two or three, offhand. Vice Chair Baltay: Two or three over…? The past year? Or total of recorded…? Ms. Jeremias: For the period of the last couple of years. Vice Chair Baltay: And is that a lot, is that many, or few accidents for this type of situation, location? Ms. Jeremias: I think it was negligible. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: I had a question on the concrete barrier detail section. There’s a black square kind of underneath the big concrete box, and…. I’m on Alternative 2, Cross Section. I think we did see it in your presentation, as well. Ms. Jeremias: Let me go back to that slide. [Locating slide.] Board Member Thompson: There you go. In the top right-hand corner, there’s that little black box that’s underneath… Ms. Jeremias: Right. Board Member Thompson: … measured at three inches. I don’t see that in the elevation. What is that? Ms. Jeremias: That little block is another steel, it’s still part of the bridge itself. The guardrail. It’s a steel metal barrier that goes across the intersection. One of the things that we have to comply in this project [inaudible] there’s a lot of difficulties involved, and a lot of things that need to be measured out. In this circumstance, we need to meet Caltrans’ mash test, meaning that if there is an accident and anyone hits the guardrail, this will prevent the guardrail from falling. It has to comply. This is one of the guardrails that has passed that mash test, so we’re installing a guardrail, a barrier, that meets Caltrans’ standards. That small circle is part of their standard barrier. It’s a small square. It’s steel. Board Member Thompson: It’s the steel bar that goes across the whole thing, and it’s not being shown on the elevation. Ms. Jeremias: Right. I think it has been inadvertently omitted on the elevation right below. Board Member Thompson: Got it. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions? I have a question. I’m looking at page 2.1.5-17 in the Environmental Assessment, which is a drawing, a photograph and photo simulations of the existing and future view from… Female??: Two-point-what? 4.a Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Furth: Two-point-one-point-five-dash-seventeen. Key view #1, existing view and build-out [phonetic] submitted; #2, simulated conditions from Newell Road looking towards East Palo Alto? And one shows a heavily wooded, you know, big eucalyptus, dappled sunlight, as it keeps saying in the aesthetic section. And one shows a wide-open, no shade, new bridge. In the environmental discussion, it talks about there would be some additional greenery and landscape softening, and what-not. Is this picture down below the initial state, or is this what it looks like with the grown landscaping? Ms. Hodgkins: This would be the initial state. At the time that this was prepared, we just didn’t know the landscape design yet. In the visuals today, we were adding in some of the trees that would be added on the Palo Alto side. I will note also that there is going to be additional landscaping. A lot of the landscaping that we can do on the East Palo Alto side is on private properties, so we are working with the private property owners to resolve which trees are going to have to be removed, and how they want… Chair Furth: This is not what the project is intended to look like when it’s done. Ms. Hodgkins: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right, we have a number of people who wish to talk to us today, we’d like to hear from. The first one is Richard Yankwich, to be followed by Kevin Fisher. Richard Yankwich: Of course, I would be the first one. I wanted to hear everybody else. Chair Furth: We can put you in the back of the stack if you want. Mr. Yankwich: No, that’s okay. My name is Richard Yankwich [spells name]. I live at 1490 Edgewood, for the past 28 years. I’m about 150 feet away from the bridge. I’m the second house in. Chair Furth: I’m sorry, I forgot to tell you, you have three minutes. Mr. Yankwich: I understand. I understand this Newell Bridge must be replaced to improve water flows and flood control, but to limit and calm traffic, it should be as small as possible. On the line, narrow, and short. I’m not sure this project complies with that. I’m making this comment because the staff report and the EIR underestimate both the traffic impact of the designs and the extent to which East Palo Alto and Palo Alto have conflicting cross-purposes. I have been attending these meetings for the last seven or eight years and have gone through all the designs. I’ve also gone to East Palo Alto’s 2035 EPA general plan meetings. The west side is intended to be the most densely populated part of East Palo Alto, and they are intending to add hundreds of units, commercial mixed use, and raise building heights up to 75 feet, while the city of Palo Alto notes in this report that Crescent Park is a low-density residential neighborhood. This bridge literally is what’s between those conflicting views of the neighborhoods. High- density mixed use, low density residential. I think the bridge needs to be realistic about what’s really going to happen over the next hundred nears, because that’s how long the last bridge was in place. The Palo Alto staff report does not acknowledge any possibility of a traffic increase. I would just direct your attention to where it says, “However, the improvement would be so marginal, it is not anticipated to cause an increase in traffic through the area.” No change in the TIR. That is incomprehensible to me, that you can look at what is planned by both cities and think that there will be no change in the traffic. The size of the bridge is going from 18 feet wide to 45 feet wide. What