The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-10-03 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: October 3, 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: Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Paralleling Station Design and Perimeter Landscaping for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Includes Removal of Existing Trees in JPB Right of Way Adjacent to Park Plaza and Planting of Shrubs and Vines Adjacent to the Station that Includes a Proposed 42’ Tall Gantry Structure. Separate from the Landscaping Adjacent to the Station Enclosure, the JPB will Evaluate the Feasibility of Planting Trees Along Alma Street as Part of the PCEP Palo Alto Tree Mitigation Plan to Provide Screening of a Gantry. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. _______________________ 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. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center and the Construction of (1) a Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 sf, (2) two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 sf each, and (3) a Retail Building, Approximately 28,000 sf (78,500 sf in total). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 August 15, 2019. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Peter Baltay Vice Chair Osma Thompson Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Grace Lee 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 & Development Services 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 # 10686) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 10/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 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 & Development Services 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 gular 7/18/2019* 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 Cancelled 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 1/17 – Furth/Lew 3/21 – Baltay/ Thompson 4/4 – Baltay/ Thompson 4/18 – Lew/ Hirsch 6/6 – Furth/ Baltay July August September October November December 7/18 – Baltay/Lew 8/1 - Baltay/Lew *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 October 17, 2019 • 2342 Yale Street: Duplex Project (2nd Formal) • 3585 El Camino Real Mixed-Use (1st Formal) • 3265 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Louvre Window and Stair Mesh 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10676) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Macy's Mens Redevelopment (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center and the Construction of (1) a Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 sf, (2) two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 sf each, and (3) a Retail Building, Approximately 28,000 sf (78,500 sf in total). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services (formerly the Director of Planning and Community Environment) based on findings and subject to conditions of approval with a requirement for ARB Subcommittee to review and approve the El Camino Real sidewalk design and bicycle parking for the site. Report Summary 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 The ARB previously reviewed the subject project. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: [bit.ly/180ECRMACYS]. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and is modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On June 20, 2019, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: [bit.ly/180ECRMMV]. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Revise the design of the Wilkes Bashford building (relocated green wall, add windows on El Camino Real, avoid flat walls, provide details/trim for material at corners) and Building EE. Additional details in elevations and renderings are provided in the plan set. See Sheets A-WB1 to A-WB14, A-EE6 to A-EE8. Provide details for the new pedestrian pathways and/or elevated drive aisle, include details such as bollards, lighting, and utility boxes. Applicant has provided updated plans with greater hardscape and walkways details LS200, LS500, A-EE5 to A-EE5 A-EE8. Revise the El Camino Real sidewalk to tie into the regional system and protect existing trees. Sheet C2 shows the applicant’s proposed eight (8) foot sidewalk. Provide street trees on both sides of Pistache Place. There are approximately 12 existing trees on the south side of Pistache and 13 trees are proposed on the northern side. Fill in landscaping and/or provide berms to screen cars from El Camino Real and Sand Hill. See Sheets LS100 and LS700. The Board may wish to require additional details. Study the use of existing parking lots to better understand and manage parking demand. Parking and loading information is provided in Attachment F and detailed in the staff report below. Additional loading information is provided on Sheet P2 of the plan set. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 During the project’s first hearing, the ARB found the design to be of high quality and fitting the character of the Shopping Center. However, additional details and revisions to the submitted plans were required to address the ARB’s comments and comments from reviewing staff. A summary of the changes is provided in Attachment E, and a focused analysis of the most significant changes are detailed in the sections below. Architectural Changes Changes to the Wilkes Bashford building, along with details for the green wall, have been provided on sheets A-WB1 to A-WB14. The building has been fully detailed and refined with more greenery and additional windows along the corners facing El Camino Real. There are also changes to the parking lot and Shopping Center facing façades that include additional entrances and new trellis structures with vines and public seating areas that mirror the south facing trellis. The greatest improvement of the building is shown on sheet A-WB13, where the primary entrance from the parking lot has been softened with darker façade materials and more greenery. Building EE (Sheets A-EE1 to A-EE8) has stayed relatively the same, however, two different options are proposed for the walking paths/drive aisle around the building. The first option is a standard curbed drive aisle. The second option is an elevated table top with bollards. Both designs feature more planters, seating, and trees. The ARB expressed some concerns with this area and the openness or lack of barriers between pedestrians and traffic. In each option, the applicant has included either bollards, large planter boxes, or curbs to form barriers that address the ARB’s comments. Also, the plans provide greater detail for this area that include all the installed features (sheet LS200). The changes are substantial improvements over the previous submittal and overall appear to address the ARB’s comments. Landscape The applicant has revised the proposed landscape plan for the project. Changes to the plant palette were done to remove more non-native plants from the proposed landscape plan (Sheet LS400). The current landscape plan includes a sufficient number of native plants, that have moderate to low water usage and provide habitat for wildlife, which meet the intent of the ARB findings for approval. Building EE (sheets LS100, LS200) has removed table tops around the northern end of the building. New utility screening to address ARB comments are added to the landscape plan (sheets LS100, LS600, LS700, LS800). Other changes to the plan include changes to the hardscape per the ARB’s comments. There is now enhanced concrete (texture and banding, LS200, LS500) proposed for the elevated drive aisle between Building EE and the Restoration Hardware Building (Option #2). Additional details for the pedestrian walkways (Option #1) are provided on sheets HS-WB, HS-EE, and HS-RH that indicate the location of the walkways, bioretention areas, bicycle racks, seating areas, and other fixed features. Finally, the applicant has provided detailed renderings of the elevated drive aisle with two designs for the ARB to review (sheets A-EE5 to A-EE8). The landscape, hardscape, and screening of the new utility equipment appear to address the ARB’s comments, however, Staff seeks the ARB’s feedback on these items. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 El Camino Real Sidewalk/Trees The El Camino Real sidewalk was a point of discussion during the first formal ARB hearing where the previous design proposed a 12-foot sidewalk. However, the ARB requested this improvement be reduced in width to be more consistent with the running trial along Sand Hill Road. After discussions with Transportation Staff, the final design increases the width of the existing sidewalk along this section of El Camino Real to a minimum of 6.5 feet and a maximum of 8 feet wide (Attachment G, sheets C2, C3). A chicane path and the use of the empty planter strip along El Camino Real takes into consideration the need for an improved sidewalk for all modes of active travel, while also avoiding major impacts to the existing trees. While this approach seems to balance the desire of installing a better sidewalk with the needs of the existing trees, an updated arborist report that specifically speaks to this change is pending. Staff would therefore recommend this item be reviewed at a Subcommittee meeting to address any necessary refinements after the updated arborist report is submitted and review by Staff. Parking & Loading Parking for the Shopping Center meets the code requirements of 1 parking space per 275 sf. Proposed changes to the parking lots would result in a loss of 240 physical parking spaces (existing) overall. However, required parking for the site also decreases with the loss of 16,647 sf (reduction of 61 required parking spaces) and the project also includes new parking spaces (around Wilkes Bashford and Restoration Hardware). Ultimately, the resulting on-site parking exceeds the Code requirement and thus the project is compliant in terms of vehicle parking (see Attachment D). While the Shopping Center as a whole has a number of legal non-conformities, those related to on-site bicycle parking need improvement. Staff worked with the applicant to obtain a bicycle occupancy study that identifies areas of the Shopping Center with insufficient bicycle parking 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 facilities. To date, the bicycle information relative to this project and the site overall is listed in the table below. Bicycle Parking: Short-Term (Racks) Long-Term (Lockers) TOTAL Required bicycle spaces 1/2,750 sf (40% short term and 60% long term) 210 315 526* Existing bicycle spaces (per study dated Aug 2019) 178 93 271 Proposed bicycle spaces (subject to pending study) 30 40 70 Deficient Bike Parking 0 182 182 *Rounded up per factional space ≥0.5. As part of this project, the existing bicycle parking facilities will be moved out of incompatible locations, like the parking garage, and moved to exterior open areas of the site. Understanding that the site provides many shopping options for patrons and purchases of larger and multiple goods may limit the use of a standard bicycle to transport these goods, therefore, staff has conditioned that 6-additional short-term bicycle racks be installed and stripped for cargo bicycles. Transportation staff recommends four (4) cargo bicycle spaces be installed directly across from Building N and two (2) cargo bicycle spaces be located between Buildings C and BB (Vineyard Vines and L’Occitain), as shown in the images below. These cargo bicycles spaces would further improve the site’s bicycle facilities and incentivize the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation to the site over automobiles, as cargo bicycles allow patrons to visit the site and easily transport their purchases. Unfortunately, the bicycle 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 study was conducted in the summer, when the University was not in session, therefore staff recommends the topic of bicycle parking locations be sent to the ARB Subcommittee with a revised report to see if refinements are needed. Existing bicycle parking location are shown on sheet P3 of the plan set. The applicant has provided updated information about their employee parking program that directs employees to park within the parking structures upper levels which are not highly utilized by patrons of the site (Attachment F). Moreover, Attachment F identifies the location for ride share pick-ups, which locates these modes of travel away from major parking lot traffic and will aid ride share drivers in locating their passengers. These factors combined would lessen the parking utilization in higher demand areas, such as the parking lots along El Camino Real and Sand Hill Rd. This program for employees requires an annual report that will be submitted for review by staff. A detailed study of the site’s loading areas was conducted, and the plans were updated accordingly with each loading area’s dimensions (sheet P2). The site is legal non-conforming in relation to current loading standards both in number of loading areas provided and in the size of the loading areas (PAMC 18.52 and 18.54). Many loading areas in older portions of the Shopping Center are not the proper width (current Code requires 12 ft). However, many loading areas are oversized regarding length (current Code requires 45 ft). For example, loading area “L” is 11 ft x 150 ft which is equal to 3 loading areas. Similarly, loading areas M1 and M2 are 9.75 ft x 102 ft and 7 ft x 134.5 ft respectively. These two loading areas are equal to 4 loading areas as they oversized in length. Sheet P2 indicates there are 24 existing loading spaces and the proposed project would not change the total number of loading areas. The loading area that is adjacent to the Macys Men’s building (loading area B) is to be replaced by two new Code compliant loading areas (loading areas RH and EE). The project also includes a new undersized loading area added to the Wilkes Bashford building (sized at 17 ft x 18 ft) which also doubles as clearance during waste collections. Lighting The revised plans provide additional details for the proposed lighting and includes updated photometrics (Sheet ES-101, ES-102, ES-111 to LT-003). The updated photometrics show a slight change in the light output, but the lighting remains consistent with the Municipal Code performance standards. The photometric study indicates a consistent decrease in the light output, down to zero, along the Sand Hill Rd property line. This is important given the proximity to San Francisquito creek, an area sensitive to light pollution, is located on the other side of Sand Hill Road. Along the El Camino Real property line, the light output is higher, however El Camino Real has more street lighting and the higher light output (3.6 fc max) shown within the parking spaces in this area would not change the existing conditions nor significantly impact the creek. Consistency with Application Findings The project is consistent with the required findings as shown in Attachment B. For example, the project will demolish an outdated, large scale building and replace it with several moderately 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 scaled buildings. These improvements will reinforce Stanford Shopping Center’s position as a premier regional shopping center with distinctive businesses and an open, appealing pedestrian environment. Furthermore, the proposed green roof with the glass enclosed restaurant is a unique feature that would contribute to the exclusive retail, dining, and personal service experience of the Stanford Shopping Center. Zoning Compliance2 Staff performed a review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards, which included review of the Shopping Center’s floor area. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.060(e)(3) states the maximum net floor area for the Stanford Shopping Center is 1,412,362 square feet. Due to the scope of the project and the concerns regarding parking, Planning Staff and the Applicant’s architect conducted several on-site visits to verify floor area. Based on this research and analysis of the project plan set, staff has found the proposed project complies with all applicable Zoning codes. 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. 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. The project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 2 exemption in accordance with Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). The project meets this exemption as it consists of replacement of existing structures and facilities where the new structures will be located on the same site as the existing structures and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity. More specifically, the existing Macy’s Men’s building is a commercial retail building of greater floor area than the total proposed floor area of the new commercial retail buildings in the same general location on the project site. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on September 20, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 19, 2019, which is 14 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 Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment C: Findings for Approval (DOCX) • Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment E: Applicant's Summary of Changes (PDF) • Attachment F: Parking Information (PDF) • Attachment G: El Camino Real Sidewalk/Tree Exhibit (PDF) • Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 15 2.a Packet Pg. 16 ATTACHMENT D DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real, “Macys Mens” 19PLN-00110 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Macys Mens Redevelopment,” stamped as received by the City on September 25, 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 and will include the following changes: a. The addition of 30 short term and 40 long term bicycle parking spaces. The location of the spaces to be determined via the ARB subcommittee review. 4. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. The final location of the bicycle parking per the revised occupancy study. b. The size and design of the proposed sidewalk changes along El Camino Real within the project area. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. PARKING: All parking facility changes shall be in conformance with the approved plans. The applicant shall submit annual parking reports, with the first report due one year after occupancy of the new buildings within the scope of the project. The report to the City will include data involving the management of parking for employees of the site and is inclusive of vehicle, bicycle parking, and utilization of carpooling or transit programs. The information shall be submitted to the Office of Transportation and the Planning and Development Services Department on a yearly basis. 2.b Packet Pg. 17 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 8. 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. The extension request shall be done by submitting a written request directly to the Planning and Development Services Department. 9. SIGNAGE: The submitted plans only reference signage for the new buildings to show the relationship between the buildings design and possible new signage. This approval does not include an approval for signage. Signage will require a separate approval from the Planning and Development Services Department. 10. 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. 11. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Given the proposed project results in a net loss of FAR, no additional impact fees are due. 12. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with PAMC 16.61, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received final approval of the art plan, or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. All required artwork shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit. 13. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code 2.b Packet Pg. 18 Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 14. 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, colors, parking, landscaping, and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DEPARTMENT At time of building permit, please include the following information/clarifications shall be provided: 15. Green building compliance shall comply with the CALgreen code as amended by the City of Palo Alto and effective at time of building permit submittal, please complete the required CALGREEN +TIER2 CHECKLIST and explain how each green measure will be implemented for the project. 16. Accessible path of travel to all common areas, entrances, exits, restaurant, retail, and all public functions per Chapter 11B, CBC. 17. T24 Energy calculations for envelope, lighting, mechanical, and electrical shall be provided for each building. 18. County Health Department approval is required prior to issuance of building permit for restaurants. 19. Structural design shall comply with CBC, ASCE7-10, and other applicable codes based on materials specifications. New building and existing building shall have a seismic gap required. 20. Several proposed grease interceptors are shown on sheet C8. Design shall be reviewed at permit submittal and coordinated with Water Quality Division. 21. Mixed use and occupancy shall comply with section 508, CBC. 22. Bike parking counts shall meet CALgreen as amended by CPA. 23. Onsite pavement design shall meet the TI per soil report and PW standards. 24. Onsite storm drainage shall meet CPC, CBC, and PW standards. 25. Provide roof access by means of stair or ladder type. 2.b Packet Pg. 19 26. Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing design shall comply with applicable codes. All onsite sanitary lines shall have a minimum 2% slope with adequate cleanouts and backflow valves at appropriate locations per CPC and PAMC. FIRE DEPARTMENT 27. An additional fire hydrant is required on Pistache Place near ECR. The hydrant shall be shown on the building permit plan set. Final location to be determine during the building permit plan check review. PUBLIC ART 28. The following conditions are required to be part of any Planning application approval and shall be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below. If the applicant chooses to pay in- lieu of commissioning art on site, the funds must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 29. If the applicant chooses to commission art on site, then they must complete both initial and final reviews and receive approval from the Public Art Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 30. If the applicant chooses to pay a contribution into the Public Art fund in-lieu of commissioning art on site, the contribution must be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 31. Electric utilities are in the footprint of the new Macy’s building, therefore, some of the substructure must be completed prior to demolition of the Macy’s building. 12kV duct bank shall be relocated, prior to occupancy at the latest. 32. Underground switch shall be relocated. Customer shall provide space 10’X10’ space for the pad mount switch. 33. Existing underground transformer shall be relocated. Customer shall provide space 10’X10’ for the pad mount transformer for the Macy’s Building. 34. Customer shall provide 10’X10’ for the pad mount transformer for the new Building. 35. Where needed, the applicant/property owner shall grant the City easements for maintenance of facilities, such as switch gear and transformers. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 36. Location of new switch and new transformers must be approved by ARB. 37. The location of the customer’s switchboard shall be shown on the layout drawing. 38. All substructure work to be completed by the applicant. Fiber conduits shall be relocated. 39. A complete Utility Electric Application must be submitted, and advanced engineering fee shall be paid. 40. Detailed comments shall be given only after field verification from City Crew on existing Utilities and advanced engineering fee is paid. UTILITIES WASTE GAS WATER 41. Update plans per WGW site plan red-lines dated approved June 13, 2019. 42. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads 43. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way. 44. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 45. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 46. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 2.b Packet Pg. 21 47. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 48. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 49. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 50. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 51. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 52. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 53. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 54. STORMDRAIN: a. Drainage from the proposed structure shall not be directly connected to the City’s storm drain system. 2.b Packet Pg. 22 b. Plot and label the C3 treatment measures associated with this work to verify that no direct connection will be required. (not applicable on privately maintained streets) c. Plot and label a 15-foot wide easement for the proposed and existing storm drain line within private property. Pipe shall be centered on easement. d. If the retail building will have a basement, provide a minimum 10-foot separation between building/foundation edge and easement edge. e. Provide Qex versus Qprop from the project site, to verify no net increase. (provide clarification calculations with the building permit submittal with respect to drainage area) f. Relocate manholes to avoid proposed trees and shall be placed within one stall. Manhole shall not be aligned with the stall striping and for future utility clean-up, this will reduce the number of stalls affected. Manhole shall not be placed within tree root zone. g. Plot and label the utility crossings invert and top of pipe. h. Revised City specs allow the use of HDPE pipe, applicant shall review and verify why RCP is proposed. Please note this in the plan set. Additional comments and review provided by Storm Drain group during Building permit review stage. 55. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he/she can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 56. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 57. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as 2.b Packet Pg. 23 swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 58. RETAIL SPACE: If any proposed food service is planned a grease trap will be required. 59. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The building permit plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 60. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 61. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of- way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinated to keep materials and equipment onsite. This includes job site trailers, dumpsters, storage containers and portable restrooms. 62. Provide following note on Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at a minimum 48-hours in advance by calling (650)496- 6929.” 63. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Sidewalk, curb & gutter replacement shall be required for both Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real frontage of project. Street resurfacing may also be required for the property frontage along East bound portion of Sand Hill Rd. 64. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 2.b Packet Pg. 24 65. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on City Public Works’ website. 66. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on the Public Works website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 67. LOGISTICS PLAN: The project contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Include a copy in resubmittal. Guidelines are attached at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2719 68. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to Building permit approval. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is a C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 69. Include a note on the civil set of plans that the project is subject to C.3 Storm Water Treatment along with 3rd party review. 70. Proposed storm drain items will require new easement and/or modifications of existing easements. 71. Coverage is required to be obtained under the State Construction General Permit for projects that disturb one acre or more. 72. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project may be required. Caltrans right-of- way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work and Encroachment Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. 2.b Packet Pg. 25 73. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: The property owner shall provide a public access easement for the additional feet of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge on the El Camino Real frontage. Alternatively, the property owner may dedicate the space to the City of Palo Alto. The easement or dedication shall be shown on the Tentative and Final maps, or if the applicant chooses not to subdivide the property, show the future easement on plans submitted for a building permit and note that the easement must be recorded prior to building permit final. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY The following conditions are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below. 74. The applicant shall provide bio retention fabric-type detail at building permit phase. Please be advised that the type of fabric is determined by the water table level of the site. 75. Update plan sheet LS400 to reflect all native species in proposed plant palette. 76. Fill out and sign the tree disclosure statement on the T1 sheet. 77. Tree protection must be shown on plan drawings at building permit phase. 78. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 79. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 80. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 2.b Packet Pg. 26 81. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 82. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 83. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 84. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 85. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full- sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & 2.b Packet Pg. 27 drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION 86. Stormwater treatment measures o All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. o Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. o For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at pamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. o Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. 87. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) o Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay- Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay- friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 88. Stormwater quality protection o Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. o Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). o Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. 2.b Packet Pg. 28 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 19PLN-00110 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 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. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. This project will add to the exclusive mixture of tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center making it a distinctive regional shopping center. The projects proposed new buildings with designs that meet the approved standards for the Shopping Center by utilizing high quality materials, this project results in net loss of FAR for the site and is an infill development, resulting in a lower impact to the surrounding area. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project incorporates new planter areas, green walls, and green rooftops along with new exterior seating areas. The project includes a new building that is fronting the El Camino Real Corridor and has a design that includes store display areas and Policy L-4.3: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that 2.c Packet Pg. 29 enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. new planter areas that call attention to the Pistache Place and El Camino Real Corner and defining this intersection. Policy L-4.4: Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. The project will enhance a portion of the Shopping Center through redevelopment which includes new outdoor seating areas, a green roof top that is accessible to the public, expands the walking path areas for pedestrians. Policy L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premier regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. The northern portion of the El Camino Real frontage will see a new high-quality retail building and new landscaping, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements, increasing the quality of the site. Additionally, the inset buildings have design are also of high quality and one building features a green roof with a glass enclosed restaurant which is a unique feature that will continue to promote the Stanford Shopping Center as a premier modern shopping center. Program L4.9.1: While preserving adequate parking to meet demand, identify strategies to reuse surface parking lots. Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The project results in a net decrease of FAR. The project includes a requirement for parking management plan for the site’s employees to focus employee parking to areas where patrons of the Shopping Center less utilize parking. The project also proposes an option for an elevated drive aisle between buildings EE and Restoration Hardware which could be utilized for minor events. The building and site design enhance the Stanford Shopping Centers open pedestrian environment and access to the site overall. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The proposed changes to the site with this project are consistent with the size scale of the Shopping Center overall as the site has several multi-story and single-story buildings throughout the site. Policy T-1.16 Promote personal transportation vehicles an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational The project will add new bicycle facilities on- site bring the site into conformance in terms of short term bicycle parking (public use) and further into conformance in terms of long term 2.c Packet Pg. 30 facilities and transit stops. Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Program T3.10.3 Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections between the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center areas and housing along the Sand Hill Road/Quarry Road corridors to Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown Palo Alto and other primary destinations. Program T5.12.1 Work with employers, merchants, schools and community service providers, to identify ways to provide more bicycle parking, including e-bike parking with charging stations, near existing shops, services and places of employment. bicycle parking (lockers). This is consistent with the goals of the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan by improving the bicycle parking capacity of the site and which incentivizes the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation to the site. Furthermore, a bicycle occupancy study is being conducted to properly located new bicycle parking in locations throughout the Shopping Center where demand is highest to provide more convenience and capacity as the Shopping Center is in an of high employment with the Medical Center and Stanford University nearby. 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 regarding height, floor area ratio (net loss of FAR), and setbacks. However, parking overall for the site is reduced but remains code compliant per the required parking of 1/275 gross sf. Additionally, the project will bring the site into greater compliance regarding the loading spaces on site and the overall bicycle parking spaces provide on-site. 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 new buildings along with site improvements that will enhance the pedestrian and tenant environment within the Stanford Shopping Center. 2.c Packet Pg. 31 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 walkway by rearranging the exterior seating areas for pedestrians, widening the walkway, and adding new bicycle racks for cyclists. 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 The projects proposed a new planter boxes, widen pathways and sidewalks, new pedestrian seating, and new pedestrian scale lighting within the project area. All of these new features improve the pedestrian environment within the project area. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will not significantly change the existing buildings massing as the project results in a net loss of FAR (minor in scale to the site FAR) and will no significantly change the setbacks as the site has varied setback placement. However, the project does conform to the required setbacks of the site. 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 The project provides new exterior seating areas that are publicly accessible and also includes a unique green roof that is also accessible to the public. 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 change the existing circulation in the area within the project scope and includes a new building within an existing parking lot area. However, the building massing is not overwhelming as it includes one to three-story buildings. 2.c Packet Pg. 32 Additionally, the pedestrian walkways around the effected parking lots and the project area are widen (no smaller than 6.5 ft in width) and include new planters and pedestrian seating areas, which will enhance the pedestrian environment of the 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 The project will utilize energy-efficient LED lighting and will comply with Green Building Energy codes for commercial businesses along with construction debris diversion rates. 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 includes materials which are durable and have high-quality finishes. The new façade will consist of cast concrete, metal, treated wood, and porcelain tiles. The design will enhance the character of the site and update the existing conditions to better fit with the greater Shopping Center which has been significantly upgraded through tenant facade changes. This project will continue the modernization of the Sand Hill Rd and El Camino Real frontage of the Shopping Center and would contribute to the unique mixture of textures and colors that the Shopping Center tenants façades are known for. 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 improve circulation for vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic and access to the project site via the proposed improvements. The modifications to the site include a new cut through elevated drive aisle that maintains access and circulation for cars while increasing circulation for pedestrians with the adjoining new pedestrian pathways. Furthermore, pedestrian walkway and sidewalk improvements are included along El Camino Real and Pistache Place. Lastly, the project includes bicycle parking that will feature new cargo bicycle spaces, which can better transport goods, to encourage this form of alternate transportation. 2.c Packet Pg. 33 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. A large portion of the existing trees will be preserved in addition to new tress and landscaping areas that consistent of native or low to moderate water usage plants that are more easily managed and maintained. A majority of the proposed plants provide suitable habitats for wild life as they either are flowering plants/trees which promote wild life. 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 comply with green building energy code requirements along with the local construction debris diversion rates. Additionally, the proposed landscaping includes a significant amount of native or low to moderate water usage plants along with on-site water treatment (C3) that will reduce storm water runoff and allow water to enter the local water aquafer. 2.c Packet Pg. 34 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real, 19PLN-00110 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 15 feet Varied 25 feet Rear Yard No Requirement N/A N/A Interior Side Yard (right) No Requirement N/A N/A Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied No Change Special Setback 24 feet along Sand Hill, Arboretum and Quarry Roads Varied No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) N/A N/A 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 Up to 50 feet tall for the RH building Max. Site Coverage No Requirement No Change Max. Floor Area per 18.16.060 (e) for Stanford Shopping Center 1,412,362 net sf max 1,361,751 net sf (94,337 sf Macy’s Mens) 1,345,104 net sf (loss of 16,647 sf) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (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. 2.d Packet Pg. 35 Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC 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 No Change Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. N/A Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.060 (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 (18.16.060 (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 project includes new interior trash rooms for each building that are Code compliant. 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. 2.d Packet Pg. 36 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. 5,241 Required after loss of sf from Macys Mens Demo 5,446 spaces 5,265 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf, 40% long term and 60% short term) equals 526* spaces for the site overall (210 ST, 315 LT) 271 spaces total (+ 3 forthcoming from Market Plaza approval) 341 spaces (With addition of 30 ST, 40 LT) 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. (1,345,104 sf) 24 loading spaces 25 loading spaces *number rounded up due to fractional space ≥ 0.5. 2.d Packet Pg. 37 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 MEMORANDUM To: Samuel Gutierrez, City of Palo Alto From: Tyler Whaley, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: August 8, 2019 Subject: Stanford Shopping Center Redevelopment – ARB Revisions Architecture 1. Revised design of the Wilkes-Bashford Building o A-WB1 through A-WB11 2. Additional Wilkes-Bashford Sheets Added o A-WB12 through A-WB14 3. Increased mechanical equipment screening for Building EE o A-EE2, A-EE3, A-EE4 4. Addition of Building EE perspectives o A-EE6, A-EE7, A-EE8 Civil 1. Realignment of road to the east of Building EE o C2, C3, C4, C5, C8, C9, C10 2. Revised roadway section between Building EE and Restoration Hardware. Removed the four parallel parking stalls. Added loading zone and revised landscape. o C2, C3, C4, C5, C8, C9, C10 3. Storm drain has moved from the landscaped area between the RH building and Sand Hill Road to between the RH building and Building EE o C5, C8 4. Pedestrian access revised and raised “table top” crosswalks connecting the main mall to the Wilkes Bashford Building o C2, C3, C4, C5, C8 5. Transformer for WB building relocated o C2, C3, C4, C5, C8 6. Gas meter enclosure added to the site, southwest across drive aisle from Restoration Hardware o C2, C8 7. The pedestrian amenity area east of Wilkes Bashford adjacent to El Camino has been removed o C2, C3, C4, C5, C8, T3 2.e Packet Pg. 38 Page 2 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 8. Bioretention around the Wilkes Bashford building revised o C2, C3, C4, C5, C8, T3 9. The water connections to Sand Hill Road added per WGW meeting o C8 Landscape 1. Removal of table top road north of Building EE o LS100, LS200 2. Addition of modular green screen for transformer screening o LS100, LS600, LS800 3. Addition of fire utility shrub screening o LS100, LS700 4. Addition of bioretention area north of Building EE (replacement of trees in that area and changes to shade calculations) o LS100, LS300 5. Changes to plant palette, replaced all nonnative species with native species o LS400 6. Changes to enhanced concrete materiality o LS500 Hardscape 1. Revised layouts per site plan revisions. o HS-WB, HS-EE 2. Addition of Restoration Hardware Hardscape plan o HS-RH Electrical/Photometric 1. Revised lighting at drive aisle intersections plan west of Building EE. o Sheet ES-101 2. Add “West Lot Move” lighting calculations. o Sheet ES-101 3. Revised lighting (relocated parking lot pole and add pedestrian poles) at drive aisle intersection plan west of Building EE. o Sheet ES-102 4. Add sheet to indicate utility coordination with City of Palo Alto electric and telecommunications utilities. o Sheet ES-103 2.e Packet Pg. 39 24 1919 1616 15 13 11 11 10 20 9 28 6 27 27 23 25 22 21 20 20 402 STOP STOP 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 28 8 85 5 16 16 24 8 8 8 8 24 2215 6 6 17 17 16 35 17 38E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V E VE V E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V RAMP DN 458 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 24 28 8 8 8 8 8 8 2215 24 5 35 35 5 18 18 16 16 4 4 26 26 38E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V E VE VE VE V RAMP UPRAMP DN 516 28 28 RAMP DN FANROOM 56 SAN FRANCISCO BAY 101 84 92 92 84 82 82 84 STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER FIB E R O P T I C C A B L E CITY OF PALO ALTO UNDERGROUND UNILITY CITY OF P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y PUBLIC U T I L I T Y P A R C E L 2 PUBLIC U T I L I T Y PARCEL 3 CI T Y O F P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y IN G R E S S E G R E S S & U T I L I T Y PA C I F I C B E L L E A S E M E N T 10 15 15 9 11 3 2 7 1 5 2 17 18 11 11 10 9 10 6 5 6 13 14 1216 19 24 5 4 13 6 31010106 28 28 28 28 34 34 8889 5 10 6848 9 9 18171818 1616 8 8 8 8 7 7 5 11 12 14 14 7 8 9 10 8 12 13 1817 21 4 36 910 4 4 8 9 22 10 118 7 10 10 10 8 1 10 10 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 1515 1617 1818 19 17 20 20 2122 23 23 9 6 8 8 10 3 6 11 11 7 10 11 7 3 11 11 10 10 9 7 6 5 8 8 10 10 9 9 10 5 8 6 3 99 9 97 5 6 6 7 4 1110 10 11 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 10 8 9 6 1010106 9101112 8 18 21 2223 9 8 9 29334243 43 6 2 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 6 7 5 1 27 27 2827 3336 3 5 21 13 8 6 26 35 29 6227 13 4 2 6 5 5 7 22 11 10 7 11 10 6 6 56 13 4 4 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 13 8 16 8 4 1414 8 26 26 2 1 8 8 4 10 35 35 29 29 8 9 10 10 10 10 6 7 10 9 13 15 13 10 6 6 101010 8101416202020 5 11 8 6 9 55 5 8 3 10 10 4 13 16 2 8 5 5 13 13 11 9 13 13 13 13 811 14 8 8 2 5 173 9 9 9 9 Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Clea n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e 24 3 FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV 34 EV E VE VE VE V E VE VE VE V E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V E VE V E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V E V E V E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V RAMP UPRAMP DN Parking Garage 2 Ramp BelowGrade LevelFirst LevelSecond LevelTotal 564815164581511 Parking Garage 1Grade LevelFirst LevelTotal 448402850 RAMPUPRAMP UP STOR STOR RE C Y C L E CO M P A C T O R A R E A TR A S H CO M P A C T O R A R E A NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G BIK E S STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP PARCEL ONE 53.864 AC± PARCE L T H R E E 10.105 A C ± PARC E L T W O 5.739 A C ± PARCEL F O U R 0.459 AC ± DROP OFF 277 21 62 53 88 31 71 96 225 385 455 245 331 470 448 255 221 25 257 LL01 LEASE LL02 LEASE LL03 LEASE LL04LEASE STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP ONLY STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOP V i n e y a r d L a n e A r b o r e t u m R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Shopping Center Way Pistache Place Pe a r L a n e Lo n d o n Pl a c e Wa y Sw e e t O l i v e W a y Pl u m La n e Orchard L a n eLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADING LO A D I N G LOADINGLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADING D O C K DOCKLOADINGDOCKLOADIN G D O C K LOADIN G DOCK TENANTTRUCKFACILITY LOADING Portico Way Pavilion 5The Plaza Azm o o r P l a c e Lady Ellen Place Clar i o n C o u r t Azm o o r P l a c e Pala n t i n e C o u r t Sand Hill Walk Quarry Walk Portico Way El C a m i n o W a l k Arboretum WalkEle c t i o n e e r C o u r t Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Arb o r e t u m R o a d Orchard L a n e Pavilion 5 Pavilion 2 Pavilion 3Pavilion 4 Ele c t i o n e e r Cou r t Street MarketPlaza C J D L F N M H E V P K W D B AA BB CC DD (F l d T y p ) 60 ' (Fld Typ)60' (Fld Typ)60'(Fld Typ)60' 61' (Fld T y p ) 60' (Fld Ty p ) 61' ( F l d T y p ) 60' (Fld T y p ) 36'24' 36'24' 40' 30' 44 ' 24' 25 ' 15 ' 36 ' 25 ' 25' 25 ' 32' 24'30'24' 28' 250' 30 0 ' 209.2' 14 9 . 8 '86.1'32. 1 ' 37' 21'112 ' 43.5'17.6 ' 39.7'86.1'32 . 1 ' 37' 21'86.1 ' 37' 32.1'32.1' 84' 10 3 . 4 ' 117 . 6 ' 80'21.8' 53 ' 88.2'88.8' 163 . 9 ' 125.9' 24' 37.8' 56. 