Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-01-16 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: January 16, 2020 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788 San Antonio Avenue [19PLN-00079]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing 12,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and the Construction of a Four-Story Mixed- Use Building that Includes 102 Residential Units and 1,780 Square Feet of Commercial Space. Sixteen of the Residential Units Would be Below Market Rate. The Project Also Requires a Zoning Amendment to Apply the Housing Incentive Program at this Location. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4256 El Camino Real: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building for the Development of a New 51,900 Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 97 Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Prepared _______________________ 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. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Circulating for Public Comment Between December 20, 2019 and February 3, 2020. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3215 Porter Drive [19PLN-00237]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new 21,933 Square Foot Office/ R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. Study Session/Preliminary Review Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2019. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2019. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates - Boardmember Lew Adjournment Subcommittee Items Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Lew 7. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00129]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project that was Conditioned to Return with Project Changes Related to the Landscape Plan, Corner Markers for Outdoor Market/Seating Areas, Site-Plan Circulation Shown to Maintain 8 Foot Clearances, Facade Wooden Slats Details, Bicycle Rack Specifications, and Bollard Details. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@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. 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 # 10986) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/16/2020 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 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) Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2020 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/5/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/19/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/7/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/21/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/4/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/18/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/3/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/17/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/1/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/15/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/5/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/19/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/3/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/17/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2020 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June July August September October November December Architectural Review Board 2020 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics February 6, 2020 • Issues and Options for Objective Standards (9:00am start time) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10947) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/16/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 788 San Antonio Road (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788 San Antonio Avenue [19PLN-00079]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing 12,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and the Construction of a Four-Story Mixed- Use Building that Includes 102 Residential Units and 1,780 Square Feet of Commercial Space. Sixteen of the Residential Units Would be Below Market Rate. The Project Also Requires a Zoning Amendment to Apply the Housing Incentive Program at this Location. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide input and recommend continuation of the review to a date uncertain. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis, and evaluation to city codes and policies. That report is available online: https://tinyurl.com/788SanAntonio-ARBReport. Efforts towards completion of the project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are ongoing. It is expected that circulation of the Draft EIR would occur in late February 2020. Given the City’s desire for additional housing staff seeks comments and direction from the ARB on the design of the project simultaneously. The project would return to the ARB during the circulation of the Draft EIR for recommendation to the City Council. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the ARB 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 August 15, 2019 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB meeting is available online: https://tinyurl.com/788SanAntonio-ARB-Video. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Project Revisions by Applicant • Reduce the symmetry of the design • Design palette is complicated • Facades do not have enough offsets • Building massing and design materials are broken down and simplified. • The corner includes a taller element over the retail. • Variety in the façade achieved through application of offset elements and framed recesses that reduce repetitiveness and provide visual depth. These framed recesses continue to the upper level open space to create framed view portals and break up the parapet. • Revised material palette is simple and consistent. • San Antonio facade includes a “ribbon” (reddish brown) that ties the ground floor spaces and the residential entry. See Sheets A3.0a, A3.3a, A3.3b, A3.3c. • Consider an additional elevator Project now includes two elevators. See Sheet A2.1b. • Building needs to respond to context of the neighborhood and connection to the street • Material palette relates to recent projects of similar scale along San Antonio Road (Taube Koret Campus and Mariott). • The design is less symmetrical. • Project references the former Chrysanthemum wholesaler use with stamped concrete pattern at the corner plaza and within the interior courtyard. • Recessed lobby space is meant to provide an open feel and connection City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 with the street. • Visible bicycle spaces within the building will activate the street level. • Publicly accessible bike wash area along San Antonio Road will enhance pedestrian activity while providing water for dogs. See Sheets A3.0a, A3.0b, A3.3a, A3.3b, A3.3c, A3.3f, A3.3h, A3.3i and LA-1. • Glass corners do not convey a residential project Revamped design reduces the amount of glass at the southwest corner and revises the design for the northwestern corner units. See Sheets A3.3a, A3.3b, A3.3c, A3.3f, A3.3l and A3.3m. • Consider street drop offs for Transportation Network Companies • Duck out added along Leghorn Street for two spaces. • Area will also serve as temporary staging area for solid waste/recycling pick up. See Sheets A1.1a, A3.3f, and C2.0. • Courtyard does not function well • Applicant acknowledges that the interior courtyard was underdeveloped in the prior submittal. • Updated plan includes circulation and seating areas and more thought-out placement of planters for privacy. • Plants were chosen that will thrive in lower light conditions. • Upper level balconies facing the courtyard have only semi-solid roofs to allow more light into the area. • Planting theme now flows from the courtyard into the lobby area. • Future plan may include a water feature. See Sheets A1.0a, A3.0c, A3.0d, A3.3i, A3.3n, and LA-1. • Consider different landscape Palm trees are eliminated as part of the City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 treatment on the terrace roof terrace redesign. Terrace includes low- scale plantings. See Sheets A3.3j, A3.3k, A3.3l, A3.3m, and LA-2. • Consider being tall at the corner and stepping down Project includes more visual interest at the southwest corner while allowing the upper level open space on the northwest portion of the building to have panoramic views. See Sheets A3.3b, A3.3c, A3.3f, and A3.3l. • Landscape planting needs more native species Landscape palette includes more native species. See Sheet LA-1. • Bicycle room shouldn’t be open to the lobby The lobby includes partitioned bicycle rooms. See Sheets A2.1b, A3.3a, and A3.3k. • Roof terrace has no function • Consider open space on upper level • Project includes a resigned roof terrace that is now open on the north end with views toward the bay. • The space is partially covered and includes seating. See Sheets A2.2e, A3.3j, A3.3l, A3.3m, and LA-2. • Relocate trash chutes to be closer to the vertical circulation Trash chutes are relocated near northeast elevator. See floor plans. • Consider alternative entry to the building and location of retail space • Project keeps the retail location at the Leghorn Street corner. • The corner could function well with a coffee shop or café. • Storefront glazing could be fixed glazing or folding/roll up doors to enhance outdoor/indoor dining • Explored moving the residential entry to the corner but would lose connection with interior courtyard. • Project activates the corner with retail use and expanded plaza area. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 See Sheets A1.0a, A3.3c, A3.3f, A3.3g, A3.3h, and A3.3k. • Reduce west facing glazing for residential spaces Reduced the west facing glazing for units that open onto other orientations, including the reduction in glazing for the southwestern corner units. See Sheets A3.3e, A3.3b, and A3.3f. Analysis1 The applicant provides a holistic response to the comments from the ARB that result in significant changes to the exterior design of the building. Primarily these changes affect the massing, symmetry, the roof terrace, courtyard, materials, and use of the building. Required Architectural Review findings are provided as Attachment B for reference. Massing/Symmetry The ARB commented that the project had too much symmetry and the glass features at the south and north ends of the building were out of context. In response, the applicant significantly revised the façade and massing of the building (Figure 1). The retail space on the ground floor remains at the southern end of the building at the street intersection. A vertical glass element remains above the retail space, but the size is now reduced. The glass element on the opposite end of the building is removed. In its place, an expanded roof terrace would allow for panoramic views. A dark color ribbon feature draws attention towards the ground level and intermittently jogs to the upper floors tying the upper and lower levels together. A variety of framed recesses provide visual interest along the streets. Overall, the building is less symmetrical and focuses more attention at the southwest corner. The changes make the project more consistent with Findings #2 and #3. Figure 1: Front Elevation Comparison August 2019 January 2020 Source: Studio S Squared 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Intersection Corner & Project Entry The ARB members had different opinions regarding the appropriate use and design for the corner. One position is that the residential entry should be at the corner and another position is that the retail use makes sense in the corner. The current iteration maintains the retail space at the corner and further strengthens its connection with the street (Figures 2 & 3). The applicant envisions creating a focal point at the corner with a street corner café. The storefront facing San Antonio could be either fixed glazing as proposed or folding/roll up doors to enhance the indoor/outdoor dining experience. While previously the corner was physically disconnected from the street, the corner plaza now has a connection to the corner and is enhanced with landscaping. This connection includes a stamped concrete flower pattern as a reference to the former historic use of the site (Chrysanthemum wholesaler). The project maintains the residential entry to the building at the center. The applicant explored the option of relocating the entry. As proposed, the lobby provides a visual connection to the interior courtyard of the project. Outside the residential entry is a bicycle wash area that could also couple as a rest area for those with pets. This amenity is intended for the tenants and the public. Overall, the design of the lobby area is meant to provide an open and active feel to the project design. The revisions make the project more consistent with Findings #2, #4 and #5. Figures 2 & 3: Corner Perspective City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Source: Studio S Squared Source: Studio S Squared Courtyard and Roof Terrace The prior iteration of the project included an underdeveloped interior courtyard concept. In response to the ARB, the applicant provides a more thorough concept. Seating areas and planters are positioned to consider privacy. In response to the challenge of lower light conditions, the upper level balconies have semi-solid roofs allowing filtered sunlight. The planting of the area flows into the lobby of the building resulting in a connection between the two spaces. A stamped concrete flower pattern within the courtyard make a reference to the former historic use of the site. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 The prior iteration included a covered terrace centrally located on the upper floor. This area included palm trees that protruded through openings in the canopy. The ARB thought that the terrace had limited function and did not take advantage of potential design opportunities. In response, the applicant relocated the roof terrace to the north end of the building (Figure 4). Lower scale planting replaces the palm trees. Parapets are lowered to provide 135-degree views. The changes make the project more consistent with Findings #2, #4 and #6 Figure 4: Perspective Showing Roof Terrace Source: Studio S Squared Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project requires the certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because the existing building at 788 San Antonio is eligible for listing on the California Register and the applicant proposes to demolish the structure, which is considered a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA. The City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and conducted a Scoping Meeting on September 11, 2019 in conjunction with a Planning & Transportation Commission public hearing. That staff report is available online: https://tinyurl.com/788SanAntonio-PTCReport. A video recording of the ARB meeting is available online: https://tinyurl.com/wsb3a3v. The following were items identified at the scoping meeting to be included as part of the EIR analysis: • Include Hazards and Hazardous Materials as a topic in the EIR • Better understand recreation impacts City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 • Clarify the school district boundary • Discuss traffic/bicycle lanes and connectivity to existing routes • Look at Mountain View projects nearby • Identify the closest Elementary school as Fairmeadow • Discuss safe routes to work bicycle program • Identify that San Antonio Road is a truck route • Ensuring the proper project descriptions and alternatives to the project The work continues towards completing the Draft EIR for circulation that is expected in late February 2020. 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 January 3, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 20, 2019, which is 27 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions No other alternative actions are recommended. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408)340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment D: August 15, 2019 ARB Excerpt Minutes (PDF) • Attachment E: Applicant's Resubmittal Response Letter (PDF) • Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 1 2 7 - 5 7 - 0 7 81 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 1 4 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 2 3 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 2 2 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 2 4 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 3 0 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 3 1 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 3 6 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 3 2 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 7 8 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 7 9 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 8 0 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 5 0 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 4 2 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 4 3 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 4 8 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 4 7 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 4 6 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 4 5 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 4 4 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 4 9 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 6 8 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 6 7 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 6 61 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 6 91 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 1 91 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 2 0 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 2 1 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 1 3 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 4 9 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 3 4 1 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 0 3 1 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 0 2 1 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 0 4 1 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 0 51 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 1 8 1 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 1 4 1 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 0 1 1 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 1 6 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 3 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 2 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 1 0 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 9 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 4 8 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 3 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 2 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 6 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 2 5 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 4 1 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 7 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 6 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 5 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 8 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 2 1 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 2 2 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 2 3 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 1 1 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 4 0 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 9 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 4 6 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 4 7 1 4 7 - 1 5 - 0 1 0 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 1 9 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 1 5 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 1 6 1 4 7 - 0 9 - 0 2 3 1 4 7 - 0 9 - 0 6 4 1 4 7 - 0 9 - 0 6 3 1 4 7 - 0 9 - 0 6 5 1 4 7 - 0 9 - 0 3 8 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 0 3 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 1 6 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 1 5 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 1 4 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 1 21 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 1 1 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 1 0 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 0 9 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 0 8 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 0 7 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 0 6 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 0 5 1 4 7 - 7 1 - 0 0 4 1 4 7 - 7 2 - 0 0 2 1 4 7 - 7 2 - 0 0 1 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 2 5 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 2 6 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 2 7 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 2 8 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 1 2 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 1 1 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 1 0 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 0 9 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 0 8 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 0 7 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 1 6 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 1 5 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 1 4 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 1 3 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 5 1 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 5 0 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 4 8 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 4 9 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 5 2 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 5 6 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 5 5 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 5 4 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 5 3 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 4 7 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 4 6 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 4 5 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 4 4 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 2 9 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 2 8 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 2 6 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 0 1 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 0 3 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 0 2 1 2 7 - 1 8 - 0 0 4 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 5 2 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 5 1 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 5 0 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 9 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 5 4 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 5 3 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 5 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 6 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 4 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 0 2 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 0 3 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 0 4 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 3 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 1 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 2 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 0 5 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 0 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 0 6 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 0 7 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 0 8 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 3 9 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 3 8 1 2 7 - 1 4 - 0 3 7 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 5 1 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 5 0 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 3 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 2 3 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 2 4 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 2 9 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 0 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 1 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 2 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 6 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 7 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 8 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 9 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 0 7 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 0 8 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 0 1 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 0 2 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 0 3 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 0 4 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 2 3 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 11 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 2 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 31 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 4 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 5 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 9 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 8 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 7 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 6 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 51 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 4 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 31 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 2 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 7 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 6 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 8 3 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 8 21 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 8 1 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 8 0 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 9 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 81 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 7 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 61 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 5 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 41 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 3 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 2 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 1 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 7 01 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 9 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 81 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 7 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 1 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 01 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 9 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 81 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 7 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 61 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 5 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 41 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 3 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 2 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 1 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 5 0 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 51 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 61 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 71 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 81 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 9 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 31 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 41 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 51 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 61 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 71 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 8 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 91 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 01 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 1 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 4 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 3 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 2 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 1 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 4 0 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 2 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 11 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 0 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 91 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 8 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 61 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 5 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 8 81 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 8 7 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 8 61 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 8 5 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 8 4 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 41 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 3 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 6 2 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 4 4 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 4 3 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 4 2 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 0 9 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 5 1 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 1 0 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 0 9 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 0 81 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 0 7 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 0 61 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 0 5 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 0 41 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 0 3 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 0 2 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 0 1 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 1 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 7 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 6 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 5 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 6 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 9 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 8 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 71 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 5 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 4 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 0 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 8 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 4 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 2 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 3 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 4 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 0 6 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 0 5 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 1 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 0 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 9 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 8 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 7 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 6 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 5 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 01 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 01 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 91 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 81 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 6 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 6 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 4 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 61 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 6 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 61 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 41 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 51 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 6 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 41 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 51 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 6 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 11 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 21 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 3 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 31 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 1 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 81 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 71 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 61 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 51 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 31 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 21 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 11 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 3 01 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 81 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 71 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 61 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 41 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 31 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 21 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 31 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 11 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 3 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 31 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 7 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 31 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 91 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 6 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 3 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 6 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 6 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 3 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 6 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 3 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 4 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 21 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 3 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 4 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 21 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 3 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 01 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 8 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 71 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 6 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 5 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 81 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 71 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 61 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 51 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 41 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 3 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 8 7 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 8 6 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 9 0 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 6 8 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 6 9 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 4 5 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 3 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 2 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 1 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 0 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 9 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 8 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 6 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 5 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 4 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 3 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 2 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 3 0 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 0 1 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 3 3 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 3 2 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 3 1 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 9 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 8 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 0 1 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 0 2 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 0 3 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 0 4 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 0 5 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 0 6 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 0 7 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 0 8 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 0 9 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 0 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 1 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 2 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 3 2 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 3 1 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 3 0 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 9 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 8 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 7 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 6 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 5 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 4 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 3 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 2 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 1 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 2 01 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 91 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 81 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 71 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 61 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 5 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 41 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 3 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 4 2 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 4 3 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 4 4 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 4 6 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 5 0 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 3 4 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 4 8 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 8 7 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 3 3 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 5 1 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 2 9 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 3 0 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 3 1 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 3 2 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 8 8 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 1 1 2 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 1 0 2 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 1 1 3 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 1 0 4 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 1 0 1 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 2 6 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 2 5 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 0 4 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 0 5 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 9 8 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 5 71 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 5 8 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 5 2 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 5 3 1 4 7 - 0 1 - 0 5 4 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 5 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 4 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 6 5 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 6 4 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 4 0 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 3 9 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 4 3 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 3 8 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 4 2 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 4 1 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 8 8 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 9 2 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 1 0 2 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 1 2 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 9 1 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 8 9 1 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 2 2 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 5 3 1 2 7 - 6 9 - 0 0 11 2 7 - 6 9 - 0 0 2 1 2 7 - 6 9 - 0 0 3O v e r f lo w _ V a lu e 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 5 3 1 4 7 - 0 2 -0 1 8 1 4 7 - 0 2 - 0 1 0 FE R N E A V E N U E MID D L E F I E L D R O A D SU T H E R L A N D D R I V E SA N A N T O N I O R O A D KEA T S C O U R T MID D L E F I E L D R O A D SA N A N T O N I O R O A D BY R O N S T R E E T MAPLEWOOD P L A C E SU T H E R L A N D D R I V E FABIAN STREET SEMIN O L E W A Y MO N T R O S E A V E N U E SA N A N T O N I O R O A D LEGHORN STREET BIBBIT S D R I V E EAST CHARLESTON ROA D SA N A N T O N I O R O A D CO M M E R C I A L S T R E E T IN D U S T R I A L A V E N U E EAST CHARLESTON ROAD MA P L E WO O D AVENUE EAST C H A R L E S T O N R O A D 3924 3930 3928 3 9 7 4 772 39 7 9 39 7 3 3934 3940 3946 76 3 7 5 7 75 1 3945 3939 78 7 39 5 5 39 6 1 79 5 3951 3943 3949 39 4 8 3927 830 80 0 79 2 78 6 84 9 3977 80 1 3980 811 473 467 461 455 452 43 8 424 437 443 449 525 4190 4180 417 0 4160 690 415 2 4120 408 1 4073 406 1 408 0 4088 407 2 4064 405 6 4044 4049 4057 4037 725 717 4061 4049 4073 711 741 737 625 627 623 621 622 74 4 75 0 7 5 6 76 2 76 8 76 9 76 3 7 5 7 75 1 73 9 74 5 75 9 75 3 73 4 74 0 74 4 779 76 5 73 3 4123 4133 4118 41 3 4 412 6 415 4 639 637 633 633 629 631 620 62 4 62 6 62 8 63 0 634 632 638 636 642 640 4160 4158 415 4 4157 6994147 4145 414 9 415 1 4153 4155 4148 4150 4150 719 744 738 732 726 720 714 702 410 9 411 7 412 5 4103 411 3 4110 4102 708 749 707 713 725 731 737 743 712 718 726 708 704 700 4099 4096 765 4171 418 5 750 744 748 720 716 420 1 422 5 42 3 3 710 725 705 4151 760 794 798 796 792 790 786 780 774 768 762 756 750 77 5 7 7 4 779 785 788 780 796 7 7 0 773 767772 764 761 750 755 734 777 4017 4015 405 7 40 5 5 825 835 408 0 407 4 40 6 2 40 3 0 402 0 795 797 799 801 821 815 809 87 0 860 84 4 920 916 892 890 882 923 919 911 876 872 868 862 860 850 92 1 845 855 885 883 895897 961 904 906 908 914 918 922924926 10 0 1 762 780 840 91 0 824 816 814 810 808 800 796 788 94 1 864 858 407 7 870 874 3950 4156 4152 521 790 792 812 856 817 899 3997 708 569 925 CS CS(AD) CS CS(AD) PF PC-2711 CS RM-20 PC-1417 PC-4843 RM-20 R-2 CN This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'307' 788-796 San Antonio & San Antonio Study Area CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RAT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sahsing, 2019-09-05 10:35:38 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) Legend 788 San Antonio Study Area GM ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Context-Based Design Criteria PAMC 18.16.90 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 788 San Antonio Road Table 1: CS ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON TABLE Zoning District CS (Existing Zoning) Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Proposed Project if HIP approved Regulation Required Required Proposed Minimum Site Area (ft2) None Required Not Applicable 43,390 sf (0.996 acres) Site Width (ft) None Required Not Applicable 234-255 feet (varies) Site Depth (ft) None Required Not Applicable 147-187 feet (varies) Min. Front Yard (Leghorn Street) 0 – 10 feet to create an 8 – 12 feet effective sidewalk width (1) Not Applicable 25 feet 3 inches with 5 foot sidewalk Min. Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Not Applicable 10 feet 4 inches Min. Interior Side Yard 10 feet (for lots abutting a residential zone district) Not Applicable 10 feet 1 inch Min. Street Side Yard (San Antonio Road) 5 feet Not Applicable 26 feet 1 inch Special Setback Yes, 24 feet along San Antonio Road and 15 feet along Leghorn Street Not Applicable 26 feet 1 inch along San Antonio Road and 25 feet 3 inches along Leghorn Street Build-to-Lines 50 percent of frontage built to setback; 33 percent of side street built to setback (1) Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Site Coverage 50 percent (21,695 sf) May be waived by the Director of Planning 59 percent (25,625 sf) Maximum Height 50 feet Not Applicable 49 feet 9 inches Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 (26,034 sf) May be waived by the Director of Planning 1.93:1 (83,945.21 sf) Maximum Non-Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 (17,356 sf) Not Applicable 0.04:1 (1,779 sf) Page 2 of 3 Table 1: CS ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON TABLE Zoning District CS (Existing Zoning) Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Proposed Project if HIP approved Regulation Required Required Proposed Maximum Combined Residential and Commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (43,390 sf) 1.5:1 1.97:1 (85,945.21 sf) Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15:1 (6,508 sf) Not Applicable 0.04:1 (1,779.5 sf) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Residential Density per Acre Sites on El Camino Real 30 units/per acre No Maximum Not Applicable 102.34 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space (percent) 30 percent Not Applicable 15,412.31 sf (35.5%) Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit) 150 sf per unit (15,300 sf) Not Applicable 155 sf per unit (15,823.86 sf) CS Zoning Notes for Mixed Use Projects (1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. (k) Housing Incentive Program (1) For an exclusively residential or residential mixed-use project in the CC(2) zone or on CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, the Director may waive the residential floor area ratio (FAR) limit and the maximum site coverage requirement after the project with the proposed waiver or waivers is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director finds that a project exceeding these standards is consistent with the required architectural review findings. In no event shall the Director approve a commercial FAR that exceeds the standard in Table 4 of Section 18.16.060(b) or a total FAR (including both residential and commercial FAR) in excess of 2.0 in the CC(2) zone or 1.5 in the CN or CS zone. (2) For a 100% affordable housing project in the CC(2) zone or on CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, the Director may waive any development standard including parking after the project with the proposed waiver or waivers is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director finds that a project with such waiver or waivers is consistent with the required architectural review findings. In no event shall the Director approve development standards more permissive than the standards applicable to the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District in Chapter 18.30(J). A "100% affordable housing project" as used herein means a multiple-family housing or mixed-use project in which the residential component consists entirely of affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code, available only to households with income levels at or below 120% of the area median income, as defined in Section 16.65.020, and where the average Page 3 of 3 household income does not exceed 60% of the area median income level, except for a building manager's unit. (3) This program is a local alternative to the state density bonus law, and therefore, a project utilizing this program shall not be eligible for a density bonus under Chapter 18.15 (Residential Density Bonus). 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Type Required Proposed Conforms? Multiple-Family 1 space per studio and one-bedroom; 2 spaces per two- bedroom unit Studio: 32 1-bedroom: 67 2-bedroom: 3 105 spaces 105 spaces* Yes, with use of mechanical lifts (81 stackers) Commercial 1 space per 350 square feet (First 1,500 sf exempted from parking) 1,779 -1,500 = 279 sf 1 space 2 space Yes Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit/ 100% Long Term (LT) 1 space per 10 units short term for guests (ST) 1 space per 3,500 square feet (20% LT/ 80% ST) 102 LT spaces 10.2 ST spaces 1 ST space Total Required: 102 LT spaces & 11 ST spaces 104 LT Spaces 12 ST Spaces Yes 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] 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 APPROVED 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. 4.a Packet Pg. 73 Studio S Squared Architecture, Inc. 1000 S Winchester Blvd. San Jose, CA 95128 ph: (408) 998-0983 fax: (408) 404-0144 www.studios2arch.com October 16, 2019 City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Planning SAhSing@m-group.us Re: 788 San Antonio Road; 19PLN-00079 Studio S Squared job#: 18019 Dear Mr. Ah Sing, Thank you for taking the time to review our revised drawings in response to multiple department reviews as well as the initial ARB review from August 15, 2019. The following pages detail our responses. We look forward to further working with you on this project; please do not hesitate to call our office should you have any questions. Sincerely, Eugene H. Sakai, AIA, LEED AP President, Studio S² Architecture, Inc. cc: Property Owners File RE: 788 San Antonio Road; 19PLN-00079 10/16/2019 2 of 33 ARB Comments Since no formal ARB letter was received, please see below for our notes from the ARB Hearing on August 15th, 2019.  Alex Lew’s Comments: o Proposed height of retail too low – Response: Retail height is +/-11’-6” since retail is entered at grade, not the same height as the residential space. o Ground floor glass at north west corner seems odd – Response: One prominent glass corner remains facing the intersection, the northern glass corner has been removed to avoid symmetry o Love the two story tall lobby – Response: Agreed, this lobby space with views to the inner courtyard is meant to be a very attractive feature for the San Antonio Road, and we have enhanced it further as noted below. o Palms on roof terrace doesn’t make sense – Response: Palms have been eliminated as part of the upper floor terrace redesign. Planting areas comply with minimum area requirements for roof gardens. o Bike Room can’t be open to the lobby, consider adding a bike wash area – Response: Partitioned off bike rooms (20 bikes max) are proposed now. We would like to discuss with the ARB and Staff the possibility of one open bike room for greater layout efficiency and community, given the transparency/visibility of this room. o An outdoor bike wash area for both tenant and public use is proposed along the sloped walkway leading to the bike rooms. o Landscape planting needs more native species – Response: Agreed, see revised landscape planting plan which incorporates more native species o Retail at corner makes sense  – Response:  We agree and our revised design keeps the retail at the corner of San Antonio Road and Leghorn.  This retail area could function really well as a street corner café, and will bolster the street café presence of the Japanese Tapas & Ramen restaurant on the same block of San Antonio.  The storefront facing San Antonio could be either fixed glazing as shown, or folding/roll up doors system to enhance indoor/outdoor dining.  David Hirsch’s Comments: o Central residential entrance seems odd. Consider moving residential lobby to corner – Response: We explored the option of relocating the residential lobby entrance to the corner, but the loss of the visual connection to the inner courtyard made this tradeoff not worthwhile. We also wanted to activate the corner with a retail use as noted above. We respectfully insist that keeping the lobby entrance centered on the inner courtyard is the right path forward for this design. o Relocate trash chutes to be closer to vertical circulation – Response: Agreed, this change has been implemented. o Design is victim of its own symmetry – Response: Agreed, we have broken down the symmetry both in massing, as well as materials. RE: 788 San Antonio Road; 19PLN-00079 10/16/2019 3 of 33 o Roof terrace has no function, though views to Bay would be nice – Response: Excellent feedback! We have relocated the upper level open space so that it is now open on the north end with views towards the Taube Koret Campus and beyond. The location of the open space now has 135 degree views. o Open space on upper level would be nice – Response: Agreed, 4th level open space provided o Vertical strips on elevations are hard to understand – Response: Revised material palette is meant to be simpler and more consistent compared to the previous design. o Windows do not need to be so consistent throughout – Response: We respectfully disagree, and feel that consistent window sizes lend a degree of simplicity and consistency for the elevations. We have varied the “surrounds” around the windows to provide variety in color and form and feel this adds sufficient visual interest. o Only one elevator seems like it could be an issue – Response: Agreed, vertical circulation has been revamped, and now two elevator areas are proposed.  Osma Thompson o Building needs to respond to context and site  – Response:  We’ve changed our material palette to better tie in to recent projects of similar scale along San Antonio (Taube Koret Campus, SA Center Marriott)  We’ve adjusted the massing of our building to be more asymmetrical and focused on the corner  We’ve referenced the historic use of the site (Chrysanthemum wholesaler) with a subtle stamped concrete pattern at the corner plaza and our interior courtyard. o There doesn’t seem to be any connection to the street  – Response:  Our recessed and glassy lobby space centered on the open inner courtyard is meant to provide a very open and active feel to our project’s design, and the scale of this space is intended to provide a pleasing visual for drivers and bikers passing by as well as residents.  We are now showing a much more active corner café area with an enhanced landscape plaza.  Seeing the bike parking areas through the ground-level glazing will showcase these spaces and help activate the street level  A publicly accessible bike wash area along San Antonio will enhance pedestrian activity while providing water for dogs out on walks.  Given all of the above, we feel our design compares very favorably in this regard to recently built projects along San Antonio. o Overly glassy corners feel more like office spaces than residential – Response: Agreed, we have significantly reduced the amount of glass at RE: 788 San Antonio Road; 19PLN-00079 10/16/2019 4 of 33 the southwestern corner, and completely revamped the design of the northwestern corner units. o Inner courtyard needs development – Response: Agreed! We have had time to develop this space, please see below. o Too many materials proposed at elevations – Response: Revised material palette is simpler and more consistent compared to the previous design. o Retail at corner is OK – Response: We agree, please see above.  Peter Baltay o Residential entry at corner makes more sense – Response: See above. o Retail here should be an appointment only type space, and could be on a higher level – Response: We respectfully disagree and feel that the retail space should be on the ground level to provide a more active and interesting corner presence for this site. o West facing glazing for residential spaces would be unpleasant – Response: We have reduced much of the west facing glazing for the units that open onto other orientations, including most notably the reduction in glazing at the southwestern corner units. o Design is a 4-story building that goes straight up from the street to the roof – Response: Our revised design has quite a bit of massing variety in elevation, from the recessed two story curtain wall of the lobby entrance, to the stepped back 4th floor. The upper level open space has a parapet height that is much lower than the adjacent units lending a pleasant variety and feel to the elevation. o Parking layout is too compact, 20 feet of backup space is not enough – Response: The smallest backup space in the garage is 25 feet. o Think about street drop offs and Uber – Response: We have incorporated a short term (5 minute) parking duckout sufficient for two cars along Leghorn Street to allow for such uses. A seat wall has been provided in the landscaping for the comfort of those waiting, and plantings will help screen the adjacent resident balconies. o Courtyard is nonfunctioning  – Response:  The previous design was underdeveloped at the time of our previous submittal.  We have now laid out the courtyard with both circulation and seating zones, while positioning planters to provide privacy for the courtyard facing studio apartments.  We’ve specified plantings that will flourish in lower light conditions given that the courtyard is surrounded on 4 sides.  To help allow more light into the courtyard, the upper level balconies facing the courtyard have only semi-solid roofs.  We are considering adding a water feature to enhance the user experience of this space.  The planting now flows into the 2 story lobby, to further enhance the indoor-outdoor theme of the building. o Too many architectural styles at play  – Response:  We feel the current proposal has a much simpler architectural style consisting mainly of a playful “ribbon” RE: 788 San Antonio Road; 19PLN-00079 10/16/2019 5 of 33 that ties the ground floor spaces together, and a series of “framed recesses” surrounding the balcony spaces.  The “ribbon” also juts out into the ground plane in the setbacks framing certain special landscape areas which help provide more privacy for the ground level residential units and help with stormwater mitigation.  The “framed recesses” also continue up to the upper level open space to create framed view portals at that level, while also helping to break up the parapet facing San Antonio Road. o Palm trees will not work on a roof terrace – Response: No large trees are proposed for the upper level open space. o Consider being tall at the corner and then stepping down from there – Response: Our revised design along San Antonio Road provides more visual interest while also allowing the upper level open space near- panoramic views of the surrounding area. Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Development Services Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “788 San Antonio Road” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4575&TargetID=319 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10503) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/16/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4256 El Camino Real: 97 Room Hotel (3rd formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4256 El Camino Real: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building for the Development of a New 51,900 Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 97 Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Circulating for Public Comment Between December 20, 2019 and February 3, 2020. Zone District: CS (Service 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. Receive and provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project, to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the attached findings (Attachment C) and subject to conditions of approval (Attachment D). Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on two other occasions. The Municipal Code encourages the Director of Planning and Development Services (Director) to act on major Architectural Review applications after three ARB hearings. Given that the project must complete the environmental review process, the Director cannot approve the project in January. A decision on the application may take place following publication of the Final EIR addressing any public comments on the draft EIR. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Earlier staff reports include extensive background information, project analysis, and evaluation to city codes and policies; these reports are available online: • November 15, 2018 - bit.ly/ARB_Hearing_11_15_2018. • January 17, 2019 - bit.ly/ARB_Hearing_1_17_2019. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and present the applicant’s responses to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier reports and has been modified to reflect recent project changes. The ARB is encouraged to make a final recommendation to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project. Background On January 17, 2019 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://bit.ly/1_17_2019_video. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Provide additional verification/information for the shadows cast by the project on to the neighboring swimming pool area. A new third-party shadow study has been provided by the Environmental Consultant under the supervision of City Staff. Provide better details for the garage drop off areas and create a positive connection to the lobby. The garage levels have removed the lobby areas and now only have elevators that are used by staff as the valet operation is at the ground level near the lobby entrance of the hotel (A-3.6 to A-3.7). City Staff conditioned the return of the garage valet area and the applicant will provide updated plan sheets to indicate the change and the guest valet experience at the hearing. The stair tower on the north elevation should not be overbearing to the neighboring pool area. The stair tower has been revised with a new perforated metal design and is lower than the surrounding building (Sheet A- 5.4). Better integration of the traffic signage to the building. The directional signage was revised along with the addition of pavement markings (A-3.9 to A-3.11). Provide detailed lighting plans for the exterior of site. Landscaping/lighting plans on L-3.0 and L- 3.1. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Update the window patterns to formulate an intended design throughout and study the roof top equipment screening. The window patterns have been revised (A-4.0 to A-4.3). Roof top screening has been reduced in height (A-4.0). Provide details on the exterior gates along El Camino Real. Details for this gate provided on L-2.4. Ceiling of porte-cochere shall be detailed. This item is conditioned to be reviewed by the ARB subcommittee. Provide additional clarity related to the tree preservation report and the redwood trees. Additional information from the City’s Urban Forester provided in this staff report. Staff to provide additional information for curb management and management of ride share activities. Red curbs in front of the hotel and curb management details provided in this report, as well as a condition of approval related to ride share. Analysis1 Overall Changes to Materials and Design The project has been revised by the applicant since the previous hearing. The building has new brown siding around the building and dark black trim throughout. Additionally, there are now window trim projections (frames) and decorative screens on all windows. The project also now includes new balconies that face El Camino Real, the building at 4260 El Camino Real, and the interior courtyard of the subject site. The new color and material scheme deleted the decorative glass on the front of the building at the ground level. The applicant also deleted the Hardie board previously proposed along the interior sides of the building. A new addition to the project is the exterior patio area for the restaurant of the hotel. The new patio area features large umbrellas and sound walls to help reduce noise projection to the adjacent property. Other changes have been made to the rear massing of the building. There are interior floor plan changes which resulted in the loss of three hotel rooms, bringing the total proposed room count from 100 down to 97 rooms. Attachment E shows a comparison of the changes from the previous design to the current design. Shadow Study The ARB had concerns over the applicant’s Shadow Study provided in the previously submitted plans. To address these concerns, staff commissioned its consultant to prepare a Shadow Study (Attachment F). The City’s environmental threshold for shadows is the creation of substantial shadows on public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. While this requirement does not apply in this situation, the project meets this threshold. 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. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 The new Shadow Study shows that the project will project shadows for a limited time period on the adjacent, privately-owned condominium complex. Specifically, the private pool area for the neighboring complex will have limited shadows during the morning hours of winter (9 am to 11 am), morning hours of spring (9 am to 10:30 am), and morning hours of summer (8:30 am to 10 am). In conformance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines (South), staff concludes the project has been designed to limit shadows cast on neighboring residential properties common recreational spaces. Garage Lobby Connection The submitted plans proposes some changes to the garage level along with the removal of the lobby feature from the first level of the garage. The new proposed location for the valet check- in is within the double driveway area. New signage (sheets 3.9A-3.11A) instruct visitors that valet parking is required; otherwise drop offs are to take place for Transportation Network Companies (common “rideshare” apps) or taxis. This adjustment in the garage plan would position visitors in direct line of sight to the hotel entry. However, to avoid any queuing issues during peak hours, staff has required the Applicant (as conditioned) to return the valet booth to the first garage level as previously proposed during the second formal ARB hearing. The image below indicates where the valet booth would be located and the applicant is preparing revised plan sheets to reflect this required change. The newly proposed surface level valet service area within the double driveway area would only be allowed to operate during off peak hours, such as for night time guest check-in as guest arrivals and hotel deliveries would be reduced during the late evening and night time hours. During regular business hours where peak demand for deliveries and guest arrivals take place (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.) the surface level valet area could not be utilized, only the garage level valet area can be in use. The applicant will provide updated plan sheets that detail this required change and also provide information regarding the guest experience when utilizing the garage level valet. Similarly, the City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 hotel directional signage will be updated accordingly and presented to during the public hearing. North Stair Tower Design The applicant revised the stair tower located on the northern portion of the building. In previous designs, the stair tower differed from the surrounding building in color and materials. It was previously the tallest building form on this corner of the building. The new design matches the colors of the interior courtyard portions of the building and features a new sound wave like design down the center of the tower. This new design is also applied to the eastern stair tower (sheet A4.2). The stair tower is level with the adjacent sections of building facing the interior courtyard of the site. On plan sheet 5.2A, the stair tower is seen as an individual piece of the building in a series of column sections that wrap around the courtyard, each with its own design but all having related materials and colors. These changes to the design are an improvement over the previous design. Signage The signage for the project has been updated with additional details shown on pages A-3.9 through A-3.11. The applicant provided additional information regarding the color, materials, lighting, and finish of the parking and traffic signs located in the porte-cochere area. The internally-illuminated push-through lettering is typical of signage the City approves. This type of illumination with the painted aluminum panels would be highly visible and presented in a high- quality package. The porte-cochere drive aisles now include directional pavement marking to further assist drivers as they enter the site for pickups and drop-offs. The Office of Transportation has reviewed this area and found the directional signage to be sufficient. Lighting Plan Details for the landscape lighting are provided on sheet L3.0 of the project plans. All exterior light fixtures are shown with photo references within the landscaping lighting legend. The ARB had some concerns for the proposed string lighting within the garden patio area of the site. These lights now feature wide conical shades, which address the concern of exposed lights emitting light towards the adjacent condominium complex. The exterior lighting plan provides low level mounted lights, which function to illuminate the garden plaza area for guests who will navigate the area. The plan does not include lighting to highly express the area as a bright and lively gathering place. For example, the in-ground lighting and wall planter lights (noted as “B and C” on the lighting plan) have very low light emissions. The photometrics (on the last page of the plan set) show that the light emissions located near the property lines are very low. The existing and proposed fences will create additional screening of light emission from the project to the adjacent condominium complex. Furthermore, the downward and inward angles of the proposed light fixtures would direct light emissions towards the pathways of the site Window Design and Roof Top Screening City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 The applicant changed the El Camino Real façade finish from plaster to full siding to match the left side of the building and removed the transition in siding material. Additional details for the window relationship to the exterior siding are provided on Sheets A-6.3 to A-7.1. The windows will be set into the building by one to two inches from the exterior façade materials and are surrounded by a “para-soleil” screen panels and extended face caps (exhibit 6 on A7.1). The roof top equipment screening also has been reduced in height per the ARB’s comments, and now is the same height as the proposed roof top equipment. This change can be best seen on Sheet A-4.0. The screens on both sides of the El Camino Real elevation are noticeably shorter and now appear to have an improved association with the building elevations. The roof screening no longer appears independent from the overall building. Visually, this change brings down the height that is presented to El Camino Real and blends these features well with the building’s roof lines. El Camino Real Gates & Benches The steel gates along El Camino Real that close off the transformer and back of house areas of the restaurant have been studied. Sheet L2.4 details the height of the gates, which are proposed to be six feet tall made of black steel designed with a curved waved at the top. This wave design is carried over to the pedestrian seating along El Camino Real. The seating has been redesigned as an “organic wave bench” separated by a planter box in the center of the two benches (sheet L2.1). The applicant is proposing a concept for public art on the exterior of the ground level metal fin wall between the driveways. The concept involves a sculpture that can function as a usable bench for public seating as well as public art. The image below shows the detail for the location of the functional art (sheet L2.1 and A3.15). Public art is reviewed and approved by the Public Art Commission. The gates for both the waste bin and transformer servicing would swing out. The transformer gates are nearly 15 feet long which would result in the sidewalk being blocked when opened. However, this would only occur during major service or replacement of the transformer, which would require encroachment permits to block the sidewalks. The gates for the waste bin City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 collection would be regularly used; however, at only five feet wide, these gates would not cause disruptions to the pedestrian flow on El Camino Real as the project includes an effective sidewalk of 12 feet along the frontage (sheets A3.0 & L2.4). The applicant has also provided additional details and information for the interior fencing, which would not result in the removal of the existing fencing along the perimeter of the site. Curb Management The pick-up and drop-off activities have been a point of concern by the public and the ARB. Staff and the applicant reviewed this activity and the building directional signage. As detailed in the signage discussion above, the signage and the drive aisle painting would provide better direction to visitors facilitate more efficient movement from the porte-cochere to garage and exiting the site. The applicant provided details in their Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, which requires regular communication with Transportation Network Companies (rideshare) to provide in-app directions for their drivers to pull into the site and not to drop-off or pick up hotel guests on El Camino Real. City staff, with the assistance of information provided by neighbors, reviewed the existing El Camino Real tour bus activity. Staff confirmed that tour buses that are double parked or blocking driveways would be documented and reported to their carrier company management by the Palo Alto Police Department (PD). Both hotel staff and the public would need to provide photos of the tour buses and submit them to Palo Alto 311. Additionally, the curb area directly in front of the hotel will be painted red, as a fire lane. Any vehicles parked or loading in this area would be doing so illegally and should be reported the Palo Alto PD at their non- emergency number (650) 329-2413. Palo Alto PD is aware of the issue that privately operated oversize vehicle pose along El Camino Real and will enforce traffic laws when they are notified and/or observe infractions. This is a City-wide issue and will take the assistance of reporting residents and businesses to assist with enforcement efforts. Tree Preservation The history for this project's tree surveying, assessment, and preservation commenced with the standard City process of the applicant providing an Arborist report for the project site. However, due to the number of protected redwoods on and adjacent to the site and concern from the neighboring property owners, the City required a 3rd party consulting Arborist to produce a new Arborist report. The development of the 3rd party Arborist report was fully overseen by the City Urban Forester and utilized best practices and advance surveying technology without the project Applicants' involvement. Root surveying was performed for this 3rd party report to locate and identify the location of the on-site and adjacent redwood tree root systems. All of this work led to a document exceeding the standard Arborist report initially provided for the project, resulting in a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan (TPPP). The TPPP was prepared in full compliance with the guidelines of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual and details the measures and conditions for this proposed project to reduce impacts to protected trees to less than significant levels and provides construction guidelines to be followed through all phases of City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 construction. Furthermore, conditions of approval have been provided for the applicant to follow, ensuring that best practices are employed for the preservation of the protected redwoods. The applicant must submit a deposit (cash or bond) in the amount equal to 1.5 times the appraised value of protected Redwoods #13, 14, 15, and 16 as described on the TPPP and based on the appraisals that were completed by City staff on February 15, 2019. The deposit will be held for a term of five years after the date of the certificate of occupancy and the City requires an annual report to be supplied to the City of Palo Alto regarding the status of the protected trees. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was circulated for public comment on January 7, 2019 and February 6, 2019. After additional review it was determined that the environmental review would be elevated to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Draft EIR was released for public comment on December 20, 2019 through February 3, 2020 for a total of 45 days. Links to the Draft EIR can be found within Attachment G. Any comments received prior to the end of the comment period will be addressed in a Final EIR for the Director’s consideration. 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 January 3, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 20, 2019, which is 27 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, staff had received one project-related, public comment. This new comment is included within Attachment H along with the previously submitted neighbor comments from the Palo Alto Redwoods community. Staff continues to work with the neighbors, keeping them informed on revised plans and environmental documents. As noted, any public comments on the EIR received by February 3, 2020 will be addressed in a Final EIR for the Director’s consideration prior to his decision on the application. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 Samuel Gutierrez, 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: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment C: Draft Findings (DOCX) • Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment E: Project Changes (PDF) • Attachment F: City Consultant Shadow Study (PDF) • Attachment G: Applicant Revised Project Description (PDF) • Attachment H: Previously Submitted & New Comments (PDF) • Attachment I: Hotel Operations (PDF) • Attachment J: Project Plans and Environmental Documents (DOCX) ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4256 EL Camino Real 18PLN-00096 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.595 acres (25,960 sf) 0.595 acres (25,960 sf) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 12’8” 12’ 1 3/8” & 12’ 7 7/8” foot front setback, providing a 12 foot effective sidewalk width Rear Yard None 110’-2” 19’-3” Interior Side Yard None 31’-3” 10’ (narrowest points) Street Side Yard None N/A N/A Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) N/A N/A Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback Not Known 50% of frontage Max. Site Coverage None 12.69% (3,296 sf) 49.6% (12,801 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than RM- 40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Not known 50 feet (12 ft additional height for mechanical screen)(9) Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) per Code Section 18.18.060(d) 2.0:1 for hotels (51,920 sf) 3,296 sf 51,900 sf Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) N/A N/A (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.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage (9) Height Exception for roof top equipment to exceed the height limit by 15 ft. PAMC 18.40.090 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotel use Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per guestroom; plus the applicable requirement for eating and drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial or other as required for such uses, less up to 75% of the spaces required for guestrooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking study of parking generated by the mix of uses. This project requires a total of 97 spaces prior to the Director’s adjustment. Parking Lifts (PAMC 18.54.020(b)4) - Minimum of two spaces or 10% of the total number of parking spaces provided, whichever is greater, shall be provided as standard non-mechanical parking spaces. Accessible spaces shall not be counted as one of the standard spaces for this requirement. 46 spaces 86 spaces*; 26 mechanical lifts, 54 standard, 1 valet, 4 accessible spaces. Reduction of 15% via Directors Adjustment for an on-site TDM program. 17 Additional Valet Aisle Parking spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per 10 guestrooms, plus requirements for accessory uses (drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial or other), (100% short-term required) (10 Required) Not known 12 spaces short term; Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000 - 99,999 sf Not known 1 space**, Reduced size via Director’s adjustment to minimum size of 10 ft wide by 30 ft long (SU-30 truck size) *18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director - Transportation and Parking Alternatives (up to 20% Reduction) Where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided, other than those listed above, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Examples of such programs may include, but are not limited to, transportation demand management (TDM) programs or innovative parking pricing or design solutions. **18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director - Modification to Off-Street Loading Requirements (Maximum Reduction of one loading space) The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non-residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding that: 1) the off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; and 2) the use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. ATTACHMENT C DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 4256 El Camino Real 18PLN-00096 Section A: CEQA Findings The Director of Planning and Development Services (Director) makes the following findings: 1. The environmental effects of the Project have been analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2. The draft EIR identified one or more potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment as well as mitigation measures that would reduce the significant effects to a less than significant level. The Project applicant, before public release of the draft EIR, has made or agreed to make revisions to the Project that clearly mitigate the effects to a less than significant level as demonstrated through the adoption of the related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). 