I’m most concerned about is that right now, you can do sharrows and sidewalks and plan it so that people will use it in a nice, low-volume way, but when you’ve nearly tripled the size of the bridge, the pressure that’s going to be on that bridge in the future, to do away with the sidewalks, to increase traffic, do whatever we can to increase flow, because it’s one of only three points where that whole neighborhood in East Palo Alto has access, to Stanford, to the hospitals, to Palo Alto, to shopping centers. That’s what East Palo Alto talks about all the time. And on the Palo Alto side, we act as if it’s just going to be a bucolic residential, low-density community. My concern is that the traffic has not been taken seriously. And I don’t disagree that it isn’t the best alternative, but maybe one lane with a traffic signal would be better. Because I don’t know how 4.a Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Page 26 to analyze this traffic, but I’m pretty sure that the EIR and the staff report really have not done so. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Kevin Fisher, please, to be followed by Clare Elliot. Kevin Fisher: Good morning, folks. My name is Kevin Fisher. I live at 728 Alester Avenue. I’ve been in Palo Alto for 35 years now, 34. Twenty years ago, my family was a victim of a manmade disaster, which is the floods of February 2-3 of 1998. I evacuated my small children in the middle of the night, carrying them through thigh-deep, poison oak-laden waters. It’s really a miracle there was no loss of life in that timeframe. It’s truly a miracle. I could go on and on, but I don’t need to. My children are now in their 20’s, and finally we are on the cusp of a solution that will reduce the chance of flooding. 101 to the Bay has been largely solved, and Pope-Chaucer Bridge replacement is on the fast track. The main thing standing in the way is completion of a solution for the Newell Road Bridge. This Newell Road project has been bumping along for the better part of a decade. It was ahead; now it’s behind. And I’m very frustrated by our City’s inability to get something done. Now is the time to act. Pick a project. I don’t care which one. Other people have opinions about the particular project. I want a project. So, this manmade obstruction will be removed, and the risk of flooding will be diminished. If my City cannot find a consensus and get a solution to this, literally the water will be on your hands. Not you personally, but the City overall. I realize you’re just one part of this larger complex project, but please, find a solution. Thank you. Chair Furth: Clare Elliott, to be followed by Hamilton Hitchings. Clare Elliott: Hello. My name is Clare Elliott, and I’m a resident of the Ventura neighborhood, but I have ridden my bicycle over this bridge, and driven over it. I also was a past City employee who helped get the permits for the water quality monitoring station that was underneath it, and would love to see at least a slow gauge at that location, if not continued water quality monitoring. I’m currently a senior ecologist with Grassroots Ecology, and for over 20 years we’ve been involved in stewarding San Francisquito Creek and various entities, like Peninsula Conservation Center, Bay Area Action, [inaudible] stewardship, and now, we’re Grassroots Ecology. My primary concerns are about the natural resources element. I have commented in the past about concerns about the hardening of the creek banks, and that we minimize the amount of hardening that we do, and find ecologically-friendly ways to protect the creek from erosion. My other concerns are related to the natural resources in the form of the vegetation. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen the design. I’ve looked on the City website but didn’t find a preferred design, so I’m just going on what it said in the EIR as far as possibilities and what the mitigation would be. But I hear from Michel that the buckeye tree is slated for removal, and that tree has been one that I have had my eye on for years and have wished to have nominated for Heritage Tree status. I brought a picture that I took in the spring a few years ago. I see an earlier picture that Michel had up was of the tree, and below, it’s got an amazing canopy. In the spring, the scent of those flowers, it’s like you’re in Hawaii. And it’s a venerable old tree that’s been there, I guess for over 100 years. I discovered that of our eight heritage trees in Palo Alto, only three of them are native trees, two redwoods and one oak. This tree is not only aesthetically amazing… And I was really concerned that the EIR said – and I quote – “Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, such as trees?” Well, that’s paraphrased. The answer was no. Scenic resources aren’t visible because the trees block the view. Again, I paraphrase, but that’s what it said. You can’t see the forest for the trees. So, the impact on the aesthetics. And it said there was no forest land damage. Well, this is a riparian forest. I’m glad to see that the EIR says that the native trees should be replaced 3-to-1 and the non-native trees should be replaced 1-to-1 with native trees, so that’s a step in the right direction. The EIR lists invasive species but does not list eucalyptus as one, even though it’s on the Cal-IPC list of invasive species. The blue gum. And I believe that people are not aware of the value of these native species in habitat. This is like taking out an apartment building and replacing it with three single-family homes for the amount of habitat it’s providing. Or, like a roommate of mine who ran over a Stradivarius. Well, that’s okay, we’ll just buy three new Stradivarius. Stradivari-I? I 4.a Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Page 27 really would like to see a design adjustment that allows us to maintain that bridge. In the past, Palo Alto has been very good about maintaining oaks, the old roads that go around trees… Chair Furth: I need to ask you to wind up. Ms. Elliott: To sum up, yes. I’d love to see maybe a hybrid between 1 and 4, so that the bridge is narrower and realigned to be able to protect that tree species. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Elliott: I will also provide comments to the EIR in writing. Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a question for you. What’s the view of your group on the Himalayan blackberry in there? Ms. Elliott: We remove… [crosstalk] Chair Furth: … good habitat. Ms. Elliott: It is not good habitat because it replaces a lot of native species that are used more by our native wildlife, and it’s very invasive. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Elliott: We are removing it in a lot of places and replacing it with a native blackberry. Chair Furth: Thank you. Hamilton Hitchings: Good morning. I’m Hamilton Hitchings, I live in the Duveneck-St. Francis neighborhood, like Kevin. What Kevin didn’t tell you is that after that night, he and his family, with his children, had to move out for nine months while they remodeled the house because his house was one of 400 that had over-the-floor flooding. In De Soto, a lot of people stepped out of their bed into over a foot of water, and in places it was six feet deep. There are thousands of houses in the flood zone, and when I woke up at three in the morning, Channing was a river. It’s really hard for us to imagine, but it was a river, and it continued to rise, and by the morning, it was within an inch of coming in my front door. We really want this bridge. The average flood capacity is, on average, it will over-top the banks every 22 years. It’s been about 21 years. Now, it doesn’t mean that next year, it’s going to happen. This is a one in every 22 years. But the flood capacity is fairly low, and the reason is because in the 1940s, a city engineer filled in the sides of under the Newell Bridge with concrete. That significantly reduced the capacity. Now, as they said, to get to 7,500, you have to actually replace the bridge and raise it. But a city engineer made it a lot worse. We really need this project to increase flood protection for our neighborhood, for Duveneck-St. Francis and Crescent Park. It’s also dangerous to walk and bike across the bridge, which a lot of people do every day. And while Alternatives 1 through 4 all dramatically increase pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle safety over the bridge, 3 and 4 would realign it, so, in theory, it would increase speed and the amount of traffic. And it’s also important to keep in mind that many school children use Newell Road for their safe routes to school, for the Greene Middle School. It’s packed with kids on bikes in rush hour. For those reasons, I oppose options 3 and 4. In terms of funding, 85 percent of the $8.5 million is covered by Caltrans for Alternatives 2 or greater. I heard they were in the room today. I’d like them to speak to whether they would support Option 1, or not, because I think that’s an important decision criteria. It would be nice to not have to pay the 85 percent of the $8.5 million. For these reasons, I believe that, based on what I know right now, the preferred Alternative #2, selected cooperatively by the City of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, is clearly the best overall trade-off. Please proceed with haste before another flood like the 1998 flood significantly damages hundreds of homes in 4.a Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Palo Alto. Thank you again for your time, and also for the staff for doing a nice job on the EIR. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thomas Rindfleisch, to be followed by Xenia Hammer. Thomas Rindfleisch: Good morning. I’m Tom Rindfleisch. I live on Tevis Place, which is across from Eleanor Pardee Park. I had a foot and a half of water in my yard in 1998, and we’re 21 years out from that date and have finally a plan for getting the creek up to a level that would handle the 1998 flood. Pope-Chaucer Bridge is basically the dam, but it can’t be replaced until Newell Bridge is replaced. I believe that we absolutely have to move forward. There was $28 million in damage in 1998 from that flood, and we cannot have another one. We’ve had three very near cause in the intervening years. I manage the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association email list. Every winter, during the rainy season, I get lots of messages about, should we sandbag, should we evacuate, what should we do? It is absolutely imperative that we move forward. I believe that Option 2 that has been proposed by the City is a middle- of-the-road, absolutely defensible option. The two extremes, and the arguments for the two extremes, have been going on now for nearly 10 years, and we’ve made no progress forward. I believe we need a compromise. I believe that Option 2 provides a way to satisfy Caltrans requirements. I believe it can also be modified as necessary to control traffic in terms of volume and speed. It accommodates pedestrians; it accommodates bicyclists. And as was mentioned, we are fortunate to have Caltrans supporting this replacement project, and if the funding that is available for that is something that facilitates what is going to be, probably a $50 million project to increase the flow capacity of San Francisquito Creek. If that comes away, we have another problem of, how do we get the funding in place? And I think it’s silly not to take advantage of the opportunity that Caltrans has afforded us. So, please, please, help us get this bridge replaced. I believe Alternative 2 is a perfectly good plan for doing it. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you. Xenia Hammer. Xenia Hammer: Hello. I’m Xenia Hammer, and I live on Sharon Court in Palo Alto, and that’s close to the intersection of Channing and Newell. A few of the earlier speakers spoke of the urgency of this project, and this project is truly urgent. The flood happened more than 20 years ago. This project has been in discussion for the past eight years. It’s time to get it done. This project is necessary for flood control on San Francisquito Creek, as Ms. Jeremias and prior speakers talked about. In terms of the alternatives proposed, the four build alternatives would all meet the flood control criteria equally well. Alternative 2, build-out Alternative 2, which is the proposed alternative, when a few minutes ago you compared it to landing on aircraft carrier. Alternative 2 lands on the aircraft carrier. Both the City of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto have to agree to this project. Alternative 2 meets that criteria. Alternative 1, I’ve heard East Palo Alto officials saying that that would not be acceptable. Alternative 2 provides increased pedestrian and bicycle safety. It can incorporate traffic calming measures that would ensure traffic safety for all involved. Another thing to keep in mind in evaluating various public comments is that the folks on the Palo Alto side who live close to Newell Road Bridge are currently not in the flood zone. They are just fine with the status quo, and that’s because of the specifics of this creek. The ground level next to the creek is actually higher than farther away from the creek, and because currently Pope-Chaucer Bridge would divert the water currently, the way it is right now. In evaluating those comments, it’s important to realize that the folks on the Palo Alto side who live close to the Newell Road Bridge are just fine with the status quo. Thousands of folks in Palo Alto who are in the flood zone are not okay with the status quo. So, it is important to move forward with these projects as quickly as possible. I urge you to move forward with this project, and especially with the locally preferred alternative, build Alternative 2, because it lands on the aircraft carrier. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. And it does not look like it fell off the spaceship. Okay. We’ve been asked to do several things. There’s nobody else. We have no further speaker cards. We’ve been asked to do several things. One of the things is that we had a question from a member, one of the commentators asked for a 4.a Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Page 29 statement from Caltrans, and maybe you can answer this, about whether they would participate in funding of Alternative 1. Ms. Jeremias: They will not participate. Staff is here from Caltrans today, is here to answer [inaudible] related questions. Chair Furth: Go ahead, Claire. Ms. Hodgkins: [inaudible] Ms. Jeremias: I just wanted to clarify. The first person that spoke had a comment regarding the width of this bridge, 45 feet wide. It’s not. It’s actually 42 feet wide. It’s also not… Chair Furth: I’m sorry, if you could speak a little more slowly. Ms. Jeremias: Also, the locally preferred alternative is not aligned, so just a point of reference. Chair Furth: And that’s Option 2. Ms. Jeremias: That’s Option 2. Chair Furth: Which keeps the, sort of existing extreme traffic calming. Ms. Jeremias: Exactly. Ms. Hodgkins: If I could also add to that. I think a lot of people are kind of saying, well, it’s double the size, and then, there’s some concern that that would increase traffic. I want to clarify that it is wider; however, we’re looking at a curb to curb width of 18 feet, and it’s supposed to be a bidirectional bridge, so, that’s about nine feet per lane, which is not really enough room for two cars to safely pass each other. With the new design, we’d be looking at 14-foot sharrows, but as we noted, the shoulder would be drawn at four feet. We’re talking about 10-foot-wide vehicle lanes versus nine-foot-wide vehicle lanes. A four-foot area for bicyclists who could also share the road, and five feet on either side for pedestrians. Really, most of that width is coming from additional bicycle lane area and additional pedestrian area. Chair Furth: I have one question. The 10 feet that’s dedicated to pedestrian use, is that at a different elevation? Is that a raised sidewalk? Ms. Hodgkins: It’s slightly raised, yes. Chair Furth: It’s not intended to be an extra space for bicycles or…? Ms. Jeremias: No, currently, it’s not. The design ahead of us shows the shoulders adjacent to the travel lane. The sidewalk is raised by six inches, a typical standard sidewalk. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else staff wants to add in your ten minutes? Any further questions of staff before we bring this back to us? We’ve been asked to do two things here. One is comment on the environmental assessment; the other one is, I guess, comment on the proposal, is comment on the proposal. That’s the request of staff. Any comments on the environmental assessment, first? Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, great, thank you. Overall, it’s a very impressive impact report, at least as far as the ones I’ve seen. It seems to me, however, there’s two things that it’s lacking on addressing properly. I think that the project will raise to grade between one and four feet over a fairly significant amount of distance in the side roads, especially on the East Palo Alto side. And I don’t see it addressing secondary things, like how much more dangerous does that make riding along the sidewalk? Or, if you have a traffic accident and you go over this four-foot embankment? Or, if you live just on the other side of this four- foot retaining wall? I think it’s a significant impact, and I don’t see that addressed in your report. The second thing I think one of the members of the public mentioned is that, I think it is likely that this new bridge will increase the traffic flow between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Let me rephrase that. I think 4.a Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Page 30 the traffic across this bridge will increase between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto, maybe not because of the bridge, but traffic is going to increase, and I don’t see much of a mention of what that does to the Palo Alto side, at least. The people who live along this road are going to be impacted. Traffic is going to increase, I think, because of development in East Palo Alto. The bridge perhaps facilitates that. In any case, all of that, I think, should be at least discussed in the impact report. Those are my two comments on that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else have comments on the impact report? In that case, I have one. This is an environmental assessment, right? It’s not the federal equivalent of a negative dec; this is a full-blown environmental document, so you can find adverse impacts as long as you deal with them. You have more freedom of action here. I think it’s a really sophisticated discussion of the aesthetics. It’s a very thoughtful discussion of what’s there, of how people perceive it, of how it will change. I don’t think that this document makes the case for no impact, primarily with respect to the replacement of heavily wooded, rich, riparian habitat, even if it needs to have some trees and bushes removed. As opposed to what we see in the lower figure at 2.1.5-17. You may be able to make that case if you better explain to us how it’s intended to work when you do that landscaping and that replacement planting, and you do the maximum tree conservation. But I don’t think you’ve done it yet. I think it understates the value of the, that great, you know, overgrown bramble patch, which is quite lovely in its own way, and is quite important as riparian habitat, which is a rare commodity here. I think that section needs to be reworked and beefed up. And perhaps we acknowledge that there is a permanent loss. I don’t know. But as it stands now, if I was reviewing this from the outside, I would think you haven’t made your case that there is no adverse impact. And having done that, you fail to address how to make it better. I mean, if you have to do a statement of overriding considerations, so be it. All right. Any comments on the other area where Claire asked for comments, which was the proposed alternatives themselves? Particularly Alternative 2. Alex? Board Member Lew: I’m fine with Alternative 2. Chair Furth: Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: I think Alternative 2 is the preferred solution. It’s certainly okay with me. I have two design ideas, I guess, to throw out, and now seems to be the time to do that. One is that, be careful with your 30-inch grade separation requiring a railing. That’s a code minimum, and it may be appropriate inside a residence or something like that, where people are very familiar with the project, but I think, on the side of a sidewalk, if you have a 30-foot drop-off, that’s a dangerous situation. You should have guardrails to a much less grade change. Just consider not just a code requirement. Secondly, maybe it’s a folly, but when I drive down El Camino and go over the bridge, over the same creek, between the two counties, there’s a small cast in place memento, saying you’re going from San Mateo into Santa Clara. This is a 100-year bridge. Why don’t we leave our children with something on the bridge, cast into it somehow? Just a memento that says this is the county line, or this is the date it was built. It’s an easy thing, it doesn’t take much to do, but it would be nice to see some detail like that added to the project. Thank you. Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: I’m also fine with Option 2. My only concerns, which I think have already been discussed, are the impact to the landscape, the foliage. I’m sure everyone is doing what they can to retain as much as possible. The replacement trees do seem a lot less than what’s getting removed, so that’s a concern. And then, the actual design of the barrier, the mash…? What was it called? Mash test- rated barrier. I don’t have too much experience in what all the particular formations are with that. Not absolutely in love with the design chosen in terms of that, but again, we have to meet a criteria, and there aren’t many designs that meet that. It just is what it is. But if you’re asking for our comments on it, I think it could be better. But it is what it is. 4.a Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Page 31 Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: I also agree that number 2 is the best solution. I also agree with my cohorts here who say that the landscape plan is very important. We see excellent engineering drawings here, but we don’t really see the aesthetics of what you see in the environment above it completed yet, and I would hope that that would be added to this study. The shape of the bridge seems to be shape based on engineering, again, to prevent the car from destroying the perimeter there, but it