1 ' 60.1' Lease3 levels10.105 Acres± Ground Lease3 levels0.965 Acres± Lease3 levels1.758 Acres± Lease3 levels0.721 Acres± Lease3 levels BIOR E T E N T I O N BASI N BIOR E T E N T I O N BASI N BIORETENTIONBASIN BIOSW A L E BIOSWALE BIOSW A L E BIOS W A L E BIOSW A L E BIOS W A L E BIOSW A L E BIOS W A L E BIOSW A L E BIOSW A L E MEN'S Parking Garage 2Ramp Below Parking Garage 2First Level Parking Garage 2Second Level Parking Garage 1First Level Vicinity Map STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER Existing Conditions Plan PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY - Existing 1- SPACES PROVIDED - 5,446 2- EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED IN DESIGNATED AREAS - +/- 1,500 3- PER SURVEY APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE VEHICLES PER DAY +/- 600 4- VALET SPACES PER POTENTIAL OPERATION -115 5- STANFORD UNIVERSITY MARGUERITE SHUTTLE ACCESS 6- SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS ACCESS- ROUTE #35 7- NUMBER OF BIKE SPACES ON SITE -271 8- PROPOPSED CENTRALIZED RIDESHARE PROGRAM PROJECT SITE AREA CONNECTION TO PALO ALTO TRANSIT CENTER EMPLOYEE PARKING DESIGNATED AREAS RIDESHARE PROPOSED LOCATIONS POTENTIAL VALET PARKING LOCATIONS STANFORD MAGUERITE SHUTTLE SERVICE SCVTA BUS ROUTE #35 BIKE LOCKER ANDRACK LOCATIONS 2.f Packet Pg. 40 Parking Summary Parking Spaces for 1,083,535sf of gla 4257 SPACE/1000 SF OF GLA:3.93 East of Arboretum Road Parking Spaces for 243,289sf of gla 1011 West of Arboretum Road 24 28 27 27 23 25 22 21 20 20 STOP RAMP DN 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 28 8 85 5 16 16 24 8 8 8 8 24 2215 6 6 17 17 16 35 17 38E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE VE V E V E VE V E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V 458 RAMP UPRAMP DN 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 24 28 8 8 8 8 8 8 2215 24 5 35 35 5 18 18 16 16 4 4 26 26 38E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE VE V E V E VE VE V E V 516 RAMP DN 28 28 FANROOM 56 1,341,693 24,116 STORE 39,173L 4,185CA 7,088 SPACES: OF GLA: 5446 4.06 D ps uction are Retail 43,581 29,171 Shop 79,468 la (14,869) as of 11/29/2018 pansion 1,326,824 (94,337) a )6,716 1,267,131 a S S Store GLA GLA 180,000 120,000 225,830 94,337 120,000 740,167 8,461 424,527 93,976 526,964 STOP PARCEL ONE53.864 AC± PARCE L T H R E E 10.105 A C ± PARCE L T W O 5.739 A C ± PARCEL F O U R 0.459 AC ± RAMP UPRAMP DN Parking Garage 2 Ramp BelowGrade LevelFirst LevelSecond LevelTotal 564815164581511 Parking Garage 1 Grade LevelFirst LevelTotal 448402850 RAMPUPRAMP UP 10 15 15 3 2 7 1 5 2 17 18 11 11 10 9 10 6 5 6 13 14 1216 19 24 5 4 13 6 8 8 8 4 7 7 5 11 12 14 14 8 9 10 8 12 13 1817 21 4 36 910 4 4 8 9 22 10 118 7 10 10 10 8 1 10 10 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 1515 1617 18 18 19 17 20 20 2122 23 239 6 8 8 10 3 6 11 11 7 10 11 7 3 11 11 10 10 9 7 6 5 8 8 10 10 9 9 10 5 8 6 3 99 9 97 5 6 6 7 4 11 10 10 11 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 10 8 9 6 1010106 9101112 8 18 21 2223 9 8 9 29334243 43 6 2 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 6 7 5 1 27 27 28 27 3336 3 5 21 13 8 6 26 35 29 6227 13 4 2 6 5 5 7 22 11 10 7 11 10 6 6 56 13 4 4 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 13 8 16 8 4 1414 8 26 26 2 1 8 8 4 10 35 35 29 29 8 9 10 10 10 10 6 7 10 9 13 15 11 10 6 6 101010 8101416202020 5 11 8 6 9 55 5 8 3 10 10 4 13 16 2 8 5 5 13 13 11 9 13 13 13 13 811 14 8 8 2 5 173 9 9 9 9 Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Clea n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e 24 3 FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV 34 E V E V E VE V E V E VE VE V E V E V E VE VE V E V E VE V E VE V E VE V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E VE V E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V E VE V E V E V E V E VE VE V E VE VE VE V E V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E VE VE VE V 7 16171818 1616 6 33 6 22 3 3 5 8 8 9 E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E V E VE VE V E VE V E V E VE V E V E V E VE VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V 28 28 E V E V E V E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V Bike Rack Bike Rack Bike Rack BikeRack 21 62 53 88 31 71 96 225 385 455 245 470 448 255 221 25 255 288 142 LL01 LEASE LL02 LEASE LL03 LEASE LL04LEASE Proposed Two Levels29,171sf STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP ONLY STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOP 24 'Setback24'Setback V i n e y a r d L a n e A r b o r e t u m R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Shopping Center Way Pistache Place Pe a r L a n e Lo n d o n Pl a c e Wa y Sw e e t O l i v e W a y Pl u m La n e Orchard L a n e STOR STOR RE C Y C L E CO M P A C T O R A R E A TR A S H CO M P A C T O R A R E A NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G BIKE SLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADING LO A D I N G LOADINGLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADIN G D O C K DOCKLOADINGDOCKLOADIN G D O C K LOADING DOCK TENANTTRUCKFACILITY LOADING Portico Way Pavilion 5The Plaza Azm o o r P l a c e Lady Ellen Place Clar i o n C o u r t Azm o o r P l a c e Pala n t i n e C o u r t Sand Hill Walk Quarry Walk Portico Way El C a m i n o W a l k Arbor e t u m W a l k Ele c t i o n e e r C o u r t Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Ar b o r e t u m R o a d Orchard Lan e Pavilion 5 Pavilion 2 Pavilion 3Pavilion 4 Elec t i o n e e r Cou r t Street MarketPlaza Planter Planter Planter Planter PlanterPots Planter Pots Planter Pots RestBench RestBench RestBenchRestBench C J D L F N M H E V P K W D AA BB CC DD EE (Fld Typ)60'(Fld Typ)60' 61' (Fld Ty p ) 60' (Fld Ty p ) 61 ' ( F l d T y p ) 60' (Fld Ty p ) 36'24' 36'24' 40' 30' 44' 24' 25 ' 15 ' 36 ' 25' 25' 25' 32'30'24' 28' (Fld Typ)60' PA C I F I C B E L L E A S E M E N T FIB E R O P T I C C A B L E CITY OF PALO ALTO UNDERGROUND UNILITY CITY OF P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y PUBLIC U T I L I T Y P A R C E L 2 PUBLIC U T I L I T Y PARCE L 3 CI T Y O F P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y IN G R E S S E G R E S S & U T I L I T Y 250' 30 0 '86.1'32 . 1 ' 37' 21'112 ' 43.5'17.6 ' 39.7'86.1'32. 1 ' 37' 21'86.1 ' 37' 32.1'32.1' 84' 10 3 . 4 ' 117 . 6 ' 80'21.8' 53 ' 88.2'88.8' 16 3 . 9 ' 125.9' 24' 37.8' 56. 1 ' 60.1' 140 ' 133' Lease3 levels10.105 Acres± Ground Lease3 levels0.965 Acres± Lease3 levels1.758 Acres± Lease3 levels Proposed Level 1 - 18,672sfLevel 2 - 15,642sfLevel 3 -9,267sfTotal - 43,581sf ProposedRetail3,360sf± ProposedRetail3,356sf± BIOR E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIOR E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIOR E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIORETENTIONBASIN BIOR E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIORETBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN T T EV EV T TSW LOA D I N G LOADING XXXXXXXXX BikeStorageXXXXXXXXX 34. 4 ' 34. 9 ' 100.2'99.7'PatioArea756sf PatioArea731sf Stanford Shopping Center 660 Stanford Shopping CenterDevelopment Site Plan Parking Garage 2Ramp Below Parking Garage 2First Level Parking Garage 2Second Level Parking Garage 1First Level only, and shall not be deemed to be a warranty, he Center, Common Areas, buildings and/or at any tenants which may be referenced on this ter.Landlord reserves the right to modify size, ny time. STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER OVERALL PROPOSED PLAN PROJECT SITE AREA CONNECTION TO PALO ALTO TRANSIT CENTER EMPLOYEE PARKING DESIGNATED AREAS RIDESHARE PROPOSED LOCATIONS POTENTIAL VALET PARKING LOCATIONS STANFORD MAGUERITE SHUTTLE SERVICE SCVTA BUS ROUTE #35 BIKE LOCKER ANDRACK LOCATIONS PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION SUMMARY - Proposed 1- SPACES REQUIRED PER PALO ALTO 1/275 GFA (3.64) - 5,168 SPACES PROVIDED - 5,279 2- EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED IN DESIGNATED AREAS - +/- 1,500 3- PER SURVEY APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE VEHICLES PER DAY +/- 600 4- VALET SPACES PER POTENTIAL OPERATION -115 5- STANFORD UNIVERSITY MARGUERITE SHUTTLE ACCESS 6- SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS ACCESS- ROUTE #35 7- NUMBER OF BIKE SPACES ON SITE -271 8- PROPOPSED CENTRALIZED RIDESHARE PROGRAM 2.f Packet Pg. 41 Parking Summary Parking Spaces for 1,083,535sf of gla 4257 SPACE/1000 SF OF GLA:3.93 East of Arboretum Road Parking Spaces for 243,289sf of gla 1011 West of Arboretum Road 24 28 27 27 23 25 22 21 20 20 STOP RAMP DN 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 28 8 85 5 16 16 24 8 8 8 8 24 2215 6 6 17 17 16 35 17 38E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE VE V E V E VE V E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V 458 RAMP UPRAMP DN 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 24 28 8 8 8 8 8 8 2215 24 5 35 35 5 18 18 16 16 4 4 26 26 38E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE VE V E V E V E V E VE V 516 RAMP DN 28 28 FANROOM 56 1,341,693 24,116 STORE 39,173L 4,185CA 7,088 SPACES: OF GLA: 5446 4.06 D ps uction are Retail 43,581 29,171 Shop 79,468 la (14,869) as of 11/29/2018 pansion 1,326,824 (94,337) a )6,716 1,267,131 a S S Store GLA GLA 180,000 120,000 225,830 94,337 120,000 740,167 8,461 424,527 93,976 526,964 STOP PARCEL ONE 53.864 AC± PARCE L T H R E E 10.105 A C ± PARCE L T W O 5.739 A C ± PARCEL F O U R 0.459 A C ± RAMP UPRAMP DN Parking Garage 2 Ramp BelowGrade LevelFirst LevelSecond LevelTotal 564815164581511 Parking Garage 1 Grade LevelFirst LevelTotal 448402850 RAMPUPRAMP UP 10 15 15 3 2 7 1 5 2 17 18 11 11 10 9 10 6 5 6 13 14 1216 19 24 5 4 13 6 8 8 8 4 7 7 5 11 12 14 14 8 9 10 8 12 13 1817 21 4 36 910 4 4 8 9 22 10118 7 10 10 10 8 1 10 10 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 15 15 1617 18 18 19 17 2020 2122 2323 9 6 8 8 10 3 6 11 11 7 10 11 7 3 11 11 10 10 9 7 6 5 8 8 10 10 9 9 10 5 8 6 3 99 9 97 5 6 6 7 4 11 10 10 11 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 10 8 9 6 1010 106 9101112 8 18 21 2223 9 8 9 29334243 43 6 2 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 6 7 5 1 27 27 28 27 3336 3 5 21 13 8 6 26 35 29 6227 13 4 2 6 5 5 7 22 11 10 7 11 10 6 6 56 13 4 4 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 13 8 16 8 4 1414 8 26 26 2 1 8 8 4 10 35 35 29 29 8 9 10 10 10 10 6 7 10 9 13 15 11 10 6 6 101010 8101416202020 5 11 8 6 9 55 5 8 3 10 10 4 13 16 2 8 5 5 13 13 11 9 13 13 13 13 811 14 8 8 2 5 173 9 9 9 9 Clea n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e 24 3 FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV 34 E V E VE V E V E V E V E VE V E V E V E V E VE V E VE VE V E VE V E VE V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E VE V E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V E VE V E V E V E V E VE VE V E VE VE VE V E V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E VE VE VE V 7 16171818 1616 6 33 6 22 3 3 5 8 8 9 E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E V E VE VE V E VE V E V E VE V E V E V E VE VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V 28 28 E V E V E V E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V Bike Rack Bike Rack Bike Rack BikeRack 21 62 53 88 31 71 96 225 385 455 245 470 448 255 221 25 255 288 142 LL01 LEASE LL02 LEASE LL03LEASE LL04LEASE Proposed Two Levels29,171sf STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP ONLY STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOP 24 'Setback24'Setback V i n e y a r d L a n e A r b o r e t u m R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Shopping Center Way Pistache Place Pe a r L a n e Lo n d o n Pl a c e Wa y Sw e e t O l i v e W a y Pl u m L a n e Orchard L a n e STOR STOR RE C Y C L E CO M P A C T O R A R E A TR A S H CO M P A C T O R A R E A NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G BIK E SLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADING LOA D I N G LOADINGLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADING D O C K DOCKLOADINGDOCKLOADING D O C K LOADIN G DOCK TENANTTRUCKFACILITY LOADING Portico Way Pavilion 5The Plaza Azm o o r P l a c e Lady Ellen Place Cla r i o n C o u r t Azm o o r P l a c e Pal a n t i n e C o u r t Sand Hill Walk Quarry Walk Portico Way El C a m i n o W a l k Arbore t u m W a l k Elec t i o n e e r C o u r t Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Arb o r e t u m R o a d Orchard La n e Pavilion 5 Pavilion 2 Pavilion 3Pavilion 4 Ele c t i o n e e r Cou r t Street MarketPlaza Planter Planter Planter Planter PlanterPots Planter Pots Planter Pots RestBench RestBench RestBenchRestBench C J D L F N M H E V P K W D AA BB CC DD EE (Fld Typ) 60'(Fld Typ)60' 61' (Fld Ty p ) 60' (Fld Ty p ) 61 ' (F l d T y p ) 60' (Fld Ty p ) 36'24' 36'24' 40' 30' 44 ' 24' 25' 15' 36 ' 25 ' 25' 25 ' 32'30'24' 28' (Fld Typ) 60' PA C I F I C B E L L E A S E M E N T FIB E R O P T I C C A B L E CITY OF PALO ALTO UNDERGROUND UNILITY CITY OF P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y PUBLIC U T I L I T Y P A R C E L 2 PUBLIC U T I L I T Y PARCEL 3 CI T Y O F P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y IN G R E S S E G R E S S & U T I L I T Y 250' 300 '86.1'32 . 1 ' 37 ' 21'112 ' 43.5'17.6 ' 39.7'86.1'32. 1 ' 37 ' 21'86.1 ' 37' 32.1'32.1' 84' 10 3 . 4 ' 117 . 6 ' 80'21.8' 53 ' 88.2'88.8' 16 3 . 9 ' 125.9' 24' 37.8' 56.1 ' 60.1' 140 ' 133' Lease3 levels10.105 Acres± Ground Lease3 levels0.965 Acres± Lease3 levels1.758 Acres± Lease3 levels Proposed Level 1 - 18,672sfLevel 2 - 15,642sfLevel 3 -9,267sfTotal - 43,581sf ProposedRetail3,360sf± ProposedRetail3,356sf± BIO R E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIO R E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIO R E T E N T I O N BASI N BIORETENTIONBASIN BIOR E T E N T I O N BASIN BIORETBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN T T EV EV T TSW LOA D I N G LOADING X X XXX X XX X BikeStorageX X XXX X XX X 34.4 ' 34.9 ' 100.2'99.7'PatioArea756sf PatioArea731sf Stanford Shopping Center 660 Stanford Shopping CenterDevelopment Site Plan Parking Garage 2Ramp Below Parking Garage 2First Level Parking Garage 2 Second Level Parking Garage 1First Level only, and shall not be deemed to be a warranty, he Center, Common Areas, buildings and/or at any tenants which may be referenced on this ter.Landlord reserves the right to modify size, ny time. Employee Parking: Employees of Stanford Shopping Center and it's tenants will be required to park in areas highlighted in blue below: 1- Parking Garage 1- Second/ Roof Level 2- Parking Garage 2- Second and Third Levels * As Part of the Macy's Men's development owner will provide designations and signage to reinforce employee parking locations. Will monitor and enforce employee parking program. 1 2 STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER EMPLOYEE PARKING PROJECT SITE AREA CONNECTION TO PALO ALTO TRANSIT CENTER EMPLOYEE PARKING DESIGNATED AREAS RIDESHARE PROPOSED LOCATIONS POTENTIAL VALET PARKING LOCATIONS STANFORD MAGUERITE SHUTTLE SERVICE SCVTA BUS ROUTE #35 BIKE LOCKER ANDRACK LOCATIONS 2.f Packet Pg. 42 Parking Summary Parking Spaces for 1,083,535sf of gla 4257 SPACE/1000 SF OF GLA:3.93 East of Arboretum Road Parking Spaces for 243,289sf of gla 1011 West of Arboretum Road 24 28 27 27 23 25 22 21 20 20 STOP RAMP DN 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 28 8 85 5 16 16 24 8 8 8 8 24 2215 6 6 17 17 16 35 17 38E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE VE V E V E VE V E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V 458 RAMP UPRAMP DN 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 24 28 8 8 8 8 8 8 2215 24 5 35 35 5 18 18 16 16 4 4 26 26 38E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE VE V E V E V E V E VE V 516 RAMP DN 28 28 FANROOM 56 1,341,693 24,116 STORE 39,173L 4,185CA 7,088 SPACES: OF GLA: 5446 4.06 D ps uction are Retail 43,581 29,171 Shop 79,468 la (14,869) as of 11/29/2018 pansion 1,326,824 (94,337) a )6,716 1,267,131 a S S Store GLA GLA 180,000 120,000 225,830 94,337 120,000 740,167 8,461 424,527 93,976 526,964 STOP PARCEL ONE 53.864 AC± PARCE L T H R E E 10.105 A C ± PARCE L T W O 5.739 A C ± PARCEL F O U R 0.459 A C ± RAMP UPRAMP DN Parking Garage 2 Ramp BelowGrade LevelFirst LevelSecond LevelTotal 564815164581511 Parking Garage 1 Grade LevelFirst LevelTotal 448402850 RAMPUPRAMP UP 10 15 15 3 2 7 1 5 2 17 18 11 11 10 9 10 6 5 6 13 14 1216 19 24 5 4 13 6 8 8 8 4 7 7 5 11 12 14 14 8 9 10 8 12 13 1817 21 4 36 910 4 4 8 9 22 10118 7 10 10 10 8 1 10 10 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 15 15 1617 18 18 19 17 2020 2122 2323 9 6 8 8 10 3 6 11 11 7 10 11 7 3 11 11 10 10 9 7 6 5 8 8 10 10 9 9 10 5 8 6 3 99 9 97 5 6 6 7 4 11 10 10 11 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 10 8 9 6 1010 106 9101112 8 18 21 2223 9 8 9 29334243 43 6 2 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 6 7 5 1 27 27 28 27 3336 3 5 21 13 8 6 26 35 29 6227 13 4 2 6 5 5 7 22 11 10 7 11 10 6 6 56 13 4 4 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 13 8 16 8 4 1414 8 26 26 2 1 8 8 4 10 35 35 29 29 8 9 10 10 10 10 6 7 10 9 13 15 11 10 6 6 101010 8101416202020 5 11 8 6 9 55 5 8 3 10 10 4 13 16 2 8 5 5 13 13 11 9 13 13 13 13 811 14 8 8 2 5 173 9 9 9 9 Clea n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e 24 3 FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV 34 E V E VE V E V E V E V E VE V E V E V E V E VE V E VE VE V E VE V E VE V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E VE V E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V E VE V E V E V E V E VE VE V E VE VE VE V E V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E VE VE VE V 7 16171818 1616 6 33 6 22 3 3 5 8 8 9 E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E V E VE VE V E VE V E V E VE V E V E V E VE VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V 28 28 E V E V E V E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V Bike Rack Bike Rack Bike Rack BikeRack 21 62 53 88 31 71 96 225 385 455 245 470 448 255 221 25 255 288 142 LL01 LEASE LL02 LEASE LL03LEASE LL04LEASE Proposed Two Levels29,171sf STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP ONLY STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOP 24 'Setback24'Setback V i n e y a r d L a n e A r b o r e t u m R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Shopping Center Way Pistache Place Pe a r L a n e Lo n d o n Pl a c e Wa y Sw e e t O l i v e W a y Pl u m L a n e Orchard L a n e STOR STOR RE C Y C L E CO M P A C T O R A R E A TR A S H CO M P A C T O R A R E A NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G BIK E SLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADING LOA D I N G LOADINGLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADING D O C K DOCKLOADINGDOCKLOADING D O C K LOADIN G DOCK TENANTTRUCKFACILITY LOADING Portico Way Pavilion 5The Plaza Azm o o r P l a c e Lady Ellen Place Cla r i o n C o u r t Azm o o r P l a c e Pal a n t i n e C o u r t Sand Hill Walk Quarry Walk Portico Way El C a m i n o W a l k Arbore t u m W a l k Elec t i o n e e r C o u r t Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Arb o r e t u m R o a d Orchard La n e Pavilion 5 Pavilion 2 Pavilion 3Pavilion 4 Ele c t i o n e e r Cou r t Street MarketPlaza Planter Planter Planter Planter PlanterPots Planter Pots Planter Pots RestBench RestBench RestBenchRestBench C J D L F N M H E V P K W D AA BB CC DD EE (Fld Typ) 60'(Fld Typ)60' 61' (Fld Ty p ) 60' (Fld Ty p ) 61 ' (F l d T y p ) 60' (Fld Ty p ) 36'24' 36'24' 40' 30' 44 ' 24' 25' 15' 36 ' 25 ' 25' 25 ' 32'30'24' 28' (Fld Typ) 60' PA C I F I C B E L L E A S E M E N T FIB E R O P T I C C A B L E CITY OF PALO ALTO UNDERGROUND UNILITY CITY OF P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y PUBLIC U T I L I T Y P A R C E L 2 PUBLIC U T I L I T Y PARCEL 3 CI T Y O F P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y IN G R E S S E G R E S S & U T I L I T Y 250' 300 '86.1'32 . 1 ' 37 ' 21'112 ' 43.5'17.6 ' 39.7'86.1'32. 1 ' 37 ' 21'86.1 ' 37' 32.1'32.1' 84' 10 3 . 4 ' 117 . 6 ' 80'21.8' 53 ' 88.2'88.8' 16 3 . 9 ' 125.9' 24' 37.8' 56.1 ' 60.1' 140 ' 133' Lease3 levels10.105 Acres± Ground Lease3 levels0.965 Acres± Lease3 levels1.758 Acres± Lease3 levels Proposed Level 1 - 18,672sfLevel 2 - 15,642sfLevel 3 -9,267sfTotal - 43,581sf ProposedRetail3,360sf± ProposedRetail3,356sf± BIO R E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIO R E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIO R E T E N T I O N BASI N BIORETENTIONBASIN BIOR E T E N T I O N BASIN BIORETBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN T T EV EV T TSW LOA D I N G LOADING X X XXX X XX X BikeStorageX X XXX X XX X 34.4 ' 34.9 ' 100.2'99.7'PatioArea756sf PatioArea731sf Stanford Shopping Center 660 Stanford Shopping CenterDevelopment Site Plan Parking Garage 2Ramp Below Parking Garage 2First Level Parking Garage 2 Second Level Parking Garage 1First Level only, and shall not be deemed to be a warranty, he Center, Common Areas, buildings and/or at any tenants which may be referenced on this ter.Landlord reserves the right to modify size, ny time. Valet Parking and Rideshare Program * No program currently operates on site. As part of the Macy's Men's Redevelopment owner will analyze a valet program on site as illustrated below to determine value and customer utilization * Propose to organize ride-share programs to avoid vehicular congestion and further encourage their use. Program proposal would include centralized Geo Fenced areas, signage and amenities. STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER VALET AND RIDE-SHARE PROGRAMS PROJECT SITE AREA CONNECTION TO PALO ALTO TRANSIT CENTER EMPLOYEE PARKING DESIGNATED AREAS RIDESHARE PROPOSED LOCATIONS POTENTIAL VALET PARKING LOCATIONS STANFORD MAGUERITE SHUTTLE SERVICE SCVTA BUS ROUTE #35 BIKE LOCKER ANDRACK LOCATIONS 2.f Packet Pg. 43 Parking Summary Parking Spaces for 1,083,535sf of gla 4257 SPACE/1000 SF OF GLA:3.93 East of Arboretum Road Parking Spaces for 243,289sf of gla 1011 West of Arboretum Road 24 28 27 27 23 25 22 21 20 20 STOP RAMP DN 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 28 8 85 5 16 16 24 8 8 8 8 24 2215 6 6 17 17 16 35 17 38E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE VE V E V E VE V E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V 458 RAMP UPRAMP DN 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 24 28 8 8 8 8 8 8 2215 24 5 35 35 5 18 18 16 16 4 4 26 26 38E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE V E VE VE V E VE VE VE VE VE V E V E V E V E VE V 516 RAMP DN 28 28 FANROOM 56 1,341,693 24,116 STORE 39,173L 4,185CA 7,088 SPACES: OF GLA: 5446 4.06 D ps uction are Retail 43,581 29,171 Shop 79,468 la (14,869) as of 11/29/2018 pansion 1,326,824 (94,337) a )6,716 1,267,131 a S S Store GLA GLA 180,000 120,000 225,830 94,337 120,000 740,167 8,461 424,527 93,976 526,964 STOP PARCEL ONE 53.864 AC± PARCE L T H R E E 10.105 A C ± PARCE L T W O 5.739 A C ± PARCEL F O U R 0.459 A C ± RAMP UPRAMP DN Parking Garage 2 Ramp BelowGrade LevelFirst LevelSecond LevelTotal 564815164581511 Parking Garage 1 Grade LevelFirst LevelTotal 448402850 RAMPUPRAMP UP 10 15 15 3 2 7 1 5 2 17 18 11 11 10 9 10 6 5 6 13 14 1216 19 24 5 4 13 6 8 8 8 4 7 7 5 11 12 14 14 8 9 10 8 12 13 1817 21 4 36 910 4 4 8 9 22 10118 7 10 10 10 8 1 10 10 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 15 15 1617 18 18 19 17 2020 2122 2323 9 6 8 8 10 3 6 11 11 7 10 11 7 3 11 11 10 10 9 7 6 5 8 8 10 10 9 9 10 5 8 6 3 99 9 97 5 6 6 7 4 11 10 10 11 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 10 8 9 6 1010 106 9101112 8 18 21 2223 9 8 9 29334243 43 6 2 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 6 7 5 1 27 27 28 27 3336 3 5 21 13 8 6 26 35 29 6227 13 4 2 6 5 5 7 22 11 10 7 11 10 6 6 56 13 4 4 8 16 8 16 8 16 8 13 8 16 8 4 1414 8 26 26 2 1 8 8 4 10 35 35 29 29 8 9 10 10 10 10 6 7 10 9 13 15 11 10 6 6 101010 8101416202020 5 11 8 6 9 55 5 8 3 10 10 4 13 16 2 8 5 5 13 13 11 9 13 13 13 13 811 14 8 8 2 5 173 9 9 9 9 Clea n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e Cle a n A i r V e h i c l e 24 3 FEV FEV FEV FEV FEV 34 E V E VE V E V E V E V E VE V E V E V E V E VE V E VE VE V E VE V E VE V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E VE V E VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V E VE V E V E V E V E VE VE V E VE VE VE V E V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E VE VE VE V 7 16171818 1616 6 33 6 22 3 3 5 8 8 9 E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E VE V E V E V E VE VE V E VE V E V E VE V E V E V E VE VE V E VE VE V E VE VE V 28 28 E V E V E V E VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE VE V Bike Rack Bike Rack Bike Rack BikeRack 21 62 53 88 31 71 96 225 385 455 245 470 448 255 221 25 255 288 142 LL01 LEASE LL02 LEASE LL03LEASE LL04LEASE Proposed Two Levels29,171sf STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP ONLY STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOP 24 'Setback24'Setback V i n e y a r d L a n e A r b o r e t u m R o a d Sand H i l l R o a d Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Shopping Center Way Pistache Place Pe a r L a n e Lo n d o n Pl a c e Wa y Sw e e t O l i v e W a y Pl u m L a n e Orchard L a n e STOR STOR RE C Y C L E CO M P A C T O R A R E A TR A S H CO M P A C T O R A R E A NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G NO P A R K I N G BIK E SLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADING LOA D I N G LOADINGLOADINGLOADINGLOADING LOADING D O C K DOCKLOADINGDOCKLOADING D O C K LOADIN G DOCK TENANTTRUCKFACILITY LOADING Portico Way Pavilion 5The Plaza Azm o o r P l a c e Lady Ellen Place Cla r i o n C o u r t Azm o o r P l a c e Pal a n t i n e C o u r t Sand Hill Walk Quarry Walk Portico Way El C a m i n o W a l k Arbore t u m W a l k Elec t i o n e e r C o u r t Quarry Road El C a m i n o R e a l Arb o r e t u m R o a d Orchard La n e Pavilion 5 Pavilion 2 Pavilion 3Pavilion 4 Ele c t i o n e e r Cou r t Street MarketPlaza Planter Planter Planter Planter PlanterPots Planter Pots Planter Pots RestBench RestBench RestBenchRestBench C J D L F N M H E V P K W D AA BB CC DD EE (Fld Typ) 60'(Fld Typ)60' 61' (Fld Ty p ) 60' (Fld Ty p ) 61 ' (F l d T y p ) 60' (Fld Ty p ) 36'24' 36'24' 40' 30' 44 ' 24' 25' 15' 36 ' 25 ' 25' 25 ' 32'30'24' 28' (Fld Typ) 60' PA C I F I C B E L L E A S E M E N T FIB E R O P T I C C A B L E CITY OF PALO ALTO UNDERGROUND UNILITY CITY OF P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y PUBLIC U T I L I T Y P A R C E L 2 PUBLIC U T I L I T Y PARCEL 3 CI T Y O F P A L O A L T O P U B L I C U T I L I T Y IN G R E S S E G R E S S & U T I L I T Y 250' 300 '86.1'32 . 1 ' 37 ' 21'112 ' 43.5'17.6 ' 39.7'86.1'32. 1 ' 37 ' 21'86.1 ' 37' 32.1'32.1' 84' 10 3 . 4 ' 117 . 6 ' 80'21.8' 53 ' 88.2'88.8' 16 3 . 9 ' 125.9' 24' 37.8' 56.1 ' 60.1' 140 ' 133' Lease3 levels10.105 Acres± Ground Lease3 levels0.965 Acres± Lease3 levels1.758 Acres± Lease3 levels Proposed Level 1 - 18,672sfLevel 2 - 15,642sfLevel 3 -9,267sfTotal - 43,581sf ProposedRetail3,360sf± ProposedRetail3,356sf± BIO R E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIO R E T E N T I O N BAS I N BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIO R E T E N T I O N BASI N BIORETENTIONBASIN BIOR E T E N T I O N BASIN BIORETBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN BIORETENTIONBASIN T T EV EV T TSW LOA D I N G LOADING X X XXX X XX X BikeStorageX X XXX X XX X 34.4 ' 34.9 ' 100.2'99.7'PatioArea756sf PatioArea731sf Stanford Shopping Center 660 Stanford Shopping CenterDevelopment Site Plan Parking Garage 2Ramp Below Parking Garage 2First Level Parking Garage 2 Second Level Parking Garage 1First Level only, and shall not be deemed to be a warranty, he Center, Common Areas, buildings and/or at any tenants which may be referenced on this ter.Landlord reserves the right to modify size, ny time. STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND BIKE PARKING Public Transportation 1- CONNECTION TO PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION CENTER (CALTRAIN) 2- STANFORD UNIVERSITY MARGUERITE SHUTTLE ACCESS 3- SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BUS ACCESS- ROUTE #35 3- NUMBER OF BIKE SPACES ON SITE -150 PROJECT SITE AREA CONNECTION TO PALO ALTO TRANSIT CENTER EMPLOYEE PARKING DESIGNATED AREAS RIDESHARE PROPOSED LOCATIONS POTENTIAL VALET PARKING LOCATIONS STANFORD MAGUERITE SHUTTLE SERVICE SCVTA BUS ROUTE #35 BIKE LOCKER ANDRACK LOCATIONS 2.f Packet Pg. 44 NOTES LEGEND EL CAMINO REAL SIDEWALK EXHIBIT EX-01 N O R T H STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER PREPARED FOR SPG CENTER, LLC CITY OF PALO ALTO CALIFORNIA 2.g Packet Pg. 45 ATTACHMENT H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “180 El Camino Real – Macy’s Men’s” 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/180ECRMM 2.h Packet Pg. 46 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10680) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project - Paralleling Station Perimeter Landscaping Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Paralleling Station Design and Perimeter Landscaping for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Includes Removal of Existing Trees in JPB Right of Way Adjacent to Park Plaza and Planting of Shrubs and Vines Adjacent to the Station that Includes a Proposed 42’ Tall Gantry Structure. Separate from the Landscaping Adjacent to the Station Enclosure, the JPB will Evaluate the Feasibility of Planting Trees Along Alma Street as Part of the PCEP Palo Alto Tree Mitigation Plan to Provide Screening of a Gantry. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provide comments on the paralleling station design and perimeter landscaping to the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB). This item is not subject to discretionary review by the City of Palo Alto. Report Summary This report will support the Architectural Review Board’s efforts to provide input on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Paralleling Station (PS5) design and perimeter 3 Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 landscaping. The installation site is within the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way in Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto has an existing, joint agreement with the JPB, approved by City Council on December 17, 2019. The agreement enables the City to provide input, including ARB input, within 45 days of receiving the PS5 drawings. The JPB submitted the PS5 plan set and project narrative (Attachment A) on August 30, 2019. The PS5 site is located 1000 feet south of the California Avenue station, adjacent to existing Caltrain equipment sheds and the Park Plaza building located at 195 Page Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard. The building features a blank wall on the track-facing facade. The paralleling station installation will be primarily visible by train passengers, and secondarily, by pedestrians across Alma Street. The PS5 structures include a 42’ tall structure (labelled “gantry”), an enclosed, rectangular KV station that would be 13’4” above grade, and a large transformer. Also proposed are exterior lighting (including wall-packs), four automobile parking spaces on a crushed stone surface, and landscaping. The drawings (Attachment B) propose the removal of existing trees in the JPB right of way installed in conjunction with the Park Plaza mixed use building (note on plan sheet C3102). The proposal is to plant shrubs and vines adjacent to a new eight-foot tall, galvanized chain-link fence around the area. The JPB is evaluating the feasibility of planting screen trees along Alma Street as part of the PCEP Palo Alto tree mitigation plan. Background The Council’s December 17, 2018 report provides a summary of the Council Rail Committee recommendations and the joint agreement. The report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68157. The Council Rail Committee considered the draft Agreement on September 26, 2018: (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60164.71&BlobID=66798) On January 10, 2019, the ARB and Historic Resources Board (HRB) jointly provided comments on the Electrification Project (PCEP). The January 10, 2019 report to the ARB/HRB is viewable at this link: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68341. A video recording of the public meeting is available online: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74- 1102019/. Meeting minutes are viewable here: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69418. The HRB and ARB viewed paint samples showing color options for Palo Alto’s two train depots and stadium stop (near Town and Country Shopping Center). The joint board chose a ‘juniper green’ color. The project team presented additional information about the pole types and confirmed the location of each type. During the January 10 meeting, board members noted that PS5 will be visible from the train. Board members asked the JPB about the extent to which planting trees around the station is possible. The board member requested to understand to what extent vegetation would need to be offset for safety reasons, resulting in greater visibility. The board members noted that, in between the paralleling station and 195 Page Mill Road, there is a row of newly planted trees. 3 Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 The board assumed these trees would remain. During the conversation, JPB staff noted vegetation around the paralleling station would include trees and vines. The board asked about landscaping along Alma Street and whether there could be planting on the edge of Alma. Discussion Existing Vegetation at Park Plaza and Proposed Plantings The drawings show the area for the paralleling station abuts the JPB’s westerly property line and the eastern wall of the Park Plaza building. The project includes removal of existing vegetation behind Park Plaza in the proposed PS5 area. Park Plaza adjacent trees outside the PS5 area can remain. The below image is clipped from Park Plaza ‘as-built’ drawings, showing the landscaping behind Park Plaza. The plantings for removal include four Coast Redwoods, 14 Canary Island Pines, 27 Saratoga Laurel shrubs, and four Angel Wing Jasmine vines trained on the building. The JPB does not plan to transplant the removed trees and shrubs elsewhere. Proposed Planting The below clip of the planting plan (following page) reflects the planting of vines (Chaparral Clematis) and shrubs (California Sagebrush and Fuchsia). This vegetation would be along a security fence between the paralleling station site and the rails. No trees are proposed. The JPB staff will finalize the tree plan, and separately explore the feasibility of planting trees along Alma. 3 Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Project Narrative The narrative notes the project has Green and Sustainability Program requirements. Regarding landscaping, the narrative states that the plantings and irrigation will: (1) have low water use, (2) be low in maintenance requirements, (3) enhance safety by not blocking views, and (4) enhance the visual appeal of the Caltrain system. The narrative also notes that plants will be: • selected for drought tolerance, minimal maintenance and for beauty; • native to California as much as practicable and will all be adapted to California; • selected and placed to minimize the need for trimming; and • selected to allow visual policing of the facility. Lighting The plans indicate a proposal for security lighting. An image from the plans show 11 lights would be directed toward the installation: seven “hazardous predator” LED lights, placed around the perimeter, and four “full cutoff” LED wall-pack lights placed on the rectangular 25 KV enclosure (approximately 16’x32’x5’ tall). Staff has asked for clarification about lighting use. 3 Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Gantry Structure The largest structure on the site is the gantry structure. This structure is proposed to be 42’6” tall and 30 feet wide (with a potential future width extension of 15 feet) as shown in the below image of the elevation and section from the plans. Screening of this structure from train riders appears to be virtually impossible. Existing vegetation on the Alma side is unlikely to screen views of the gantry from Alma Street pedestrians and from residents east of Alma. Additional trees would help supplement the existing vegetation to interrupt views of the gantry structure. Environmental Review The Environmental Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the PCEP Environmental Impact Report requires compliance with mitigation measures. One measure requires vegetative screening for the four Traction Paralleling Stations as a part of the electrification project. Therefore, planting of additional vegetation for screening would enable the project to meet the mitigation measures. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments As this is not an entitlement application review, there is no required noticing of the item. However, the Daily Post published a notice of the public hearing for this project on September 20, 2019, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. 3 Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Public Comments As of the writing of this report, the City of Palo Alto received no project-related, public comments on the paralleling station design. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Narrative Caltrain JPB (PDF) • Attachment B: Drawings Viewable Location (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 52 Caltrain Electrification Traction Power Facilities Palo Alto PS‐5 landscape narrative. 1) Assumptions/configuration assumptions Caltrain is committed to providing safe and convenient transit connections for residents and visitors to the Bay Area. While maintaining safe train operations is the first priority of Caltrain, it is also recognized that Caltrain is a part of and a reflection of the Bay Area communities. The Electrification update to the Caltrain system to provide more efficient and effective transit is also intended to create and maintain environmentally responsible facilities. The Environmental Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) requires vegetative screening for the four Traction Paralleling Stations that will be constructed as a part of the electrification project. Following the general Green and Sustainability Program requirements of the project, the plantings and irrigation are designed to be:  Low water use  Low in maintenance requirements  Enhance safety by not blocking views  Enhance the visual appeal of the Caltrain system The plantings will be selected for drought tolerance, minimal maintenance requirements and for beauty. The plants will be native to California as much as practicable and will all be adapted to the California climate. Plants will be selected and placed to minimize the need for trimming, and will also be selected to allow visual policing of the facility. The plant installation methods will assist in creating a healthy soil through the use of organic compost and no reliance on chemical fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides. Irrigation systems will conform to the State of California and local water efficient landscape ordinances. The landscape will be maintained in conformance with the requirements of the MMRP and the project specifications. 2) Design Criteria Per the MMRP aesthetics requirements, the traction paralleling stations (TPS or PS) shall: Use vegetative screening to visually buffer views of TPFs. Vegetative screening may be achieved in a variety of ways, depending on availability of space. Where feasible and necessary, the paralleling station standard design of 40’ X 80’ shall be modified to allow for more space for vegetative screening (such as 30’ X 105’ for example). Acceptable methods of vegetative screening that may be used include: 1. Tree planting 2. Fencing with creeping vines. 3. Landscape buffer planting. 4. Vegetative wall/fence. 3.a Packet Pg. 53 Through discussions during the design and construction process it has been agreed to not include trees around TPS facilities and instead include additional trees for screening in select areas as part of the tree mitigation work included in the project. Trees can compromise the safety and reliability of TPS facilities. 3) Functional Requirements Landscape shall not interfere with operations or compromise safety. General biological impact avoidance measures for the entire project shall also apply to the required TPS vegetative screening installation and maintenance. 4) Applicable codes, standards, and regulations There are four traction power stations that will receive landscape treatment as a part of the electrification project. Communities where the traction power stations are located have local requirements for landscape that will be adhered to with this project. Plantings: Comply with MWELO: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52232 Irrigation: Dedicated irrigation meter required for landscapes larger than 1,000 sf. Comply with MWELO above. Site notes: Site is located 1000 feet south of the California Avenue station adjacent to existing Caltrain equipment sheds and a new mixed use development. The mixed use development features a blank wall on the track side and the views of the paralleling station will be primarily seen by passengers on Caltrain. 5) Environmental requirements General biological impact avoidance measures for the entire project shall also apply to the required TPS vegetative screening installation and maintenance. Use of chemical herbicides and fertilizers will be avoided. 6) PS‐5 Design Narrative Screen plantings will consist of low water use small shrubs and climbing vines native to California that are compliant with the Palo Alto model water efficient landscape ordinance. Plantings are placed to screen all exposed faces of the PS‐5 enclosure that are not adjacent to existing buildings. As no water is available on site, the plantings will be hand watered for plant establishment per contract requirements. As part of a separate agreement that is not in the contract, the JPB will include trees along Alma Street as part of the Palo Alto tree plan to screen an adjacent strain gantry. 3.a Packet Pg. 54 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10685) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 10/3/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of August 15, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 15, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the August 15, 2019 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting will be made available at the ARB hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am. Attachments: • Attachment A: August 15, 2019 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew and David Hirsch. Absent: None Chair Baltay: Good morning. Welcome to the August 15 meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Could we have a roll call, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Baltay: Next item on the agenda is oral communications, if any member of the public wishes to speak to any item not on our agenda. Seeing no one. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Next item is agenda changes, additions or deletions. Staff, do we have anything to say? Nothing? Okay. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Baltay: City official reports. Can we go over coming up projects to review, please? Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Yes. For the next hearing being September 5th, right now, we just have one project. That will be at the shopping center, and it will be the Market area near Sigona. It’s the Market area itself; it’s also a few facades around there. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Do we have any upcoming subcommittee items? Ms. Gerhardt: Not that I’m aware of. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Action Items 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 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: August 15, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 2 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. Chair Baltay: Then we’re going to move on to our first action item. That’s item number 2. It’s a public hearing for 788 San Antonio Avenue. 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. The project also requires a zoning amendment to apply the housing incentive program at this location. Before we get started, I’d like to ask if anyone has any disclosures to make, starting with Alex. Board Member Lew: Yes, I visited the site on Tuesday, and I’ve done additional research on four items. One is, I looked into the zoning for the property next door in Mountain View, which is MM General Industrial with zero setbacks required. Also researched the new trees on San Antonio Road that were installed by the City in 2012. I looked into the vacant building next door on Leghorn, which seems to be vacant since about 2014. And then, the last item is I did look at a project called the Parker and Berkeley [phonetic], which has, like a lounge looking bicycle room, similar to what the applicant is proposing today. I was looking to see how well it was actually functioning. Chair Baltay: Perhaps during your comments you can bring us more information about that. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the site. Chair Baltay: David? Board Member Hirsch: I visited the site. Walked the neighborhood. Yes, visited the site. Chair Baltay: I, too, visited the site. Nothing else. Thank you. Okay, staff, do we have a report? Sheldon Ah Sing, Consultant Planner: Yes, we do. Good morning. I’m Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Planner. The applicant is also here with their presentation, as well. I’ll give an overview about the project and why we’re here. A little bit of context as well because there is a zoning amendment that is going on at the same time. This is a formal review of a development for a four-story mixed-use building with about 1,800 square feet of commercial space at the corner, the building at Leghorn and San Antonio. They are proposing 102 dwelling units on a one-acre site. The request does include, in addition to the major architectural review, which is under the purview of the Board, there is a zoning amendment. I’ll go through that in more detail. There’s also a parking reduction request and a partial waiver of retail space. The City does have retail preservation, a certain amount of retail and retail-like space that needs to go back onto the site after it’s demolished. The project is proposing something that is less than that. Since this project is really at the beginning, we need a lot of other components to come together. It also includes an environmental impact report. We’re seeking no recommendation at this time, just to get some feedback on some items. We’ll get into that. A little bit of background. The existing zoning and comp plan designation for the site is Service Commercial, and that’s consistent with the majority of properties along this corridor. As mentioned, this site is just under an acre. The uses on the site would be some, prior uses would be retail, wholesale, auto services. There’s a martial arts studio there now, as well as a contractor’s office. Existing buildings are about 18,000 square feet, and they were built in the 50’s and 60’s. Just a little bit of context here. This project is at the intersection of San Antonio and Leghorn. It’s right on the border between Palo Alto and 4.a Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mountain View. The rear of the property serves as that border. And as mentioned by Board Member Lew, yes, the adjacent properties in Mountain View are industrial. You do have some single-story, some two- story buildings in the area. You have the Greenhouse Community residential multi-family neighborhood that’s across the street from the project. And then, at Charleston and San Antonio, there is the kind of larger senior community building there, a complex. And then, also along San Antonio, you have the hotels that are under construction right now that this Board has just seen a couple years ago. It is an area that is in transition. Looking at the zoning map here, again, this is the zoning area. It’s mostly CS. You do have some, the residential neighborhood is a PC designation. I put two X’s on the map. One is the project location, as well as the hotel site that’s under construction now, just for a little bit of context of larger buildings in the area. The hotel building has a 2.0 FAR [Floor Area Ratio] also. An overview about the project. Presently, it’s 102 units, a residential mixed-use project for ownership units. The applicant can go into whether that’s going to be the case in the future, of ownership. It might be rental. There’s a lot of studio, one-bedroom types of units. There’s really a handful of two-bedroom and three-bedroom types of units, so it might lend itself more likely to be a rental project. The project does include an underground garage containing the parking. There’s 93 spaces that are provided; 110 are required for the site. Forty- two of those are with mechanical lifts, and the others are on the surface without any lifts. As mentioned, it’s about 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial space at the corner. As presently proposed, the project doesn’t meet the zoning. They have to go through a zoning amendment process, and the idea is to extend the housing incentive program to this area. That is something that was recently implemented as part of the zoning amendments to El Camino Real and the Downtown area. The project site is actually identified in the housing element as a housing opportunity site. There is a comprehensive plan policy to eliminate these housing opportunity sites along San Antonio and focus and concentrate on sites within the Downtown El Camino Real. This would be a little bit different, but we do have a willing applicant to come forward with housing that has a really good amount of density to help out with the City’s issue with residential. The idea would be with this zoning amendment to include this housing incentive program, not only for the site, but on the corridor for CS properties between Charleston and Middlefield. It would allow higher FAR for projects. Right now, the FAR is up to 1.5, but it we’re looking at up to 2.0 for this project. As part of this housing incentive, it does eliminate the maximum density and creates a waiver for lot coverage. It also would allow for any types of rooftop gardens. None is proposed in this project, I believe. There’s a little bit of covered rooftop garden. It also excludes 1,500 square feet of retail/retail-like floor area from parking requirements, so it helps out a little bit with the parking there. And as I mentioned, the highlighted green area there on the map would be the areas we would be considering including in this housing incentive program. Comparison of what’s existing now and how it’s proposed. This matrix here, you see some of the things that we’d have to change with the zoning. The maximum combined FAR, maximum is 1.5; this project is looking at about 2.0, so we’d be looking at something a little more intense. We did run this by the Council in the pre-screening process last May and they seemed receptive to the project going forward, with the request. Maximum density under CS zoning district is 30 units per acre; this project is just over 102. The retail preservation, there’s a partial replacement. There is already an existing exemption and waiver in the code. This would seek a modification of that. And then, looking at the parking, the project would require an exemption because there is a reduction in the amount of parking spaces. This is actually the elevation of the under-construction hotel project, just to give a little bit of context there on what this Board did there. There is a special setback along San Antonio, the same special setback that’s in front of the subject property. For this project, the Board did want to see a step-back at the upper levels, and some terraces there with some landscaping. That was important for the Board. This is the proposed San Antonio elevation for the project. I will let the applicant kind of describe, sort of their design intent of what they’re trying to do here, but I just wanted to provide this image for you early on. You do have that covered roof deck with palm trees up there. This is more of the Leghorn Street elevation. You can see the entrance to the parking garage, as well as the retail space there at the corner, to the left. This is the rear elevation, looking from the Mountain View properties. A lot up there is with the brick and stucco façade. Again, that corner elevation looking more at the retail plaza area and how that works with the pedestrian streetscape. I think we’re going to ask the applicant to provide a better interior courtyard elevation, just so we get an idea of what and how that open space works. I think we can do a better job there, but that’s what was in the planning packet. We have the covered roof deck image there, and that shows what that experience would look like from that level. Just to touch upon some of the affordability requirements. As presently proposed, if the project goes forward with ownership, then 15 percent of the 4.a Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Page 4 amount that they’re proposing is 16 affordable units. If they decide to change the project to rental, then they would be subject to a payment of a fee. With respect to the California Environmental Quality Act, the building at 788 San Antonio is eligible for listing on the California Registry that deems it to be historic. Therefore, demolition of the structure constitutes a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA. That requires an Environmental Impact Report. That effort is ongoing right now, and we’re trying to do some traffic counts. We’re going to the Planning Commission with a scoping meeting. It’s a Notice of Preparation. Thank you. There’re so many acronyms these days. Those preparations do start that process. In conclusion, we do have a series of questions because we’re not expecting to have a recommendation of approval today. We’re pretty early on now. But just some observations that we made. There’s a large expanse of curtain walls, glass and glazing on the project. Does the project provide sufficient visual articulation along the street elevations? Is the retail space designed in a manner that will be successful? Are the open space areas designed to maximize their potential use? Are the floor to ceiling heights appropriate? Are the windows sufficiently set back to provide relief? Is there sufficient connection with the streets? And there may be some other issues that the Board recognized in their evaluation of the materials. In the next steps, we’re at Step 1 here, with the ARB meeting, number 1. We are going to the Planning Commission on September 11th. That will also serve as the environmental scoping meeting. We’ll discuss the zoning amendment concepts with them there. They’re not going to have purview over design of the building but will at least explain to them what happened here at this meeting. And then, we’re anticipating a couple more ARB meetings. That’s the maximum anyway that we could have. There will be a second Planning Commission meeting, and then, the public draft of the Environmental Impact Report will be circulated for comment. Finally, this will all culminate in everybody making recommendation to the City Council. With that, we’re asking the Board to consider the proposed project and provide feedback on the project design to the staff and the applicant, and continue the item to a date uncertain. That completes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Sheldon, if you could, I think all of us might have some questions, but I believe this went to a preliminary hearing before the City Council. Could you summarize how that went, please? Mr. Sing: Yes. We did go to the Council. We had a smaller project. We had a project that had 64 dwelling units. We proposed the idea of a larger project, more dwelling units, bringing the housing incentive program to that site. Some of the waiver of the retail space. There is sort of a dichotomy between retail and housing, as you would expect, but in the end, there was support to move the concept forward through the process including the housing incentive program there, having a project come back with a larger FAR, having more housing, but do include the retail. Chair Baltay: I want to be clear that it’s your opinion that City Council is in support of this type of large difference in zoning. It’s a much bigger building than would normally be allowed. I’m not saying to you to tell me what they would say, but we’re being asked to judge this based on a hypothetical zoning standard. I’d like to think that that’s reasonably supported by the rest of the City. Mr. Sing: That’s right. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I do. Chair Baltay: Go ahead, David. Board Member Hirsch: Sheldon, why are we seeing this prior to the PTC? There seems to be a million different things that are questionable concerning the zoning. Wouldn’t the City normally have gone to the PTC first, and then come to us? Why is this on our agenda? Mr. Sing: We’ve been to the City Council on a couple of occasions for the prescreening. They seem to be, as I mentioned, supportive of the concept, as well as there’s not an order in the zoning code that would 4.a Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Page 5 say you have to go to the Planning Commission first. We’re just thinking in terms of this is an opportunity for the Board to provide some feedback on this design of the project. Board Member Hirsch: We’re not looking at the zoning issues then here in particular? We’re just looking at the architectural issues. Is that the point? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. The zoning is not in the purview of the ARB. And that’s why we’re asking you to… We believe the Council to be supportive of this concept, so we’re asking you to look at it from that perspective. Board Member Hirsch: I have to say it seems to me that the process is upside down. Chair Baltay: These are questions, David. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. A question. I’m just making a statement regarding that. Because I think it would be nice to have a more generalized, if you will, zoning first. Chair Baltay: Any other questions from my colleagues? Okay. Do we have a presentation from our applicant? You will have 10 minutes to speak. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Ted O’Hanlon, Project Manager: Good morning, Board. My name is Ted O’Hanlon [spells name]. I’m a project manager. I work closely with the owners. I’m going to do a very brief introduction, then let our architect speak to the things you guys are most considerate of. We acquired this property about 14 months ago. When we first saw it, it’s availability, we remarked its location on a principal arterial, being San Antonio Road. We thought that was particularly interesting. We liked its proximity to Highway 101, but we also liked the fact that even though it is one mile, it still is a direct shot to the San Antonio Caltrain station. WE started to imagine it as a very interesting opportunity to build more residential units than perhaps a CS zoning might allow. We had a City Council prescreening in October of last year as well, where we had proposed 48 units with a zone change to RM-40. This preceded the housing incentive program, which was formalized in January. As we were continuing to work on our 48-home design, we started to look more closely at the housing incentive program, which would have us not do a zone change, but utilize that City Council-approved method to incentivize more housing units. As we’ve gone along, one thing that we’ve done that has made a larger unit count is to reduce the impact of two-bedroom units. In October, we had 27 in a 48-unit plan. In May, we had 18 two-bedroom units. Now, we have seven two-bedroom units. We also incorporated 32 studio units. That’s what’s caused a lot of the unit inflation as we’ve gone along, but we also think it’s better for the ultimate users of this type of property for where they might want to be and where they want to get to. And a type of housing stock that we don’t really see too much of coming online in the Palo Alto area. Another thing I just wanted to point out as a part of this is, our initial application included a transportation demand management write-up. This will be incorporated into the environmental review. One of the primary recommendations that they have with this is to unbundle parking spaces from units, meaning if you rent or own a unit, you do not automatically get a parking space. You would have to pay a premium for that. What these TDM studies have determined is that creates less of a demand for parking when you have to pay on top of your housing for it. What that does is it allows us to still operate an efficient building and still sufficiently meet the demand of the users because there’s alternative transportation measures provided to them, whether that’s bicycle, bus, rail, or other means, like carpools. Eugene is the leader of Studio S Squared. We have his whole team here. I’m going to hand you off to him, and I thank you guys very much for your consideration, going out to the site and thinking about this project. Chair Baltay: To the architect, if you could, again, state and spell your name, please. Eugene Sakai, Studio S Squared Architecture: Sure thing. I’m Eugene Sakai [spells name], Studio S Squared Architecture. Is there a timer here? I want to respect the time limit. Chair Baltay: You have a green light in front of you. You have six minutes and 18 seconds left. It will turn yellow when you have one minute remaining. 4.a Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Sakai: Perfect, thank you. Thank you to Ted, and thank you also, ARB members, for your service to Palo Alto and to this project. We look forward to working with you in the weeks and months to come. Questions of whether this site is appropriate for housing, the density, the parking ratios and FAR, of set housing, are really above my pay grade, and better left to elected officials, professional planners, and the collective wisdom of folks like yourselves. As a residential architect, however, I do see the incredible potential that this site has for pointing the way to a very different vision of San Antonio Road than what we see now. Driving up and down San Antonio Road now, between Middlefield and 101 is not a very pleasant visual experience, as I’m sure you well know. Especially… Female??: [off-microphone, inaudible] Chair Baltay: Ma’am, if we could please let him finish. You will have your chance to speak. Please. Mr. Sakai: Especially on our side of the street, it’s mostly an unrelenting procession of parking lots, gas stations, and similar auto-oriented uses. Almost all buildings, even newer ones such as the JCC campus, feature unwelcoming blank or nearly blank walls facing San Antonio, making the streetscape even more inhospitable. The interesting thing about this stretch of San Antonio, especially on our side of the street, is the number of relatively large quarter to one-half acre lots with low utilization rates. And therein lies the potential. With carefully curated land uses and street facing design such as ours and the Marriott Hotel a few doors down now under construction, it’s not hard to envision how this stretch of six to seven traffic lanes connecting the thriving employment centers along 101 to the Caltrain station at San Antonio and Alma Street could transform parcel by parcel over time into an environment much more attractive than what we see today. Our project sits nicely amongst a rich established network of bike lanes that connects our site to major employment centers, retail and community amenities, all within easy biking distance. We believe that over time, dependence on the automobile will wane as bike and e-transport is promoted by forward looking projects like ours, and the promise of self-driving vehicles gradually becomes a reality. For all these reasons, we designed a building that facilitates the bike and other alternative modes of transportation, limiting the footprint and visual impact of the car, with a rich materials palette that proudly fronts on and engages with San Antonio Road. With transparency deep into the landscaped courtyard heart of the building through a double height lobby, and 170 feet of continuous ground floor glazing facing San Antonio to help enliven the street scape. Instead of consigning the bicycle parking into an underground storage room, we’ve chosen to elevate it above grade and celebrate it, placing bike storage right off the main lobby and adjacent to a communal bike repair room and the community mail room. Visible through that expansive glazing and clear to all passers-by that this is a bike-friendly building. Our landscape design reinforces the centrality of our entry with a grand double stair for pedestrians and a pair of gradual ramps for bikes, taking visitors and residents from sidewalk level up to the residential lobby in an elegant and welcoming way. Our corner retail space continues the glazing motif with an at-grade entry and a distinctive overhang that provides both a signage opportunity and creates an interesting shadow line at the gracious corner plaza designed by our landscape architect. Auto access is relegated to Leghorn Avenue, as far away from the intersection as site geometry will allow. This frontage also offers a generous duck-out for carshare pickup and package delivery. Along San Antonio, we’ve broken down the mass of our building by stepping down from four stories at the corners to three stories in the middle, leaving room under the height limit for parapets, which will screen the rooftop solar panels and the mechanical equipment. Special two-bedroom corner units will provide secondary focal points with our curtain wall design, and further promote the idea of transparency. In typical housing projects, community open spaces are often inwardly focused spaces hidden deep within the building. In contrast, our public gathering space for the residents will be a grand rooftop terrace, looking out over San Antonio Road. Having learned our lessons from rooftop gardens we’ve done in San Jose – and lived in, in San Jose – we are here proposing a visually striking and highly functional shade structure, with a gentle curve and five apertures to let palm trees grow up and sunlight filter down. The arced canopy here recalls the shape of the entry walkways, and besides offering daytime shade, also provides opportunities for evening gatherings, with downlighting, speaker arrays featuring soft music, and strategically placed heat lamps. We’ve even created an opportunity for a connection with one of the past historic uses of the site with chrysanthemums and steel planters fronting the storefront glass along San Antonio. Thank you very much for your attention. We look forward to hearing your input on how we can improve our project for the site. 4.a Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Very impressive timing. You had one second left. With that, we have two speaker cards. If anyone else, any member of the public would like to speak, please give us a card. If not, we have a Joan Larrabee, followed by Warren Storkman. You will each have three minutes to speak, and if you could state and spell you name for the record, we would appreciate it, please. Welcome. Joan Larrabee: Good morning. I’m Joan Larrabee, I live at 777 San Antonio Road, which is the Palo Alto Greenhouse, which is very beautiful and attractive, with lots of green trees and grass and a swimming pool. Chair Baltay: Could I please interrupt you to spell your last name? Ms. Larrabee: [spells name]. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Please continue. Ms. Larrabee: Well, this has twice the number of units that it had in May, so we’re trying to hit a moving target here. The first thing is that the architect needs to learn how to count, which is something we learn in Kindergarten. San Antonio Road from the railroad tracks to 101 only has four lanes of traffic. It does not have six or seven. It only has four. The City needs to realize that San Antonio Road, with only four lanes wide, is not built to accommodate the four-, five- and six-story buildings and all of their activities that the City is trying to thrust into that corridor. Mountain View west of the train tracks and west of Alma Street over to El Camino does have six lanes of traffic. In other words, it has a 50 percent higher capacity than we do where we live. It is already coming to a standstill. There have been times when I’ve had to go wait for the traffic signal through three cycles. And the hotel is not even open yet. The hotel is going to have 300 rooms. The City has not allowed the infrastructure to accommodate all of the activities they’re trying to push into this. We need a comprehensive traffic plan. We do not have one. Secondly, if you start putting in mechanical lifts, and now, they’re talking about rental units, of which there will be turnover. I mean, I’ve been in my condo in Palo Alto with a garage for 35 years. I know how to open and close a garage door. But if you start having rentals where people come in and out, this year, six-month rental… How long are the rentals going to be? Six months? A year? You’re going to change things. Again, we would like the project to be successful. We would welcome residents into the area. Primary land use along San Antonio is residential, but this is too many units with too many people coming and going. And the infrastructure does not support all of this activity and all of this construction. And it’s only four lanes wide. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Warren Storkman, please. Warren Storkman: Pardon me. The name is Warren Storkman. I’ve been residing at 4180 McKay Drive for 64 years. Chair Baltay: Could I trouble you to spell your last name, please? Mr. Storkman: [Spells last name]. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Mr. Storkman: I’ve been living at this residence for 64 years. I remember watching Eichler pushing the cows out of the way to build his homes coming toward San Antonio 64 years ago. And now, we’re just bulging at the seams, and it seems to me, what my major concern is – and hopefully you’ll give it some consideration – is that San Antonio Road is now becoming overused. We soon will have gridlock if we continue letting things like this develop. We won’t have enough room for the cars. It’s already bad because San Antonio, I live close to, and I think that you gentlemen and ladies should give some consideration of, thinking about approving this project. It’s just too many people and too many cars on that, well, around Leghorn, is where it is. That’s about all I can say. Please give it real consideration because we don’t need this problem anymore. It’s going to close San Antonio Road down now. It’s very serious. It’s very serious. Your traffic will just be unbearable. Or, I should say, contribute it to being unbearable. Thank you. 4.a Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. To the applicant, you have a chance to respond to or rebut any of the comments that have been made, if you wish to speak. Mr. Sakai: No, thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay, no, thank you. Any questions from any of the Board members, for anyone? Then, I would like to remind my colleagues, I think it’s important for us to remember that this is an architecture review board, and with the zoning especially uncertain or unclear here, I’d really like to see us try to make positive comments towards the building and design of the building. As much as there’s a lot of questions arising about the zoning and the land use and the parking, our purview really about what the building will look like. I think that’s how we can be most constructive. Before we start, I’d like to ask Ms. Larrabee, I know you’ve been very concerned about this project and the hotel next door, and I’d like to offer you a chance to address any comments you may have towards the design of the building. Do you have anything to say to us regarding how the building looks, it’s mass, it’s size? Because that’s what we’re here to look at. I want to be sure that you’ve had a chance to say what you really think about that. I know on the hotel, you had some concerns, and we listened to me. If my colleagues will humor me. Ms. Larrabee: If you could put the front elevation up, the San Antonio Road elevation up, please. I don’t understand what the white thing is in the middle. Chair Baltay: Okay, I don’t want to guide you what to say. I’m just giving you a chance to give us feedback along the lines of what we’re here to review. Ms. Larrabee: I’m a little concerned about it. It looks like it’s going to take off like a 747, but I don’t understand what the white thing is. I know he’s trying. You know, you’ve got to go the in-and-out and in- and-out business and change the colors and everything. I’m not real excited about it. But as far as the architecture, the parking and having underground parking is part of the architecture. Chair Baltay: Of course. Ms. Larrabee: And there’s no parking for visitors or anything like that. I prefer buildings either to be all glass or all brick, but that’s just me. I know he’s trying, but I don’t know what that white thing is there. It looks a little odd. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay, well, thank you very much for your comments. Okay, then, bringing it back to the Board, Alex, could you start us off on this one, please? Board Member Lew: Okay. I have comments on zoning, but if we’re going to bypass all that, I will…. In my mind, I think it’s worth the Board discussing it at some level because it’s new for us, right? The housing incentive program is new. We haven’t reviewed it before. There are issues here, like retail parking exemptions that are in our letter, in our letter to the Council. You put things like that. And it’s sort of been addressed in the housing incentive program, to a certain degree. I think it’s worth discussing it at some point. Maybe not on this particular project, but… Chair Baltay: Why don’t we then separate our discussions? I think it’s true that zoning is an important element. Why don’t you address comments regarding the zoning change, and we’ll go around and everybody can say their piece on that. Board Member Lew: Sure. Chair Baltay: And then we can come back to the architecture itself. I want to be clear to the architect, that they get real guidance from us on the design of the building. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I mean, that’s what our role is, and we have PTC and Council as well. 4.a Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Baltay: Why don’t we first say, what do you think about this housing incentive program change? Anything about the zoning, and then we’ll come back to the rest of the design. Board Member Lew: It seems to me that the housing incentive program is intended for downtown and El Camino, as I understand it. And then, so, we have the CS zone on El Camino, and we have the CS zone on San Antonio. What is the difference? I just want to say, in my mind, the difference is the transportation. If you look at the, say, the bus lines and community shuttles that serve San Antonio Road, it’s pretty marginal. I’m looking at, it’s like a mile walk to get to the Mountain View shuttle on Rengstorff. It’s three-quarters of a mile to get to the Palo Alto shuttle on Charleston. Caltrain is over a mile away, like a 23-minute walk. But you can walk to Google, you can walk to Costco, which is a half mile, so those are a 10-minute walk. But to me, it’s not the same as being on El Camino, which has pretty fast express buses. It’s not really close enough to Caltrain. To me, that’s a major difference. The bus lines that are there, like the VTA bus lines, you can get to the Research Park, or to east San Jose, or maybe Gunn High School, or the VA. I’m finding it kind of lacking in there, but I would support it in concept just because of the large number of employees at Google. It’s really relatively close by, and in theory it can be done quickly by bicycle. On the retail, so, we have, with the housing incentive program, I think there’s a parking… Actually, in the parking ordinance, there’s a new provision that, there’s a 1,500 square foot exemption for parking for the retail, which I think is desirable from our point of view because we’ve seen projects not, housing projects without any retail on the ground floor, so I think I’m willing to support that. The downside I see is that if it doesn’t have any parking, people are either walking or they’re parking on the street. But anybody who knows San Antonio Road, just circling around the block in that area at rush hour, that’s not possible. You’re waiting through two or three light cycles, and you just wouldn’t do that. You would just bypass the store. And we have businesses on El Camino like Starbucks, and they say half their business is just drive-by customers. They see it and it’s like, “Oh, I’ll stop here because I can get in and out quickly.” That’s a major concern I have for the retail. I do support in concept having a corner retail. I would say cities like Emeryville and their big housing projects, they’re always incorporating sandwich shops and coffee places on their big housing projects, even when they’re not in the major downtown destination. And I think it does make a positive difference. I think I’ll leave it at that for the zoning. Chair Baltay: Okay, why don’t we work our way through? David, you also had some concerns, or questions at least. What do you think about the zoning change? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I agree 100 percent with what Alex has said, and he’s done an excellent analysis of the distances, environmental issues, and transportation issues. I have nothing to add to any of that. But it’s an unfriendly corridor as it is now, although the majority of uses is residential on the opposite side of the street. That’s certainly not true on this side of the street. I would have thought that the City would, rather than run after housing so quickly in this area, done a more comprehensive plan for the whole block, all the way from the Mountain View end all the way down. And it would have been a planning study of some greater depth. Unfortunately, we don’t have that. We have a new building being placed here. I’d reserve more of my comments to the building itself, but agreeing with Alex entirely about the planning issues. Chair Baltay: Wonderful, thank you. Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Hi. Yeah, I think in terms of zoning, so, I live on San Antonio, a little bit further away from this, so I pass this corridor pretty frequently. I have been passing pretty frequently for most of my life. It’s true, it’s going through some changes right now. You know, we’re all talking about retail being important, and I will concur. Not just retail, but the martial arts studio that’s there, there’s sort of other, not just coffee and sandwich shops, but community focused, ground-level activities along that corridor that have some pretty strong communities that go there and come together, and I think that’s really important to maintain. If this corridor, you know, biking is becoming really big. This is a transit-oriented development. I’ve biked on San Antonio. It’s not the most pleasant bicycling experience, so, I definitely think the corridor itself could use some work. I know there’s a lot of construction happening there right now. It’s true, if the street can be more amenable to the new modes of transit that are going to serve it, I think that would be a huge uplift. I mean, the Baylands is just down the street, and then, a lot of people, you know, I’ve often 4.a Packet Pg. 64 City of Palo Alto Page 10 thought of biking down there, but a lot of the time, I don’t, just because it’s really dangerous. But it would be great, you know, this future vision of having bicycles be a part of the corridor language, so, I’m all in favor of that. I think there’s the possibility for something really great in the future. Chair Baltay: Okay. I’m agreement with what everybody else said. I have nothing further to add. Alex, why don’t you start us off on the building design now. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you for the presentation and the package. It looks very good for being such a, at the beginning stages of the review process. I think my main concern is that the height of the retail space is, I think nine-foot ceilings, which is relatively low for retail. Normally, I would look for something higher if it’s for that kind of space. This is only, like, that size square footage, possibly lower is fine. I think that there is, I think you’ve got two glass corners, and I think the one on the left side, I think is not really working. But when I look at the neighbor and maybe what could happen next door, I’m not sure the left one makes sense. Also, the left side ground floor unit with a lot of glass right up against the street, that doesn’t really make sense to me. I think you’re also showing… Oh, and I want to thank you for trying to do a prominent two-story entrance on San Antonio Road. That’s something we asked for on El Camino as part of our El Camino guidelines and we rarely get it. We don’t require it here, but you’re doing it, so I definitely wanted to acknowledge that. I would actually probably try to encourage you to add more detail to the secondary entrance. I think there’s a stair entrance on Leghorn. I was sort of trying to pretend, if I were living here, my hunch is that I would use that entrance on Leghorn. That would be my preferred way of getting in and out of the building. It seems to me that that could be a really nice entrance. I’m supportive of brick. I think it does add a lot of texture. It seems to me it’s not really compatible with the neighborhood, but if you look at the new Amazon building in East Palo Alto, the brick actually adds a lot of character to fairly boxy buildings. On the canopy, on the fourth-floor canopy with the Chinese windmill palms, I’m not sure I really understand what’s going on. I don’t really get the big idea, so maybe the architect can explain it. It might help. I appreciate trying to do something different, and I want to encourage you to think out of the box. I live on a street with two blocks of Chinese windmill palms, and I really love them, and they really look great against, as a silhouette against the sky. Right now, we have a full moon, and a full moon with the palm trees is really stunning. But I don’t get that at all when you mix it in with the canopy, so I’m not really quite sure how that all works together. Also, with regard to the roof garden, if you look at our zoning code for roof gardens, I think we’ve added a new section for that, and it does require a minimum amount of landscaping, and I don’t think you’re meeting it at this point. On the bicycle room, I did have two comments. One, previous councils have asked for that on housing projects, like here in the downtown area. They really wanted the easy access to the bicycles because the theory is it would enhance the usage of bicycles. If you have to go down to a locked room in the basement, I think the tendency is you would just leave it down in the basement. I do want to acknowledge that, and I think that that does make things better. In the research I’ve done on some projects in Berkeley, I’ve read online comments that when they’re in the lobby and they’re just locked to a rack, that things get stolen off of the bikes. You know, it’s not in a designated room that’s locked, like a locked room in a locked building. I think I just have that kind of concern. I generally like the idea of having open lounges and bike rooms sort of mixed in together. A project in Berkeley called the Parker, it’s like having a garage in your apartment building. Like having a single-family garage in your apartment building. It’s actually kind of nice. I have friends who lived in condominiums here in downtown and they actually sold them and moved to houses because there was…. If you’re mountain biking, you’ve got a dirty bike and you just want to hose it off, if you’re in a fancy condo, there’s actually nowhere to do it. They’re missing all that kind of space and they just find them unlivable. They look nice in marketing photos and stuff, and you’re actually trying to live there and do things; they’re actually not very useable. So, I do like those kinds of spaces. I do want to go back to one thing, too. Also, on the roof gardens and all the open spaces, I do want to encourage you to look at our revised open space definition, that we’re really trying to get them to be useable. Useable for kids, as well as adults. And not just lounge seating. It can be, like, the fire pits. If you look at the Jewish Community Center, it’s like senior housing, but the play area is used until like nine o’clock every night by the neighboring kids. And at least in my neighborhood, those little one-bedroom apartments are now occupied by families. That’s sort of where we are today with the prices in the neighborhood. I think that might be all I have. Oh, one last thing on landscape. I think at this point, I could not support the landscape planting palette. I don’t think it meets our native plant requirement yet, or the finding, which requires the 4.a Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto Page 11 greatest [inaudible] feasible that can be maintained. I think it’s not there yet. Particularly with the shrubs. It’s missing all four of our major native plant shrub categories, like manzanitas, ceanothus [phonetic], areogonyms [phonetic] and sages. That’s all that I have at the moment. I’m curious to see what my other Board members think. Mr. Sing: Sorry, to the Chair, just a response to Board Member Lew’s comment about the retail height. On Sheet A5.0A, there’s a cross section. It’s a little more height than nine feet. I mean, not much more. It’s, like, an additional 1 ½ feet, it’s kind of sunken down into the garage space. Board Member Lew: I saw some dash lines, and I think I did notice that. Thank you for that, though. Chair Baltay: Does that change your thought, Alex, if it’s 10 ½ feet high compared to nine? Board Member Lew: I think I said that nine is okay in my mind. I think my point is higher is better. Say there’s a new mixed-use building near me, near my house, and it has a Pete’s on the corner, the glass corner. And I haven’t measured it but I was looking at photos and I think it’s 12 or 13 feet high, and it looks really nice. This nice open, spacious, and light, and people hang out there. To me, we should try to get that, ideally. Chair Baltay: Thank you for bringing that to our attention, Sheldon. David? Board Member Hirsch: First, a question of Sheldon and staff. How is the commercial going to be used? What is it planned for? Nobody has spoken to that. Mr. Sing: I think I’ll defer to the applicant on that. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I understood… [crosstalk] Mr. Sing: …retail, retail-like… Board Member Hirsch: Is it going to be just general retail, or is it physical [crosstalk] for tenants? Mr. Sing: We’ll let the applicant respond to that. Chair Baltay: David, could we put that off and just get our comments out first? Board Member Hirsch: All right. Well, that’s very important, I think, at this point, to determine that. Chair Baltay: Would you prefer the applicant answer that question now then? Board Member Hirsch: I’ll weave that into what I’m going to say. In looking at this building from a planning point of view, I noticed that, you know, four-story building, a lot of tenants in it at upper levels. There’s a single elevator, and it’s on the Leghorn corner of the building, and there’s a refuse room on the opposite corner, not near any stair whatsoever. I’m looking at this… And Alex referred to this in a more minor way, but for me, it’s the most major issue here in the way this building is organized. Because, in fact, the traffic and closeness of the street here is really not a nice environment to be adjacent to or walking to. The building will be accessed I think from the Leghorn corner, and the Leghorn corner is kind of given over to this retail usage. Whereas, if that retail usage were something like a health club, or whatever, for the building itself, it could be put on an upper level, and you could have a major entry at that corner of Leghorn. And it seems to me that would make so much more sense for the way in which this kind of a building, which is really longer along San Antonio that it is width wide, going deep into the site. If you entered where the elevator was, you’d certainly be better capable of getting access to your apartment. Something illogical about having an entry in the middle of the building, and a symmetrical building of this nature, on the street, 4.a Packet Pg. 66 City of Palo Alto Page 12 which forces people to walk to the middle of the building, and then, where are they? They’re in a lobby, but they’re not anywhere near the elevator. To me, that’s not a logical arrangement. I would recommend that you reconsider the major location of the entry into this building on Leghorn, which the setback from San Antonio Road is a nice feature because it allows you to give some more privacy to the ground floor usages, which could then be more residential usage on that façade. And they would then have kind of a setback relationship with the building that would give them some privacy, so that they wouldn’t be on view from the street. Of course, the other aspect is then the service portion of the building, where garbage would be collected, could be more on the area closer to where the elevator or service is, on that end of the building, the Leghorn end of the building. And then, you would have the garbage getting out to the street somehow, because where else are you going to take the garbage to? It goes to a garbage room in the cellar at present, and that room is at the other end of the building as well. This is sort of obvious planning, and I think it hasn’t been logically arranged here. It does set up an aesthetic for the building itself. Then you have a major entry on San Antonio Road, in the middle of the building, which is kind of a… Well, it’s a kind of a symmetrical quality to this building that doesn’t really make sense. It doesn’t make sense in terms of people entering the building. There’s no reason why two paths would be used in this way in that front, to go through the landscape to the central entry at that location. These are practical planning thoughts. I think this would have the possibility of a much better building if it weren’t a prisoner to its symmetry. The symmetry carries through to the roof of the building as well, to what is really a kind of, it reminds me of a Miami Beach kind of idea of putting trees on the rooftop like this. We’ve been looking at other buildings in which the socializing space is in an open area at an upper level, and they are quite successful if they’re more designed to the use of the kind of a tenant that’s in the building. And I think there are reasons why people get together and have parties, etc., on a rooftop like that. But this is arranged to create a false sense of open space up there. It isn’t a real useful space. It isn’t planned for furnishing to be useful on there. It’s just kind of a physical presentation for show and tell, not for a use function. I’m not understanding what the vertical strips are on this building. I don’t really see it detailed here, but in the earlier drawings that we had, there are vertical strips, kind of decorative elements, on the front. They’ve been removed, I can’t really tell if they’ve been removed or not in this iteration. What I’m looking at here on the screen doesn’t seem to show that anymore. And if they're not there, I appreciate that it would be a simpler scheme that way, and the ins and outs of the building are what determine the façade of the building. I would urge you to look at this design differently. If you’re going to make the corner at Leghorn – and you ought to do so – into the major entry, a major lobby where you have that glass corner, and then, as you move down the block, through the middle of the building, the volumes could relate more so that it isn’t symmetrical, so that you really don’t have that opposite end looking like the entry to the building. I note that the entire relationship of the glass mullions is very casual. There’s no order to it. I think if you’re going to create a glass feature, you really ought to use it as an emphasis, and it ought to be designed entirely from ground to top, and it ought to be the major expression of this building. That’s pretty much what I have to say. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Hi, there. I just wanted to thank my fellow Board members for their comments. I thank the applicant for their presentation; thank the members of the public for speaking, especially Mr. Storkman, who gave us the visual of Eichler chasing the cows away. That was a highlight. I’m just going to focus on the aesthetics of the architecture. I did want to make a note to the applicant for next time we see this. It’s really important for us when we’re reviewing this to really understand your design intent, and part of that is being very clear about your observations of the site that are not only functional observations, but environmental, aesthetic, and ambient impressions of the site. And relate that to how your project is responding to that. For example, if you find that Palo Alto, this street in particular, has a really strong landscape, you know, we have a lot of trees, the adjacent properties have a lot of trees, then make a story of how your project really brings that in and makes greenery an integral part of the design. Obviously, that’s not the story you told today, but I’m giving you an example of something where you can show how this building is really important. It’s specific to this site; it’s not just any building that could be anywhere in Palo Alto, or even in the United States, or even anywhere in the world. But why this is important for this particular site. Because this site is unique, and this building is going to be really important because it’s going to be up and coming, and it’s going to be something that future buildings are going to be next to, and we’re going to… This is going to be part of the future context. I think it’s really important that this 4.a Packet Pg. 67 City of Palo Alto Page 13 relationship to the city street, to the people that use this site, the cars, is part of the architecture. It’s not just the planning, and zoning, and the first-floor plan. It’s about the façade. It’s about how people are going to actually feel when they’re walking down this street. And at the moment, they’re going to feel a big wall of glass. And even the relationship that the residential units have to the street, these windows don’t look operable. There’s no connection right now between this building and the street, especially on the corners. There’s a bit more connection where you’ve got the screen in the middle, and I think out of this whole façade that we’re looking at, that middle part where you have the screen is probably the most dynamic and interesting architectural element that we’ve encountered, and everything else kind of feels a step away from that. The façade is sort of in danger of being a little too flat everywhere else, and it’s missing a lot of character as a result. The glassy corners of the building feel a little more office than they do residential, and I know a lot of newer multifamily housing is using a glassy character, but is that right for Palo Alto? Maybe it’s right for over there, but I feel like there’s a lot of conceptual development that I think would really strengthen this design. In terms of the rooftop, the curved canopy is a bold choice. It’s sort of in that place where I could see a potential for it to get more interesting, but at the moment, where it is, it has no relationship to anything else in the building, so it really doesn’t feel justified in that way. But I think if it did, if there was more of a story of why it was like that, I think I would be on board a little bit more. So, yeah, the design is sort of under-articulated, and that rendering of the courtyard should not have been in the packet, honestly. In terms of the material, you have a lot of material expressions throughout your façade. The most simplest one is from the back, where we’re just looking at brick and one other material – I can’t remember right now. On the front, we’re sort of looking at a glass expression, a stucco expression, a brick expression, and a metal panel expression. That’s quite a lot. It seems like a little bit too much. I understand you’re trying to break up a big façade. I don’t know if using four different types of expressions is the right way to do that. I think there are other things you could do in terms of adding relief. There’s a question about, do the windows add relief? Where the screen is there, I think that’s a little more successful, but everywhere else, I think that plus the extra materials is a bit too jarring on the eyes. Materially speaking, though, I don’t mind the brick. I agree that it adds a lot of character in an otherwise blank façade. I think it sort of makes blank facades really interesting. And there are very few other materials that do that, unfortunately, unless you go through the actual trouble of articulating your stucco façade. I’d support raising the retail floor so that that bottom floor is a little bit taller. I could support changing the entry to the corner as well. And I understand right now, the entry is sort of breaking up the façade, but if the middle were that community space, the martial arts studio, ballroom dance studio, or whatever it may be, that could also break up the façade as well. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the entry. So, yes, a lot of work to do on this design. It’s got a little ways to go. I’m just going to reiterate that design intent is really important, so whatever your design intent… I heard the applicant say transparency. I think that on its own isn’t enough. There needs to be more about the site and why the design is the way it is. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. I find myself in agreement with my colleagues, and find their comments insightful and appropriate. In no particular order, but to reiterate what Osma was saying, the applicant made a number of statements, painting a picture of San Antonio, which were not entirely positive, yet we have a building with enormous walls of glass, looking at this avenue. If it’s not that positive of a street, why is the building doing what it’s doing? And I’m not saying it should be one way or the other, but she’s bringing up a very valid point about trying to take your design to a level where you really do make sure it fits into this location, and this community, and these needs. My feeling is that it really just needs a little bit more thought. And I can understand where, as an applicant, you’ve got so many balls in the air, so many agencies and boards and laws to meet that it’s complicated. Let me bring that around then because David’s comment about organization of the building at a fundamental level, I think is very insightful. If you were to put the primary entrance on the corner, it would make more sense organizing the building. It would let you then respond to Alex’s comment about the two glass elements, the symmetrical organization not making sense. The one on the left doesn’t relate as well. You only have one corner really on the building. It would let you then perhaps question the use of the retail. “Retail” is a funny term to use here. This is a destination type space, like the karate studio. Somebody has an appointment; they go there at a certain time. They don’t need to drive by it. It doesn’t need a corner presence. It’s not like it’s on El Camino. It could easily be a second- and third-floor studio in the middle of that corner tower, with the fourth floor being your open area, which would then enjoy a much nicer view. You then wouldn’t have residential units 4.a Packet Pg. 68 City of Palo Alto Page 14 on the west facing façade, where right now, it would be really tough to, on a day like to today, in that glass room, I would never want to be there, even with shades and air conditioning. That kind of, just react to the site a little bit more. But it might be worth questioning what that retail really is going to be. I know you have to have it, and it’s a struggle for you from a design point of view, but maybe come up with a more creative idea. Or, you could put it someplace else along the ground floor that doesn’t need as much visibility, because it doesn’t. The other element of the building planning that I question, and I would like to get my colleagues to respond to, is the overall massing. This is a four-story tall building, and it goes pretty much straight up to four stories. We are tasked with finding it to be contextually compatible, and I know on the hotel project up the road, we struggled mightily with that, and forced a series of step-backs and quite a bit of landscaping on the terraces of the building. It seems to me we haven’t addressed whether we think that’s appropriate here. I think it is, and I think a design with more of a central tower perhaps on the corner, some larger element there, but with the building stepping down, away from that, would be more appropriate. I would like to see the applicant provide us with renderings of what this looks like as you come up San Antonio from, say, the corner of Charleston, working your way out. Similar to what we had done for the hotel project, again. Because this really is visible against the skyline of the hills for people going up and down San Antonio Road, and it’s one of the first things you see coming into the town. Right now, I fear that, it’s 50 feet tall, straight up, and it will form quite a boxy presence, so I’m concerned about that massing. I found that the parking layout downstairs didn’t quite work. Some of those spaces were just a little bit too tight to get in and out of. I’d like to see you think it through a little bit more. I know it’s schematic, but stacker units with only 20 feet or so of backup space in front and the corner sites really were tough. I’d also like to see you think through a little bit more the street drop-offs. This site will make extensive use of things like Uber’s and ride-sharing services. San Antonio especially is a very busy road. I think it’s imperative that you have ample places to pull over and make a delivery, pick someone up. And I see only one small space on Leghorn. It’s very unlikely somebody wants to turn into Leghorn because then they have to wait for the signal and the traffic delay, so I think you really need to think through how that’s going to work. The transportation is critical in this project, and that’s a key element of it for most buildings in this area today. I find the courtyard, the way you’ve designed it, to be just too tight. I think it will be dark and unused. Again, four-story walls surrounding a space of that scale, I’m afraid I don’t think it will work. In any case, you should satisfy yourself that it will, then present us with images and renderings to back that up. Because right now, what we see is horrific, and we’d like to really believe that that space will be useful. As Osma mentioned, I think you have so many architectural styles and vocabularies at play here. I think the brick is a fine choice. It seems to feel residential, although maybe it’s new for the area. But certainly, you could get with that. But then, to be pairing that with all these other elements – the glass curtain walls, these massive cantered, beveled elements, the white things around the entrance, and then, the curve on the roof – there’s just so much going on, to maybe tone down your design hand a little bit and think of one way to go. I think that you do need to have more indigenous plants in the landscaping, just to meet our code. I question whether the palm trees on the roof are practical. This is a wood-frame structure and palm trees are large and heavy and need a real substantial planter to thrive. You don’t have room to drop them into the structure with the apartments below. I just wonder how that’s really going to work. I do agree that a shaded outdoor roof terrace is a wonderful potential space. You might want to think through whether the trees and the shade canopy work together, and what’s a way to really accomplish that. It’s critically important that that space be well landscaped and well thought through so it’s very functional. With that, I’d like to get my colleagues to respond to David’s idea on a corner entrance. Alex, you didn’t see anything about that. And then, the massing and stepping of it. Just so we’re giving them clear direction as a Board. Alex? Board Member Lew: I’d support corner retail. I don’t think I support a corner residential entrance. Retail really needs visibility. And I think you guys had comments about putting things up on the upper floors, and I don’t really understand that. It seems to me that raises all sorts of other issues. I think I understand the idea, though, of trying to reorganize the building, so I don’t want to discourage other ideas from occurring. Chair Baltay: That’s a big change for the applicant. I want to be sure they’re hearing clearly what we’re saying. Board Member Lew: Yeah. The retail should be on the corner. 