3. The Director has independently reviewed and considered the Initial Study/MND, together with any public comments received during the public review process and other information in the record, prior to acting upon or approving the Project. 4. The EIR reflects and represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Palo Alto as lead agency. 5. Based on the whole record of proceedings, the Director hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, and does hereby adopt the Environmental Impact Report and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project. 6. The Director of Planning and Development Services at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 is the custodian of records and documents of proceedings on which this decision is based. Section B: Architectural Review Findings 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. On balance, the project can 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: Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents. POLICY B-1.7: Encourage businesses of all kinds to advance Palo Alto’s commitment to fiscal and environmental sustainability. POLICY L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing POLICY L-2.12: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposed façade would be of high quality finishes and materials that will enhance the existing street scape along El Camino Real The proposal would result in a new business that serves both local and regional customers who seek lodging in Palo Alto while complying with current Green Building construction and operating standards. The proposal will redevelop an underutilized parcel along El Camino Real and will provide a local and regional serving business. The project involves new planting through the property including a large plaza in the interior of the property for hotel guest to utilize. POLICY L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. POLICY L-9.7: Strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial districts; Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real and between Palo Alto and Stanford. The project proposes a underground parking structure that utilizes parking lifts (puzzle lift systems), removing all surface parking from the site and allowing for a more engaging frontage. Additionally, the project will provide new street trees in the public right of way that are more sustainable and suitable for the site. The project proposes a new hotel near the south City boundary along El Camino Real, contributing to the South El Camino corridor visual and business identity. PROGRAM L9.10.2: Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such The project locates backflow preventers, gas meters, electric transformers and switch gears as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. out of the view of the public by placing them along the interior of the building footprint and the edges of the building along the interior lot lines. This application is also subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. To conform with these Guidelines, the project will plant new street trees along the El Camino Real frontage of the site and a new 12 ft wide sidewalk will be provided. The site plan and building design provides all of the on-site parking below grade and will screen all of the mechanical equipment from public view. The projects trash enclosure is located out of public view. The buildings design provides all elevations with a integrated consistent design throughout, maintaining the overall architectural theme of the building. The design of the new building is softened with the use of dark wood panels that connect the building façade with the existing mature redwoods that surround the site. The site plan of the project is developed to minimize the impacts to the adjacent multi-family development by stepping down the building heights from five stories down to two stories as the building approaches the rear property line. In addition, the buildings’ footprint on the site plan is oriented away from the adjacent residential developments’ common open space area by the “C” shaped site plan of the project with the opening of the “C” shaped site plan facing the common open space area, minimizing the impact to light and air. Also, the building design of the project places smaller windows facing towards the property lines and larger windows facing to the interior plaza area of the site to minimize privacy impact to the adjacent residential development while still providing natural light for hotel patrons. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is proposing new building with a façade that will enhance the local environment for the community and patrons to the local businesses alike. The design of the new building is consistent with the context-based design criteria within the CS zone, as further described below. The proposal will also conform to code required setbacks through the site and will provide a pedestrian friendly 12 foot sidewalk long the sites frontage. 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 enhance the pedestrian environment by providing a 12 ft sidewalk and a restaurant with patio seating near the street. The project will also provide 10 bicycle parking spaces on site. The project has a large lobby with full length windows that connects to the interior plaza area of the site, promoting an open and inviting frontage. The project is proposing pedestrian seating along El Camino Real. 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 proposed building includes a recessed entry and cantilever features that will function as a shelter for pedestrians. The proposed building also will have large clear windows that connect the interior of the building to the sidewalk and street, in addition to a restaurant patio that promote pedestrian activity. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will substantially increase the existing massing while creating a new larger front setback (12 ft wide sidewalk) from the street. Interior side setbacks vary while maintaining at least a 10 ft setback along the interior lot lines and a minimum 16 ft in rear setback. All of which conform to Code required setbacks and daylight plane requirements. 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 as the project site is adjacent to a commercial property and a dense multi-family residential development. However, the proposed design has taken the adjacent multi-family developments privacy into account and designed the building in a manner where larger windows are oriented to the interior plaza of the development. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of The project provides a large open plaza area in the interior lobby of the site will be the future the site location of a Public Art installation and will open for visitors of the site and the public alike. additionally, the project is proposing public art on the exterior of the building at the ground level between the driveways along El Camino Real. 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 remove existing on- site parking and replacing surface parking with underground parking making use of parking lift systems. No parking will be visible from the street level and the character of the site promotes an engaging frontage from the street level. 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 be constructed in accordance with current green building energy efficiency requirements and will utilize natural materials such as glass, wood, metal, concrete which are readily recyclable. The project will also incorporate a landscape plan that is water efficient and drought tolerant. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project involves materials which are durable and of high-quality finishes. The new façade will have a mixture of materials with dark wood like paneling inspired. Additional materials in such as dark finished metal provide contrast to the wood façade softening the frontage of the site and fitting of the character and enhancing the surrounding the area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project includes a porte-cochere laid out in a lower case “h” shape, allowing for passenger and service/delivery vehicles that support the day to day operation of the proposed hotel while providing easy access for arriving vehicles into the underground garage. The porte-cochere includes a two lane driveway (single direction) that can accommodate the service vehicles up to 30 feet in length. New utilities equipment and meters are easily accessible as they are placed on the edges of the building. Additionally, the project is proposed to have new vehicle directional signage and pedestrian/vehicle alert signs promoting safer site circulation. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project meets the findings as it includes new planting throughout the site, with 10 of the 24 proposed plants being California native plants within the interior plaza garden area of the site. All of the proposed planting are either low water use (10 total) or medium water use (14). Additionally, some of the plants in the plant palette attract wild life such as the Azalea Autumn Cheer, Arbutus Menziesii (birds and bees), Pittosporum tenuifolium (birds), California Gray Rush (Perennial grasslike herb, pollinators), and the Platanus x Acerifolia “Yardwood” (birds). 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 also comply with all applicable green building codes for energy efficient buildings such as the use of energy-efficient lighting and will utilize materials such as glass, wood, metal, concrete which are readily recyclable. The project also utilizes landscaping in the plant palette that is moderate to low water usage with nearly half of the selected plants being native to California. ATTACHMENT D DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4256 El Camino Real 18PLN-00096 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "ANALOG A Boutique Hotel” stamped as received by the City on November 11, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The Architectural Review (AR) approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. REQUIRED PLAN SET CHANGES. The primary valet area must be returned to the first garage level to address queuing concerns. The location of the valet area is to be consistent with the plans presented to the ARB on January 17, 2019 and as detailed in the Staff report for the ARB hearing on January 16, 2020. 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. 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 details for the Ceiling of porte-cochere for the project, including material joints, finish, color, and light fixtures. 7. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 8. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 9. STREET TREES. Four (4) street trees as noted on the approved plans, must be planted (replacements) by the applicant and inspected by PW Urban Forestry prior to final inspection. 10. MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING SYSTEM & VALET PARKING. Up to 72 required parking spaces may be provided in a puzzle parking system, which allows independent access to each vehicle. Valet parking services must be provided at all times on-site to ensure queuing of cars is kept to a minimum. The property owner and/or hotelier shall have a maintenance agreement with the lift system manufacturer to ensure the system shall be operational at all times. If the lift system is out of operation for any reason, anyone who is not able to retrieve their vehicle within a 15-minute period shall be reimbursed by the property owner or their designee for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence. 11. DIRECTOR’S PARKING ADJUSTMENT. The proposal includes a request for a director’s adjustment to the minimum parking requirement for the site of 97 parking spaces. The proposal would result in the net loss of nine (9) parking spaces, which would provide a total of 86 dedicated parking spaces with and additional 17 parking spaces provided via valet aisle parking, exceeding the minimum parking requirement if 97 spaces. In accordance with PAMC 18.42.050, a Director’s Adjustment of 15% of the total requirement is approved provided a final Transportation Demand Management Plan is provided and approved as further described in Condition of Approval #10. 12. TDM PROGRAM AND ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT: The applicant shall abide by the Final Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, entitled “Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Memorandum for Hamilton Webster Project”, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The TDM plan includes measures and programs to achieve a reduction in single-occupancy vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 45%, in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan includes an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. The TDM annual report shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official. Monitoring and reporting requirements may be revised in the future if the minimum reduction is not achieved through the measures and programs initially implemented. Projects that do not achieve the required reduction may be subject to daily penalties as set forth in the City’s fee schedule. 13. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (Palo Alto TMA). The subject site shall participate in the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (http://www.paloaltotma.org/) or any successor Transportation Management Association/Program that is designed to reduce commute trips to and from the City of Palo Alto. The property owner shall ensure this condition is included in all lease agreements in order to streamline implementation. 14. TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES. The property owner shall work with transportation network companies (TNCs, i.e. LYFT/Uber) to encourage them to drop-off and pick-up customers from the hotel’s porte cochere, and avoid such activities along El Camino Real. 15. NO PARKING/NO STOPPING LOCATIONS. The project frontage along El Camino Real shall be posted as no parking/stopping to ensure free flow of traffic in this area. 16. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT. An updated noise report shall be conducted prior to the issuance of any building permit to ensure all roof top mechanical equipment and any other noise producing equipment is in compliance with City Noise regulations. Should the findings of the report indicate the selected equipment exceeds allowable noise levels per section 9.10 of the Municipal Code, the applicant shall submit replacement equipment that would be within the allowed noise limits. This will be confirmed with additional noise reports as needed. 17. AMPLIFIED SOUND. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.12, no amplified music shall be used for producing sound in or upon any open area between the hours of 10:00pm and one hour after sunrise. 18. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project to be incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services. 19. SIDEWALK EASEMENT. The applicant shall include an offer of dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. 20. 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. 21. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $1,243,047 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 22. 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 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. The proposed location of the public art is within the building as indicated on sheet A3.15 of the approved plan set. 23. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 24. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 25. As the applicant is now proposing to extend the storm drain main on El Camino Real and connect the site’s storm runoff into that extended main as opposed to discharging through thru-curb drains as previously approved, applicant will need to provide approval from Caltrans to do so as that is their right of way and their storm drain main. Caltrans approval of this work shall be provided prior to Grading or Building permit issuance. 26. A structure is proposed over an existing PUE. Applicant will need to provide documentation verifying easement has been abandoned (recorded document from the County) or obtain an encroachment permit for a structure within a PUE by submitting an encroachment permit application, insurance meeting PW requirements, and a plan that will be reviewed by both Utilities’ groups and the storm drain division prior to grading or Building permit issuance. 27. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long- term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the planning review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. Applicant provided preliminary third party approval of the project in entitlement. Please provide this C.3 data form stamped and signed by the qualified third party reviewer, and a stamped and signed letter from the third party reviewer confirming plans are in compliance with MRP 2.0 Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. These must be provided prior to PWE approval of Grading or Building permits. 28. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. Please note, applicant will be required to obtain a permit from both Caltrans and the City for shoring to encroach onto El Camino Real frontage right of way. This will require approval from Caltrans and all applicable City utility departments and is not guaranteed to be approved. 29. Applicant will be required to offer a dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. If no mapping is to be done for this project, the dedication will be required to be recorded in advance of permit issuance. 30. Applicant will be required to dedicate a Public Utility Easement at the location of the new proposed transformer. If no mapping is to be done for this project, the dedication will be required to be recorded in advance of permit issuance. 31. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Plans provided do not show if the existing site drainage has a direct discharge into the existing system. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 32. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 33. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 34. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 35. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 36. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 37. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 38. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 39. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 40. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 41. 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 issuance of the Building and/or Grading permit. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 42. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” 43. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. 44. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. 45. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 46. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill in CY), pad, finished floor, garage elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable) grades along the project conforms, property lines, or back of walk. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for additional items. Projects that front directly into the public sidewalk, shall include grades at the doors or building entrances. Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splashblocks (2-feet long min) and any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks. Provide dimensions between the bubblers and property lines. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. In particular, runoff from the new garage shall not drain into neighboring property. For additional grading and drainage detail design See Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 47. Provide the following note on the Grading and Drainage Plan and/or Site Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering (PWE) 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”. 48. Decorative streetlights shall be added to meet spacing guidelines of 35-feet to 40-feet per light. Existing “cobra head” lights shall be replaced by tall decorative lights and the remaining distance shall be met with pedestrian scale lights. Spec will be provided, however applicant shall use LED luminaire instead of incandescent or sodium vapor. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION 49. Drain downspouts to landscaping or stormwater treatment area (outward from building as needed) as opposed to connecting to storm drain line or draining onto impervious surface (Sheet C-3.0 and Sheet C-3.1). Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 50. Refer to PWE comments regarding the drainage management areas on sheet HYD-2. Confirm with PWE if DMA #6 is allowed to drain to the street instead of draining to stormwater treatment area or landscaping. 51. Sheet ER-1: Erosion Control Notes: • It shall be the owner’s contractor’s responsibility to maintain control of the entire construction operation and to keep the entire site in compliance with the erosion control plan and guidance from City inspectors. • Add text: “Contractor is responsible for replacing storm drain inlet protection within one business day following a rain event if City staff removes inlet protection during a rain event. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets also require inlet protection.” Add this bullet to the building plans. • Sanitary facilities shall be maintained on the site at all times according to either the latest revisions of the CASQA or Caltrans BMPs. Sanitary facilities shall include secondary containment. Add this bullet to the building plans. • All paved areas shall be kept clear of earth material and debris on a daily basis throughout the life of the project… Add this bullet to the building plans. • All materials necessary for the approved erosion control measures shall be in place throughout the life of the project. • Erosion control systems shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project. • The contractor shall be responsible for checking and repairing erosion control systems after each storm. The contractor is responsible for replacing storm drain inlet protection (including offsite downgrade SD inlets) within one business day following a rain event if City staff removes inlet protection during a rain event. • Measures shall be taken to collect or clean any accumulation or deposit of dirt, mud, sand, rocks, gravel, or debris on the surface of any street, alley, or public place or in any public storm drain systems on a daily basis. The removal of… • Erosion control measures shall be onsite throughout the life of the project. • All erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project. • The contractor must install all erosion and sediment control measures prior to the inception of any work onsite and maintain the measures throughout the life of the project. • Sediments and other materials shall not be tracked from the site by vehicle traffic. The contractor shall install a stabilized construction entrance and exit prior to the inspection of any work onsite and maintain it for the duration of the construction process… Only the stabilized construction entrance(s) and exit(s) shall be utilized for vehicle traffic. • The contractor shall protect down slope drainage courses, streams, and storm drains with gravel bags, temporary swales, silt fences, and earth perms in conjunction of all landscaping. • Excess or waste concrete must not be washed into the public right-of-way or any other drainage system. Provisions shall be made to retain concrete wastes on site until they can be disposed of as solid waste according to BMPs. • Spills must be cleaned up immediately and disposed of in a proper manner using dry cleanup methods. There shall also be a spill kit onsite. Spills must not be washed… • Silt fence(s) and/or fiber roll(s) shall be installed throughout the life of the project. Erosion Control Measures: • The facilities shown on this plan are designed to control erosion and sediment throughout the life of the project. Erosion control facilities shall be in place throughout the life of the project… • Gravel bags shall be used in place of straw bales. • Construction entrances and exits shall be installed prior to commencement of grading. All construction traffic entering onto the paved roads or exiting must cross the stabilized construction entrances or exits. Contractor shall maintain stabilized entrance and exit at each vehicle access point to and from existing paved streets. Any mud or debris tracked onto public streets shall be removed daily and as required by the governing agency. • Inlet protection shall be installed at open inlets to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system, including offsite downgrade storm drain inlets… • This erosion and sediment control plan may not cover all the situations that may arise during construction due to unanticipated field conditions. Variations and additions may be made to this plan in the field. Changes may be required by City Inspectors or other City staff… 52. Sheet ER-2 o Straw rolls shall be replaced with a different BMP according to the latest revision of either CASQA or Caltrans BMPs. 53. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 54. Storm drain/drop inlets o Ensure all drainage from inside parking garage. Note that the parking garage must drain to the sanitary sewer (per the City’s Muni Code). Other parking areas may discharge to the City’s stormwater system. These separators must be maintained on a regular frequency and will be inspected by City staff to ensure compliant. o Inlets should also be labeled with a ‘Flows to Adobe Creek’ message. 55. Stormwater treatment measures o Clear, detailed maintenance agreement for stormwater treatment must be drafted before occupancy approval. o Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. 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 56. Bay-friendly Guidelines must be followed: (Link: rescapeca.org) 57. 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. o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. 58. Stormwater quality protection: At a minimum, follow the construction BMP sheet that must be submitted with plans for entitlement. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. o Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. Have clear maintenance plan for trash and recycling containers to not allow overflow. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 59. TREE PROTECTION PERFORMANCE DEPOSIT – prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit, the applicant must deposit $130,066, an amount equal to 1.5 times the appraised value of protected Redwoods #13, 14, 15, and 16 as described on the tree protection report by Kielty Arborist Services shown on sheet T-2. Tree appraisals were completed by City staff on February 15, 2019. The deposit will be in the form of cash or bond acceptable to the City of Palo Alto. The deposit will be held for a term of five years after the date of the certificate of occupancy. An annual report will be supplied to the City of Palo Alto regarding the status of the four trees. Corrective treatments may be required to address any change in condition. The deposit may be returned at the end of the term or reduced by the adjusted appraised value for any trees that have declined or died. In addition, new trees may be required to be planted on site to compensate for any decline in health or death. Trees may be considered “dead” where the main leader has died or the canopy has declined more than 25% (of live tissue). 60. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED TREES. Existing oak and redwood trees (Protected) or street trees (Regulated) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T-2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 61. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 62. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY. On sheet L5.0, tree disposition, add a table showing whether the project will result in no net loss of tree canopy. Columns must display the square footage of tree canopy for each tree retained or removed and projected canopy size in 15 years for planted trees. Display totals for tree canopy area before and after construction. 63. STREET TREES. The four (4) street trees on the building permit will be shown as remove and replace. A suspended pavement system is required to create adequate soil volume for new street trees. As part of the project submittal, the applicant will provide a Consulting Arborist review of soil and drainage tests to recommend soil remediation and drainage improvement actions to be provided or made available thru channeling for (new and existing) trees in the public right of way areas. The City requires adequate viable soil volume areas for healthy public trees. All imported soils shall be tested, and the results provided to the City for approval before import. Import soil shall be amended with compost per City standards in place of other soil amendments. Street trees require an automatic irrigation/bubbler system and may require tree grates. Tree well openings on El Camino Real frontage shall be 4’ x 8’’ minimum per ECR Master Plan, Tree Planting Practices Sec.5.4.2. Soil cells will be placed under the sidewalk and driveways (to the extent possible) with a target soil volume of 1200 cubic foot for individual large stature species such as London Plane or 900 cubic feet each for shared space for two or more trees. Reductions in volume of soil cells may be considered because of conflicts with utilities or infrastructure. 64. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. 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. The Project Arborist must monitor any activity occurring within a tree protection zone including, but not limited to construction and landscaping. Tree condition, notable construction activities, and treatments shall be documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 65. 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. 66. 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. 67. 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. 68. 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) verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) 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. 69. 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. 70. 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. BUILDING DIVISION 71. A site-specific soils report will be required to be submitted for the building construction permit. 72. For the valet parking space in the basement garage, the access aisle serving them and a vehicular route from the entrance shall provide a vertical clearance of 114 inches minimum. (CBC 11B-503.5) 73. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. GREEN BUILDING 74. Green Building Requirements for Non-Residential Projects. For design and construction of non- residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition to use of the Voluntary Tiers. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The following are required for Building Approval: 75. The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 6.14.180 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. 76. The project is a new building over 10,000 square feet and therefore must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Energy Code section. The project team shall submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR), and Basis of Design (BOD), and Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 77. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 78. The project is a nonresidential new construction projects with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.220 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on the following site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp. 79. The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 80. The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 81. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). 82. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 83. The project is a nonresidential new construction project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 84. The project includes non-residential demolition and therefore must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 85. The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. The following are required at Post-Construction after 12 months of occupancy. 86. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. The following are optional to the project team: Optional Zero Net Energy Design Review: 87. OPTIONAL: The project is a new construction or remodel of a commercial project and therefore may elect to engage the City of Palo Alto consultant, BASE Energy Inc, free of charge. BASE will assist the project in targeting Zero Net Energy and exceeding the Title 24 Energy Code. Rebates may be available via working with Base. For more information, visit cityofpaloalto.org/commercial program or call 650.329.2241. The applicant may also contact Ricardo Sfeir at BASE Energy at rsfeir@baseco.com to schedule a project kick-off. Utilities Incentives & Rebates 88. OPTIONAL: The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rebates/default.asp Bird-Friendly Building Design 89. OPTIONAL: The project contains a glazed façade that covers a large area. Some fritted panels are specified. The project should consider bird-safe glazing treatment that typically includes fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing, or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. Previous North Elevation Current North Elevation Previous East Elevation Current East Elevation Court Yard Perspective Court Yard Perspective Previous South Elevation Current South Elevation Previous West Elevation Current West Elevation West Section View (Previous Design) West Section View (Current Design) East Section View (Previous) East Section View (Current) Previous Site Plan Current Site Plan P a g e | 1 of 3 6 January 2020 Chair Baltay and Members of the Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto arb@cityofpaloalto.org Via email Re: “Analog” - 4256 El Camino Real Hotel Project (18PLN-00096) Dear Chair Baltay and Members of the Architectural Review Board: I am pleased to present the 4256 El Camino Real Hotel Project (18PLN-00096) for your recommendation of approval. This project, which you will consider at your upcoming January 16th meeting, has appeared before you in three previous iterations, first on August 3, 2017 as a Study Session followed by formal review on November 15, 2018 and again on January 17, 2019. It was and continues to be fully compliant with the development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Numerous adjustments have been incorporated as a result of thoughtful and direct interaction with neighbors toward a goal of minimizing the impact of the new development, both long-term and during construction, for those who reside nearby. Particular attention has been given to terracing the massing at the rear, reducing the impact of building shadows, and limiting the need for excavation in proximity to the existing redwood grove. To aid in your review I offer the following detailed list of modifications, incorporated by the project team, in response to your feedback and the feedback from our meetings with the neighboring Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association. The current version of the project – now dubbed “Analog” – reflects the following changes: • Reduced 100 rooms to 97 rooms • Adjusted internal layout and addressed efficiency to reflect room reduction • Verified/corrected FAR • Coordinated plans and elevations • Adjusted lobby seating to reflect room reduction • Adjusted overall massing at SW end of 4th and 5th level – massing change results in little to no change to shade/shadow impact “Analog” - 4256 El Camino Real Hotel Project (18PLN-00096) P a g e | 2 of 3 • Enhanced indoor/outdoor connectivity at lobby and eating areas • Added balconies located to protect privacy where possible; >50% of rooms have operable exterior doors to balconies • Relocated guest arrival/valet drop from garage level to main level to avoid confusion and improve circulation • Clarified that 'Board Room' seats only 12 (nearby hotels easily accommodate 800+) • Rotated rooms at SW to further enclose the courtyard • Focused courtyard seating closer to the lobby and farther from PAR residents; courtyard seating count remains the same • Added a double-sided water feature to create white noise for sound barrier • Added double-sided landscape Living Walls to interrupt direct line-of-sight between outdoor seating and PAR units • Adjusted materials to be more consistent, limited, refined and elegant, with the addition of decoration and detail in a controlled manner. • Replaced Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC) with Indoor Mechanical Units Many of these changes were brought about in order to strengthen the image of an elegant boutique hotel, rather than the multi-family development aesthetic that the previous design was characterized as by potential national soft brand hotel operators. Higher-end soft brand boutique hotel properties thrive with an identity – thus the moniker “Analog” was born, driving the incorporation of refinements to reinforce this concept. The current design unifies the exterior materials with a single wood-look fiber cement board in cedar color. The previous metal detail locations have been adjusted to a soft black, with patina gold accents for contrast and elegance. The balcony screen panels mimic analog sound waves with a soft organic form. The stair towers have been simplified and are now articulated through the use of vertical fins. A similar fin vocabulary is used for the gates and the entry screen at the Porte Cochere. There is now a consistent architectural aesthetic reinforcing the Analog concept consistent with the project goal of achieving a high-end hotel character. A portion of the public art has been moved to the front facade with the remainder at the interior lobby bridge. Decorative lighting has been added to enhance the space within the Porte Cochere. Sconces have been added near the signage which will be halo-lit. All exterior lighting is muted with a goal of minimal levels for dark sky compliance. “Analog” - 4256 El Camino Real Hotel Project (18PLN-00096) P a g e | 3 of 3 Our project team looks forward to presenting the project revisions to you for your recommendation of approval on January 16th. Should you have any questions in the meantime or would like assistance touring the site, please feel free to contact me. Best Regards, Randy Popp Cc: Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning Samuel J. Gutierrez, Project Planner 1 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Palo Alto Redwoods December 4, 2017 City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 4256 El Camino Real - Preliminary Architectural Review - 17PLN-00233 PAR Comments for Second Study Session, December 22, 2017 Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board, Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association (PAR) is submitting the following comments for your review for the second study session scheduled December 22, 2017 regarding the proposed development of the Su Hong Restaurant property by HXH, LLC. In PAR's written submission dated August 3, 2017 for the initial study session we raised a number of concerns. In addition we provided public comments at the August 17, 2017 hearing about these issues. Following the meeting, PAR provided a list of remaining concerns to the developer and had an in-person meeting to go over the developer's revised project design . Although the developer attempted to address some concerns raised by PAR and by the ARB, the measures incorporated into the revised project plan are inadequate. Our remaining concerns include, but are not limited to the following:  Impacts to Redwood trees;  Adverse project impacts on traffic, safety, noise, air quality, etc. minimized and mitigated;  Construction process managed to mitigate noise and construction impact;  Bulk of buildings do not cast shadow upon PAR homes or pool area;  Minimized massing respects privacy of PAR homes, reduces number and size of rear windows;  Consistency with all provisions of zoning code, specifically height;  Consistency with Comprehensive Plan;  Assurance that noise from HVAC and outdoor spaces cannot be heard from PAR homes;  Adequate drainage to avoid runoff or flooding of PAR;  Consideration of converting project to mixed-use or housing. Given that we have already submitted comments in our previous letter, we will not reiterate each of our concerns here. Instead we will detail some of our most significant concerns at this time. Any issues not addressed here remain concerns and our decision not to highlight them at this time does not indicate acceptance of changes to date. Thank you for carefully considering our request that the proposed development be significantly scaled back and include neighborhood benefits. PAR CONCERNS REMAIN * Density * Traffic Safety * Height * Parking * Tree Health * Hotel Saturation * Light Reduction * Environmental Impact * Air Flow * Health and Safety 2 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Tree Health Redwood trees are one of the oldest living species on the planet. The residents of PAR consider ourselves caretakers of these valuable assets, which contribute greatly to our quality of life. We are proud to be residents of the City of Palo Alto, where its moniker is El Palo Alto in honor of Redwood trees. PAR has well over 117 trees, mostly Redwoods, with a number of them eligible for heritage Northern California Redwoods status. PAR has utilized the services of Henry Ardalan of City Arborist for almost 20 years to maintain tree health. Given the proposed 50-foot high building proposed next door, we are concerned for the health and care of the 28 Redwood trees in the Area B grove and the 4 Redwood trees in our entry area near the property line that will be directly impacted. PAR met with the developer's arborist, Kielty Arborist Services, to allow access to our property to measure tree diameter and distance from the common fence area. In his report, our trees were identified to be in fair or poor condition, although we have been diligent in taking care of them throughout all water conditions. PAR then retained the services of a independent arborist, Moki Smith of Smith Tree Specialists, to provide us with an assessment of the condition of our trees, with the view of determining the potential impact of construction on the Redwood trees. Mr. Smith's initial report has identified our trees as being in good condition, showing evidence of consistent and appropriate care, including irrigation. This is the opposite of the assessment by the developer's arborist. (see Arborist Smith's attached report) PAR trees located in Area B Grove In order to acquire a deeper assessment of our trees condition, we expect the city to perform the following tests to assist with analysis of potential project impacts on PAR trees:  soil tests to determine mechanical and chemical profile of the soil;  water analysis to determine composition of irrigation water; and  live tissue testing to determine nutrient status of the trees. 