isn’t particularly aesthetic. But I think you could go along with protections, and it’s very important, of course, crossing the bridge. I wouldn’t look to anything too much different than this. It’s sort of a functional situation. It doesn’t really, and it isn’t really a major crossing all the time, so I think it’s okay to be functional rather than extremely aesthetic. But some delightful items could happen here as well with a little more creative thinking somehow. I’m really pleased, I happen to live on San Francisquito Creek, a little further up, and I’m glad the water will be flowing better down this way, and hoping for improvements to our area as well, which would follow, I’m assuming. I happen to be in a non-flood zone but feel a little sorry for my neighbors who aren’t, and who, in fact, are lower than they ought to be relative to the creek. I’m wondering about the bicycle lane. Does it continue around…? I’m going south on Woodland, or where, but it seems to stop abruptly. Is it a continuation on Woodland? Ms. Jeremias: On Woodland and on Newell on the East Palo Alto side, they have sharrows, so the bike lane would end at the return on, on the return of the bridge. Board Member Hirsch: And I think that meeting the level changes relative to the height of the street seem to be trickier in the East Palo Alto area than they are in Palo Alto itself. But there is one property there, and that’s going to be raised, their roadway is raised significantly to create access to the road? That’s been negotiated with the owner of that property? Ms. Jeremias: We have met with all the property owners, and the one property that you’re referencing is 475 Newell, and we have been talking with them. They are aware of what’s going to happen, and what we’ll need in order to adjust their driveway approach. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I think that’s pretty much it. I think the landscaping, it will be really nice to see a more advanced design drawing for the landscaping throughout. Chair Furth: I arrived here in 1998, right after the flood, which is why the house I’ve lived in for the past 20 years is not in the flood zone. Being in the City Attorney’s office, dealing with some of the flood aftermaths, and talking to traumatized new friends and co-workers was, it was quite the event. It was very hard on many people. It looks to me that the choice of Option 2 is a good one. I do think that… I do support Vice Chair Baltay’s suggestion that, think about incorporating some element of commemoration and beauty here. It’s true that our bridge into Menlo Park has interest of that kind, and our bridge into East Palo Alto should as well. What’s on the other side of Chaucer Street? I forget. More Menlo Park? Ms. Hodgkins: Yes. Chair Furth: Thanks. A notorious phrase, at this point. I do remember spending lots of time, looking at those gauges, watching the water levels rise. It’s nice to not do that. I do think that these creek banks are some of the most beautiful places in Palo Alto. This is a very rare creek, as we all know, one that still flows to the Bay, and I think the work has been careful in this environmental review, but I don’t think it’s been thorough enough in terms of that aspect of what’s precious about this particular landscape. I think it undervalues it. Thank you for all your hard work. I think we have nothing further to say. You don’t need any motion from us at this point, do you? All set? MOTION Board Member Lew: I think the staff report recommends continuing it. Right? 4.a Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Page 32 Chair Furth: Continue this to a date uncertain? Could I have a motion to that effect? Board Member Thompson: I move to continue this to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Motion by Thompson, second by Lew, to continue this to a date uncertain. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? None. Passes 5-0. Everybody present. MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you so much for coming to speak to us. Thank you for your continued interest in the project. Thank you for your continued work on the project. Ms. Jeremias: Thank you. Study Session Chair Furth: We do not have a study session. Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: We have two sets of minutes that are actually in our packet. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2019. Chair Furth: The first is for June 6, 2019. Have people had a chance to review them, or is there a motion? Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll move to approve the minutes of June 6th. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: The minutes are missing the subcommittee action. Chair Furth: I beg your pardon, Alex? Board Member Lew: It’s the same comment that I always have. Chair Furth: Somewhere I thought I saw subcommittee minutes. Board Member Lew: It’s a discussion that we have up here on the dais… Chair Furth: About the need for them. Board Member Lew: … that the subcommittee is coming, but it is not the action that the subcommittee took. Chair Furth: Okay. Staff? Subcommittee minutes? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. We’ve added those certainly to some; it looks like we missed that on these, so we will add those in. Chair Furth: You can bring them back to the ARB for further review, then? Ms. Gerhardt: We can bring them back, yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. Subject to the note that… Which one are we on? Sorry. I completely lost track. We didn’t just vote on that? Okay. Motion from whom? 4.a Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Page 33 Vice Chair Baltay: I made the motion. Alex is making a friendly amendment, that we request staff to include the conversation about the subcommittee. Board Member Lew: And that’s the Pacific Catch restaurant. Chair Furth: Yes. Big project. Vice Chair Baltay: That friendly amendment is acceptable by me. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye? All those opposed say nay? Passes 5-0. MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: Staff will note that we’re missing the minutes for the subcommittee on Pacific Catch. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 20, 2019. Chair Furth: The next set of minutes is for June 20, 2019. Board Member Lew: Same comment. Seven-forty-four San Antonio Road, which is the Marriott Courtyard and AC Hotel. There’s a subcommittee item that reviewed the window mullion color with respect to the building color palate, and it was approved. Chair Furth: All right. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of June 20, 2019, with additional directive to staff to return at a future date with the minutes of the subcommittee on 777…? Is that the address? San Antonio? Board Member Lew: Seven-forty-four San Antonio. Chair Furth: Sorry, 744 San Antonio, i.e. the hotel project. Is there a motion to that effect? Board Member Lew: With the last set of minutes, I think we just approved it, and that staff can amend it. Right? And it wasn’t coming back to us. Chair Furth: I beg your pardon. We have not yet voted on the June 20th meeting minutes, is that correct? I don’t even have a motion on them, right? Vice Chair Baltay: I wasn’t there. Chair Furth: Okay, so, Baltay and Hirsch were missing, so that leaves it to the three of us. I move we approve the minutes of June 20, 2019. Is there a second? Board Member Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Furth: Comments? All those in favor? Passes 3-0, only three of us having been present. That’s Furth, Lew and Thompson in favor, Baltay and Hirsch abstaining. MOTION PASSES 3-0-2, WITH BALTAY AND HIRSCH ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. Chair Furth: And again, noting that we are missing the subcommittee meeting minutes for that day. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area plan – Board Member Lew Chair Furth: North Ventura Report. Alex. Board Member Lew: It’s on hold until it comes back to the Council. Chair Furth: Okay. I have an item just of general interest. Speaking of the linguistic landscape, there is a book in press, coming out shortly – I have just misplaced the names of the authors – but it’s a study of 4.a Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Page 34 the changes in signage in [inaudible]. The authors are Edward Snajdr and Shonna Trinch, forthcoming from Vanderbilt Press, and it’s a historical and [inaudible] graphic analysis of signs and gentrification in Brooklyn from 1995 to the present. And it’s really interesting in thinking about our notions of what signs could and should say. And the movement from signs that say things like, “Scissors sharpened,” and another 15 specific items at the hardware store. Two signs that say, “Bump,” conveying that it is close for pregnant women. You might find it interesting in thinking about the reviews we do of signage. Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review Draft Letter Chair Furth: The last item is, I sent to you – late, as usual – a draft annual report based on previous commentary from us at our joint meetings, and from Alex aside form it. I don’t know when you would like to take action on that. It certainly does not need to be today. Vice Chair Baltay: Wynne, is this drafted as a letter? We can send to Council as it is? Chair Furth: Mm-hmm. Board Member Thompson: I haven’t had a chance to really read through this. Chair Furth: Why don’t we continue it to the next regular meeting? Board Member Thompson: I’m okay with that. Chair Furth: And I will say that I was not looking for editing; what I was looking for are the concepts generally acceptable, but that’s going to be up to you all, what you want to do. Vice Chair Baltay: I just think it would be better to put something out, than not. It’s been a while, we’ve been talking about it. The guts of it, without even reading it in detail, seem about right. We did talk about it twice previously, didn’t we? Chair Furth: We did. Board Member Thompson: We should still read it, though, before we… Vice Chair Baltay: You should still read it, of course. Okay. Board Member Thompson: Let’s just do that. Let’s talk about it at the next meeting. Hopefully we can all get a chance to read it before then. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Chair Furth: Okay, so, staff, if you would put this draft on the next regular meeting. My excuse this time is bronchitis, but actually, it’s terminal procrastination. Ms. Gerhardt: And a little bit of moving your house. Chair Furth: Well, yes. Disrupting my life. Okay. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Chair Furth: I hereby resign as chair of the board. That makes Peter automatically become…? Vice Chair becomes Chair? Ms. Gerhardt: Not automatically. I mean, maybe for this portion of the hearing, but we would need to vote if he’s to become the permanent chair. Chair Furth: I did not review the rules again. Ordinarily, in the absence of a chair, the vice chair chairs it, so you need to look for nominations and vote on… 4.a Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Page 35 Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. I propose that we have a vote to elect a new chairperson, and a new vice chair. I can’t nominate myself, so I’ll look for someone to do so. Board Member Hirsch: I’d be happy to nominate you then, Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Board Member Lew: I will second. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. I’ll accept the nomination. I will then nominate Osma Thompson to be the Vice Chair of the Board. Board Member Lew: I will second that. Board Member Hirsch: I can second that, too. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, we have a motion on the table for a new Chair and Vice Chair. All those in favor? All those opposed? Okay, motion carries 4-0. MOTION TO ELECT PETER BALTAY AS CHAIRMAN AND OSMA THOMPSON AS VICE CHAIR PASSES 4-0. Ms. Gerhardt: Who was the second on Vice Chair? Chair Furth: I was. I’m still a member of the Board. Just not chair. Vice Chair Baltay: You’re right, you’re right. Okay. So, 5-0. CORRECTION: MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Baltay: Before the meeting is closed, we have one last presentation to make, too. Former Chair Wynne Furth, on behalf of the entire Architectural Review Board, the City planning staff, and the entire City… Board Member Hirsch: Who have signed a card for you. Vice Chair Baltay: That you might remember us by your benches, Wynne. [Applause] Board Member Furth: Thank you very, very, very much. I will treasure this. Chair Baltay: Any last words before we close the meeting? Board Member Hirsch: Just be a little careful. Board Member Furth: I’ll be very careful. That’s wonderful, thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: We really wanted to thank you for your dedication to the City. You know, you were here formerly as the City Attorney, and now as a board member for four years, at least. We really appreciate your dedication to this City, and especially your dedication to our modes of transportation, as noted by the bench. Board Member Furth: Walking. Ms. Gerhardt: We appreciate that you have really ground that in our minds, that that’s definitely very important to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles and things of that nature. I have a whole laundry list of projects that you have been here for, probably way too long. I think you were probably here for all, maybe 10 hearings of the 429 University project. 4.a Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 36 Board Member Furth: Unfortunately, I had a conflict. Actually, I was accused of bias, [crosstalk] Ms. Gerhardt: That’s true. You did have a conflict. But there’s a lot of public projects: The 101 pedestrian bridge, the Avenidias project, fire station, downtown garage, the Public Safety Building, many projects in the Research Park, in the shopping center. You were here for all of the wireless hearings, including the wireless standards. The comp plan EIR that we’ve done. Both versions of Mercedes, and several downtown projects. We just appreciate your help on all of those. As staff, we also have a plaque for you, as well, commemorating your years on the board. Thank you. Board Member Furth: Well, thank you. Actually, the one that really left scars was SOFA 1 and 2. But I think the results were excellent. I’ve already thanked support staff earlier, as they, once again, provided great food. I always feel we should share with an entire audience… Oh, how pretty. One nice thing about being thanked by design professionals is that they look really good. Thank you. I did arrive here in 1998 and was assigned to the fifth floor staff as my principal responsibility, along with the famous underground utilities – water, gas and wastewater. It was an enormous education and an enormous privilege. It was fascinating to work in this town full of creative people who do interesting projects, who think both on a very tiny scale and a very large scale. It’s an honor to work in a city where you think, “Gee, that’s a serious problem,” and you look it up on the website and, what do you know? We wrote a report. And we probably are implementing it, too. It’s great to work in a city where people show up at public hearings and tell you important and interesting things, and it’s been most fun of all to work with my colleagues on the dais. To hang out with a bunch of really talented, funny, engaged architects has been great. Not to mention superb planning staff who will never, ever use the term “verbiage” to refer to text because they know to respect words, as well as drawings. So, thank you. Chair Baltay. With that, the meeting is adjourned. 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 Thompson: Really quick question. Who is on subcommittee? Chair Baltay: I believe I am, and Alex Lew. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Just checking. Adjournment 4.a Packet Pg. 105 Copies sent to:  Project File  Architectural Review Board   Subcommittee Review                 Bryan Panian, Corporate Sign Systems, 2404 De La Cruz Blvd,   Santa Clara CA 95050   3000 El Camino Real [18PLN‐00277]   July 19, 2019  Danielle Condit, Planning Technician       PLANNER’S SIGNATURE     The application, and plans dated July 17, 2019, was reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee on July  18, 2019 in accordance with condition of approval #7, as stated below. The ARB Subcommittee  comprised of Board members Alexander Lew and Osma Thompson.     Provide additional pedestrian signage near the pedestrian access route onto the site.     At the meeting, the Subcommittee agreed with the revisions presented, and approved (3)  pedestrian directional signs, without the decorative design, and installation of accessible signs  at every turn along the accessible path.      The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the design and this  Subcommittee Review letter shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s).          TO:    SUBJECT:   DATE:  FROM:  4.a Packet Pg. 106