4.a Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Baltay: You think retail should be on the corner. Okay. Board Member Lew: And we don’t really know what it could be, and it could be many different things over the lifetime of the building, so it should be flexible. Chair Baltay: About the stepping of the building as it goes up? Do you have any response to that? Board Member Lew: Yeah, you know, I’m undecided. I stood over by the Greenhouse and spent a lot of time looking at it the other day. I think you’re characterizing it as this 50-foot wall, but I don’t really quite see it like that because the middle is different. It’s only three stories. It depends how you read that roof canopy. Yeah, I think the hard thing here is that we have a context finding, but in this case, there’s really not a lot of context to work with. We’ve got, like, abandoned buildings in Mountain View, and one-story mid-century buildings to the left of the site, so I think it’s very hard to get this to work. Ideally, you know, it would be breaking up the materials, perhaps even more than what’s shown, and maybe not trying to make it a symmetrical composition, but actually just trying to make clear differences in the façade. Like Santana Row. It’s actually, like, some artificial break in the facades to make them seemingly smaller. A lot of times architects, they draw the facades in isolation, and I’m thinking this is longer than the neighboring buildings. If we looked at a street scape over the rest of the block, try to bring in that rhythm of the street, of those street facades into the building. And they’re trying to do that, they’re starting to do it, and I think I would just encourage to do that even more. And then, with your comment about the massing, to me, that’s a floor area issue, right? I think the Board has always struggled with 2.0 floor area, on every project that I’ve seen. Generally, like on the big hotel projects, usually when it goes down to, like, 1.75, you get more stepping, and usually people are happier with that. I will just leave it at that. Chair Baltay: I’m trying mostly to get us to be consistent. We pushed the hotel project very hard to step, and they have, and I think it makes a difference, looking up against the skyline. Do we want the same thing here? And they need to hear that from us right now. Board Member Lew: And we did that. The Board pushed really hard on the Hilton Garden Inn, to push the floor area down from 2 to 1.75, and it steps on the El Camino frontage. And I think it’s effective. Chair Baltay: Any thoughts, Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I think I’m going to revise what I said in terms of the entrance. I do agree with Board Member Lew, that the retail should be on the corner because of visibility, and also longevity. I feel like Board Member Hirsch’s comment was mainly about the functionality of the inside, so that could be revised to make the entrance make more sense. But I do agree that the retail corner is the right way to go. In terms of the massing, I do think that if this architecture, if the façade had more relief, and if it had more character, and if the design intent, whatever it is, whether it’s, like, a screening intent, or if there’s a strong landscaping element, was threaded through this façade more thoughtfully, I think this could work. The stepping back may not be needed because of the relief. If we had a deep enough relief at the front, it would be potentially more palatable without needing to step back. That might be an outlier. I think the 2.0 FAR could work, but it just requires way more thoughtful architecture to make it work. And I’m also going to slightly disagree with Board Member Lew on the context. I do think there is a lot to respond to in the context. It’s not really a one-for-one thing. This is, like, its own thing in this area, but there is… I feel like you don’t need necessarily another building to want to be like, but I think it’s more about the feeling of the street that you can translate into your architecture. So, in terms of context, and also, across the street, there’s just a lot to respond to in terms of architectural concepts that this thing could work on. I think there’s a lot of opportunity. Board Member Lew: My comment about the context is just really the literal wording of our ordinance, which is, like, window patterns, colors and materials. I don’t disagree with anything that you’re saying, I’m just… I was just reading our context criteria, which were really meant for urban, really urban areas. They weren’t really written for more suburban areas with setbacks and parking in front of the buildings. 4.a Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Vice Chair Thompson: Sure. That’s fair. That’s fair. Chair Baltay: The context is predominantly one-story commercial buildings, and this is a 50-foot-tall four- story building. David, do you have any thoughts to add, especially at the corner, and the massing? We’ll wrap it up, then. Board Member Hirsch: Well, yes, that’s my biggest concern. I think it creates a different kind of a building if you start with a premise that you’re going to enter from Leghorn. I disagree with my fellow board members here, that the commercial has to be on the ground floor, because I don’t think it’s really that kind of commercial. Or, in fact, if it is some kind of commercial that’s really used exclusively by this building, then they too could access it from a second floor. And if it’s something like an athletic facility or exercise facility for the building, definitely doesn’t need to be on the first floor. So, defining what that retail really is, is very, very significant for this building, especially if you consider just functionality, that the right place for the entry is going to be the corner. I think that really sets the character of the rest of the building, too, with the massing happening at the corner. More or less what you were saying, Peter, before, that that would be the defining element of the building. You’d want to enter there, you’d want to have access to bicycles there, you’d want to make that the major activity corner of the building. It’s on the street, it has access from the street, it has access from the side street. Because we all agree, it’s a four-lane street. It can’t really accept much happening off of San Antonio Road. It’s a very, very busy road. You really want to get off of it in order to use the building. The character of the building ought to be something where it’s focused at the corner, and then, it’s a repetitive series of elements that move down the block. It is not, after all, a building that fills a block front from one street to the next. The end of the building further down is only partway to the next intersection. There’s going to be another building there at some point, likely. So, there’s no reason to feature it exclusively as a symmetrical building the way it’s been described. I think the setback allows for the front to have different uses on the ground floor. I mean, instead of just being an entryway, if the entry is moved, it can accommodate more of the residential with the private areas on the outside still relieved from the street by the distance the building is set back. I want to point out that I don’t think any of the rear of the building… And our fellow board members ought to consider the tightness of this building around the perimeter. Because there’s residences immediately close to adjacent walls of commercial right now. There ought to be some exterior private garden usages on the outside of the building at the rear and at the far side. As to the open space, I don’t know why it couldn’t be part of, say, the upper floor of the building. You know, the exciting thing about the valley and the context of the whole valley is that one direction you look across the bay, you see mountains on the other side, and up the hill, you’re looking at the foothills and the foothill mountains that are up there, so the views from so many areas, including the senior center, are really up or down the hill. Knowing the context, not just of this street, but of the whole valley, is I think very significant for the way buildings are designed here in Palo Alto. I’ve been super impressed by those areas where you have views of the mountains, that create this valley. I think that there’s a lot of work to be done on this. In terms of some of the detail, yeah, there’s a repetition of the same kind of window again and again here, slight variations. But if you’re having decks and interior divisions of the spaces on the outside, you can try a window that isn’t just in the center of a box. There’s a lot of other varieties of window forms that have not been explored in this design. I’m talking more of the physical design. The context down the street, of the street, on this side of the street, wouldn’t it be nice if it, in some way, answered issues of a bicycle path that began somewhere here, or began up the hill further, and allowed you to get down to the Baylands. The front of the building really ought to be a continuing bicycle path that leads to the Baylands, for example. Which, the comment was made, it’s impossible to get there. I agree. It’s not a friendly environment. But, if the buildings are in the setback, the possibility of the front of the building as a landscaped continuum that takes you down to the Baylands would be a generous offer from this project. Plantings that would be accommodating to that sort of setback would be a major improvement, an urban improvement to the street. Chair Baltay: Thanks, David. I just wanted to make sure we had clear guidance to the applicant regarding the corner retail and the massing of the building. What I’ve heard is that, I think a majority of us would like to see… At least half of us would like to see the actual retail activity on the ground floor at the corner. And I think nobody is opposed to finding a way to make the building entrance on or near the corner either. Just to be clear. I haven’t heard any consensus beyond that, so I think we should leave it at that. Does the 4.a Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Page 17 applicant have any questions or thoughts before we close up? I’ll be looking to my colleagues for a motion and a second. We’re trying to keep this informal. We really want to be sure you understand and have a sense of where to go. Mr. O’Hanlon: Board Member Hirsch, we haven’t gone that deep on what ultimately the retail usage would be. I think that the most obvious opportunity would be a café of some sort. I think it would get a high amount of usage from this building. We’ve stayed away from the exercise facility idea, both for the amenities of these ultimate tenants, because the Oshman JCC is right up the street, and it provides a lot of different opportunities for exercise, and classes, and it’s a wonderful community service that’s right up the street. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. With that, do we have a motion? Mr. Sakai: I just want to clarify… Chair Baltay: Oh, please, go ahead. I’m sorry. Mr. Sakai: … a couple of things. There was a fair amount of discussion about the ceiling height at the retail. The typical floor to floor height at the residential is nine, so the podium is actually set at 30 inches above grade. If you step back down a grade at the corner retail, you add 30 inches to the typical nine-foot ceiling, so the corner retail ceiling height is actually 11 foot 6 inches. I actually feel pretty strongly about keeping the retail on the corner. The retail tenants on this stretch of San Antonio, there’s a lot of vacancy there. Retail tenants seem to be struggling, actually. Before I became a residential architect, I was a retail architect, doing shopping centers all over the Bay Area. The corner spaces are always the most desirable for tenants. They capture higher rents per square foot, they’re more visible, they’re more desirable, they’re more accessible, so I really don’t support the idea of moving a retail use up into the upper floors of the building. I think it creates a lot of issues with access. Right now, there’s a clear division between public access at the ground floor at the corner, and to sort of move that retail component with – hopefully – a fair amount of traffic, up into the bowels of the building, to me, it just… It sort of goes against what good retail design has proven to be over the years. We actually at one time had a corner lobby entrance, right at the intersection of San Antonio and Leghorn. It was closer to the elevator. One of the big downsides that we saw in that previous design – which we took all the way to City Council – was it really offered no transparency between the lobby and the inner landscaped courtyard. Right now, we have that. We have a glass curtain wall, add a two-story lobby, with a similar glass curtain wall at the interior of the courtyard, which will offer really, I think, unusual and very nice view of greenery through that glass on both sides. Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Eugene. If we could, we’re looking for you to respond to our comments, not continue to sell the building to us. Because we really want to wrap up. Mr. Sakai: Okay. With regard to context, I do agree with Commissioner Lew, in that there isn’t really a lot to respond to in terms of architectural form. I think the nicest thing about this stretch of San Antonio, as one of the members of the audience pointed out, is actually the landscaping right across the street for the Greenhouse Apartments. Really, that’s what we were trying to open up onto. All of your comments are well taken, well appreciated. There’s quite a diversity of thought here, so I’m not quite sure actually if we have a direction that I can walk away with and sort of noodle on with my staff here. But, perhaps in the remaining minutes that we have, you can come to some clear direction for us. That would be much appreciated. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. I’m looking for a motion from someone to continue this. I just don’t know if we have any more clear guidance than what we’ve already put out in the record. MOTION Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Board Member Lew: I will second that. 4.a Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Baltay: Okay, moved and seconded. All those in favor, aye. Opposed. Okay, the motion carries 4-0. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: We’re going to move right along to this next item. Staff, are we ready for the next item? 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 District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: Item number 3 is a public hearing regarding 180 El Camino Real. It’s a request for architectural review to allow for exterior façade improvements to an existing tenant space for L’Occitane in Building C at the Stanford Shopping Center. Do we have any disclosures, please? Board Member Lew: I visited the site last night. Chair Baltay: Anybody else? Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the site. Board Member Hirsch: I visited the site. Chair Baltay: I’ve also visited the site, and I’m fairly familiar with the shopping center. Okay, Sam, a staff report, please. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning, Board members. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner for this project and the shopping center. Just one quick correction. On the title for this on the agenda, there is a typo. It says “O’Occitane” instead of “L’Occitane.” The “L” is mistyped. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sam. Mr. Gutierrez: I wanted to state that for the record. Moving on to the presentation, this is located at the Stanford Shopping Center, 180 El Camino, and it’s located within Building C. This project here involves the tenant that’s currently existing at one of the main entryways of the shopping center, L’Occitane, and a façade improvement which involves changing out the existing façade for a new modern, minimalist-looking façade, along with new planters, green roof, public seating, and new signage. This application does not involve any change of tenant. Again, L’Occitane is going to stay, it’s just changing their façade design. There is no changes to any of the development standards of the site overall with this application, such as FAR coverage, parking, circulation, anything of that nature. Here you can see the existing conditions of the L’Occitane tenant space within Building C of the shopping center. Just to give you a little bit of bearings, this is across the drive aisle from the Fleming’s restaurant. Adjacent to the tenant space along the El Camino frontage is a Papyrus, the retailer. And then, across the shopping center entryway, it’s a Vineyard Vines. Again, it’s one of the primary entrances to the shopping center. You can see here the existing tenant space does not extend to the full parapet height, which is the current mall standard. This was done prior to that standard being established. You can see the design has a kind of plexi, kind of glass design mixed in, with multiple mullions that kind of break it up into different little sections here. The proposal here shown is showing the new façade meeting the current mall standards, which is the façade would extend all the way up to the parapet top, and it would actually complete this kind of row of tenant spaces along El Camino being updated to the current standards. You were just provided a materials sample board for these proposed materials, along with an updated sheet for… That’s in the submitted plans, but this sheet actually correlates the materials to the renderings so you can more easily see what materials are proposed where. Here you can see, again, the simple, modern, kind of minimalistic design. Simple lines, with a backsplash 4.a Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Page 19 of yellow on the top. It’s recessed a bit from the rest of the storefront. There is some LED lighting proposed around the ring there. That’s that kind of halo effect that this rendering is showing. And then, there’s new signage. It’s, again, the L’Occitane En Provence copy, which is the brand, and a blade side proposed, along with this upper trellis kind of feature that is adjacent to the proposed green roof. The column… This is a storefront that is cut out, and there is actually a path through there. It doesn’t extend to the full, I guess, building section. They are proposing a smooth column with a small planter and a circular seating bench, along with two new planters for the storefront entrance. Just going back to the previous storefront, you can see that the fenestration, the glass openness, is a bit reduced here compared to the proposal, which opens up the storefront a lot more to pedestrians. The window surface area increases. Here, we have a little site plan of this tenant space and some of the improvements; in particular, some of the landscaping. Again, there is a green roof proposed, and then the two planter boxes and the circular planter there. None of these plants are actually native plants per the requirements that we have for the ARB findings. They’re not native to California, or regional indigenous, but they are low water uses to medium water use, and they do tie in the raw materials that are utilized for the products that are sold inside of L’Occitane. It kind of pulls that connection in from the interior to the exterior. With that, that’s something that we would welcome a discussion from the ARB on because, again, there is no native California plants at all on this proposal. Here you can see one of the proposed signage for the new tenant storefront. Again, it’s L’Occitane En Provence. It has a wall side on the upper façade, and then there is a small blade sign. I do want to note that the rendering here shows a larger blade sign. That’s a rendering error. It’s actually proposed to be that smaller blade sign that’s shown there on that elevation view. That would meet the mall standards. Some key considerations for the Board to look at here: The applicability of the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program for the shopping center; the architectural theme, design, cohesiveness, and quality of the materials, and its relation to the shopping center in general; and then, of course, a discussion of the ARB findings in relation to the landscaping. Again, there are no native plants suggested here, or proposed. Staff recommends that the Board recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Development, based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sam. Any members of the public wish to address this project? Seeing no one, questions for staff from Board members? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. The actual letters are illuminated, correct? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: The letters are illuminated, and the border is illuminated. Correct? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, that’s the current proposal. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Chair Baltay: Anyone else? Okay, to the applicant, you have 10 minutes, if you wish to present your project. You will have 10 minutes to speak. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please, we’d appreciate it. Jason Smith, Land Shark Development: Chair Baltay, Board members. A pleasure to be back in front of you once again with the project over at Stanford Shopping Center. We are here to present… Chair Baltay: State and spell your name for the record, please. Mr. Smith: Excuse me. Jason Smith [spells name], Land Shark Development. We have here with us today, we have Paul Blackburn with L’Occitane. I was mispronouncing it as well. He will give a brief presentation on the project, concept of intent, and then we’ll be glad to answer any questions you may have. Paul? Paul Blackburn, L’Occitane: Good morning. My name is Paul Blackburn [spells name]. I’m with L’Occitane, so, yes, that’s how it’s pronounced. I was actually here seven, nearly eight years ago, for the previous 4.a Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Page 20 build-out of this store. Thank you once again for giving us some consideration. I think to give some context to what we’re doing here with this remodel, obviously, when we built the previous store out, we also had the roof across the atrium space in the middle of the shopping center. All the facades on the main stretch have now gone up. We’re looking to upgrade and modernize the store, obviously, to tie in with what’s been going on recently in the center, and also to give us a better brand representation today. The previous buildout was inspired by our branding concept at the time, which was based on the greenhouse, which is where all that fenestration and articulation of the façade came from. We wanted to kind of allude to natural ingredients, which is where the landscape lavender mosaic came from, as well. Today, we’re really trying to embrace the authenticity of our brand, but also, alluding to the modernity of our brand, too, which is why we’ve removed the visual of that landscape and replaced it with genuine nature. We think the addition of, you know, the nuance of this particular location and that small, flat roof gives us an opportunity to create a green roof, which is something we actually don’t have anywhere else in North America, and we think would be a really beautiful addition, not only to our brand, but to this shopping center. To speak a little bit to the non-native ingredients, it’s really important for us, again, with regard to the authenticity of us, to have something that represents what we are selling. We’re very proud that all of our ingredients are sourced from the Mediterranean region, all the ingredients that we use in our products, and we want to make sure that if we’re showing nature, that it’s something that is part of our brand. We couldn’t show, or it would be a stretch to show something that was native to California, or if it’s not something that we use in any of our products. That’s the reason. It’s recognizing your typical requirements, but that’s our exception, if you like, that we’re asking for your consideration. The yellow is a beautiful textured venetian plaster, which in its mass looks very simplistic, but in execution is a beautiful finish material. The white is, again, a natural limestone Travertine, which we think would be a beautiful addition to the façade. On the whole, we’re very grateful for the largely supportive comments from the staff review, and I’m here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay, Osma, go at it. Vice Chair Thompson: Where does the blue happen on your façade? Mr. Blackburn: The blue? Vice Chair Thompson: There’s a… Mr. Blackburn: It’s just on the edge of the sign. That’s all. Vice Chair Thompson: Ah, it’s on the edge of the words. Mr. Blackburn: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: What is the finish of your mullions on your storefront? Mr. Blackburn: They are a simple dark bronze metal finish. Vice Chair Thompson: Dark bronze. Okay. And just to clarify, the yellow, you said it’s…? Mr. Blackburn: It’s a venetian plaster. It’s an exterior grade venetian plaster. Chair Baltay: But the sample board says it’s a powder coated finish with a yellow specified here. Is that right? Mr. Smith: That’s on the signage as well. Both of those two samples are representative of the sign itself. Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, the little flag signs, not the façade…? 4.a Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Mr. Smith: The venetian plaster should be off to the right on your sample board. If you look at the back of your packet as well. Chair Baltay: But do you have a physical sample of it? Mr. Smith: We do not have a physical sample of the plaster. Chair Baltay: Okay. Any other questions? Board Member Lew: I have one quick question. Is there a finish on the oak? Mr. Smith: Excuse me? Board Member Lew: Is there a finish on the oak? Like a clear coat or oil? Mr. Smith: An applied oil will be on the oak. Chair Baltay: Osma, why don’t you start us off? What do you think? Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, I’m a little blindsided. I thought we had everything. Well, I will say, I do appreciate your vision. Your design intent is really clear. I like that you’re using the landscape. I don’t have a problem with non-native choices because it has a strong design relationship to your brand. I’m fine with that. I was actually all thumbs up until I didn’t know what this yellow thing is. That’s a problem. I’m sure it’s a great material. Maybe it could come back to subcommittee, just so we could look at it. But in terms of the design itself, I don’t have any problems with it. I do have a note. The location of the camera, where you have it right now at the top, I’d want to explore if you could put that underneath, underneath the lowest part, just because it sort of interrupts the facade in a way that we wouldn’t prefer. It depends on your field of view, of course. Mr. Blackburn: I would love that to happen. It’s actually a shopping center camera, not ours, so we have no control over it. Vice Chair Thompson: But you’re already moving it, right? Mr. Blackburn: I don’t think we are. I think it’s staying where it is at the moment. Vice Chair Thompson: No, you’re moving it. Mr. Smith: [off microphone] The shopping center is moving it up higher. Lower, they wouldn’t get the view, so they [inaudible] higher than [inaudible] design would be better. Vice Chair Thompson: And there was no negotiation with the shopping center about the field of view? Like, are they saying…? Can they confirm that if they make it lower, the field of view doesn’t work? Mr. Smith: We can confirm that with them. Vice Chair Thompson: That would be good. It’s interrupting it. If that could be… It sounds like a 10-minute conversation with their camera guys. That’s all my notes. Chair Baltay: David? Board Member Hirsch: Well, it’s quite an improvement, I think. The color is so incredibly intense there on the corner. Such a prominent corner. I think you’re going to attract a lot more people to that corner now because of that. I really like it a lot. I think simplification of every aspect of it is an improvement here. In fact, I would hope that everybody else gets the idea that they should do something with the ugly facades 4.a Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Page 22 up on the top all along the way so that it… What is there now. And if you spend a few minutes and kind of look around instead of just running down the pathway there, you’d be aware that this has been a mistake for years up above. You managed to make it, well, it was before, more interesting, but now, it’s even a more improved look and simplification to the top of the building. I don’t find anything wrong with this at all. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Alex? Board Member Lew: Yes. Thank you for your presentation. I can recommend approval of the project. I do have one major issue, which is the planter at the corner, at the column, with three-inch plants and no drainage, and hand watering. That seems to be a maintenance issue. A three-inch plant in a planter like that, they need to be watered every day. Really, there isn’t enough root structure to… And also, because in planters there’s, typically you use lightweight soil that doesn’t retain water. They do that so that the plants don’t get root compaction. That’s a major issue for me. I don’t know what we do about that. It seems to me it’s a tricky detail to do because of the structural column. On the native plant finding, I think I would just add that, for staff, that the rosemary is also, maybe kind of one of our indestructible plants. I mean, it’s capable of very tough conditions. It’s also beneficial to hummingbirds. So, I think the plants are fine just based on maintenance. That’s where I am. I don’t know what to do about the planter. It seems to me that that’s really difficult. I mean, would you have the…? Would the shopping center be taking care of the planter? Or is it, the store would be taking care of the planter? Mr. Smith: No, the store would be maintaining the planter. Board Member Lew: You’re going to have, like, the manager water the plants every day? Mr. Smith: That is correct. Board Member Lew: Okay. Anyway, it seems to me very problematic, but I’m willing to approve the project. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. I share everybody’s comments. I think we’ll be able to get this through, maybe to the subcommittee. I have two concerns. I want to be sure staff has that, the bright yellow signage up on top is great, but I don’t want to see that lit all night long. I hope we have a condition in here that the lighting is only on when the store is open, or something like that. Secondly, I want to be clear with my colleagues that we’re happy with the findings regarding the landscaping. We’re approving plants that are not native. We’re feeling it’s okay. Is the language in the finding we have to everybody’s satisfaction? Have we all read that? Board Member Lew: The finding allows for maintenance, conditions, the requirement for the maximum, you know, to the greatest extent feasible, to use native plants that can be maintained. And you have a rooftop planter. Usually very harsh conditions. It’s a very tough environment for plants because of the large amount of sun and wind and very little soil volume. That’s really a pretty difficult condition for most plants. I think there are unusual circumstances in this case. Also, all of the plants are, as I read the plants list, I mean, they are wildlife beneficial. The ones that they’ve got. I think it’s approvable. Chair Baltay: Okay. I’m fine with the paragraph in Finding #5, but I wanted to be sure everybody else has read that. We’re setting a precedent of sorts. And I read it several times, and then concluded I think it does hit all the points we need to hit. MOTION Chair Baltay: Okay, with that, I’m going to make a motion that we approve this project subject to three items coming back to subcommittee. One, seeing a final plaster sample of the yellow; secondly, that the applicant looks into relocating the motion camera up on the façade; and thirdly, that the corner planter be redesigned to somehow make more viable planting capacity. I’ll look for a second on that. 4.a Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second that. Vice Chair Thompson: Can I make a friendly amendment? Chair Baltay: Of course. Vice Chair Thompson: Could we also ask for the storefront middle material sample? Chair Baltay: Storefront windows, you mean? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, the mullion color. They mentioned it was a bronze. Chair Baltay: Okay, absolutely. Are you implying that you want to see a different color, or you just want to see what the material is? Vice Chair Thompson: Just want to see the material. Chair Baltay: No problem. Add that to the motion. Any second on that? Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second that, too. Chair Baltay: Okay. Are you in favor of the friendly amendment? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Baltay: All those in favor; all those opposed. Motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Mr. Smith: Thank you. Would we like to set a date certain for…? Chair Baltay: That’s an administrative thing you’ll work with the staff on. Mr. Smith: Okay. Thank you so much. Chair Baltay: We’re happy to help you whenever you’re ready. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Board. Study Session Chair Baltay: Moving right along, next item, study session. Do we have a study session? I don’t believe so. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2019. Chair Baltay: Did we receive minutes for this? Board Member Lew: The minutes are in the packet now. They’re not coming by email. Chair Baltay: Okay. Any comments? Or a motion on the minutes? Vice Chair Thompson: I move that we approve the minutes of July 18, 2019. 4.a Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Lew: I have some comments on the minutes. Chair Baltay: Okay, why don’t we hold off. If we can hold off, Osma, is that okay? For a second? Vice Chair Thompson: Should I retract my motion? Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Lew: No, just… Chair Baltay: Whatever. What do you think, Alex? Board Member Lew: On the subcommittee item, there are two subcommittee items. Item number 6. That was me and Peter on that subcommittee item, and we approved the brick for the 250 Sherman Avenue. Like a dark-colored custom, a custom-made dark-colored brick. And we did not approve the pole-mounted plaza lighting. That still has to come back to the subcommittee. Item number 7, which is 3000 El Camino, I think it was me and Osma, and we did approve the sign. It was just a pedestrian wayfinding sign, a very small pedestrian wayfinding sign. Or series of signs. That was approved. Ms. Gerhardt: For the 3000 El Camino, the very last page of the minutes is the approval memo for the subcommittee, so any comments on that? Board Member Lew: I didn’t see that. Thank you for that. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, that looks accurate. Board Member Lew: Yes, that looks good. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Jodie, on item 6 on the subcommittee, this says that the bollard lighting was approved. And Alex is correct, I think, that we did not approve that. Board Member Lew: What are you…? Vice Chair Thompson: Item 6. Chair Baltay: The Public Safety Building. Board Member Lew: Right, but where are you reading? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I don’t think the minutes say. It just has the… Chair Baltay: Oh, it just says what we did. Ms. Gerhardt: … item description. Chair Baltay: Oh, that’s right. There’s no answer here. Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: And we didn’t have an approval memo. I mean, I suppose we could have had a, sort of interim memo. But I think Board Member Lew explained what happened, so that will go in the minutes. Chair Baltay: Does that not typically go in the minutes, what the decision was on subcommittee stuff? We’ve been talking about this before. Ms. Gerhardt: The subcommittee are not recorded, so, that’s why we have at the very end here, for the 3000 El Camino, where we did make a decision in subcommittee, we have this decision memo. Chair Baltay: Okay. Any further comments about these minutes? Board Member Lew: I have one comment, which is on… This is just a general comment. I think there was a dissenting vote from Board Member Hirsch from one of the projects in there, and I think normally we 4.a Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Page 25 allowed the dissenting vote to comment on the reason why they voted against it. I didn’t see that we actually allowed that to happen. I think we normally try to do that, so, let’s just try to do that, to make it… I think we normally just try to do that. And the Council does that as well, so, let’s try to do that. Chair Baltay: Point well made. Board Member Lew: I will move that we… Chair Baltay: Well, Osma was about to… Board Member Lew: Oh, yeah. I will second it, then. Chair Baltay: Osma? Does your motion still stand? Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, Lew, did you second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Baltay: Okay. Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? None. Seeing that, the motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSES 4-0. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay: I believe the final item is board member questions, comments or announcements. 5. North of Ventura Coordinate Area Plan (NVCAP) Board member Lew. Chair Baltay: Alex, do you have anything for us? Board Member Lew: No. It’s been on hold all summer. The next meeting will be next Wednesday, here at City Hall, in the lobby conference room. And it’s going to City Council on Monday for additional services review. Chair Baltay: Thank you. 6. Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review of Letter. Chair Baltay: We’ve all worked on that draft. Do we have a motion to approve that? I will make that motion then, that we accept the Architectural Review Board Annual Report as drafted. Board Member Lew: I have a couple comments on the letter. I know we’ve done that before. Chair Baltay: Okay. Are we going to be able to get those incorporated into this letter, do you think? Is it…? Board Member Lew: I’m not trying to do anything very difficult. I just… Under parking for the Stanford Shopping Center, I think it would make sense to mention that there is an existing cap at the shopping center. There is a floor area cap, but the footprint, the lot coverage, is increasing, and the parking surplus is decreasing down to the minimum amount required. I think that’s worth mentioning. Otherwise, it doesn’t… I think you have to understand that to make sense of the issue that you’re raising here. Because it’s partly the uses are changing, but I think it’s also that the parking is decreasing. Chair Baltay: True. Fair enough. What else? Board Member Lew: Under pedestrian mobility, the first sentence is, [reading] For people to move freely in our commercial districts and along El Camino, we need more seating available to pedestrians. And I don’t really quite understand the connection of pedestrians and benches. Unless you explain that we have an aging population that would appreciate the benches, or, you just think that having, like, benches and planters makes it more attractive. It just makes it a more desirable environment. 4.a Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Ms. Gerhardt: I believe the idea is to encourage pedestrians, to encourage more walking trips. Board Member Lew: And then, I think my last comment is under item F, for El Camino. The first sentence says, [reading] There is a continuing loss of places to go along El Camino. At least for me, I don’t use El Camino, I don’t use many of the businesses along El Camino, and I’m not sure what “loss” is being referred to. It seems like most of the hotels replaced other hotels, or, like, car rental agencies. Really, the only thing that I can think of that has been lost is the, like, the bowling alley, so, I don’t quite get that. I do agree that there are, that some of the new mixed-use buildings don’t include restaurant use because the parking requirement is too high. But in this paragraph, I think you’re only talking about the hotels. And I think it’s also a mixed-use issue. And then, I’m not an expert on hotels, but my very limited understanding is that for hotels, the restaurants are money-losers. Only the high-end hotels include restaurants because they have enough profit margin to add a restaurant use for the convenience of their guests. But typically they don’t do it because it’s too expensive for them to do it. So, whether we include that or not, I don’t care. I just wanted to throw that out there. Chair Baltay: Okay. I’ll confess frustration, Alex. We’ve been circulating this thing for a month and a half, and now you’re coming up with… We thought we had the final draft, everybody’s commented, and you’re bringing up, potentially legitimate points, but we really need to get something out. How strongly do you feel that these affect this report as compared to the next one we write in a year? Obviously, I want this to be unanimous. It has to be. Board Member Lew: Yes, I don’t quite understand the rush, but if there’s a rush, that’s fine. Chair Baltay: Anybody else have anything to add, or thoughts about this whole thing? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Chair Baltay: There’s no particular rush, I suppose. I just want to get things done. Vice Chair Thompson: I’m actually somewhat glad that Alex brought something up, because I also thought I had missed the boat on adding stuff to this letter. It sort of occurred to me, I think this last project – 788 San Antonio – having it come in front of us, we don’t… In the letter, we don’t really talk about how the architectural character of Palo Alto has evolved because of the projects that we’ve been reviewing. I think it might be important to address that in some way, just because a lot of stuff that’s coming up in front of us… I don’t mean to sound like a downer, but a lot of it is not very well thought out. I think we’re put in a tough position because there’s a great desire to bring housing into Palo Alto, and there’s a great desire to approve these projects just politically because of the function. But aesthetically, I’m worried Palo Alto is suffering because of the lack of architectural excellence that I think we ought to be enforcing. I don’t know if my Board members agree with that, but it’s something I’ve been struggling with. Board Member Hirsch: I’d like to speak to that, too, and wholeheartedly agree with you on that. I found it ought to be the emphasis of the lead-in paragraph somehow, on what we do, and it was not a part of this particular letter. In deference to the fact that it was kind of thrown together at the very end of this last period, I think it’s lacking. But I would like to see us move on, and next year’s letter be better. I think that we should keep track of how we’re progressing with just exactly those attitudes of improving the quality of architecture in this city. We somehow seem to get bound up in a lot of detail all the time and not to have the overview that we ought to be having on some of these projects relative to the aesthetics. Chair Baltay: Okay, looks like we’re going to do some more writing. Alex, can you respond to the question? I wrote down, “Lack of architectural excellence.” I think, Osma, you’re right, that many applications we receive are not as good as we want them to be, but I think also that we have to be practical with what we’re doing here. We’re not designing these buildings; we’re reviewing them for compliance. And we’re not hiring the architects, and we’re not the clients. But, Alex, you’ve been through this for the longest. What do you think? 4.a Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Board Member Lew: I’ve been on the Board too long. Can I say…? The last time I looked at a list of the projects that the Board has reviewed, I think I counted, like, 15 architectural awards. The time that I, say, like, two times ago, there were only two. So, in my mind, the Board has been doing a good job. I think the developers understand that the City wants better projects, that Council has asked for it, and they put in the “beauty pageant” provision. The developers didn’t want to participate in the “beauty pageant,” but they did make the buildings better. We do have, generally, overall, I think we do have a better quality of architecture firms working on projects. I’ll leave it at that. I think we’re better. There’s still room for improvement. The way I look at it, it’s, like, far better off than we were 10 years ago. So, if you’re still not happy, I think that’s fine. I’m thinking that it’s an internal thing that we need to do. I’m not sure that it’s something that needs to go to the Council. Say we bring it up to the Council. What do you want? Do we want more urban designer, an urban designer to critique the projects? Do we want a seven-person board? Where are you going with the issue? Vice Chair Thompson: May I respond? Chair Baltay: Sure, Osma, what do you think? Vice Chair Thompson: I think it’s really more, like an attitude and a stance. And I think you’re right, that it is getting better, for sure. Sometimes the first iterations versus the last iterations show great improvement. And I think the Council is all about having a good stance, but I think a lot of the stance, at the moment, is sort of piecemeal. Like, we end up focusing a lot on the landscape because we want the landscape to be great, and there’s kind of no stance about, like, having a strong… Of course, like, high-finish materials, those things that are in our findings are all true, and we should keep those. But I guess I’m kind of looking for the Council to make a stance, like, we don’t just want a building that could be anywhere; we want a building that’s really specific to Palo Alto, that actually has a high level of architectural excellence. Because in the future, all these things are going to change. I think, also, like, taking a trip across the pond, where these buildings have been around forever, but they’re sort of… The way that they’re constructed has this really strong relationship to the street, and they have a really important relationship with texture, character, the human relationship to the wall, is really well thought out. And over here, I’m seeing a lot of trends with the stuff that we’ve been seeing, and it’s less about the pedestrian experience, and it’s less about the detail and the articulation of the façade. It’s more about FAR, and it’s more about these numbers that don’t actually mean… They don’t actually mean anything about my relationship to the building when I’m standing in front of it. I don’t know. I think I’d just like the Council to have a really strong stance, that we’re not just looking for anything; we’re looking for something really, really special everywhere. I don’t know that our applicants have sort of come to us with that attitude. Board Member Lew: I think I would argue that our findings and the comp plan speak to your issue about design excellence, and then, it’s just on the Board to enforce it. I guess my point is, say you want to throw this to the Council, and they say, “Here are the findings.” Do you want us to change the findings, or the code? Or are we just saying we need to enforce, the ARB needs to enforce what’s already in our comp plan or code? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, it’s a report, right? It’s like, this is what we’ve seen, and what we’ve noticed is that, you know, this is something that we struggle with. Board Member Lew: I would support that. Chair Baltay: Osma, maybe use a bit of history behind this, but they changed these findings just, maybe four years ago now? Three years ago? Went from 15 of them down to six. And there was quite a bit of debate about exactly what you’re bringing up. And I think the findings have been an improvement. They’ve allowed us to focus more on what you’re talking about. They were, I think, a clear expression by the Council. Things like high-quality design and materials. It’s a fairly strong statement, to give us that much latitude. What Alex is saying I believe is correct, that the Council has put it on us to make that happen. They want it to happen. And I think putting it in a letter to Council, then, saying that we need to get better 4.a Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Page 28 quality architects and design is sort of, they’re going to look back to us and say, “Yeah, that’s right. Do it.” What I think this letter needs to be is something a little more focused on, “Here’s a couple things that we’ve noticed as trends through all these projects we’ve looked at that you may want to consider.” And I think the more that we can keep it focused and crystal-clear, down to one or two pages, a series of bullet points, the bigger chance we have of them paying attention to it. As much as I agree I’d love to get higher quality architecture here, I don’t see how they can really do anything on that, except tell us they already did something about it. Vice Chair Thompson: But do you agree that we should have a paragraph just explaining, in the last year, this is sort of the kind of aesthetics we’ve been encountering? Board Member Hirsch: I’d like to speak a little bit to this. You know, Cambridge Street project, you know, I thought went through transitions, design transitions that were excellent. I wasn’t around at the beginning, but in the end, we approved that commercial project, and it’s a terrific, simple street front, the materials were well thought out. I mean, I think something like that should be explained somehow in this letter, “This is what we do. This is what we want to do.” And we were successful in doing it in that particular instance. So, crow a little bit about what we are, rather than complain. Chair Baltay: Yes, so, as I’m trying to avoid making this a selling point for us either way, I thought there’s plenty of opportunities and things we should be doing to explain to the Council and the community what the Architectural Review Board does. I don’t think that’s the place for an annual report to the Council. Board Member Hirsch: But it’s not in that letter. This is what our purpose is, and this is what we should say is our purpose, in the first paragraph, somehow. Look, I think we could approve the letter and move on to next year. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: Well, Alex brought it up. I mean, my opinion is his comment about the surface parking at the shopping center is quite legitimate and could be easily fit in. I think the comment Jodie brought up, about clarifying why pedestrian mobility is enhanced by having benches, could be rephrased. I frankly disagree; El Camino has suffered a loss of places to go. Almost every project removes an Olive Garden restaurant, or a sandwich shop above the buildings, or a sneakers store. I mean, it goes on and on. Each one of these removes some local retail institution. But we can go on and on about that. It’s kind of vague. I’d love to see us pass this and go on to next year, but if we want to redo it, we should do that, too. I heard you say, David, you’re okay passing it? Board Member Hirsch: I’m okay passing it. Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: Yes, I’m okay with it. Chair Baltay: Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Sure. Board Member Lew: [inaudible] excited about the letter. Chair Baltay: My hope is that each outgoing chairperson will take the effort to make sure we get a report out to Council. I’ve asked staff to make it so I or one member of our Board can present this to the Council in public, read it out to them, and then we just go on with it from there. And I’d like to be clear, again, this is not an opportunity, I think, for us to crow, or say what we do, good or bad, but rather, this is what we have noticed on projects that are trends, that are emerging patterns, that are things we think you should be aware of. And this is required by statute, that we report back to them. In any case, thank you all. Board Member Lew: [inaudible] bylaws. 4.a Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Chair Baltay: You’re right. It’s just in our bylaws. Ms. Gerhardt: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Vice Chair Thompson: I thought I saw Board Member Hirsch second. Did you not second? Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Okay, moved and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed. Okay. That motion passes 4-0. MOTION PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: With that, we are adjourned. Thank you. Adjournment 4.a Packet Pg. 84