3 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 PAR has three main areas of concern related to potential impacts on trees: 1. Above ground  Trees provide privacy screening, air quality, and quality of life for the homeowners and benefits to the overall aesthetics to the community. We are concerned that the amount of sunlight and wind, which is vital for healthy trees, will be severely compromised with a 50-foot high building.  We consider the so-called shade study, as presented, to be inadequate, and request that the city perform an independent shade study showing all of the potentially impacted areas, including residential areas, pool/clubhouse area, and entry area that will be next to the massive 50 foot structure.  Loss of sunlight would ultimately result in loss of lower limb structure in Redwoods, compromising the privacy screen, with tree growth limited to the very top, if at all. Homeowners would only have tree trunks outside their windows. The loss of light would leave PAR buildings susceptible to dry rot resulting in significant costs of repair over time. 2. Below ground  The impact of grading and excavating for a multilevel building so close to the drip line, and encroaching on the root base and anchorage of the trees, will severely impact the root system of the trees. Redwood trees have shallow lateral roots and are co-dependent on each other, as their roots are all intertwined.  Trenching and foundation footings must be carefully considered to avoid uprooting and long-term tree damage. When the root structure is damaged in any significant way, not only does that tree begin to decline over time, but it also affects the other trees it is connected to. 3. Impact to trees and mitigation  Impacts to the trees and the mitigation for those impacts cannot be fully identified until there is a final plan for development, including an engineer’s grading plans. Only once those exist can an arborist give an accurate assessment of what mitigation is necessary.  We are not opposed to welcoming a new neighbor, but we ask for the design to be reconsidered to address our concerns for our Redwood trees and the value they bring to the community as a whole. With a 50 foot hotel as high as trees, sky views will be blocked and sunlight and airflow reduced. 4 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Parking and Traffic Safety The proposed hotel creates several unacceptable traffic and safety problems for our stretch of El Camino and raises more questions than it answers. Each of these safety concerns is described briefly below.  The proposed porte cochere design will result in backed up traffic onto El Camino. What happens when multiple residents are bringing their vehicles out of the garage, the carport is full of rideshare drivers and passengers unloading, and cars are trying to enter the car port from El Camino? What happens when UPS and FedEx show up at the same time? Where is the garbage truck supposed to park when another delivery truck is already in the commercial loading area? Traffic will back up onto El Camino, blocking at least one of the three lanes. This will worsen traffic especially during peak hours. The proposed entrance is also immediately after the exit to PAR. Vehicles exiting PAR will encounter queued hotel traffic that is problematic and unsafe.  The proposed location provides insufficient distance for exiting cars to make the turn light. Drivers who want to head north on El Camino after exiting the hotel will attempt to make it to the left turn light. There is not enough distance for drivers attempting to cut over to the left turn light at Dinah's Court, but they are going to attempt it anyway. This creates a safety hazard for passing cars. We already see this with cars exiting Su Hong, and it will be far worse with hotel traffic.  Experimental puzzle parking technology is unproven. Puzzle parking requires excavating much deeper than for regular parking, which poses risks to PAR infrastructure. The more moving parts something has, the more likely it is to fail. If there's a malfunction retrieving one car, it renders the remaining cars inaccessible. What happens when there's a mechanical malfunction when multiple owners are retrieving their cars? How does this affect traffic in the car port? Will tiered puzzle parking work and be a desirable option over time?  Illegal and dangerous parking will occur in front of the hotel, despite no parking zones. There is currently no proposed location for tour buses to park to unload passengers. As we see frequently at the Hilton Garden Inn, tour buses and Uber drivers WILL park illegally in front of the hotel despite signage and red curbs, and despite a similarly designed (and larger) car port there. This blocks visibility for drivers exiting the hotel as well as drivers passing the hotel. Since the hotel does not have responsibility for enforcing traffic laws, it has no reason to enforce the no parking zone. This is also a low priority for law enforcement. We only need to look at Edgewood Plaza, where this is an ongoing problem despite an established commercial delivery area. It would be naive to pretend that this won't occur at this site as well. This impact should be evaluated during the environmental review process. These and other negative impacts related to parking, traffic, and congestion this proposal will exacerbate the unsafe traffic conditions that already exist on El Camino. Hotel Saturation / Density in the Neighborhood Our neighborhood was declared a “hotel corridor” in city plans some time ago, but it has been allowed to become “all string and no pearls”, as the PA Weekly put it, in part because hotel tax revenues will increase city coffers. The hotel burden should be more equitably shared throughout the city, particularly given traffic implications. Our neighborhood needs to be one that neighbors can easily navigate while enjoying amenities, but instead it is increasingly being defined by massive hotel facades. Our concerns include:  PAR is a diverse multi-family residential neighborhood of 275 people enjoying outdoor walkways shaded by more than 100 trees, mostly Redwoods, and a number of oases of green spaces. We also have easy access to public transportation, good schools, work places, and community services. We are exactly the kind of housing that the new Comprehensive Plan wants to see more of, and that Palo Alto should protect. 5 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113  In 2008 an Economic Resource Associates report commissioned by the City said there were 1,865 hotel rooms in all of Palo Alto. Now, within walking distance of PAR, there are 19 hotels with 1,595 rooms on El Camino alone. One of these has already submitted plans to nearly triple from 36 to 97 rooms. That’s over 1600 rooms in a stretch of less than 2.5 miles, just in the blocks of El Camino Real between 3200 and 4500. If we expand out to within five miles, including the massive Marriotts planned for San Antonio, there will be thousands of rooms.  This particular dense hotel project, 80+ rooms with three time-share units, and a long stretch of 50’ high walls, is unsuitable in the neighborhood.  The bulk of the project as proposed remains out of scale with the adjacent neighborhood and would significantly affect daylight for many of our units (including all 12 BMR units facing the Area B grove).  Despite some glass and landscaping, the building design takes the “defensive walled approach” and at five stories high for the full facade on El Camino, is another in a series of massive and unwelcoming buildings being built in South Palo Alto.  We recognize that the property at 4256 El Camino is zoned for commercial services use. We have lived peaceably with both Denny’s and Su Hong as next-door neighbors over decades. We would welcome a well-designed commercial enterprise or mixed use housing that serves the community, that is respectful of its neighbors both in its design and its uses, and that adds to the liveliness and spirit of the neighborhood rather than detracts from it. This project as proposed does none of these things, and offers nothing of benefit for those of us who live in South Palo Alto. The project’s design fails to provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses, fails to enhance conditions in adjacent neighborhood, and fails to include pedestrian-centric amenities. Environmental Impact We have environmental concerns that we previously raised but the developer has not adequately addressed, including:  Health impacts from air, sound and noise pollution, both during and after construction;  Smoke impact - PAR is a non-smoking environment, and the proposed development must designate specific areas that will not impact PAR, or designate the entire project non-smoking;  Loss of light - developer's shade study included in packet does not adequately address loss of light; an independent light study should be a requirement;  Safety risks for children riding to school at peak commute times on bikes need to be addressed;  Safety hazards as a result of illegal and dangerous double parking, including vision impairment and blocked right lane on El Camino need to be addressed;  Loss of privacy - the revised proposal diminishes the privacy of all windows facing the development. Guests in 27 hotel units will look out directly into the living rooms, bedrooms, and balconies of 18 of our homes; this is unacceptable; These are potentially significant impacts that should be thoroughly evaluated through the environmental review process. We hope the ARB will give serious consideration as to how this project will impact our residents and the neighborhood. 6 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Required Findings Finally, the ARB cannot make the necessary findings to grant the requested approvals. In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code As discussed in detail throughout this letter and the PAR letter dated August 3, 2017, the revised plan does NOT provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses, and it does NOT enhance living conditions in adjacent residential areas. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with required ARB Finding #2. Until the project is redesigned to reduce the scale and mass of the buildings and to integrate with the existing neighborhood, the required findings cannot be made. Summary PAR is a hidden gem that is similar to the kinds of residential neighborhoods called for in the revised Comprehensive Plan. The ARB should take definitive steps to protect our unique oasis as a model to be replicated, not one to be overshadowed and made unsafe for residents and drivers. Unresolved and undesirable issues remain - many which the ARB previously raised with the developer. We will appreciate the ARB’s support of our efforts to scale back this development proposal. As mentioned in August, we invite the Board to visit our complex anytime to understand our perspective and passion for our homes. Sincerely, Board of Directors, Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association From:Evangeline Rocha To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Gutierrez, Samuel; Julie Subject:ARB 1/16/20 re: 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, January 7, 2020 8:11:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Palo Alto Architectural Review Board cc: Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner I object very strongly to the massive hotel proposed for 4256 El Camino Real. Its towering facade at 50-62 feet will block all daylight in many units of the Palo Alto Redwoods at 4250 El Camino. The Redwoods complex, where I have lived for 23 years, will be overshadowed by this dense andinappropriate addition to the neighborhood, to say nothing of the problems of noise, traffic, and parking. We value our beautiful condominium complex for its diversity, its tranquility, its aesthetic design and itsmany redwood trees. Neither the trees nor the residents will survive if they lose natural light. I urge the Architectural Review Board to decline the proposed plan. Evangeline H. RochaUnit D333Palo Alto Redwoods Friday, March 15, 2019 Samuel J. Gutierrez MUP | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329 - 2225 Re: 4256 El Camino Real – Hotel Operation Hours, Delivery Hours, and Staffing Levels Dear Mr. Gutierrez: Hospitality Link International, Inc. and Severin Group, LLC, have been engaged by the developer of 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California, to provide a summary letter to the City of Palo Alto outlining the anticipated hotel hours of operation, delivery hours, and staffing levels required at the hotel. This letter is intended only for use by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the plan review for the aforementioned proposed hotel development. We have inspected the site and analyzed the hostelry market conditions in the Palo Alto and greater Silicon Valley market areas and herewith submit our summary letter pertaining to the proposed hotel’s hours of operation, delivery hours, staffing levels, and management of on-site vehicle traffic. The proposed hotel will be built to the high standards of an upscale boutique hotel and offer services comparable to the upscale hotels in Palo Alto. The hotel will contain 100 guestrooms, a fitness room, two small meeting rooms and business center, a courtyard with a reflecting water feature, valet parking service, one adjoining flexible small private dining room that can be used for private guest events, and an intimate restaurant and bar serving upscale set menu and tapas style casual dining options. All hotel amenities and the restaurant are tailored for the private use of hotel guests, and not intended for use by the general public; therefore, marketing outreach efforts will only focus on attracting hotel guests. The hotel will be boutique in nature and provide slightly less amenities than a more standard full-service hotel; comparable hotels include the Westin Palo Alto, the Garden Court Hotel, and Park James in Menlo Park. Assuming this is a non-union hotel, we are of the opinion that the following hours of operation, delivery hours, staffing levels, and management of on-site vehicle traffic are required. I. Hours of Operation Reception: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Regular business hours reception crew and a night shift receptionist, usually 1-2 person(s) to revolve in 24 hours. Restaurant / Café (3 Meals): 6am – 10pm, 7 days a week. Serving upscale set menu and tapas style casual dining options. Room delivery service will be catered by the many stellar restaurants in Palo Alto upon request. Bar: 12pm-11pm SU-Th / 12pm-1am F-S. The food and beverage operation will be more beverage-service oriented with light tapas style dishes. Outdoor Courtyard: 7:30am-9pm, Sunday -Thursday and 7:30am-10pm Friday - Saturday. Tranquil setting with a reflecting water feature and seating areas. Exterior courtyard lighting after 10pm would also be reduced to minimum circulation requirements in efforts to reduce overall general lighting. Fitness Room: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Fitness room with fully equipped state-of-the-art equipment. Valet Parking: 24 hours. Business Center: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Open lounge space with several computer workstations. Market Pantry: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Located in the reception area where guest can purchase snacks and drinks. Managed by receptionist. Laundry / Dry-cleaning service: Items delivered to the reception by 9am returned within 24 hours. This would be a 3rd party service provider. Business Meeting Rooms: 8am – 8pm. Can request management for extended hours beyond posted operational hours. II. Delivery Times Flexible delivery hours in sync with hotel operational hours are an integral part of a well-run hotel, which in turn increases staff productivity and guest satisfaction. The delivery and pick-up schedule for linen and terry, produce, beverages, liquor, and boxes and parcels, as well as waste pick-up must avoid peak check-in and check- out times and align with house cleaning service and the restaurant operation to ensure a sufficient stock of supplies is replenished daily. Linen and terry service drop-off will occur daily in the morning, while pick-up will occur in the afternoon (after housekeeping completes their cycle) for the soiled linen to be washed and returned the next morning. Food and beverage related deliveries will occur in the mid-morning through early afternoon, at a time when most guest will be heading off to their offices or business meetings. Waste pick-up will occur in the early morning before breakfast service starts. Boxes and parcels are expected to be delivered throughout the day. This delivery and pick-up schedule for the proposed hotel is better illustrated in the following comprehensive table showing the weekly frequency of vendor delivery and pick-up schedule. The second table illustrates peak hours at the hotel. Porte Cochere Shipping and Receiving M T W TH F S SU Linen and Terry Delivery 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am Purchasing Department (F&B) Delivery 11am - 2pm 11am - 2pm 11am - 2pm Linen and Terry Pick-Up 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm Waste Management Service Pickup 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am Delivery of Boxes and Parcels 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm Hotel Operating Schedule Restaurant - Peak Time (Breakfast)7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am Peak Check-Out times 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am House Cleaning Service 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm Peak Check-In times 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm Restaurant - Peak Time (Afternoon)6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm III. Parking / Drop-off protocol In an effort to maintain a clear entry drive aisle and foyer, directional signage will direct guests to the lower level to take the elevators up to the reception level for check-in. As for guests that are just being dropped off, the hotel will utilize a set three (3) minute maximum drop-off period per car before instructing drivers to move the car to the below-grade valet receiving area. Guests needing more time to retrieve their car will proceed down the elevator to the garage level valet stand where their car will be waiting. Guest arrivals are scattered throughout the day; however, a higher volume of cars from rentals to taxi/Uber during the morning and evening hours is anticipated. During this time frame, a 1-2 minute per car resting period to unload or pick up guests will be enforced; thereby, avoiding any excessive line of cars that would surpass our entry drive aisle. As a secondary precaution the parking protocol of 3 minutes would effectively move cars to the lower garage level to maintain a clear ground level foyer. With regards to vendor deliveries, the hotel will make every effort to secure delivery vans and trucks of the proper scale, that can easily deliver to the garage level directly, avoiding any build up of vehicles on the foyer landing. IV. Courtyard Use The boutique hotel will be positioned to be primarily an upscale business hotel and will tailor its amenities with this in mind. For this reason, and the size of amenities and type of anticipated clientele, the hotel will not be hosting large events or loud festivities in the outdoor courtyard. This space is reserved for guests of the hotel or clients that have reserved the meeting rooms, and thus will have access to the courtyard. The hotel will hold set hours of operation to completely avoid any noise disturbance to the adjacent neighbors in after hours. Hotel staff will also be on site to manage this space to ensure noise levels are kept to a comfortable conversational level, otherwise guests will be asked to move to the bar area. V. Courtyard & Landscape Lighting In an effort to reduce ambient lighting in the after hours, the exterior lighting design within the landscaped and outdoor amenity areas will operate at specified hours for private hotel guests during operating hours, ensuring the safety of our guests and in consideration of our neighbors. Exterior decorative lighting, such as the Tivoli lighting in the exterior courtyard will only function from dusk to 9pm, Sunday through Thursday and from dusk to 10pm, Fridays and Saturdays. Circulation bollards and low lighting will remain on for the safety of our guests but will be directed downward to avoid casting lights that would affect neighboring buildings. VI. Meeting Rooms & Business Center Due to the small size of the hotel, only two small meeting rooms and a small business center will be available for guest use. The hotel will not be hosting large meetings and conferences on site due to its size constraints. VII. Staffing Levels and Required Parking The following section illustrates the staffing levels required to operate an upscale, 100-room boutique hotel in Palo Alto. The hotel will be relatively small and boutique in nature and will provide less amenities than a more standard full-service hotel. We assume a non-union staff will operate the hotel; therefore, we are of the opinion that the following positions in the below schedule will be required to operate this hotel. Front Office • 1 Front Office Manager • 1 Security Manager • 1 Security Personnel per 8-hour shift. Total 3 People (May have 2 more people to make up for the 7 days to add to payroll or look at a 3rd party security services vendor). • 2 Receptionist (8-hour shifts) + 1-night shift. Total 5 people + 3 Additional to make up for days off. Total receptionist payroll count is 8 people. • 2 Valets (3rd Party) Bell boys are unnecessary given the smaller business-oriented hotels in the area don’t have them. Most business travelers travel lightly. Valet operation can be outsourced, and the night shift receptionist may act as valet for late check-ins. Total: 15 People on payroll (7 people max per shift) Administration Office • 1 Finance Person (Accountant) • 1 Sales Person • 1 General Manager • 1 Human Resources Manager • 1 Housekeeping Manager (Will manage Housekeeping staff or 3rd Party team) • 1 Head Engineer + 1 Technician For the GM position, we recommend hiring someone with a strong marketing and/or HR background. Direct hotel reservations can be handled by the receptionists and sales office. Total: 7 People on payroll Housekeeping Based on an average room count of 15-18 rooms per Housekeeper • 5 Housekeepers per shift + 1 Overnight Housekeeper • 2 Public Area Cleaners This may be a 3rd party vendor, so the company may drop them off to reduce parking requirement. Total: 7 People (7 max during one 8-hour shift during the day + 1 for overnight) Restaurant Personnel • 2 Cooks [Per Shift – (Breakfast & Lunch Shift) / (Dinner Shift)] Total of 3-4 Cooks per day • 1 Dishwasher shift and 1 evening Bar Back shift • 1 Bartender • 2 Servers to cover 53 Covers (Per 8-hour shift) Total 4 Servers per day No room service offered at this time. This amenity can be catered by the many stellar restaurants in Palo Alto that will provide room delivery upon request. Also, the F&B operation will be more beverage-service oriented with light tapas style dishes; therefore, the dinner shift may require only one cook. Assuming the overnight food consumption is light, then only one dishwasher shift per day will be required. Total: 10 People on Payroll (5 People max per shift) Landscaping Landscaping is assumed to be performed by a 3rd party vendor. Non-Smoking Policy The hotel will enforce a non-smoking policy. Any kind of smoking, including cigarette smoking, will not be allowed on premises. In conclusion, the total employee count is 37 persons; however, not all employees will require parking during their respective shifts. The total Personnel Per Maximum Shift is 27 persons. This includes the 3rd party staffing, so if we remove the Housekeepers and Valets we are down to 17 people per shift that may require parking. We will consider reducing the parking requirement by estimating the percentage of personnel driving vs. taking public transportation and arranging an employee parking agreement with a nearby parking lot. The hotel is located within close proximity to the California and San Antonio Cal-Train Stations; and a bus stop is situated steps away from the hotel's front entrance. The hotel will also provide both long-term enclosed bike storage facilities as well as temporary open storage racks. We have finalized and submitted to the City our TDM package, which includes incentives we have provided to employees to utilize the existing public transportation options, as employee parking at the hotel will cost a daily rate that may not be advantageous. An EV charging stall for electric cars will be provided on site, with additional stalls available to be installed as demand increases. The hotel plans to operate a shuttle service within a 3-mile radius for guest and staff pick-up and drop-off to main public transit stations and corporate offices on fixed time schedules. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this summary letter to the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the development team. Please let us know if you have any questions. Attached to this letter you will find the credentials for the contributing Hotel Consultants. Sincerely, ____________________________ Jaime Law Director Hospitality Link International, Inc. ____________________________ Holden Lim President Hospitality Link International, Inc. ____________________________ Olivier A. Severin Principal Owner Severin Group, LLC Attachment K Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and 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 “4256 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://bit.ly/2CYWy3f A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Being Circulated for Public Comment Between December 20, 2019 and February 3, 2020. Direct Link to DEIR: http://bit.ly/DEIR4256 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10948) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/16/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3215 Porter Drive: New Office/R&D Building Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3215 Porter Drive [19PLN- 00237]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new 21,933 Square Foot Office/ R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff suggests the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provide input on the project and continue its review to a date uncertain. The next ARB hearing of the project will include a review and recommendation of a final design and environmental documents. Report Summary This is the first formal architectural review hearing of a new 21,933 square foot (sf) two-story building for office / Research & Development (R&D) uses. The project includes a one-level subterranean parking garage and associated site improvements on a vacant, 1.67-acre site that was established through a lease line adjustment due to the recently approved project at 3181 Porter Drive. Under that application, the lease lines for both 3181 Porter Drive and 3215 Porter Drive were reestablished to accommodate the construction on 3181 Porter Drive. 3215 Porter Drive was previously developed with a building that was demolished in 2016 in conjunction with the construction of 3181 Porter Drive so that neither site would create a new non- conforming condition. The site is located near the center of the Stanford Research Park at the junction of Porter Drive, Hillview Avenue, and Hanover Street. Stanford proposes to redevelop the site to lease to a new tenant. Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Jason McCarthy, Studios Architecture Representative: Lisa Lu (Stanford), Jim Inglis (Stanford) Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 3215 Porter Drive Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 1.67 acres Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: Hillview-Porter Regional Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: None Historic Resource(s): None; Hewlett-Packard Building #15 was demolished in 2016 Existing Improvement(s): The lot is currently vacant Existing Land Use(s): N/A Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R&D, Gen. Business Office, Prof. Office, Admin Office West: R&D, Gen. Business Office, Prof. Office, Admin Office East: Public Facilities (Transformer Station), R&D, Gen. Business Office, Prof. Office, Admin Office South: R&D, Gen. Business Office, Prof. Office, Admin Office Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RP (Research Park) Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: N/A Downtown Urban Design Guide: N/A South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: N/A Baylands Master Plan: N/A El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): N/A Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): N/A Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: N/A City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: 16PLN-00209 Major ARB for new commercial building on adjacent property and lease line adjustment Project Description The proposed 21,933 sf building would be comprised of 20,933 sf of gross floor area and 1,100 sf of amenity space. The applicant has indicated that the amenity space is intended for food service use or recreation area. The building height would reach 34 feet, six inches at the top of the parapet, and 40 feet at the top of the rooftop mechanical screen. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application is requested: • Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Analysis1 Consistency with Architectural Review Application Findings The staff report for the next ARB hearing of this project will include findings for approval of the Architectural Review application. Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is surrounded by office/R&D buildings, including the Stanford School of Medicine, corporate offices, and lab spaces. The City of Palo Alto’s Hanover substation is located directly northeast of the site. The placement and massing of the building is consistent with the Research Park context. The building follows a rectangular shaped plan, with the longest façade facing 3181 Porter Drive and 3350 Hanover Street. Materials 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Exterior cladding materials would consist of painted metal panels, wood soffit paneling, standing seam metal roof, and an aluminum framed curtain wall. Horizontally applied louvers on the second story along the front facade, as well as horizontal soffit panels, would help reduce the vertical scale of the building. The mixture of materials presents a distinctive style that is appropriate for the setting and vicinity. However, the grey monochromatic color scheme needs refinement to better differentiate the first and second floor on each side. The front façade elevation displays greater visual presence of windows, horizontal louvers, and wood soffit, so has less need of further refinement. Site Improvements A transformer has been proposed in a landscape area near the accessible parking stalls along the rear of the building. Staff has communicated concern about the placement of the transformer. Staff recommended placing the transformer within an enclosure, or providing better screening using larger shrubs. The ARB’s recommendation on whether this unit should be screened from view will be helpful. Landscape The proposed Porter Drive landscaping would include a large valley oak and several native plant species. Five nonprotected trees would be retained along the rear property line near the existing Ground Water Extraction and Treatment station; these trees are four Canary Island Pines, and one Red Ironbark. Existing trees located on the City’s substation at 3350 Hanover Street are proposed to be removed under a separate application in order to provide for greater security. Due to this, Stanford is proposing to place landscaping pots along the shared lot line between these two sites to provide a visual landscape buffer. These pots will be moveable and as they are similarly located adjacent to underground utility lines which is typically not allowed. A condition of approval will require the landlord or tenant to work with the City Utility department to move the pots as needed for maintenance purposes and will require replacement of any damaged pots for the life of the building. Nonprotected trees currently occupying the interstitial space between the former lease areas would be removed to accommodate the new building and site improvements. The plans currently show the removal of 10 nonprotected species and propose a replacement of 33 trees to ensure there is no net loss of tree canopy. In addition to the replacement trees, the majority of the proposed landscaping would be native species that are low water intensity. As noted on sheets L1.13 and L1.14, the proposed landscaping plan will result in more than 50% shade coverage over the parking lot within the next 15 years. Implementation of the plan will provide over 16,000 sf of new canopy coverage to the City. The project includes a landscape buffer of five feet between the adjacent properties. In addition, a pedestrian walkway between 3181 and 3215 Porter Drive will be provided to connect both properties. This pedestrian path will be conditioned to remain for the life of the building and will be maintained by either Stanford or its lessees for the property once constructed. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Zoning Compliance2 Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. This includes review of both properties on either side of the new lease line to ensure conformance with floor area ratio (FAR) and all other zoning code requirements. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Staff uses the Plan’s policies to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires projects to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, which allows for commercial office, educational institutions, and childcare facility uses among many others. The proposed 21,933 sf building is intended for office and research and development uses. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan will be provided at the next hearing. Based on an initial analysis, the project appears to be consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. The Comprehensive Plan policies, goals, and programs for office/R&D development in the Research Park are listed below: • Policy L-44: Develop the Stanford Research Park as a compact employment center served by a variety of transportation modes. • Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. • Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. • Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. • Program L5.1.1: Explore with Stanford University various development options for adding to the Stanford Research Park a diverse mix of uses, including residential, commercial hotel, conference center, commercial space for small businesses and start- ups, retail, transit hub and other community-supporting services that are compatible with the existing uses, to create a vibrant innovation-oriented community. Multi-Modal Access & Parking As described in the project description (Attachment B), the applicant proposes to participate in the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association program. The site plan 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 includes a proposed pedestrian path (as part of a future two-way cycle track) along the north edge of the property. This path would facilitate movements to and from sites to the west. It would also form an eventual high-quality bicycle connection between Porter Drive and Page Mill Road. The Porter/Hanover/Hillview intersection will be modified to: • accommodate the new pedestrian path, • have crosswalks across all four legs of the intersection, and • accommodate bus movements to and from the site, including providing larger curb radii and associated signal modifications. As shown on Sheet A1.3, the site is within 150 feet of three bus stops: • Hanover Street & Hillview Avenue, • Porter Drive at Hillview Avenue, and • 3215 Porter Drive. Valley Transit Authority (VTA) and the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle provide local and express service within the immediate vicinity of the site, while Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) provides East Bay connections with the Dumbarton Express line. Class II bicycle lanes are present on either side of Porter Drive/Hanover Street in the vicinity of the site. The inclusion of a bike pathway along the Northeastern side of the property will improve bicycle safety and circulation. The project includes 18 long term bicycle parking spaces, located on the northern side of the building and in the parking garage. 34 short-term bicycle racks are also included on the southern side of the building in the visitor plaza. The number of short term and long-term spaces proposed on the site exceeds the code requirement, and the short-term spaces have been suitably placed. Staff informed the applicant that more long-term spaces are needed on the ground floor near the front of the building, to encourage non- frequent bike users. As designed, bicyclists would need to go to the back of the property, or to the below grade, long-term bike lockers. The ARB’s recommendation on whether the location of bike lockers should be adjusted will be helpful. The plans include the required 70 vehicle parking stalls, including 38 stalls located in the subterranean one-level parking garage, as well as the one required loading space. At-grade surface parking would be located at the rear of the property, behind the building and out of view from most of the site frontage. The surface parking lot would be improved with the planting of trees, which at maturity would provide over 50% shade cover. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is subject to environmental review as it does not qualify for a categorical exemption. The project’s floor area is over the 10,000 sf threshold for established under CEQA Guidelines section 15303. An Initial Study is being prepared by the City’s consultant (David J. Powers). Staff anticipates that the project will City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 require the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Upon completion of the environmental document, staff will provide notice of the availability of the document. Staff will also include the document with the ARB staff report for the second hearing. On-Site Environmental Management The site is located within the Hillview Porter Regional Groundwater Plume and is under two Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) orders for oversight and remediation. Additionally, the former 3181 and 3221 Porter Drive lease areas are under a third DTSC order for the Teledyne groundwater plume associated with the adjacent 3165 Porter Drive site. Subsurface characterization on the site began in 1987, and groundwater remediation efforts have been ongoing at the site since 1993. In accordance with the Mayfield Development Agreement MMRP, the applicant has provided environmental management plan documents. These include a soil and soil vapor sampling report that describes the subsurface conditions and associated considerations for the redevelopment of the site. Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in soil vapor samples analyzed in 2016 exceeded residential and commercial screening levels. As a result, the applicant prepared a vapor intrusion evaluation and site management plan for review by DTSC. Work to consolidate the two existing groundwater extraction and treatment systems has begun on the site in preparation for the redevelopment, as required by DTSC. Below grade, new vapor intrusion barriers are proposed to be installed. Above ground, the existing groundwater extraction and treatment system located in the northwest corner of the lease area will remain. 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 January 10, which is six days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 7, which is nine 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. Continue the project to a date uncertain 2. Approve or deny the application Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 (650) 329-2471 (650) 329-2575 garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 319.7' 796.9' 396.3' 241.7' 379.9' 144.9' 46.6' 129.0' 382.7' 191.4' 383.3' 62.8' 329.5' 158.0' 360.3' 191.5' 77.5' 52.9' 62.8' 273.6' 360.3' 300.0'300.0' 15 21 8.4' 168.2' 158.0' 160.0' 198.0' 160.0' 198.0' 160.0' 198.0' 605.5' 382.7' 43.5' 3181 3221 3200 3 3350 3215 3183 3 2 0 1 HANOVER STREET HILLVIE W AVENUE PO RTE R D RIV E PORTER DRIVE PFHanover Substation This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages abc Building Roof Outline abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Tree Current Features 0'91' 3215 Porter Drive CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2020-01-08 08:50:58 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) RP 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3215 Porter Drive, Stanford Research Park Major Architectural Review Submittal July 15, 2019 The proposed development at 3215 Porter Drive (“Site”) will entail the construction of a 21,933 gsf office building (“Project”) on a vacant parcel at the intersection of Porter Drive, Hillview Avenue and Hanover Street in Stanford Research Park (“SRP”). The Project at 3215 Porter serves Stanford Research Park’s mission by converting an underutilized site into the headquarters for the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association (“SRP TMA”) and office space for small start-ups and office users. STANFORD RESEARCH PARK MISSION Stanford Research Park is committed to supporting innovative companies in their research and development pursuits by providing modern facilities in a naturally landscaped setting, offering customized transportation and amenity programs, and fostering a sense of community for people who invent solutions to real-world challenges. OFFERING CUSTOMIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS To effectively fulfill its mission, Stanford University formed the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association, a consortium of SRP employers working together to privately fund and offer transportation programs tailored to the needs of 140 companies, employing approx. 29,000 employees working within the SRP. Together, we are addressing the challenges of reducing commute times and traffic congestion through a myriad of commuter-focused transportation programs, which we call “SRPGO.” For information about how SRP employees take advantage of SRPGO transportation programs, please refer to https://stanfordresearchpark.com/transportation. We believe it is important to share some background information on how transportation demand management (“TDM”) programming has evolved within the Stanford Research Park over the past few years. For more information about the SRP TMA and its achievements and progress to date, please refer to Exhibit 1. Alleviating congestion through TDM is a challenge that necessitates reducing employees’ reliance on single- occupancy vehicles (“SOV”). Behavioral change is especially difficult given the suburban location and 1950s auto- dominated land use pattern of Stanford Research Park. We are motivated to experiment with new programs and infrastructure investments in order to see our efforts produce results in reducing the SOV rate in SRP. Offering employees a convenient, cost-effective means to get to and from work in SRP requires a creative, nimble and adaptable strategy. Stanford has a unique opportunity to enhance its many TDM efforts with a creative programmatic approach at the 3215 Porter Drive Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SRP TMA HEADQUARTERS & SMALL OFFICE SPACES FOR START-UPS The 3215 Porter Drive Project entails the construction of a 21,933 gsf office building on an unimproved lot that is located at the intersection of Hillview Avenue, Hanover Street and Porter Drive in Stanford Research Park. The intended program for the building is two-fold: a portion of the office building will serve as the headquarters for the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association, and a portion will offer office space for the small start-ups we desire – those focused on inventing solutions to real-world challenges – which otherwise struggle to find suitable space in SRP. The SRP TMA headquarters would be located in the heart of the Research Park along key transit, shuttle and bike routes and within walking distance of 8,000 employees. The Project is a logical location for the TMA office, as the Site is currently served by 5 public transit routes that serve Union City, Fremont, San Jose, Cupertino and Milpitas, plus 2 SRPGO-operated routes that serve San Francisco, Colma, San Jose and Santa Clara. The Site is also well served by 3 last-mile shuttle routes that provide connections between Caltrain (or nearby Caltrain stations) and worksites throughout SRP. 2 With this unique Project, Stanford has the opportunity to design the building to serve as a physical focal point for services and programs that increase the convenience and appeal of transportation options in SRP. The building will house free bike maintenance and repair services, as well as do-it-yourself repair facilities, real-time transit information displays, and concierge service desk for personalized commute assistance. While a small portion of the office building will be utilized for the day-to-day operations of the SRP TMA, of equal importance is the goal to improve the Site in a way that attracts desirable start-up tenants and realizes the full potential of the property. Maximum flexibility is highly desired for small-scale start-ups and incubator businesses. Both the TMA and the small-scale office tenants at the Project align well with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (refer to Exhibit 2). If the TMA were ever to relocate from the building, its space would be occupied by small-scale office tenants. PROJECT METRICS The Project will entail the new construction of a stand-alone 21,933 gsf building on the Site, which comprises 1.671 acre (72,790 sf). The building will include 20,833 gsf (gross floor area) and 1,100 sf of traffic-mitigating amenity space that does not represent gross floor area. This new building reflects a floor area ratio of 0.29:1.0, which is 8,283 gsf less than the 29,116 gsf allowable (0.4:1.0) on the Site under the “RP” zoning. The new building will be configured as two stories above grade with a one-level parking garage below-grade, a necessity due to the small size of the parcel. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Site is located within the “RP” zone and is a relatively flat site at the intersection of Porter Drive, Hanover, and Hillview. The Site slopes very gradually up from Porter Drive toward the back of the site and adjacent property of 3181 Porter Drive. To the northeast side (Project north) of the Site is the City of Palo Alto Utilities Hanover Substation. At the west end of the Site, a ground water extraction treatment (“GWET”) facility is on the property and will remain. SITE PLAN Careful placement of the new building on the Site provides for a rational transition in scale, massing and visual experience in the context of the adjacent buildings and structures along Porter Drive. This infill development is compatible with its office/R&D surroundings by virtue of its site plan, setbacks and scale. The building is set at the 50’ setback of the Porter Drive side of the Site to engage pedestrians in a welcoming way on Porter Drive and at the intersection. A small landscape plaza with stormwater treatment areas is proposed as a buffer to the street and a gateway to pedestrian access. By situating the new building close to the entrance drive on the north side, the plan creates generous plaza and landscaping areas along the south and west sides of the building. On all sides other than the Porter Drive frontage, the above-grade portion of the building is set back well beyond the minimum setbacks for the RP district. The building’s small footprint achieves maximum functionality from the small-scale site while buffering the building from the adjacent Hanover substation and the GWET, both features that challenge and compromise the Site. SITE ACCESS, CIRCULATION AND PARKING The key goals of Site access and circulation include maximizing safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists, providing rational and safe access for vehicles, and creating clear wayfinding to the main lobby and secondary entrances. The Site’s vehicular entrance aligns with Hillview Avenue across the intersection. The Site access was designed in order to provide safe and efficient vehicle circulation that minimizes potential conflicts between buses, shuttles, personal vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. With this same goal in mind, the Project will include intersection improvements to maintain smooth operation of the Hanover and Hillview intersection. The intersection will be improved to provide crosswalks on all legs, and an on-site pedestrian path will be provided on the north side of the site connecting to the intersection. A pedestrian path is also provided along the north edge of the site. This path runs west from the Porter/Hillview/Hanover intersection, then turns south adjacent to the GWET facility to connect with the walkway on the 3181 Porter site. 3 Visitor parking and garage access is situated toward the rear of the site and allows for periodic operational access required for the GWET. Vehicle parking is provided on the Site at the code-required ratio of 1:300, totaling 70 spaces for the new building, plus 4 spaces in landscape reserve. Of the 70 spaces, 38 will be located in the below- grade garage. The remaining 32 spaces will be provided in surface parking. A total of 8 electric vehicle charging spaces are provided, including 4 EV charging spaces in the underground parking garage and 4 in the visitor parking area at grade. Generously scaled plaza areas, extensive pedestrian walking paths, and natural and planned landscape areas are made possible by placing a significant portion of the parking in a below-grade garage. A total of 50 bicycle parking spaces are provided, including short-term surface parking for 40 bicycles and 10 long- term bike parking spaces in garage lockers. TDM & INTERSECTION OPERATIONS All tenants of the Project will be required to participate in Stanford’s TMA, which provides TDM programs for the entire SRP. In addition, as noted above, the Site is particularly well served by transit. Therefore, even if the TMA headquarters and services were not to be located on the Site, the Project would be able to meet the Comprehensive Plan goal of a 30% reduction in peak hour vehicle trips compared to ITE rates. Accordingly, although the Project is not required to submit a TDM plan to the City under PAMC § 18.52.030(i), Stanford is willing to commit to this 30% reduction and to monitor and report to the City regarding its results. Because ITE rates would indicate 48 AM peak hour and 27 PM peak hour trips, the Project would commit to achieving no more than 70% of that – 34 AM peak and 19 PM peak vehicle trips. Stanford is committed to reducing SOV trips in SRP and to making it easier and more convenient not to drive. An Intersection Operations Evaluation is being submitted with the Project application to address the Porter Drive/Hanover Street - Hillview Avenue intersection. Because this evaluation is intended to ensure that the intersection will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service with the Project, it uses highly conservative assumptions: ITE vehicle trip generation rates along with generous assumed bicycle and pedestrian activity at the intersection, which tends to slow vehicle traffic. The evaluation shows that the intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level even without the TDM-based vehicle trip reduction effects described above. BUILDING DESIGN The key goals of the Project are to utilize scale and design elements that offer the Stanford Research Park community a welcoming building that is sophisticated and modern in its materials and details, as well as appropriate to the mission of Stanford Research Park. A contemporary gabled standing seam roof form gives the building a distinctive, open identity, which is the primary goal given this building will function as the TMA headquarters and office space for small start-ups. The profile also provides an appropriate scale, responding to the heights and position of nearby buildings along Porter Drive. The building further provides floor plates that allow for flexible office uses and configurations over time. The building reflects a high quality design due to its array of textures, colors and diverse material palette, including metal panels and wood soffits. Ample glazing invites participation and connection of the building’s users to the outdoors. The building optimizes daylight to the interior while minimizing the direct sunlight into the space. Southern, eastern and western window openings are protected with deep roof overhangs and horizontal sunshading elements. The design integrates high quality materials and rich textures that are compatible with the surrounding area. The building is primarily clad in metal panel rain screen cladding, high performance glazing systems, and horizontal sunshades and canopies. The glazing system serves to optimize natural lighting while maintaining an average 40% glazing ratio overall. The mechanical equipment and screens have been positioned to reduce their visual impact and preserve the south-facing portion of the roof for photovoltaic panels. SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY The Project design incorporates sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The Project further reflects a design for a 50+ year lifespan with a timeless architectural expression and flexible floor plan that allows for multiple tenants and use configurations. 4 The Project meets or exceeds Palo Alto Tier 2 and CalGreen standards. The building skin has been designed to exceed current energy codes by allowing for smart daylighting and passive solar shading to reduce solar heat gain. EV charging stations are provided. The Project extends sustainability beyond the building, incorporating several strategies to reduce motor vehicle traffic, including secure bicycle parking, showers and changing facilities, EV and carpool spaces, and convenient adjacency to public transportation and long-distance shuttle drop off. Additional sustainable features include: • Fenestration is protected against direct sun with deep roof overhangs, exterior shade canopies, and horizontal sunshades on the aluminum curtain wall system at the south and east faces of building. • High performance, low-emissivity glazing is specified throughout. Thermally broken curtainwall and window systems are specified to reduce thermal bridging. • High performance envelope design includes rigid “outsulation,” cool roof, and roof insulation beyond code minimum (R-36, typ). • High efficiency LED lighting is used throughout architectural and site lighting. • Low-flow plumbing and shower fixtures are used throughout. • Over half of the required parking is located in below-grade garage allowing for increased landscape areas and stormwater treatment areas. • Around the building are several attractive bio-retention basins. These basins create a highly visible presence while performing the vital function of capturing, retaining and treating stormwater that falls onto impervious surfaces on the property. • Drought tolerant and native species planting is specified to reduce irrigation water usage on site while providing shading and usable outdoor spaces. • Fenestration is designed to optimize views and daylight for the comfort of the building occupants. • Rooftop PV is provided for the southfacing slope of the roof providing for a large percentage of the building’s anticipated energy use. • Tenant(s) will participate in the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association and participate in its plethora of TDM programs. LANDSCAPE DESIGN The key goals of the landscape design are to create a welcoming pedestrian experience and integrate the modern building into its context through a native, drought resistant plant palette. The pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces enhance walking links within Stanford Research Park and encourage wellness and enjoyment for the occupants. Planting design for the Site provides a natural transition from the welcoming Porter Drive frontage into the Site, where larger scale planting is used to frame plaza spaces and create shade. The pedestrian entrance to the Site from Porter Drive is highlighted by a wide stairway that leads to an entry plaza area with built-in seatwalls and convenient bike parking. This stairway includes a bike channel so bicyclists can roll (not ride) their bikes up and down the stairs instead of taking the much longer ramp. The plaza wraps around the south and west sides of the building and provides opportunities for indoor-outdoor extension of the building programming and activities. Seating and gathering spaces at a variety of scales allow for flexible use of this outdoor space, with the ability to accommodate individuals or small groups on typical days, or occasional larger programmed activities. Shaded outdoor areas offer semi-private group collaboration spaces, and built-in terraced seatwalls integrate the plaza into the topography. Flow-through stormwater treatment planters frame the entrance plaza, showcasing the Site’s commitment to sustainability. The landscape palette offers a combination of drought tolerant native and adapted shrubs, trees, and groundcovers, which will provide seasonal color and textural composition. New plantings will be properly maintained and are drought-resistant to reduce water consumption. Sustainable features are incorporated throughout the Site plan, giving the Project ample opportunity to prioritize water conservation in the landscape material and irrigation systems specifications. 5 EXHIBIT 1 STANFORD RESEARCH PARK TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Stanford University and Stanford Research Park employers are working together to offer valuable services that make employee trips to Stanford Research Park easier, more convenient, more cost effective and better for the environment. The transportation programs offered through the SRP TMA complement the in-house programs offered by larger employers, while engaging and providing the smaller employers with transportation programs and resources they would otherwise not be able to offer. Thus, both large and small employers benefit from the scale and partnerships afforded to them by working with the SRP TMA on transportation programs for their employees. Together, we implement programs, monitor the results and improve and adapt as needed in order to make continued progress. We value and need the flexibility to innovate and adapt. The SRP TMA offers customized solutions focused on our unique population and geography. The core principles that steer the SRP TMA’s efforts are encouraging ridership of local and regional public transit options, while supplementing with private solutions where public transit routes do not exist. We offer subsidized private vanpool and carpool programs and long-distance commute shuttles. We desire to improving bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the SRP and embrace other land use strategies to support the use of commute alternatives. Through maintaining the flexibility to experiment and evolve programs as needed, and the ability to customize programs for our unique population and circumstances, the SRP TMA has reduced the SOV rate 10 percentage points since 2016. The SRP TMA has hired the necessary resources and expanded our staff to achieve consistent progress (see the SRP TMA organizational chart below). As a result, Stanford University has grown the SRP TMA management team from a single part-time employee to 3 full time staff (in red) comprised of team members who oversee: • Shuttle bus operations • Customer service • Customer acquisition, marketing and outreach • Bicycle programs and other events • Procurement, finance and program administration 6 SRP TDM PROGRAM EVOLUTION AND PROGRESS PROGRAMS AND PARTNERSHIPS (2016) In 2016, the SRP TMA Director, Jamie Jarvis, organized the SRP TMA, then consisting of the 12 largest employers, and together, the TMA piloted the following programs: • Purchased discounted VTA Smart Passes that provide free fare on all VTA and Dumbarton Express buses • Free Caltrain shuttle service • Enhanced Guaranteed Ride Programs • Creation of the Bicycle Champions Advisory Group to advise on where and how to enhance bicycle routes and safety OUTREACH AND MARKETING (2017) Our 2017 efforts focused on increasing participation in existing SRPGO programs, as well as expanding the membership of the TMA, which increased to 18 of the largest employers, plus 43 of the smallest employers in SRP. That year, new programs focused on direct customer service, marketing and outreach to commuters, necessitating a direct outreach coordinator to provide concierge services. The TMA enhanced its program offerings with: • San Francisco commuter bus • Scoop carpool planning service and subsidies • Free virtual concierge and custom transportation planning service for all SRP employees • A series of bicycle advocacy events and services • Free Smart Passes to employers with fewer than 100 employees • Zipcar carshare vehicles, free registration and $25 use credit • Vanpool formation assistance and a $300 rider subsidy • New Caltrain last mile connections • Enhanced frequency of bicycling programs, including on-site bicycling clinics and free tune-ups. Monthly commuter prize drawings and Spare the Air Day rewards. ADDING OPTIONS AND CUSTOMER ACQUISITION (2018) The SRP TMA continued to add staff, and another 7 new SRP companies and tenants voluntarily joined the SRP TMA, increasing membership to over 65 employers, representing 80% of the SRP by square footage occupied. Stanford Research Park was awarded one of the “Best Workplaces for Commuters 2018” by the National Center for Transit Research and a platinum level “Bicycle Friendly Business” by the League of American Cyclists. New transportation services launched in 2018 included: • Adding a South Bay commuter bus, providing two daily trips between San Jose and the SRP. The route, stops and schedule were carefully planned to provide service to a densely populated area of the South Bay (Santana Row) not served by VTA bus service. • Adding three new vanpools that serve Dublin, San Ramon and West San Jose, plus two vanpools that provide connecting service to the ACE train station at Great America. • Adding last-mile shuttles between the California Avenue Caltrain station and various stops throughout SRP during commute hours. Now, over half (52%) of Caltrain riders travelling to or from SRP during commute hours utilize the California Avenue station despite the fact that this station offers significantly less train service than the University Avenue Caltrain station. • Adding midday shuttle service between SRP and California Avenue, which provides additional lunch options for employees in SRP and reduces peak period parking demand near California Avenue businesses. INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE (2019) Establishing effective transportation programs requires flexibility, experimentation, and a constant focus on improving SRP commuter offerings. Mayor Filseth, who attended an SRP TMA meeting in February 2019, referred to the SRP as “Palo Alto’s incubator” for experimenting with new, innovative transportation solutions across a variety of commute modes. This year, we are focused on continuing our progress with reducing SOV, improving our marketing and customer acquisition efforts, and investing in infrastructure improvements as opportunities arise. We are have proposed to the City a new modern, sustainable bus shelter in SRP, completing pedestrian sidewalks gaps, improving bicyclist access, and of course, this Project. 7 SRP TMA PROGRESS TO DATE • Reduced solo driving by 10 percentage points in 3 years • Increased transit ridership from 6% to 12% in 3 years EXHIBIT 2 PROJECT ALIGNMENT WITH PALO ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN By providing a headquarters location for the SRP TMA, and small-scale office space, the building will align well with several goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan (Transportation Element and Business & Economics Element): Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. Program T1.2.1: Create a long-term education program to change the travel habits of residents, visitors, shoppers and workers by informing them about transportation alternatives, incentives and impacts. Program T1.11.2: In collaboration with Caltrain and Stanford Research Park, pursue expansion of service to the California Avenue Caltrain Station and creation of an enhanced transit center at the Station, including connections to VTA bus service, the Palo Alto Free Shuttle, the Marguerite and other private shuttles serving the Research Park. Program T1.12.2: Work with VTA to expand VTA express bus service routes to service the Stanford Research Park, California Avenue, Stanford University and Downtown. 8 Policy T-1.13: Encourage services that complement and enhance the transportation options available to help Palo Alto residents and employees make first/last mile connections and travel within the city for daily needs without using a single-occupancy vehicle, including shuttle, taxi and ridesharing services. Policy T-1.15: Encourage employers to develop shared shuttle services to connect employment areas with the multi-modal transit stations and City amenities, and to offer employees education and information on shuttles. Policy T-2.2: As part of the effort to reduce traffic congestion, engage employers to operate and expand TMAs to address transportation and parking issues as appropriate in the employment districts. Policy B-4.3: Promote the growth of small businesses and start-ups. Policy B-4.4: Recognize that Stanford Research Park contains a concentration of some of the City’s largest employers, and seek to maintain a mix of office and research and development uses. Policy B-7.5: Encourage incubator businesses in Stanford Research Park. Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Item 42 Letter from Dr. Alan Launer, Assoc. Director of Conservation Planning 20 February 2019 Ms. Lisa Lu Stanford University 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Subject: Biological Assessment of 3215 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, California. Dear Ms. Lu; The parcel 3215 Porter Drive (Palo Alto) was surveyed by a Stanford biologist on 15 February 2019. This site was previously surveyed as part of an earlier biological evaluation on 31 May 2016. The 2016 survey concluded that the site was a highly disturbed and managed landscape, and that it did not support a meaningful level of native biodiversity. The same conclusion, that the site does not support a meaningful level of native biodiversity, was also reached after the recent 2019 survey. Since 2016, the site has been further modified and is dominated by a large planting of ornamental lavender (Lavandula species or hybrid cultivar). There is a row of ornamental shrubs and trees along the northeast side of the parcel, and a few landscape trees in the interior. None of these ornamental shrubs or trees are native to the area. As was similarly concluded during the previous biological evaluation of the site, the site supports little native biodiversity. No federal or state-protected species were observed on site and considering the condition of the parcel, none are expected to be even temporarily present on site. A number of native birds were observed foraging in the ornamental vegetation or simply flying over the site, but no nesting bird activity was observed at the site during the visit (which was likely too early in the season for birds to have started nesting). Note, however, if construction is scheduled during the late winter to early summer local bird nesting season, then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds will need to be conducted in order to be in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code. No evidence of bat roosts was observed during the site visit. Given the recent plantings of many lavenders, it is expected that insects will visit the site during periods of appropriately good weather. Likewise, hummingbirds will likely be attracted to the lavender flowers. It is expected that the site is at least occasionally and temporarily occupied by some of the more common native species, those which that are tolerant of human activities, including Sierran treefrog, western toad, arboreal salamander, slender salamander, western fence lizard southern alligator lizard, pocket gopher, striped skunk, raccoon, and opossum. Coyotes, ground squirrels, and moles could conceivably visit the site on occasion, but given the level of active management, including pest control, these species are not resident at the site. Common non- native species, including eastern grey squirrel, house mouse, Norway rat, and black rat, are expected to be at the site. Native vegetation is almost entirely lacking from the site and the majority of trees and shrubs at the site are non-native ornamental species, planted as part of landscaping efforts. Additionally, this site is included in the Stanford Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). This plan is associated with Stanford’s federal Endangered Species Act incidental take permit (ITP). In 2016, the HCP and ITP were accepted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to satisfy the requirements of the California Endangered Species Act. In the federal and state- approved HCP, 3215 Porter Drive is designated as Zone 4 land – land that is considered to be of little or no value to the protected species which are the focus of the HCP. In summary, the site— 3215 Porter Drive —does not currently support a meaningful level of native biodiversity. If construction or modification of infrastructure is started in late winter to early summer, surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats will need to be conducted. Alan Launer, Ph.D. Associate Director, Conservation Planning LBRE Stanford University ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3215 Porter Drive, 19PLN-00237 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (RP DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 1 acre, 100 feet, and 150 feet 1.67 acres 1.67 acres Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 0 50 feet Rear Yard 20 feet 0 20 Interior Side Yard 20 feet 0 20 Street Side Yard 20 feet N/A N/A Min. yard for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts 20 feet N/A N/A Special Setback – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 50 feet along Porter Drive 0 50 Max. Site Coverage 30% (21,837sf) 0% (Vacant) 16.9% (12,315 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 40% (29,116sf) 0% (Vacant) 28.6% (20,833sf + 1,100 sf amenity space not included in FAR) Max. Building Height 35 ft or 25 ft when located within 40 ft of residentially zoned property (4,5) None 34.6 ft (40 ft measured to rooftop mechanical enclosure per PAMC 18.20.040(e)(2)) Daylight Plane N/A N/A N/A Employee Showers 2 required for new square footage between 20,000- 49,999 0 2 (4) See subsection 18.20.040(e) below for exceptions to height and floor area limitations in the ROLM and RP zoning districts. (5) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Professional/General Office Uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/300 sf of gross floor area for a total of 70 parking spaces 0 70 spaces, Bicycle Parking 1/3,000 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 7 spaces 0 52 (18 long term, 34 short term) Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000 – 99,999 sf 0 1 * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3215 Porter Drive” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4766&TargetID=319 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10983) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/16/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of December 5, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the December 5, 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: December 5, 2019 Draft Minutes (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew, David Hirsch and Grace Lee. Absent: None. Chair Baltay: Good morning. Welcome to the December 5, 2019, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Could we have a roll call, please? [Roll Call] Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Thank you. All present. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Oral Communications Chair Baltay: First item is oral communications. Are there any members of the public who wish to address the Board on an item that’s not on our agenda? Seeing no one. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Do we have any changes to the agenda, additions or deletions? Staff? Okay. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Chair Baltay: Third item is our ARB meeting schedule and attendance records. Staff, do we have information on upcoming meetings? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Our next meeting is December 19th. On that meeting, we’re expecting to have three projects. The 702 Clare is a three-unit project; that will be its third hearing. There is 250 Hamilton, we just have to say it that way because it’s multiple locations. Those are actually bus shelters on the Stanford Research Park area that are being proposed. And then there is the 1700 Embarcadero, which is the Mercedes and Audi dealership that we will be discussing. This is after Council has approved the massing. We would just be getting into the architectural details. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Yes? Vice Chair Thompson: It didn’t note in the minutes, but I won’t be present for the 12/19 meeting. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 5, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval 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. Chair Baltay: Okay, moving on to our first action item. This is a public hearing, quasi-judicial, for 180 El Camino Real, a recommendation on applicant's request for approval 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 square feet, (2) two retail buildings, approximately 3,500 square feet each, and (3) a retail building, approximately 28,000 square feet, making for 78,500 square feet in total. Can we have staff presentation on that, please? Oh, excuse me. Board Member Lee: Sorry, I just need to jump in. Unfortunately, I need to recuse myself due to my employment. Chair Baltay: Yes. Grace will be recusing herself. And then, I’d like to also check if we have any other information from other members of the Board about the project. Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited the site on Black Friday, as well as Tuesday at lunchtime. I also downloaded two aerial photos of the site, one from 1941 and one from the 1960’s, maybe 1968. That’s all. Chair Baltay: Okay, Alex. Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I have nothing to disclose. Chair Baltay: David? Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible] Chair Baltay: Okay. I’d like to disclose that I also visited the site several times, as recently as yesterday, and I’d like to tell my colleagues that I made some measurements of the driplines of the two oak trees along El Camino. Tree number 39 has an average dripline of approximately 35 feet, and tree number 72 has a dripline of approximately 22 feet, out from the trunk of the tree. I’m just saying that because that information is not immediate in the tree report here. I think that will be important later. Thank you. Okay, with that, staff report, please. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning to the ARB Board members. My name is Samuel Gutierrez, project planner for this project, and for the shopping center. Here today, we’re presenting the Macy’s Men’s project. This has been dubbed by the City for redevelopment at the Stanford Shopping Center, located at 180 El Camino Real. Going into the presentation, just to reiterate again, this involves the demolition of the Macy’s Men’s existing now towards El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road, that portion of the shopping center, and it’s going to reconfigure that corner of the shopping center to accommodate three new buildings. Here is a bit of the history of the project. The first time this went before the ARB during the prelim is February 7, 2019. The second time was the first formal, and that was June 20, 2019. And then, it went before the ARB again on October 3rd. During that October 3rd hearing, we had comments and direction from the ARB, which we are here to address today. Here is just a breakdown of what was discussed during the last City of Palo Alto Page 3 hearing. There was some concern about the Wilkes Bashford building and its relief, including the bricks. There was discussion about having some more articulation of massing just to give that building relief and more interest, and the applicant has revised the plans accordingly to provide some of these reliefs in the building, a bit more articulation. The other concern was a bit about the El Camino sidewalk. There was some discussion there, and that was revised accordingly to the ARB’s concerns of having the sidewalk that went fully to the El Camino curb. There wasn’t really a buffer, it was too much of a sidewalk area that’s too close to the traffic, so that was narrowed a bit. That was also revised in the plan set. And then, there was some discussion about some of the trees and saving some of them, and the replacement trees as well. That is something that is still being worked on. We do know the number of trees that have to be replaced. It’s 229. Staff is working with the applicant to identify suitable replant areas throughout the shopping center because it wouldn’t be possible to physically put that many trees in this project-specific area of the shopping center without removing parking or buildings, or something like that. There is a larger shopping center mass, and there is some areas that lack trees that could benefit from some of these replacements. The first option. In the previous discussion, again, the ARB felt that the other two buildings – Building EE with the two tenant spaces that’s adjacent to the larger shopping center mass – was well done and completed for the size that was appropriate. And then, the Restoration Hardware building, being one of the new anchor tenant buildings, the architecture was found to be acceptable by the ARB, so there wasn’t any more comments. But, again, Wilkes Bashford still had some refining to do. The project was broken up into some options presented to the ARB, the first being the two buildings that I mentioned – the smaller tenant spaces known as Building EE, and then, the Restoration Hardware building – with all of the site treatments, and then a pad for the future Wilkes Bashford building to come in later. That would come in as a separate application to be approved, but the site plan would be approved and those other two buildings would be approved, so that would move forward. This is the site plan of that. You can see that there is a building pad, not the actual physical building, but everything else has been reconfigured for that to come in later. Option 2 shows the same thing, except on the pad, of course, there is the building. This is the option that staff is recommending to the Board. Here, we can see the previous iteration of Wilkes Bashford building. This corner was refined, and the ARB found that to be well done along El Camino. But then, again, there was concern about the three smaller oaks on that corner, about preserving them. So, the building was shifted back to preserve those oaks. This is what that rendering would look like. Here is, again, the Pistache drive aisle off of El Camino as you enter the shopping center. You can see the Wilkes Bashford, the previous iteration there. This is the revised. If we go back, you can see on the corner where the storefront window is, there is a projection now, there, and then, the trellis… It’s a little hard to tell because of the trees, but if you look, the trellis for the outdoor seating area extends further as well, and there are material changes there with the brick that are up there on the materials sample board that was recently submitted. Again, this is further down Pistache and facing what would be now the, I believe the LaBelle Spa, and the rest of the shopping center massing. That’s the previous design that was brought before the ARB in October. Here is the new design. You can kind of appreciate more of that extension of the trellis on the right, and then, this projection here on the corner, and also the entry here off of the parking lot, is much more articulation and massing. It brings more interest to the building. Here is the greater parking lot side towards, facing towards Sand Hill. Again, this is the previous design, and then, here, you can see, again, that corner projection and a bit more of the leaf, the other façade walls of the building. Removing the trees, looking at how the building has changed, again, you can see the corners have these projections. You have minor projections in the extension of the trellises to give the building a bit more relief, per the ARB’s instructions. This is the original floor plan of the building. It was very square. Here, you can see how some of the building changes. It’s very subtle, but there’s corners that project out, and then, again, towards the greater shopping center façade towards the interior, on the left there, you can see that straight end of the building starts to weave in and out. The corners project a bit more, and then, the other two sides of the building also have a bit more relief. Again, the bricks were also studied and modified, and there were examples in the plan sets, and some material samples presented before you. This is the El Camino sidewalk. Again, we looked at this with the applicant. I, myself, was there and met with the applicant’s team and arborist, along with Urban Forestry, our city arborist, to go over how we can address this issue. We were able to extend the sidewalk a little bit, not to the full extent because of the protected oaks there. It would encroach into their dripline, so we’re extending it towards El Camino, but not fully there. There’s still a little bit of a strip of landscaping there. This is a top view, a site plan view of that. And then, here we can see the section, cross-section view of that extension, where the existing sidewalk is approximately five feet, and we gain about two and a half feet with the small little buffer area before the curb of El Camino. This here shows a City of Palo Alto Page 4 site plan of the three trees on the corner there of El Camino, on the lower right. You can see that they are now being preserved, and that the building was set back additional feet from El Camino. It’s now 36 feet away from the property line, giving more room to not only the large heritage oak along El Camino’s sidewalk, but the corner trees, to preserve them. With all these changes, staff recommends the ARB take the following action: Recommend approval of the project, Option 2, which would include the Wilkes Bashford building, to the Director of Planning and Development Services, based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. That concludes staff presentation. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sam. Do we have any questions from the Board? Sam, could you tell me clearly, you moved the sidewalk closer to El Camino. What is the distance from the edge of the new sidewalk to the edge of the curb right now, under the proposed plan? Mr. Gutierrez: We just expanded it, so it’s keeping the same back of walk towards the shopping center, but it’s expanded over. Chair Baltay: My understanding was, originally it was right at the curb, and we were concerned about its proximity to the street. Mr. Gutierrez: Correct, so, it’s been shifted to 7.5 feet. Chair Baltay: What is the distance now to the street? Between the sidewalk and the street. It was zero. How much is it now? Mr. Gutierrez: It’s about six inches. Half a foot. Chair Baltay: They moved it six inches away from El Camino. Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Board Member Lew: I have a quick question. This is about the transformers. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes? Board Member Lew: The landscape plan shows that there’s, like, a screening fence around the transformers that’s six feet high. I was wondering if that had been reviewed for sight triangles at the intersection and the crosswalks. Mr. Gutierrez: This is for the entry off of Sand Hill you’re referring to? Board Member Lew: These are near the new… Let me get a sheet up. These are near the new cut-through street, between the cut-through street and the new Wilkes Bashford building. There are two transformers, and one is right at the corner, near the pedestrian crosswalks. And, so, normally we have a sight triangle thing that limits heights of fences to, like, four feet at those intersections so that drivers can see pedestrians. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. That was reviewed by Transportation, and it had to do with the direction of traffic and the speed of traffic at that intersection, that the sight triangle would have been minimized because these were not moving at street speeds. These would be much more reduced, so the sight triangle distances, or the width of the sight triangle, gets reduced based on that speed. Transportation didn’t feel that that was going to be that much of an issue at that point, based on the speed that cars would be traveling in the parking lot. Board Member Lew: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Baltay: Anything else? Okay, then, if the applicant could step forward, you have 10 minutes to make a presentation, please. If you could state and spell your name for the record. Matt Klinzing, Simon Property Group: Sure. Good morning. My name is Matt Klinzing [spells name]. I’m an architect with Simon Property Group. As Samuel mentioned, we did split this into two options, as we had discussed last time, so that we have both the pad option and the building option. With that being said, we did also spend a lot of time on the Wilkes Bashford in particular because there was a lot of conversation last time about that. I wanted to talk through in the 10 minutes the details that we’ve gone into to try and address all the comments we heard previously. The biggest one being – and I apologize for the small scale of this, but I placed a red line around where the building used to be sited. And then, of course, shaded in is where it is currently in the plan. It’s moved approximately 10 feet to the west. We also did some bumps in and out of the building, and the goal of that was obviously to move it out of both the tree protection zones and the driplines of the heritage oak, as well as the three trees down on the corner of Pistache. But, in addition to that, we have a limited dimension of eight feet that the Board would like to see for any sidewalks, so obviously we’re concerned about maintaining that. That was the building adjustment to maintain those trees. Based on Urban Forestry and meeting with the arborist and everybody, they signed off, after looking at the trees, on that placement, that they would be okay for the trees. In terms of the building, as Samuel went into, we made a bunch of changes. We did do some pushes ins and outs. We added some materials, adjusted some colors of materials, and I was going to go through specific elevations now so that you guys can understand exactly what it is that we did. The first is the west elevation. This is the one that faces back towards the center, away from El Camino. On the top you see the previous elevation that we presented on October 3rd, and the one on the bottom is now the new one. There were comments made about breaking the parapet line, pronouncing the entry more, and having an additional material. What we’ve done is we’ve taken that central section and we’ve raised the parapet there, and we added an additional material, which is a gray brick. There was also conversation last time about the scale of the brick and if there needs to be more variety. We took a look at different size bricks. At the end of the day, what we landed on was using a Norman size brick that still obviously had the vertical dimension with a standard brick, but it has a longer foot-long dimension. We think that the horizontality of that gives a little more of a sophisticated look. In addition, the right and the left storefront pop-outs, or those volumes, were coming out inches. They now come out feet from the building projection. Here is a view from that corner that shows all those pieces coming together. Then, on the north façade, we again wanted to break up the massing, as was discussed. On the top you see the previous elevation from October 3rd, and the bottom, the current elevation. Starting on the right side of the building, we had a pretty long section of brick there. We’ve now reduced that to just be a section right at the corner. And then, you move over to a neutral zone of stucco, and then, the gray brick that sits just to the left of that is actually a recess that punches into the building. We think that, along with the trellis, gives a little more articulation to the building. We’ve also refined some of the metal details that we have, trim around the storefront. In addition to that, we’ve changed the color of the Prodema material that we had. We had something, it was a Nux that was darker. We’ve changed it to a lighter color, which is called Rustik, that we think is more complementary with the rest of the building palette. And then, here’s a view of what that looks like now in elevation form. And then, as we get up closer, this is a more close-up view of the entry, where you see all these materials coming together. One other item we changed is there was concern last time about the detailing of how we were going to make the Prodema work on the trellis itself, that we would have dark edges. We looked at how to detail that, and we could detail it with lighter corners, but it was recommended instead that we go with a different material that is now on the board. That is a sublimated metal, which is an aluminum product. Yeah. And they are able to custom finish that to match the Prodema look. We think that that’s going to have the more finished look that everybody is interested in. We did receive a question through Samuel, I think, from the Board, as what the end caps will be, because as you can see in the picture, you would see those end caps. Those end caps are also a sublimated metal material, the same product that is attached to the end. We thought that would obviously help solve that problem. The south elevation, we made a lot of changes, probably the biggest change. We start on the right, or the El Camino side. We used to have on the top a brick corner. That’s now been changed to the stone. The reason we did that is, if you move just to the left, we have the three storefront windows there that were in a long band of stone. We’ve changed that to just a section of brick around the storefront windows, that then goes back to a stucco section. The reason for that, again, is because we didn’t want long plays of material. It was stated last time, we need to break up the massing a little more. Again, those volumes were pumped out more. Where City of Palo Alto Page 6 they were inches before, they are now into feet projections. Then, as you move left, you’ll see the center there. We originally had the Nux Prodema where we now have the lighter Rustik. As Samuel mentioned, we’ve extended the trellis another bay, two bays, to the west, and we’ve inset that section where we have the access to the patio from inside, and we’ve given that, again, the dark gray brick color. And then, over on the left, we’ve again broken that up with a different brick, and again, that projects out. We think the whole effect, again, is to try to break down that massing, as was requested in the last meeting. And then, here, again, are views of that, as Samuel had already shared. And then, an up close patio view of how that would all come together, the different materials, with the dark brick, the lighter brick, and the trellis. Finally, the east elevation. Formerly, there was no comments to this, but as we began to look at it and the ramifications of the material changes we made on north and south, necessitated a subtle shift, and that is to make both the north and south corners now that stone material, whereas one was stone and one was brick, prior. That then worked with the adjacent elevations, the north and south, so that it would all read together a little better. As Samuel mentioned, we’ve now pulled the building back sufficiently enough to the professional’s recommendation that we are preserving the trees on the corner and safely out of the heritage oak tree protection zone, as well as the dripline. Lastly, this is the material sample board. A lot of the materials are the same. I’ll just run through them real quickly so you understand what the changes are. The top left brick is what we had had previously. The next one, to the right from there, is the new brick, and that’s a gray color. Again, it’s a nominal height, but it’s in the Norman width, a one-foot width, as opposed to a standard eight inches. On the bottom right you’ll see the addition of the sublimated metal, which is the not-wood product that would be limited to the trellis pieces that are there. The balance of the trellis, we had a question as well on this, is a painted metal. That is on the board; it is listed as Paint 3. It’s an off-white/white color that complements that not-wood material. And then, to the left, on the bottom, you’ll see the lighter color of the Prodema, which is that Rustik material. That, in a nutshell, is all of the modifications we’ve made. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. With that, I’d like to open the meeting to any public comments we may have. Is there anyone who wishes to address this issue? Okay, seeing none, do we have any questions of the applicant before we start discussing? Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: The two bricks, are they going to be the same dimensions, or is one longer than the other? Mr. Klinzing: One is longer. The lighter one is a standard brick, so it’s the standard height, and it’s an eight- inch length. But the darker one is a Norman. That’s actually a foot, so it’s a good four inches longer. Like I said, that gives it a different feel while still breaking on the scale. We looked at larger materials and it just felt too big. Like it needed to be broken down. Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. For the trellis…? Mr. Klinzing: Yes? Vice Chair Thompson: The rendering is showing the white and the wood. Mr. Klinzing: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: But the brochure is showing all wood. Is it closer to what it’s going to be in the rendering? Mr. Klinzing: Yeah, I apologize. The material precedents, we obviously grabbed those from images on the web so we could explain it, and the one that was available showed it all as a wood color. But when you look at the actual drawings and the renderings, that’s what it will look like. It’s a white-colored metal for the main pieces and the main beams, the columns and beams, and the detail pieces – the slats – would be the sublimated non-wood, which is that extruded metal product. As a subtle detail, we always put those, I like to put them underneath the beams, because you always experience a trellis from underneath. When you put them on top, it always breaks up the view. But if you put them underneath, that’s what you see, primarily. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Vice Chair Thompson: It will be that material, but in this color? Mr. Klinzing: Correct, yes. What’s on the board. Vice Chair Thompson: Got it. Okay. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Anything else? I’d like to ask you about the proximity of the building to the trees. I wonder if you could tell me, from the center line of Tree 39 and Tree 72 – those are the two oaks on the corners – how close the building is to those, measured that way? While we discuss, you guys can [crosstalk]. Mr. Klinzing: I’m going to phone in a friend, here. Chair Baltay: I measured, I scaled off your drawings, finding that Tree 39 is 29 feet from the corner, and the other one is 18.5 feet. But maybe you could check that for us. Mr. Klinzing: I just checked, and we don’t have that dimension. We’ve measured the overall, but we don’t have the specific from the center line. We can certainly, obviously, get that for you, but we went out and surveyed the actual driplines, and then, made sure the building was out there. But we don’t have that specific, from the center line, out. Chair Baltay: Well, I’m trying to get a sense of whether the building really is within a dripline or not, because when I go out there, the dripline seems to be bigger than the dimension I’m seeing. I want to see if you can tell me what the numbers really are. Mr. Klinzing: Oh, you’re seeing a discrepancy between what you observed and what we’re showing on the drawings. Chair Baltay: Yes. The second question is: What is the measured dripline of each of those trees? Mr. Klinzing: Gotcha. Chair Baltay: Are you able to come up with that information while we’re doing this today? Mr. Klinzing: Are we able to verify…? We’re working on it. Chair Baltay: Let’s leave that as an outstanding question, if you could try to get that to us. Mr. Klinzing: Okay. Chair Baltay: Before we start, one last question for staff. On Option 1, you say that we’re essentially creating a placeholder pad for this Wilkes Bashford building. Does that mean that the actual spot of the building has been fixed and we’re agreeing to that? Or it just a conceptual sense that there’s another building going in here? Mr. Gutierrez: It’s more of a conceptual sense. It does arrange the parking lot, of course, around that pad, but the building could be shifted if the Board feels it needs to be. Chair Baltay: Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Perhaps, Alex, did you want to start us off on this? Board Member Lew: Sure. I don’t have very much to say on this that I haven’t already said before. I think I was closer to recommending approval last time, so I don’t have that much new to say. One is, on things that have changed, is the El Camino sidewalk. I did walk the entire length of the shopping center sidewalk on El Camino, and it really does have varying conditions. It does have the sidewalk all the way to the curb in one part because there’s a bus stop, so if we do that on this section, it would kind of fit in. There are other places where there are street trees in a very tiny, narrow planting strip. There are London plane trees in there. I’m not sure that the six inches does anything. I think we’ve done that, I think we’re proposing to City of Palo Alto Page 8 do that on, there’s a new bike path on the Ming’s Hotel site, and they found some tiny little Mendocino bunch grass to fit in there. Six inches isn’t much. I don’t know really know what we’re getting out of that. I don’t necessarily object to it. Ms. Gerhardt: Sorry, if I may. On the sidewalk, part of that is coming from staff direction. We’re trying to address the zoning code that says that a 12 foot sidewalk is required. We’re already having to do a variance, though, to not do the 12 feet. We were trying to get a slightly bigger sidewalk, but if there’s some other dimension that is more agreeable, then we’re open to that. Board Member Lew: I was not opposed to the previous proposal. The last time around, you were proposing an eight foot sidewalk going to the curb, and I was okay with that. There were other Board members opposed to that. And I think even just getting, like, the seven or eight feet width, I think helps, because you do have people, you have pedestrians, and you also have bicyclists riding on the sidewalk in this location because they don’t feel that it’s safe enough, and the City has sort of objected to bike lanes on El Camino in the past. I’m fine with all the changes with the Wilkes Bashford building. I think my general take on it is that it meets our findings. It’s not a great building, and I think it really does suffer because I think you’re trying to put a lot of different materials on it to break the long length along Pistache Place, and I think you’re trying to do too much on just a façade treatment with very minor, very small projections and recesses. But, nevertheless, I think it meets the findings. You have, all the materials and colors fit in with the shopping center. Generally, the height is what we’re looking for on El Camino, which is minimum 25 feet high. The massing, the contextual elevations, do show that the building fits in with the existing shopping center buildings. I think there have been some criticisms from Board Member Baltay about the parking lots being too chopped up and isolated, and I think I agree. I think I understand the comment. But I did look back through old aerial photos when the shopping center used to have a continuous parking lot all the way around it, and there were no sidewalks. There was one sidewalk into the shopping center and that was it. And everything else was just parking, and no trees. When we did the Sand Hill Road extension, the parking lots got chopped up because we added numerous sidewalks all the way into the shopping center, so it makes it less convenient for drivers. But it makes it much more interesting, much safer, and much more attractive way to get to the shopping center for pedestrians. I also did look at some of the old aerial photos to sort of see what the original, what was originally happening along El Camino with respect to the oak trees, and I think what I’ve learned from what I’ve seen is that there were no oak trees originally on that frontage. If you go back to the 1940’s photo when the underpass has been finished, there was nothing there. I think all of that was planted. I did look… I think, Board Member Thompson, you’re proposing to retain the trees on the corner, which is, like, 71…? Is it? Seventy-two is the larger one. I did look at those. Those are fairly small, but I’m fine with keeping them. And I also think that the landscape plan is generally, I highly recommend it. I think the ratio of native plants is very high. I think that’s all very attractive. I think my only comment on the plants is that the western redbud trees, which we have on the new cut-through street, it’s a very small tree, and it’s a very slow-growing tree. I’ve been shopping for one for my house and talking to nursery people about that. I think I would recommend staff looking at the size of that tree. I don’t have any tree sizes here, like, container sizes on here, but since that’s the only street on the connector street, I think we should look at getting the largest possible for that particular one. Okay, so, I think that’s all my comments. I’m curious to see what the other board members think. I think I’m recommending Option 2. I think I can understand if the Board isn’t happy with the Wilkes Bashford building. I will support that. But I think it meets the findings. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. David, do you want to go next? Board Member Hirsch: Well, to begin with, I think that some of the changes that you’ve made on the west side are quite terrific. They really answer the problem that I had with the scale of the whole end of the building at that point. The change in the brick, I think that’s an excellent improvement to the façade materials. I found this building to be quite interesting from the onset, that this idea of materials moving along the outside of it and it changes its nature all the way around, with the exception of the kind of monitors of store windows, or whatever, that sort of project. And that new projection is quite an improvement, I think. I’m a little confused. Option 1 is we’re going to – staff, if I’m correct – that’s going to be a pad, and Option 2 is the building. Right? I would say, I’m prepared to support the building and the pad. The whole thing. I just don’t think there are too many issues that could not be addressed. I think that City of Palo Alto Page 9 relative to trees, you can work on driplines and manage to prune the trees if necessary to make it work. My personal opinion is I don’t think we should get too involved in it. You certainly moved the building, which is significant to my way of thinking. I do have some problems with – and you haven’t hardly a way to deal with it – and that’s the area that’s on the west side that is the outside parking. Wouldn’t that be nice if it were some sort of general plaza space? But then, what do you do with the parking? I understand that there’s a conflict there, but it would really kind of set off that building if there were something more inviting about the way of getting in from that side. I think you’ve worked on all the materials quite well, so, as I say, I’m prepared to vote yes on this one. That’s it. Chair Baltay: Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Hi, there. Sorry, I lost a pen [inaudible], so I don’t want to lose this one. Thank you for your presentation. I’ll kind of also try to keep it short. I agree with Board Member Hirsch, that the west elevation change is a thumbs up. However, north elevation, south elevation, east elevation – none of those really broke the parapet line, and as a result, still feel very massive. The west elevation is really the only elevation where you do that, and I think it’s successful, but for the others, it seems like you focused a bit more on the planes, which I think is a good thing, but what the building suffers from is what we mentioned before, which is that it seems too massive, too big. And we mentioned the parapet line is the reason why, and on the long facades, it’s especially more apparent. On the west façade, it’s smaller, so it works there. But on the two big facades, the north and the south elevation, massing-wise, they are relatively unchanged relative to the parapet. It still feels like this big box that goes for a while. And that’s my main issue. It almost felt like… I mean, I’m glad you guys did your presentation because when I saw this without that, it really felt like not much had changed at all, and it was sort of disappointing to see that. But, again, west elevation was really, that is the kind of improvement that we were asking for last time. It’s just the north, south and east elevations are not really picking up on that change, so, for that reason, I don’t think I can support Option 2. It’s still a massing issue. The massing is relatively unchanged, and that’s the main issue. And kind of what Board Member Lew was saying, you know, we don’t... maybe… Yeah. Our job is to talk about the aesthetics and make Palo Alto, the future of Palo Alto good. And I think Building EE and Restoration Hardware is doing that, and the west façade of Wilkes Bashford is getting there, but the other three, which are very important because they face three very important sides, aren’t there. I cannot support Option 2 as a result. The other issue with this package was also that the renderings were showing a lot of very solid trees that were covering up a lot of the building, so it was really hard to see that trellis extension, to really find those things that you did spend time changing, because your renderings had trees that covered most of it up. It was a bit of a search-and-seek for me. I would say, in the future, depending on how this goes, it would be really important to show your design either with translucent trees, or no trees, just to really see what it is you’re actually building. I had a lot of struggle with that. Also, the renderings for the corner elements on El Camino kind of depict a much deeper space behind that showroom window. It almost looks like that window isn’t just five feet deep, or three feet deep. The rendering makes it look like you can see all the way and see people shopping. That’s not true. There’s, like, a staircase right there. It’s a little bit deceptive in that way. I would also say, if this comes back, that an important thing to depict accurately. So, I’m in a place to not recommend Option 2. I can recommend Option 1. As far as the pad is concerned, I appreciate that you guys decided to respect the trees. If it’s really the case that it is. You know, if the dripline is actually still into where that pad is. That dimension of the corner of the pad to the tree is really important, because if Board Member Baltay’s measuring correctly, it still does encroach into the dripline, which would be a problem. Okay. That’s all I got. Thanks. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. Thank you, everybody. To the applicant, do you have any dimensions you can give us about the building location? It’s going to be important, I think. Mike Mowery, Civil Engineer: Good morning. My name is Michael Mowery. I’m the civil engineering lead for the project. I’ll introduce Ryan Gilpin, our project arborist. Based on your questions, we did just do some additional measurements to provide dimensions for Tree 39 and Tree 72, both the TPZ and the dripline and the canopies. I’ll let Ryan present that information. Thank you. Ryan Gilpin, HortScience Bartlett Consulting: Hi, my name is Ryan Gilpin from HortScience Bartlett Consulting. I’m the project arborist. For Tree 39, I measured it as 33 feet from the building, and for Tree City of Palo Alto Page 10 72, I measured at 18 feet from the building. Both of these would be relatively close to where the canopy dimensions are. We don’t have specific dimensions as to what the canopy is, exactly where those buildings are. Chair Baltay: To be clear, in your tree report, you have this exhaustive list of every tree and all these things, but you didn’t measure the driplines? Mr. Gilpin: I have the average canopy diameter of every dripline. The average canopy diameter for Tree 39 is 40 to 56 feet. Chair Baltay: I’m sorry, could you say that again? Mr. Gilpin: Forty to 56 feet. It’s broken into the brackets that are important for tree replacement calculations, based on the technical tree manual. Chair Baltay: It’s between 40 and 56 feet. Mr. Gilpin: That’s correct. Average canopy diameter. Chair Baltay: Average. The canopy diameter is the same thing as the dripline? Mr. Gilpin: Yes. Chair Baltay: Okay, and on Tree 72, what do you have there? Mr. Gilpin: Ten to 27 feet. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. That’s the information I was after. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, the City’s tree protection zone is 10 inches times the, 10 times the diameter. We’re talking about 72 being 16 inches, so, therefore, the tree protection zone is about 13 or so feet. Chair Baltay: And on Tree 39, that’s 40 inches in diameter. What is that tree protection zone. Ms. Gerhardt: Forty inches; 33. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Vice Chair Thompson: Do we still have a measurement distance of the corner of the building to the tree? Mr. Gilpin: That’s what I gave, the corner of the building to tree number 39. Thirty-three feet. Chair Baltay: I heard them say 33. I scaled the… Is that to the building, or to the edge of the monitor, the glass thing? Mr. Gilpin: Building. The closest point to the tree that I could tell in the drawings. Mr. Mowery: [inaudible] structure. Chair Baltay: Okay. I scaled it off the drawings at 29, but we’ll take your word at 33. Mr. Mowery: And just to know when Ryan was mentioning the overall dripline dimensions, those are diameters around the tree, so it would really be close to half. And I know, obviously, the diameter is [inaudible], but close to half of 56 is what you would compare to the 33 edge to the building. Does that make sense? Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Baltay: I see. The dimension you just gave for the dripline is the diameter, not the… Mr. Gilpin: Diameter rather than the radius. That’s correct. Mr. Mowery: And the 33 and the 18 feet that we’ve given… Sorry. And the 33 foot for Tree 39 and the 18 foot dimension for Tree 72 are lateral dimensions from the tree to the edge of the building. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you, gentlemen. To my colleagues, and to staff, I guess. I’m a trained architect with a lifetime of experience, and I can scale drawings, and I scale this at 29 feet. I believe that number is reasonably close. I have a photo on my cellphone. I myself went out to the site yesterday, and I had a staff member go out as well, and we measured the dripline. You stand there with a ruler against the trunk of the tree and you go out until you’re at the edge of the branches, 36 feet 2 inches, 32 feet 4 inches, 31 feet 3 inches. We measured that to the edge of the tree. So, when somebody says it’s closer to 20 to 26 feet, I’m sorry, but that doesn’t square with the dimensions I’m taking. And I think it’s really important. When I look at your drawing, you’re showing the dripline of the tree, showing it, you know, the jagged line here is more like 10 feet. I mean, it just feels like we’re being spun here. These aren’t really an effort to save the tree; it’s an effort to fit the building where you want it to be, and push against the tree. With that comment… And we want to work with your information, of course. I’d like to address my colleagues here. Like David said, this is just two trees, and there are ways to build close to trees, and these trees have paved areas over a big chunk of their root zone anyway, so it’s hard to see that you’re going to impact the roots. I counted… Where are my notes here? The tree report says that you have 162 trees that are being impacted by the project, of which 86 are being plain-out removed. That’s 53 percent of the trees, without even talking about these oak trees. They’re already taking out more than half of the trees to fit this building where they’re putting it. Plus, there is an impact on all these trees we’re looking at. I went to the Comprehensive Plan, which is our bottom-line bible we’re trying to follow. Plan No. N2.7 says maintain healthy trees in parking lots. Comp Plan N2.9: Minimize the removal and damage to trees. Comprehensive Plan 2.10: Preserve and protect regulated trees. I just don’t see how we can find that they’re taking out half the trees, plus they need to put this third building so close to these trees that I don’t believe they’re going to survive. I can show you photos I’ve taken yesterday of the dripline of Tree 39. The branches extend almost to the other side of the drive aisle that is adjacent to it. It’s a 20-foot drive aisle. It’s a very large, main bough of that tree, pointing right towards this building. I believe that will conflict, physically bump into the building. It will have to be removed. It’s a major impact on this tree. All because the building really just is in the wrong place. That’s the bottom line to me, is that the building is just in the wrong place, and you haven’t really moved it enough. You’ve moved it a couple of feet. I’m not sure, again, about the 10 foot statement. Your drawings just don’t clearly dimension these things. But I think it’s not unreasonable for us to insist that these trees be preserved, and be preserved in a way that they will really survive. Not just that they’ll make it through plan shank [phonetic] and we’ll get half way through construction, when you realize that the tree is now dying, somehow. But rather, that it really happens. That means you stay away from it. We’ve had other projects with, I remember the Stanford Hospital, where they were close to these trees, and in the end, they stayed the dripline, plus a little bit. Then we did all the tree protection stuff. And those trees are surviving, but they’re struggling. But we all know that when you build under the dripline, when your building touches the boughs of the tree. It means the tree’s going to go. I drive in in the morning down El Camino, and it’s the first thing I see from Palo Alto, is, coming over the San Francisquito Creek, coming into town, you’re on that bridge at a stoplight. On the left is a very large redwood tree, next to the new park. On the right is all these oak trees along the shopping center. The Comprehensive Plan talks about the importance of preserving the entrance into Palo Alto and the way it looks. Removing this tree will not preserve that. Again, it’s just a basic thing in the Comprehensive Plan. I believe the problem is that the building is just too close to El Camino. It will impact this tree, and it’s incumbent upon us to protect this tree. Both of these trees. Again, if it were just one tree, if it were just, okay, can we do extraordinary measures, that’s fine. But 53 percent of the trees in this project are being removed? I’m sorry, it does not have my support. I’d also like to state, for the record, my issue with the parking. I understand that not everybody agrees, but I’d just like to put it out there. With the Macy’s store currently closed, I believe the parking lot in the shopping center is already maxed out. It’s tough enough to find a spot, so, whatever the standard is, right now, it’s really tight. We’re proposing to add two new buildings to this project, to this site, at the same time as we reduce the parking by 165 spaces. I don’t see how that’s going to improve what’s already, to me, a maxed-out situation. Regardless of parking ratios – City of Palo Alto Page 12 which is not what we’re here to measure – Finding #4 requires us to find that the building does not, that it does not provide for the ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. We also have to find that it’s convenient vehicle access to the property. I can’t make those findings on the basis of the parking alone, but between that and the trees, I’m just not there. Regarding the design of the building, I believe it has been improved. I find your changes of materials are much better, and I think they do meet the standards, as Alex said. I agree with Board Member Thompson’s comments about the overall massing of the building, however, that it really hasn’t changed the large look of it. Once you remove that tree – which I believe will happen with the design the way it is now – the massing of that building will be abundantly clear, and that’s the first thing you’ll see coming into town, is a large Wilkes Bashford building with windows that aren’t windows. It does not have my support. I wonder if we have any other feedback from board members before we try to reach consensus here. I believe we’re sort of stuck at 2 and 2. Board Member Lew: Well, I will say, I visited the site on Black Friday, in the afternoon, and the parking lot in front of the Macy’s Men’s store was half empty. Chair Baltay: Any other thoughts? Otherwise, I’ll just put out there. MOTION Chair Baltay: I move that we recommend approval of Option 1. Vice Chair Thompson: Second. Chair Baltay: Okay, all those in favor. Vice Chair Thompson: Aye. Chair Baltay: Aye. Board Member Lew: Aye. Board Member Hirsch: Can I speak to the motion? Chair Baltay: Sure, okay. Let’s hold back the vote. David, go ahead and speak to the motion, please. Board Member Hirsch: I just don’t know how we’re going to go there with the thoughts that you just expressed. I mean, if the extent of the tree removals is that extreme, and the transportation issues, the pedestrian issues around this building are that extreme, are we talking really about allowing a pad to be built for a future building? And allow that and …? It seems to me that everything is more extreme than that. You’re almost saying, effectively, that you shouldn’t have a building here. Or, it has to start all over. In that case, a pad is not a good idea. That’s the sense I get from what you’re saying, Peter. Chair Baltay: To address your comments, David, I think those are the choices put in front of us now. I think we need to be careful that the parking… It’s not something we really can make a decision about ourselves. When the staff, and the Transportation Commission and the Council decide that parking is adequate, we need to take that as what it is. I’m just sort of venting about it because I don’t think it is, and this is my forum to put it out there. And I think the Board has consistently rebuffed that, and I don’t think it’s appropriate, as much as I support it, to hold the decision based on the transportation and parking issues. As much as I wish we could. I think the building needs to come back another, maybe 10 feet to be fitting, and I think the massing of the building is just a little too heavy, still. The roofline needs to adjust more, perhaps. Maybe more ins and outs or something as you go along that 200 foot façade? Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I think staff also mentioned that Option 1 is kind of a conceptual pad, that it’s open to being adjusted, per our comments. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Hirsch: I don’t know. If it’s going to be constructed, that’s where the buildings is going to be. It’s a pad. Chair Baltay: Staff, could you correct us? This is not giving them permission to construct the pad of a building, is it? Ms. Gerhardt: No, it would just be permission to be basically rough grading. I mean, Option 1 would be giving them permission to do the parking lot, the sidewalk, those sorts of things, so you are sort of boxed in. But inside that box, there’s still freedom to place the building wherever it needs to go. The box being just the pad, the location. Chair Baltay: I guess I’m a little bit unclear. When I asked the question earlier, we said it was a schematic location. That means you’re not boxed into the dimensions of that pad, but rather that corner of the parking lot of the building is getting a building. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. That corner of the parking lot, correct. Chair Baltay: And what I’m saying, I think the building is still too close to those trees. It’s clear that the pad then can’t be that close to those trees. I would hate to see them grade for that and then find out the building can’t be there. And I’m assuming that Option 1 is not giving them permission to do that. Is that the case? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. The pad could remain at its current elevation with no grading happening on that pad area. It would just remain as is, and the site work would be done all around it. Board Member Hirsch: Doesn’t answer it for me. Chair Baltay: Is it possible to have Option 1 just state that we’re not granting any permission to do construction where this building is being located, but rather, this is where we conceptually agree another building could be placed? But they still need to go through the process of designing the building and getting it approved. That’s the way I interpret Option 1. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, there would be no construction on the pad, but there would be construction all the way around it. Not including the tree area, but there would be construction of the sidewalk. Board Member Hirsch: How does that…? Ms. Gerhardt: The sidewalk along El Camino, I mean, Option 1 would give them permission to change that sidewalk along El Camino. It would also give them permission to change the parking lot that’s adjacent to Wilkes Bashford. Chair Baltay: It seems difficult. I mean, you can’t build a parking lot and then decide… If the building wall moves even a foot or two, that affects the whole thing. You can’t just put the parking lot there and then, if the building wall has to move even a little bit, it doesn’t work. Board Member Hirsch: Doesn’t work. Chair Baltay: It needs to design the parking lot in conjunction with the building it’s adjacent to. Would this come back to us before the parking lot design gets finalized? Or should we be asking the applicant these questions? How does this pencil out? I’m just sensing a discrepancy of what’s being proposed and what I believe we’re saying. Ms. Gerhardt: If you take a look at Option 1, if you take a look at G1.1, just the second page of the plan set there, it shows the sidewalk along El Camino being new. There’s a sidewalk along Pistache. I mean, there’s, you know, four sidewalks surrounding that pad. Our initial take was that those four sidewalks could be built with Option 1. Now, maybe we take those sidewalks out, so the pad, you know, sort of grows. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Baltay: It seems to me that sidewalks along El Camino and Pistache Place certainly aren’t going to change, and that could be done, and that’s something that needs to be fixed as they do the project. But the other two are integrally connected to the building, and exactly where the building is going to be. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so, we could just make that change to Option 1, that the two interior sidewalks adjacent to the pad would not be approved as part of this Option 1, and that those would come back with the building. Chair Baltay: I think that’s the case, yes. Is that a clear, common understanding, then, that that’s what we’re approving? Ms. Gerhardt: We probably should make a friendly amendment, just in case. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION Chair Baltay: Could you state that clearly for me, please, what it will be? Ms. Gerhardt: What I understand is that the two interior sidewalks adjacent to the pad would not be approved as part of this motion, and that those would come back when the Wilkes Bashford building comes back. Chair Baltay: Okay, I will use that phrasing as the amendment to the motion. Do I have a second for that? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, any further discussion on this? With that, we’ll have a vote on the motion I’ve made. All those in favor? Opposed? None. Hearing that, the motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSES 4-0. BOARD MEMBER LEE WAS RECUSED FROM THE VOTE. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Thank you very much. Let’s take a five-minute recess while we get Grace back here. Thank you. [The Board took a short break. Board Member Lee returned to the meeting following the break.] Study Session/Preliminary Review 3. Receive an Introduction on the Objective Standards Project and Provide Feedback to Staff. Chair Baltay: Next agenda item is a study session regarding, is item number 3, a study session to receive an introduction on the Objective Standards Project, and to provide feedback to staff. Staff. Good morning, Amy. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I have with me Hang, who is our… Sorry, you can your last name. She is our housing planner. It is her last day, unfortunately, with the City, but she’s here to give an important presentation on objective standards. You knew this was coming. We talked about this with the Council on – or you talked to them – on Monday. Hang Huynh, Senior Housing Planner: Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Architectural Review Board. I’m Hang Huynh, the senior housing planner here. I’m giving you a brief, high-level introduction about the objective standard project that staff has underway, and we have a consultant on hand that’s, she’s actually doing right now. The items I will go over today, I would like to go over what state housing laws have pushed this project, or where staff is undertaking this project, and go over the definition of objective standards, and the ARB’s role. There have been many state housing laws that come down, most importantly to increase housing production. It has come as things of accountability and streamlining. The Housing Accountability Act prohibits cities from denying or decreasing housing projects that meet objective City of Palo Alto Page 15 standards. While SB 35 is known as a by-right housing bill, so, if projects meet the objective standards and affordability requirements for the City of Palo Alto, at least 50 percent of the housing units for a project of 10 or more units needs to be affordable, for lower incomes that’s 80 percent of the area median income. Together, legislation has pushed cities to really view the code, to see that all the codes are objective. The entire part of this project is [inaudible] Title 18, to see if there’s any subjectivity in the code to modify, to make it objective. What does it affect? Housing Accountability Act and SB 330 affects all housing proposals, and even mixed-use projects, but at least two-thirds residential. And then, SB-35, again, applies to multi- family with at least 10 units and 50 percent affordability. What is objective standards? Objective standards are standards that meet no personal or subjective judgment, and they are verifiable and knowledgeable before the application is submitted. To think of it another way, objective standards is quantifiable, measurable. Here clearly is a good example of what an objective standard is. Clearly you see, if you go to, if you want to know the minimum setbacks, you go to, RM-20, you know the setback is 20, and therefore, it’s a quantifiable number associated with that. Here’s the opposite of what we want to help modify. These are examples of subjectivity in our code. We want to find language such as these, and add measurable or quantifiable figures to make it more objective. The ARB’s role is to view housing projects with objective standards, and that’s why staff wanted to include the ARB in the beginning of this project that staff has underway. Again, staff, this is an introduction of what staff is doing, and we are actually coming back to you in three separate meetings in the future, the first one starting in January. If you have any preliminary feedback or initial comments, I’ll take it now, but we do have three meetings set up for you guys in the future. Thank you. Chair Baltay: I think we will have some comments for you. What I’d like to propose to my colleagues, though, is that we first understand what the applicability of these regulations are going to be. In other words, which kind of buildings or which projects will they apply to. And then we can address the issue of helping to find what is objective versus subjective standards. Does that make sense, to tackle it that way? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Baltay: I have, right out of the gate, a question regarding, in your first slide you showed – maybe you could back up to that. Where you stated what does it… No, right there. The Housing Accountability Act applies to all housing proposals, but that seems to be an older act. Is there some changes to that that’s driving all of this, or is it the other two that are regarding affordable housing? Ms. Huynh: I think for the Housing Accountability Act, it affects two or more units, but I think for our city, multi-family is three or more units. But I think going forward, I’m going to discuss with our consultant to really define this for the next meeting for you, to clearly… Chair Baltay: Okay, let me just stop you right there. Housing Accountability Act, you said applies to two or more units. Ms. Huynh: This is what I’m [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: And it says, “all housing.” So, the IR process is not in the least bit affected, right? Ms. Huynh: Oh, yeah, no. Again, also, I forgot to mention that SB 2 is funding this project, so the point of the SB 2 funding is to help facilitate more housing, and its focus is on multi-family housing, not single- family homes. Chair Baltay: I’m just, when I first saw this line and saw “all housing,” wow, that’s a big change. Ms. Huynh: Yes. Chair Baltay: But single-family, the IR process is not impacted by any of this. Ms. Huynh: I don’t believe so. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Baltay: Okay. And this doesn’t have anything to do with ADU’s or things like that. There’s a whole series of rules about that. Ms. Huynh: I don’t believe so, but, yeah. I would this make this for our next meeting. Or our consultant will. Chair Baltay: No, I understand. I just want us to be clear so we’re going into this. Then, SB 35 and SB 330 all have triggers of how affordable the housing is before these regulations apply to it. It’s only for housing that’s low income, or portions of it are low income? Ms. Huynh: Yes. Chair Baltay: Can you speak more clearly to that? What kind of projects do these regulations apply to? Ms. Huynh: SB 35 applies to multi-family projects with at least 10 units, I believe, and at least half of it has to be affordable. And “affordable” means for lower incomes with 80 area median income or below. Chair Baltay: I’m just trying to catch all this. SB 35 is 10 or more units? Ms. Huynh: I believe so, yeah. Multifamily. Chair Baltay: And 10 percent are affordable. Isn’t that required by our code anyway, right now? Ms. Huynh: Fifty percent. Chair Baltay: Fifty percent are affordable. What is the code threshold right now in Palo Alto for affordability? Ms. Huynh: Fifteen percent. Chair Baltay: Basically, we’re going from 15 to 50 percent. Ms. Huynh: If a project comes in and they have 10 units and half of it is affordable, and they meet all the guidelines and requirements of SB 35, they can ask for the streamlining. Chair Baltay: Streamlining. Ms. Huynh: Yeah. Chair Baltay: And if a project comes in today and they have, they have to have at least 15 percent be affordable units anyway, right? That’s the current code? The trigger shift is really, when it’s more than 10 units, it’s from 15 to 50 percent. Ms. Gerhardt: This is an option that the developer could choose. Chair Baltay: Okay. And SB 330, how does that…? Again, it says, “all housing proposals,” but clearly not single-family, again. Where does SB 330 step in? Ms. Huynh: I believe any [inaudible] act, so we need to make clear that we have these objective standards and checklists before the applicant submits. Chair Baltay: For what kind of projects does SB 330 apply? Ms. Huynh: I believe it’s two or more units, or, I think, for multi-family, three or more units. Chair Baltay: Can any of my colleagues help on this? I’m just trying to get a sense of where these things apply. So, it’s two or more, or three or more units? City of Palo Alto Page 17 Vice Chair Thompson: Two or more. Chair Baltay: It’s two-plus units, so a duplex would be under the jurisdiction of SB 330? Board Member Hirsch: It seems to me that the intention here is housing projects that are mandated by the state, they’re certainly not concerned with two or three units, you know? The intention is that it’s a large- scale housing development, you know? Board Member Lew: I don’t think that’s necessarily correct. I think, generally, yes. But there is concerted effort to add ADU’s – duplex, triplexes and fourplexes – which we call, like the “missing middle” housing typology. There is an effort to include those as well as part of the solution to the housing crisis. Ms. Gerhardt: If we take a look at packet page 88, under SB 330, the second paragraph there talks about SB 330 shortening the approval timeframe, but also, as of January 2020, jurisdictions will be prohibited from imposing new subjective design standards on housing development where housing is an allowed use. Objective standards must be available for the public and must be used as the uniform benchmark. Chair Baltay: Again, Jodie… Sorry to keep coming back to the same thing, but when I read those words, “prohibited from imposing new subjective design standards on housing development where housing is an allowed use.” Well, the R1 zone in Palo Alto is a zone where housing is an allowable use. Does that mean we can’t modify our IR regulations? IR regulations are inherently subjective. Ms. French: I’m guessing that the housing developments is referring to multi-family housing again, not single-family. Chair Baltay: Could you guys help us define, what do they mean when they say, “housing developments?” What is that defined as? Ms. Gerhardt: I think for today’s conversation, we should be using “multifamily,” but we will go back and clarify that for the next hearing. Vice Chair Thompson: It also – just to clarify – it says, “new subjective design standards.” Is “new” a word that doesn’t need to exist there? Is it just saying any subjective design standards? Because we have existing subjective design standards. Ms. French: That’s a good question. When I read that out loud, I said, “Oh, that’s interesting,” myself. We will have answers in January. Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Grace, go ahead. Board Member Lee: I have a question regarding SB 330, and I just want to make sure, does that apply for, again, the 50 percent affordable housing? Low-income affordable housing? It’s just not called out, and I assume that it does, when we’re talking about those projects. Ms. French: I think it might mean all multi-family housing developments, but we will, again… Board Member Lee: Oh. Ms. French: Yeah, I don’t think that relates to the ones that are 50 percent affordable. Board Member Lee: Okay. I mean, I do understand the 60 days versus 120, to 90. And then, my second follow up is, since many cities are facing this pressure and this need, I’m wondering if staff can present a summary of what other cities are doing, and other review boards. I’m curious to see. Also, I am wondering City of Palo Alto Page 18 if the City of Palo Alto, when we say that there is, for the city of Palo Alto, there’s a current standard, do other cities have different standards? And how does that actually apply? How is that determined? Ms. French: I imagine other cities are facing this same urgency to amend their codes, so it’s going to be interesting to learn what the other cities are doing. Typically, you have a little bit of time to implement something. For instance, we’re going to be implementing an urgency ordinance on accessory dwelling units, most likely sometime in January. There’s a grace period of about a month to get things done. So, other cities are in the same boat, and we’ll connect with other cities and see what they’re doing. But there’s not a lot of benchmarking in other cities because they are in the same situation. Board Member Lee: And then, just a quick follow-up, it sounds like the plan with Lexington and those three meetings are, you know, deliberate in terms of dates, and that, you know, per the contract that they have. But we cannot extend beyond that. We really need to make those three meetings happen by a certain date in order to make a recommendation to Council? Ms. Huynh: Yes, I believe so. And they are also going to PTC. Board Member Lee: Okay, thank you. Chair Baltay: Alex, were trying to say something? Board Member Lew: Yes. For staff, when I was looking at the scope of what you guys have to do to revise the code, it seems huge. It seems to me, of the sections of the code that I’m really most interested in, would be the, is the affordable housing overlay on public facility lots. Because that’s new for us, relatively new. It’s sort of untested, it seems to me. And I think, if I understand the Council’s intent, is that it’s mostly for, like, downtown parking lots. And it seems to me like, of all the projects that we have that are controversial, they’re often downtown. And then, on top of that, the Board in the past has had lots of issues with things like alleys, corners, pedestrian amenities. And also, we have, some of the parking lots are next to plazas and parks, so I think there would also be concerns about a new project in those locations. It seems to me like that’s the one that I think needs a lot of attention. We don’t have that many affordable duplexes and fourplexes. There’s an affordable duplex in Crescent Park, there’s an affordable fourplex in Downtown North, but there are not a lot of them. I’m not quite so concerned about changes to the code in some of those areas. I think we can get that to work. But, yeah, definitely the urban downtown ones, I think we’ll need to look at that really carefully. Also, I have a question – and I don’t need an answer – is really that the... It’s about parking reductions. I know the Director of the planning code just changed recently, last year, about that. A lot of senior housing and affordable housing request parking reductions, and I was just trying to figure out, how does that play into the whole review process? Those are also usually community concerns because neighbors don’t want to be overrun with overflow parking. I think that that would be an issue that the community would be concerned about. And then, I think Councilmember DuBois was mentioning something happening in San Mateo. I think there has been some discussion about requiring setbacks on the top floor in lieu of any other discretionary design review. And I just wanted to put this out there. I used to work on affordable housing projects a lot, and we generally did not set back the top floor. I think it’s a very useful design noof [phonetic], and I think that can work really well on market rate projects. I did want to put out there that affordable housing projects that I work on, the units that can be as small as, the smallest I’ve done is, like, 225 square feet, unit. That’s units at Stanford. A lot of times the one-bedrooms may be 600; two-bedrooms might be 700 or 800 square feet. And if you’re stacking units and you’re building up, there’s nothing to cut up at the top floor. It’s possible to put a different type of unit up on the upper floor, but it’s really hard when you’re working at these very small dimensions, and the units can’t really change size because of ADA. You have to have these huge clearances in the bathroom and the kitchen, and it’s a lot of wasted space. I could make a smaller unit if it weren’t for ADA, but we do have to include that in the project. It’s a tricky one for me. Maybe it’s just a change of material and color, or something like that, and maybe not a change in setback on the top floors. And then, I have one other comment which I think can be harder to address. A lot of our projects recently, the Board has asked for, like, sun studies, and in our code, it just says to limit the amount of shading on neighboring properties. We have no standard whatsoever. We do it, and we go through the exercise to show to the neighbors, and I think it’s a useful exercise to do. But I find that very tricky. What do we do City of Palo Alto Page 19 with that? It seems to me that that’s something really important for the neighbors, and that’s something really difficult to quantify. Those are my main concerns. Board Member Hirsch: Well, Alex, Los Angeles, you know, is increasing their shading. They like shade in Los Angeles. I don’t know if you’ve been reading that. But you mentioned a lot of things which I think I would agree that those are… Basically, what you’re saying is that these are not subjective standards. These are objective standards, a lot of these elements that you talked about just now. So, just to have some feedback with you. Board Member Lew: We have things, you know, like… I have notes. Like the building massing and facades should not be walled off or oriented exclusively inward. Right? What does that mean? You know? Like, what does that mean? And if you use, there’s a project here on Alma, and part of it is inwardly oriented, but part of it is very expressionistic and outwardly. How would you determine that? How do you quantify that? We can’t. There’s no way we’re doing that. Or we have something that says, like, all exposed sides of buildings shall be designed with the same level of care and integrity. I think architects understand that, but if you try to put that in a number, good luck. I mean, I think we’re just… We’re just going to have to give a little bit on some of these things. Open space. Useable private space shall be appropriate to the character of the building. I can, you know, I can understand where that’s coming from again, but that’s totally subjective. I mean, that’s just… Yeah. I think we’re really going to struggle with some of these. Board Member Hirsch: You know, I have sort of a different take on, having read this now, and looking to sort of apply it to Palo Alto. I mean, it seems to me that – and you mentioned it, Alex – parking lots are the best available place right now for supportive affordable housing. And what my experience is, we start with something called a proforma. It’s a layout. And a similar experience with affordable and supportive housing for quite a few years. This is where it begins. So, in our areas there, we have some really great benefits to us, and that is that the City owns the land of the parking lots. That gives us flexibility in different ways, I think. One of them is that a developer won’t necessarily build straight-up housing that is in masses much more than it needs to be because the land doesn’t cost as much. Or that we could insist that that be the case, you know? That the building shouldn’t be overly tall within an area and create a scale relationship to, say, California Street, which is very low in height. I think that, you know, while we’re asking for this zoning study, we should also be looking at all the available property. You probably have that in your files as it is, where are all those parking lots. And investigating the possibility of using those for this kind of improvement, which I think is coming down the pike no matter what we want to do or care to do here. It is going to be an insisted improvement in every one of the towns now. So, looking ahead, I think it’s really important to analyze what’s available, what are the kind of proformas that you would need to develop to make these projects work, along with the zoning. By itself, it isn’t complete enough. The other thing I think you have to think about is that these are going to be probably developer housing. That’s my guess. You have any comment about that? I mean, we don’t have an agency that builds housing here. In New York, we had not for profits who built the housing. Right? Who built the housing based on them being designated as the developer. But there is no such organization here. Ms. French: There are non-profit organizations here that work with the City of Palo Alto. We – the City of Palo Alto – do not have our own agency, if you will, but our housing planner, Hang, works with the Palo Alto housing corporation, right? And there’s MidPen housing, there’s… Board Member Hirsch: Okay, but specifically, kind of very low-income developers. Is that correct? Ms. French: Their focus is affordable housing. Correct. Board Member Hirsch: It’s actually really supportive housing, would say. Probably. If I guess correctly. You know, not just affordable, but it’s the very lowest level of affordability. Ms. Huynh: The most recent project is for 59 units for, very low-income households of 60 percent area median income, with 21 units for adults with intellectual and development disabilities. So, supportive housing with that, too. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Hirsch: I mean, I think that these programs are for a variety of housing types, and I just… I think it’s kind of an error to just look at the zoning without looking at how these projects will be developed. And it seems to that a proforma development would show… You know, a proforma, you know, do you realize what that is? I mean, how it’s done, made? People write a proforma and they describe the entire process of financing a project. Ms. Huynh: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: And it would be very, very useful to know that. The other thing that’s quite flexible here is that the City owns those parking lots, and that’s a major improvement possibility for us, or a major opportunity, I think, for Palo Alto. The cost of the land is so exorbitant in this area, that to have that opportunity. I just see this study as something that’s kind of too ethereal, you know? I like po-tay-toes and you like po-tah-toes, you know, sort of thing. I’m concerned with what they’re going to come up with, Lexington. Ms. Gerhardt: I think the City could certainly look at its own properties and see what could be developed on those, but we also need the objective standards for private property as well, because we are going to have market rate developers that come into town, and we need to be able to apply the objective standards to them as well. Board Member Hirsch: Well, understood. Understood. Except there’s very few of those private properties, really, in the city. Board Member Lew: I’m not sure that that’s necessarily true. I think we have, like, 441 Page Mill Road, which is mixed use, which has, maybe like eight or 10 units up on the third floor, affordable units. Those are privately built. Stanford’s Mayfield housing. They partnered with… Bridge? Maybe it was Bridge. You know, affordable Stanford housing. And I think they may have actually taken out the Stanford requirement. I’m not sure. I was looking into that recently, but I didn’t get a conclusive answer on that. Ms. French: We’re also dealing with market rate housing. This is not affordable housing. The objective standards are for market rate housing, so, those we can certainly anticipate, although it probably doesn’t pencil out so easily, so we don’t get a lot of those from private development, given land prices. But we have to be ready. That’s who we have to be ready for. If we are developing our own properties, you now, we don’t have to worry so much about the objective standards because we have the strings on that to control and review all of those. Board Member Hirsch: I mean, I’m mentioning all of this because we could do more now, and if we were just to do a zoning study by itself, an abstract sort of project, we could look at specific sites and look at the issues that are going to affect that particular site when you develop it in a certain way. You know, to provide a certain number of units. How do you deal with the parking issues in those sites where there are parking lots right now? That creates a whole different kind of realm of housing typology. That’s my concern, that it isn’t broad enough as a study right now, and I would recommend that the City broaden it to be ready when it really happens. Too many planning studies sort of end up paper. Vice Chair Thompson: A couple of things. These new ordinances, there’s sort of this fast-track, new process that sounds… It’s not quite… Well, it’s new to us. But I just wanted to clarify that this study is really just to define, we’re defining the standards, but is the process going to change as well, in addition to their being new standards? Of, like, how we’re involved, if we are at all, with this? Ms. French: My understanding is, if we do get one of these that’s streamlined, instead of the usual, longer, 120-days, or whatever, it’s 90 days. So, that’s going to be quite the rush on our part to get that done. So, yes, I would imagine that the ordinance that comes forward to Planning Commission and Council is going to reference certain types of projects have a shorter timeframe for review and approval. Vice Chair Thompson: Do you think that because it’s a smaller timeframe, are we…? I mean, I understand creating objective standards. That’s sort of its own project. I’m more curious about process. City of Palo Alto Page 21 [Baltay and Hirsch side conversation, inaudible] Chair Baltay: Sorry. Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry. I’d love to know what you guys are saying. But, yeah. I’m just curious about this expedited timeframe. In that timeframe, are we coming up with a new process, and if we are, would be talking about how ARB is involved with that? Ms. French: I’m guessing that will be part of our conversation with you in January, is, you know, how the ARB can best participate in our shortened review time. For instance, we have a development review committee of all City staff that get together and, you know, within the first 30 days, and make comments on projects. Perhaps that’s a time to have ARB representation – if not the whole board, a subcommittee of two, let’s say – that could be there at the earliest opportunity, and then, some other kind of shortened process that wouldn’t involve three meetings, as we normally get with large multi-family projects. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Because I wrote here, like, a new process could be to just meet with applicants really early, quite early on, before everything is in its final, beautiful, rendered, you know, like, pristine, this is the final thing, how do you feel about it. But something early and more schematic might be a way to streamline so that they don’t go down the path that’s not desirable. I feel like with design guidelines and design standards, it’s sort of one of those... I was really conflicted when it comes to that because, on the one hand, it encourages good things, but on the other hand, I think it can also limit design. We’re all thinking about, like, what is Palo Alto going to look like in 10 years, 15 years? We’re wondering, what is good design, and what will good design be for Palo Alto? And how can these design guidelines help an applicant, versus make them, sort of corner them into a place where they’re not really sure what to do. Which sometimes design guidelines do. On that note, I’d kind of encourage discussion, at least on the objective standards, of ways to integrate small-scale design, like a residential quality thing, like… I don’t know if it’s… I’m not really quite sure how to word it, but I think there could be way to sort of measure scale and rhythm in a building, and also, just kind of small-scale elements that encourage a residential feel, like balconies, or shading, things that can be small that give the appearance of a residential outlook. I know that there’s other design guidelines that explicitly say if there’s a residential that needs something, that it shows on the exterior that it’s a residential thing, like balconies, or like awnings, or canopies, and other things. That could also kind of tie into a sustainability open space incentive as well. So, yeah. That’s kind of my notes. Chair Baltay: Okay, David, what do you have to say? Board Member Hirsch: Something rather significant for us is that we get these incredible packets from our architects submitting. You know, they’re so complete and wonderful, and then we tear them apart. Not always. It seems to me that this kind of project, once again, requires another level of review, and that is sort of a wire diagram of what’s possible in areas where new development will be happening. You see a certain relationship to the mass, the form, the street scape, etc., in areas where you’ll be developing a lot of housing, perhaps. We have a chance to look at something. I mean, that seems to me to be kind of an objective way to look at things. You know, you look at what the neighborhood structures are like, and you don’t want a humongous tower on that site. So, what’s reasonable? You do that with a wire diagram of some sort that we would maybe get into the process early, and then, if we could agree that that seems like it’s reasonable, then the next step is develop. But if you don’t do that, you have the possibility that, give this to a developer and he says, “The only way I can make this work is by going out another three floors.” You know? And that happens. It happens. For reasons that Alex described, you know, that you want to build a building, if you’re building small units, just the same way you want to build it straight up, all the way. I could show you a book here of New York buildings that are all that way. But New York is a very high-zoned, special area. I think that’s very serious, to think about it that way, because I don’t think Palo Alto is going to like it if they get to that point, where buildings are out of scale with the neighborhoods, and solve the housing problem, but are out of scale. It’s important to figure out how to arrange our input in this, to help you really find a way to build new buildings that are not out of scale. Board Member Lee: You haven’t had an opportunity, Peter, to make comments, but may I also… City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Baltay: Please. Board Member Lee: You’re welcome to go first. Chair Baltay: [inaudible] Board Member Lee: Okay. I’m very encouraged that there are these housing accountability acts and these two SB… I think it’s very much needed. One of the things that would be really compelling is to present to the Board in further meetings, from staff, in terms of how many affordable housing projects we have been able, and how many housing units we’ve been able to reduce in the last few decades. I think it’s very dismal. There’s an incredible need for housing, and I just want us to do the best with the City in terms of moving forward, as you’ve requested. Thank you for the introduction, knowing that three full meetings will come from a consultant. And hopefully we’ll do it in the timeframe, by March 2020, and really assist in this effort. Something that I feel very strongly is that we do not want to create another layer of review. That’s really not the direction we want to go. I do want to encourage the Board to really think about the timing of these projects. And to speak to affordability, you know, I think all of us have been involved in affordable housing and know housing well. There are incredible constraints in terms of being awarded tax credits or public funding. There are actually constraints in terms of open space, just how much open space, and even residential scale. And the things that Osma just came up with in terms of the difficulties regarding design guidelines – Absolutely. It can push you in a corner. However, design guidelines can encourage in a way that is helpful in terms of scale, rhythm, climate, comfort, of users, so I do want to point out that in that way, it does begin to guide. At the same time, it would be terrific if maybe the development review committee, maybe that’s a forum where, in that early meeting, there is some ARB development. Maybe there’s a way to circle back, knowing that on these affordable housing projects – at least 50 percent – there’s very little time, and they’ve already been through the wringer in terms of actually getting the funding, and there’s a deadline for them to actually build to be able to be awarded the funding, the dollars for those projects. So, I do not in any way encourage the Board to create more layers of review or extend the process or to be fighting against the intent of the Housing Accountability Act and these two SB’s. I feel like we should really remember that this is an effort to accelerate housing development that is very much needed, and expedite and streamline the approval process. I just want to bring us back to that point. That is the objective, and how we do it, it is going to be a challenge for the City staff and for all of our boards to work together to get it done in time. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Grace. I’m trying to parse in my head how this affects and how we can help. I come back to, for example, a project we reviewed, I think it was 702 Clara Drive, within the past year. I believe it’s been approved now by us. Board Member Lew: It’s coming back to us. We shouldn’t talk about that particular project. Chair Baltay: Oh, okay. That’s what I wanted to find out, if it is. If it’s not, I won’t mention it. Let me then hypothetically talk about an applicant proposing a three-unit housing development some place in the residential areas of Palo Alto. To me, that’s typically the kind of thing where we have an enormous beneficial impact on the project typically. Many of those come to us in, honestly, fairly dismal form, and we’re able to really get improvements that make the project much more palatable to the community. Those are almost always market rate housing things, developers looking to improve the value of their property. And certainly, we want that kind of development happening in town, but I think that’s the place where the subjective review is incredibly valuable. But it comes back to my first question here, and I just feel I just don’t know yet. But Senate Bill 330, when I read the write-up you’re giving us, seems to say that all housing projects will now have to have objective standards. Not market rate or below market rate, just all of them. Is that really the case? Are there triggers for affordability or size? Or is it just all housing projects? Ms. Huynh: We just need objective standards for all housing projects, and the focus is multi-family housing. Chair Baltay: So, this hypothetical three-unit for-market project in a residential area in Palo Alto, these standards would apply to that. I want to be clear because that’s, I think, really what it’s going to come down to for us. Developer takes a 10,000 square foot lot some place in Palo Alto; removes one old house City of Palo Alto Page 23 and wants to put three new buildings for sale or rent, at market rate prices. Will these standards apply to that? Is that required, to have objective standards now, going into the future? Ms. Huynh: I believe so, but I think we’ll come back with more clear… [crosstalk] Chair Baltay: … I don’t want… Ms. Huynh: …concrete answer, because I’m giving you a really unsure answer, and I’d rather have the consultant come back with a clear answer for you. Ms. French: We need to not continue pressing. There’s other… Yeah. Chair Baltay: I mean, I don’t want to press you on it now. What I want to do is make it clear I think it’s really important to carefully identify which projects these standards will apply to. Because what I’m sensing, what I’m hearing, is that we’re going to rewrite our entire code. And I think when you read these laws more carefully, that’s not necessary. A large portion of what we have is fine, and it can stay the way it is. And I think we need to be very careful before we tear apart everything we have, to be sure of what we’re doing it for. Because I think all of us would agree, if you’re coming in with a 10-unit-plus affordable housing project in town, we’d all love to accelerate the process. I think all of us would agree that we want to reduce our aesthetic standards to get these things built. That’s the purpose of these laws. I don’t think there’d be nearly as much consensus on a three-unit development in the middle of an R-1 neighborhood. And I think that’s what we want to identify first. Is that really the issue? Is that what’s going to happen here? So, if I could suggest to staff that you be sure we address that issue, try to find clear answers to what does it apply to. Ms. Gerhardt: We do need to get back to you with that answer. As far as rewriting the code, we do have some good basis to start with. I mean, we do have context-based design criteria. It’s just that that criteria is currently subjective, and we need to make it more objective. We’re not starting from scratch, but we are having to mold these to be more objective. Chair Baltay: Okay. Then, my second thought – and I wonder if you could parse this through – would be to then create a fairly tight objective standard. For example, every unit must have a balcony. You have to set back above the second floor. That are really quite restrictive. They would be difficult to meet. Or, your option is then to go before ARB or a subjective review. Is that going to be legal under this new set of laws? In other words, we have a published standard. If you want to exceed that standard, then you go into a subjective review with a greater timeline. That might be an answer, then. I think, Jodie, honestly, to make subjective standards objective is going to be challenging. The moment you say no more than 10 percent shade on a neighboring property, there will be some problem with that. Or it’s just useless. It’s very tough to analyze all of that. That’s my second thought, is that, is there a way to get a trigger system instead? Is that legal under the code? My last thought is just regarding the schedule. You’ve published that we’re going to have three ARB meetings starting at the beginning of November. It’s at the end of November, and we’re talking about having the first meeting in January. I don’t think the schedule is going to hold, and we’d love to try to help accelerate and make that work. Are there any ideas from everybody else? What can we do to do our part in a timely fashion? Should we create a subcommittee where we can meet with you guys more frequently? Is there any way we can help, in advance, establish the agenda for these meetings? The calendar produced by Lexington on page 96 of the packet is, I believe, already out of date. Board Member Lee: and staff, I’m wondering if, are the agendas full for January and February? Ms. Gerhardt: We will make room for this topic. Chair Baltay: I’m sure we have special ARB meetings just for this thing, so we can do them on a different timeframe, or something…? City of Palo Alto Page 24 Ms. Gerhardt: I think, luckily, for good or for bad, our agendas have not been completely full lately, so I think we’re okay in that regard. But we certainly could add hearings if need be. Chair Baltay: Okay, well, I’m looking at this schedule proposing to get readings from the Council back at the end of the summer, and I just don’t see having five meetings between the ARB and the PTC in that timeframe. Ms. Gerhardt: I do wonder if, again, the context-based design criteria, that is through a couple different chapters, you know, the multi-family chapter and the commercial chapter, and other places. Maybe we want to divide up some of these sections to a subcommittee, or something like that. Chair Baltay: Yeah, I guess, honestly, when I look at this, I’m feeling like a professor looking at a student coming to me with a thesis topic that wants to study the history of Western Civilization. You’re not going to rewrite the zoning code completely in the space of nine months. Ms. French: How about, when we come back to you in January – it will be January 16th, I believe – we can have a proposal involving some assistance outside of the ARB meetings with subcommittee use. Chair Baltay: Yeah. I guess… That’s absolutely good. What I’m really saying is that whoever in the Planning Department is working with Lexington to manage their process needs to hold them accountable to creating realistic schedules that we can follow. And if necessary, pare back. Maybe three ARB meetings isn’t going to happen. Maybe four subcommittee meetings instead. But when you produce it like this, when it’s just clearly unrealistic and out of date the day it’s presented, we just lose the confidence of everybody. And if this makes the project a three-year project, which I think isn’t going to fly. These laws are effective in a month. That’s my feedback to you. Let’s push our consultants to be realistic on this schedule, as well. Anybody else? Okay, then I think we’re done with this action item. Thank you very much. I’m sorry for the hard questions. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2019. Chair Baltay: We’re going to move on to the next agenda item, number 4, which is meeting minutes from the meeting of October 17, 2019. Do we have any comments on those? Board Member Lee: I had just a comment on the November 7th minutes. Chair Baltay: Okay, we’ll get to that in a second. Board Member Lee: It was just a small one with Osma’s… I think it says Board Member Lee says I will not be here on the 19th. It actually is Board Member Thompson. Chair Baltay: Is that November 7th or the October 17th? Board Member Lee: Draft minutes of November 7th. Chair Baltay: Let’s hold on one second. That’s the next one. Board Member Lee: Oh, sorry, is that the next one? [crosstalk] Chair Baltay: On agenda item number 4, minutes of October 17th. Do we have any comments? If not, can I get a motion. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Lew: Yes. We need to add the subcommittee items for both sets of minutes. Subcommittee action. Chair Baltay: Yes, that’s true. Staff? This is the third or fourth time we’ve been asking you about getting the result of the subcommittee put into the minutes. How can we get that done? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, and normally we add the memo, and that did not happen here. Board Member Lew: For the November 7th one, Osma and I were on the subcommittee, and we approved… Chair Baltay: Alex, if we could… [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: … project. Chair Baltay: That’s the next item, Alex. I’m going to move that we continue item number 4 to having the minutes completed with the subcommittee items. Can I get a second for that? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Baltay: Any comments on that? Okay. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 4-0 [sic]. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 2019. Chair Baltay: Now, item number 5. Grace, you were first. Board Member Lee: Just a small revision. It was Board Member Thompson who said she would be absent at the December 19th meeting. Chair Baltay: Which page is that? Ms. Gerhardt: What packet page? Board Member Lee: It is on the first page. Vice Chair Thompson: Package page 130. Board Member Lee: Oh, sorry, packet page 130. At the bottom. Vice Chair Thompson: I guess we have a similar voice. Chair Baltay: Okay, is that it, Grace? Okay, Alex, what were you saying about November 7th? Board Member Lew: Oh, a subcommittee. The subcommittee did approve the project. This is on Hamilton Avenue. They did approve the two-foot height reduction and a change in material from Equitone to TAKTL cement board. Chair Baltay: I don’t see anything about the subcommittee in minutes. Am I missing something? Jodie, is it just plain not there? Ms. Gerhardt: I’m looking, because there should be at least some conversation about it. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Lew: I think on this one, it was confusing because we did the subcommittee before the end of the meeting. Chair Baltay: That’s right. This was the earthquake drill. It should be in the middle. Ms. French: Packet page 150. Vice Chair Thompson: That’s right. Chair Baltay: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Maybe we need to delay these, as well. Chair Baltay: I would like to, yes. I just want to be clear, the subcommittee item is described, but the action is not described. Is that right? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Yeah. I move that we continue this item as well, so that the subcommittee action can be written into the minutes. I’m looking for a second. Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Any comments on that? If not, all those in favor? Opposed? Okay, the motion carries 4-0 [sic]. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 6. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Chair Baltay: Item number 6. Board Member Lew: North Venture CAP, the next meeting is tonight at 5:30, here at City Hall. The consultants will be reviewing three alternate schemes that will be studied and developed for the Council to review. The next meeting in January, we’ll also be working on the alternates. Chair Baltay: Any questions of Alex? David? No? Okay, with that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody, thank you, staff. Subcommittee Items 7. 2342 Yale Street [18PLN-00224]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Architectural Review Application That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Materials, Trash Enclosure, Bike Locker and Related Lighting and Circulation. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of CEQA in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RMD (NP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org 8. 250 Sherman [17PLN-00256]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to the Tower Design for the Public Safety Building. Environmental Assessment: Certified Environmental Impact Report. Zone District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Baltay: We do have two subcommittee items, and that was board members Thompson and Lew handling those. Thank you, you two. Okay. Thank you, everybody. Adjournment Architectural Review Board CITY OF PALO ALTO Subcommittee Review TO:Amer Ismail,Design Build Group,1121 Hopkins Ave.,Unit B,Redwood City, CA 94062 SUBJECT:2342 Yale Street [1$PLN-00224J DATE:December 5,2019 FROM:Emily Foley,AICP,Associate Planner PLANNER’S SIGNATURE 61j fZe The application,and plans and materials samples dated November 12,2019,was reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee on December 5,2019 in accordance with condition of approval #2,as stated below.The ARB Subcommittee comprised of Board members Thompson and Lew. 2.ARB SUBCOMMITTEE:.Prior to the issuance of building permits,the applicant shall return to the ARE subcommittee for approval of the following items,to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a.Provide materials board and ensure colors are compatible with the neighborhood b.Provide roof over the trash area,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works c.Provide detail for the bike locker,ensure there is sufficient lighting and circulation At the meeting,the Subcommittee agreed with the revisions presented with the following conditions added: 1.The owner or designee shall use the typical light fixture at the garage door near the bike locker,with the required motion sensor. The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the design and this Subcommittee Review letter shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s). Copies sent to: Project File Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Review CITY OF PALO ALTO TO:Matt Raschke SUBJECT:250 Sherman [17PLN-00256J DATE:December 5,2019 FROM:AmyhlCP,Chief Planning Official On November 5,2018,the City Council approved the Architectural Review application (file 17PLN-0056)for the new Public Safety Building.The ARB had recommended approval of the project on September 20,2018.On December 5,2019,the ARB Subcommittee completed review of the last item on the list of items noted for subcommittee review in Condition of Approval #5.The subcommittee,comprised of members Lew and Thompson,reviewed and supported the revised communications tower design and attachments,which was item c of Condition #5.The ARB subcommittee also reviewed and supported the freestanding plaza lighting model (Bega model 88993).The ARB Subcommittee previously reviewed and supported items a,b,and d of Condition of Approval #5,which stated: “The following items shall return to a subcommittee of the ARB for further consideration/exploration: a.the lighting detail fixture E-1, b.the materials with respect to finishes,textures and color, c.the communications tower antenna attachments design,and d.the design of the community/multi-purpose room to make it flexible for use by the Police Department and as a City-managed civic meeting room (including the door to the plaza,additional windows,and signage). Copies sent to: Project File Matt Raschke Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10984) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/16/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of December 19, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the December 19, 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: December 19, 2019 Draft Minutes (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, David Hirsch and Grace Lee. Absent: Vice Chair Osma Thompson. Chair Baltay: Good morning. Welcome to the December 19th meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Can we have a roll call, please? [Roll Call] Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: All present, with Board Member Thompson absent. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Oral Communications Chair Baltay: Next item is oral communications. Are there any members of the public who wish to address any item not on our agenda? Seeing none, and having no speaker cards. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Next items is agenda changes, additions and deletions. Staff, can you tell us what we have, please? Ms. Gerhardt: No changes. Chair Baltay: For future meetings we have coming up in January, can you tell us what’s going on then? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. In the packet this time, we’ve included both the 2019 and the 2020 schedule. You’ll see, the hearing would normally be January 2nd, but that’s so close to New Year’s that we normally cancel that, so that’s been cancelled. Our first hearing would be January 16th. You’ll see on the other page that we do have four items that are likely to be at that hearing. It may go a little bit long, so, if we do really have the four items, then we will get some lunch, because we figure it will go past the noon hour. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Chair Baltay: Next item is city official reports. I guess we just covered the ARB meeting schedule and future items. I’d like to switch the agenda and slip in something very quickly, just a discussion that came up the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 19, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 other day about a means of recording as we’re discussing items, what the actual motions are that we’re making, and what we’re talking about, on the screen, typed up there by somebody. I thought we could establish a process whereby the vice chair is able to just write out what our actual motions are, so that we and the public can all be focused on what that is. We’ll give it a try. I’ve been told that staff has been able to arrange some mechanism to do that. Behind us on the screen is a live Word document of some kind. Let’s give it a go and see if it helps make us even better. Okay. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN00068]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four-Unit Apartment Building and Construction of Three Detached Single-Family Homes Totaling 5,000 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: RM-20 (Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Baltay: With that, we’re going to move on to the first action item, number 2, which is a public hearing, quasi-judicial, for 702 Clara Drive. Recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of an existing 3,560 square foot, four-unit apartment building and construction of three detached single-family homes totaling 5,000 square feet. Do we have a staff report, please? Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes. Good morning, Sheldon Ah Sing, contract planner. Thank you for the introduction. This is the third formal hearing item for this project, so most of you have seen this project before, or at least looked at the minutes from previous meetings. I do have a PowerPoint presentation for you, and the applicant is also here with their presentation and materials board. Just a brief… Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Sheldon. Sorry to interrupt. I’d like to make sure we’ve disclosed anything on the board. Alex, do you have any disclosures? Board Member Lew: I visited the site on Tuesday. Chair Baltay: I’d like to disclose I also visited the site last week. David, any disclosures? Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible] Chair Baltay: Grace, any disclosures? Board Member Lee: I’ll disclose I did visit the site earlier this week. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Sorry for the interruption, Sheldon. Mr. Sing: No problem, thank you. The project is located at the intersection of Sutter Avenue and Clara Drive. The site is zoned RM 20. The topography is flat, and there is a mix of single-family and multi-family residential within that neighborhood, which the project is trying to draw inspiration from. With the exception of the property behind, the adjacent properties are single-family residential in that area. A little bit of background. We did have a couple prior ARB hearings this year. The first was in February, and there were comments regarding the side yards, open space, front porches, and relationship with the street. Subsequently, there was, at the last hearing that was heard in August, the applicant presented some revisions to this Board, and there were some additional comments for the project, which are to review the circulation and the use of the side yards between the buildings. Also, to review the front yard paving, the front of Home A, showing more detail, such as the downspouts and lighting on the elevations. To review the size of the porch on Home B. That was smaller than some of the other ones. To consider revising the roof over the laundry room. Review Home A stair windows to either have more frosted or high sill preferred, as privacy concerns. The plans have been revised to include more detail about what windows are obscured City of Palo Alto Page 3 and which ones are high silled. The landscaping. The ARB wanted the plans to match the renderings that were presented, and to consider separation of the common open space along Sutter Avenue with some greenery. This is essentially the street side yard for the project. The project is maintaining all the existing mature trees, so trying to make sure there’s some kind of connection there, not a separation between the units and the streets. Open space. Along with that, to review the corner of Home C for better connection to the open space in front. And then, to consider the use of operable windows. I think the applicant has looked at those options. In summary, the project is a one-lot future condominium subdivision with three two-story detached dwellings, so they kind of function like single family because they are detached. Just under 5,000 square feet total for the project. There are three different floor plans. There are some complementary styles. That’s evolved since the beginning of the project. The private open spaces are at the rear of the dwellings, and there is some common space in the front along Sutter Avenue. I think one of the big things for the project has been how to use that space between the buildings because it’s so narrow, and just having to service trash and AC units. So, the project has revised those, and the applicant will go through more detail on that, but it’s made it so that at least one neighbor can use the side yard, and trash and AC units can be serviced in such a way that doesn’t compromise the privacy of the neighbors. The zoning overview is that there is a reduction of one dwelling unit overall. The project is considered multi-family because of the number of units on the site that’s consistent with the development standards, and they are paying a fee for affordable housing. With the site plan here, it’s showing some of the landscaping. The street trees are the ones that they are maintaining, and the rest of the trees and landscaping would be newer. As you can see, they have reduced some impervious surfaces for Home A, which is the home on the left side in this graphic. And then, you can kind of see how the yards, the spaces between the buildings are used with the gate and the fence, and having that access to the private open space in the rear. Home C, importantly, that’s the one where the entry was moved from Clara to Sutter, and then, there is that diagonal connection now from that porch in the front to that street corner. And then, an open space on the street side, it’s opened up. There was a fence there, and that’s been pushed back now towards the house. The porch for Home B is larger, and I think more consistent with some of the other, Home A and Home C. And the privacy between the units are met with some fencing and high sill windows. I think that’s what I have this. There is still a concern about sharing the driveway. I think we believe that’s a good asset to have, to try and eliminate curb cuts where we can. It’s a good, efficient use of the space. These are renderings of, on the left side on the top is… Well, the top is the former rendering, and below is what’s new. You can see that there’s a change there. Instead of having it kind of walled off with some landscaping and fencing, it’s more opened up, there’s more of a connection to the corner, as well as you can see the porch has now changed the orientation of that entry. Here again, the top is the former, and the bottom is the current rendering. The applicant will describe more in detail about these, but just to show for comparison, the above is previous, and below is the current. There’s more divided light windows now, so it’s adding a little more variety and interest. These are the elevations. For CEQA, the environmental determination, the project is considered an infill project. The project does not create any significant impacts, and is considered categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance, with suggested modifications. And then, we would recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Development Services, based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. That completes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sheldon. Any questions of staff? Yeah? Board Member Hirsch: Sheldon, how is the area between the houses treated? Who owns it? Is this a condominium association or a homeowner’s association? Who is responsible for those areas? Mr. Sing: I’ll have the applicant, the owner of the project can explain that in more detail. There is a condominium map, as I mentioned, so the ownership will be more defined in there. The owner of the project can explain that. Chair Baltay: We’ll get to that in a second. Any other questions of staff? Grace? Alex? Okay. Then, to the applicant, you have 10 minutes to make your presentation. If you could state and spell your name for the record, we’d appreciate it. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Gilbert Fernandez: My name is Gilbert Fernandez. [spells name] Before I begin, I would like to say that, excuse my voice. I have a little issue, speaking today. As well as I do have epilepsy, so, in case I do have an episode, Tony Shi will be taking over the presentation. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. We’re looking forward to what you have to say. Mr. Fernandez: I’m sorry? Chair Baltay: Looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. Okay, so, as Sheldon, just to kind of reiterate, we did modify the homes a bit on the exterior to kind of complement, again, the neighborhood. The right side, Home C, we changed it a bit to blend in more. We did remove the… Let’s see. Let’s see if I can get a before and after. For Home C, we did redesign it a bit to kind of blend in with the neighborhood, and then, also, give it a better look from both streets, Sutter and Clara. For Home A, as well as Home B, we took into consideration the porch use, so we did make it deeper so it could be used more. Home B is about five feet, to be able to use it more, as well. Before, I believe it was a little less than four feet. Home A also is deeper as well. This one, for Home A… I’m sorry. Excuse me. For Home A, we did do about 6 ½ feet, and for Home C, on the right facing Sutter, it’s five feet; in the front, it’s, on average, also about five feet. With that, just to reiterate, we have all the zoning information. Sheldon already talked about that. So, just to go over the homes again. Each home has its own style of single-family, which is entry, living, dining, full kitchen, family, study room, two bedroom, laundry, bedroom. Every home has kind of its own separate living. This is existing, and what we are proposing. Again, you can just see what we’re trying to do as far as blend it into the neighborhood so it doesn’t stick out, as the comments we did have in the past, on the first ARB’s. We did do high sills on the second floor. One is facing the neighborhood. We did do obscure glass, and also, in between the homes, we did do high sills and obscure glass, so the privacy is kind of kept between them as well. We added additional trees as well, for the privacy. Existing trees are to remain also. We did keep a lot of the landscaping to make sure privacy impacts on neighbors are not [inaudible]. This is the neighborhood around the proposed lot, which, remember, we do have the apartment complexes. The landscape architect can explain more of what we did. On the left side, we do have a single-family home, and since it is a corner lot, we do have more single families, but across the street. But we did add some landscape there, also on the street side, to kind of keep that privacy as well for Home C. Here are the materials for Home A. We did do a divided light in the windows to kind of give it more character. The porch, again, was also revised to be more of a use, and also change the look as well, to give it a better view. It will have asphalt shingles and metal windows, and more of a, kind of like a bronze, with the door being the white. It will be kind of a light gray finish with a stucco. And to go over the stucco, it’s not going to be a blended color into the stucco. It will be just a standard plywood lathe with the plaster, then painted over. That will be for all the homes as well. For the material on Home B, it will be more of a darker gray, but not too dark. But again, also asphalt shingles, giving it different colors on each home just to kind of divide them, but not take away from the neighborhood. The windows would be light, again, with divided light, and the front door will keep it more of a darker, just to kind of go with the roof. Home C, we’re keeping it more on the lighter side. We’re going to go with a, kind of an off-white. The rendering shows more of a bright, but it will be more of an off-white, with the lighter gray shingles. Again, the windows will be divided light, and the windows and doors with a darker bronze. The Home C corner did more, kind of like a, kind of blended with a country style, but more simplified as far as the entryway, to kind of give it a… The front doors are going to be facing Sutter, so that not all the homes kind of look like tract homes in this area. But again, we also kept the depth of the porch so it would be more of a use, but also keep an architectural look to Sutter. And I don't have the floor plan here, but if… I don’t have the floor plan here, but for the… If we go to page A.4, you can see the site plan here. As for the use of the area in between the homes, Home C will have the use in between Home B and C. The building for the bicycle use, and also for the trash area. We did include the fence in the rear, as you can see, to kind of keep privacy into that space, which would be a study room. The garage has high sill windows, so they don’t impact the right side. The area in between A and B will be used by Home B, and again, that’s for the trash and for the bicycle areas as well. They will also have access to the rear. And also, the fencing will keep the privacy for Home A, and we have high sill windows to keep the privacy. And the area on the left side of Home A will be for Home A. Other than that, I believe that’s all. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions of the applicant? David, were you clear on the…? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, my same question, really. How does the ownership of the areas in between, especially for maintenance, you know, maintenance of the machinery, and just maintenance of the space? How is that handled? Mr. Fernandez: It will be in an HOA. Board Member Hirsch: HOA? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. And it will spell out the responsibilities, then? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chair Baltay: I see you have a sample board there. Could you bring that up so we can take a look at it, please? Any other questions of the applicant? Then I would like to ask a couple myself. On your drawings, I notice, on the elevations, you’re indicating that the second floor has an eight-foot plate height, height of the walls, but in the section, Drawing A.21, you’re indicating it at nine feet. I’d like to be clear – What is the height of the walls on the second floor? Mr. Fernandez: The first floor will be nine, and the second floor will be eight. That detail is just an error. Chair Baltay: That’s okay. I just want to be sure we have it for the record. That makes perfect sense. Similar question regarding the plaster finishes. On A.21 again, you’re referencing a pigmented cement plaster finish, which is not painted stucco; it’s a different kind of finish. And I heard you say that your intention is to have plaster, cement plaster that’s painted on the exterior. Is that the finish you’re proposing? Mr. Fernandez: That’s correct. Chair Baltay: Okay, so this pigmented thing is not correct. Okay. But then, I noticed that the green building sheets in your application just haven’t been completed yet. I’m assuming that’s just a paperwork kind of thing. Mr. Fernandez: Yes, that’s right. Chair Baltay: Okay. Lastly, could you address…? I remember some of the board members had asked strongly about having operable windows. It seems that you’ve opted not to propose operable windows on the side. I think it’s in the spaces between the houses, the up-higher windows. Mr. Fernandez: The windows in between…? Chair Baltay: I wanted to know what your logic is behind that. Why wouldn’t you make these windows operable? It just seems to me… What’s your logic behind that? Maybe, Sheldon, are you able to help point out which windows? It was written up in your report. Mr. Fernandez: Which windows are we speaking of? Ms. Gerhardt: If you’re talking about windows between the two houses, I can only assume that it’s for privacy reasons because we have that side yard being used by one house, and the windows being, you know, for a second house. Chair Baltay: What I’m reading in the staff report is that the side windows are high sill and fixed, rather than operable. And I’m wondering, is that a conscious decision not to make them operable as well? City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Chair Baltay: Why is that? Why wouldn’t you have them just be awning windows that can vent a little bit? Mr. Fernandez: Because we have operable windows towards the rear, or towards the front, and on the side, just to kind of keep that privacy, instead of opening them and being able to view into the neighbors, just to have them fixed, just for the lighting. They do have ventilation and fire escape windows on certain sides of the rooms. It’s just the sides to keep them from viewing into the next neighbors. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you for the explanation. And lastly, I wonder if we could call the landscape architect up and just give us a three-minute walk-through of the corner, especially. What are you doing? What are the plants that are there now? If you don’t mind. Thank you. Please state and spell your name for the record. Dakotah Bertsch, Landscape Architect: Good morning. My name is Dakotah Bertsch. [spells name] I’m not familiar with this presentation. Chair Baltay: Nothing formal, Dakotah. If you could just… It looks lovely, I think, but I want to know what plants are there. Mr. Bertsch: Right. Well, I believe Sheldon mentioned before the issue at a previous meeting, was I think not so much that the plans didn’t match the renderings, but that the renderings didn’t match the plans. Because my intention all along was to have kind of a low planting along the sidewalk that created connectivity between the sidewalk and the landscape. But the previous renderings didn’t really illustrate that very well. In this iteration, the planting along the sidewalk has changed from shrubs to grasses, primarily. It’s a layered border planting of perennial bunch grasses and some flowering perennials. There are also no-mow lawn areas in front of each unit to create a meadow-like feeling. On the Sutter side, under the redwood trees, there’s a primarily native plant, redwood understory planting, with flowering shrubs and perennials. A lot of the grasses are also native, I should mention. Another thing that has changed from previous iterations is each unit now has a separate path to the sidewalk connecting the porch to the street for pedestrians, consisting of rectangular concrete pavers. And because Mr. Fernandez changed Home C to have that wraparound front porch and relate more to the corner, the path for Unit C, as mentioned previously, diagonally connected to the corner. And, there is a stepping stone path meandering through the redwood understory garden on that side. In the back, the landings and porches have been expanded somewhat, and simplified. Each unit has a landing or porch, depending on the space available, and an area of back lawn, which is actually a lower water use ground cover. And the driveways are pavers, and the front porches will be tiled. Chair Baltay: Is that it? Mr. Bertsch: Yeah, I think that’s it. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions from the Board? Okay, with that, I’d like to open the meeting to any public comments. Do we have anybody who wishes to address this project? Seeing no one, and having no speaker cards, I’ll close the public comment period. You may sit down. We’ll start with our discussion of this project. David, would you like to go first? Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Just a comment about the windows, because I really don’t see why you need to be quite as fixed as you have fixed the windows on the yard, especially in an area where… I think it’s Home B…? Let’s see…It’s really Home A. You have a window on the side yard there, in the study, in the back. Is the window on the side yard operable? Can you take a look at that plan? City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Fernandez: I was referring to the second floor. All the second floor side windows are fixed. The bottom are operable. Board Member Hirsch: The first floor, the window is operable? In the study? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Okay. That’s fine. That’s really the only area where I was concerned with that issue. Privacy seems like a good idea for the rest of those side yards. In Building B, is there any possibility of getting closer to the side yard for garbage? I noticed that Building C has access to the side yard, and I believe Building A. But Building B, the side yard is very far from the house for, kind of taking the garbage. Do you have any comment on how that would work? Mr. Fernandez: If you’re referring to…? You’re referring to B? Board Member Hirsch: It’s just… How do you get from inside to the garbage from Building B? I guess you have to go out the front door, over to the side yard, and then to the back. Is that right? Mr. Fernandez: Yeah, for this one, it would be exiting from the back to the side, or to the front, yes. Board Member Hirsch: Either from the back or from the front. Mr. Fernandez: Right. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, I guess we’ve got to live with that one, then. My major concern really is, I’m very pleased that you turned the porch, a suggestion that was made by our Chairman here. It’s a major improvement in that façade, but… And I notice that the kitchen is in the rear of that building, and you really have only three windows along the side of it. It seems, I mean, they are not small windows, but there is an opportunity because you have kind of, no windows in the kitchen facing the rear yard. You have a window facing the side yard over the sink. And then, you have two windows in what’s a very, a family dining area, and some beautiful trees outside, redwood garden, redwoods out there, and plantings that are nice to see. And the street distance view, I mean, some significant distance from the street. But you just have these three windows. Whereas the porch is a nice access now to the house, much improved. But I think you’re missing an opportunity. Similarly in the master bedroom upstairs. You just have, just sort of divided windows where you might be able to make that a more interesting façade, and have simply better rooms facing it. I think it’s not something that I would think would hold up the approval of the project, but I would see it would be an improvement if that could come to committee, if that’s the way this ends up. I’m making that suggestion. I guess we got to say that this is a vast improvement from the first time you came in on this project. The three houses are very different in character and kind of fit the neighborhood pretty well. For me, it’s kind of a false narrative to sort of take three houses and make them that different, but I guess I can go along with it, as if it’s trying to fit into a neighborhood where different things happen on each house. It’s not my personal choice, okay? But it works for this neighborhood, and for these houses, so I’m accepting that. In the same way, the exterior materials and the light fixtures. It wouldn’t seem to me that if you had three houses that are basically serving the same kind of purpose, and selling them to private people, they have to be different, but okay. You did it, and let’s go ahead. You know, that idea. The scale of it is pretty nice. I personally absolutely abhor false muntins in windows. Another personal issue here. I think if you have muntins, you should have divided windows and panes in each of them. I’m a traditionalist that way. But I’ll go along with it because I know I’ll be voted down anyhow. Because everybody will say scale is more important than the fact that you have functioning muntins and windows. But I will object to it, in any case, on the way to approval. Thanks for increasing the porch sizes. I think that was really, really significant here in the project, and it’s a Palo Alto tradition to have a front porch, that I see, all around me, and I really like it. I wish people would use them more. I don’t see people sitting out there very much anymore, but it probably, once upon a time, had a good use, and maybe those things will come back. I like the idea. I happen to come from Brooklyn, and I had a stoop on the front of my house, as did every other house on the block. Stoops were a place where people would sit outside, and kids would be relating to each other socially. But those things change over time, and hopefully the next generation City of Palo Alto Page 8 will use the porches, and your houses will maybe work that way. But the invitation to use a porch and relate the neighborhood, I just find to be a terrific idea. I think you’ve done quite a good job with that. The roof lines are pretty interesting, and I hope you don’t give your carpenter too much of a headache here, but I find them to be interesting. I always liked this project from the top, down. It looked interesting to me. And I think the plantings are vastly improved now, and the kind of openness feeling of entering these houses is very nice. I don’t want to belabor it anymore. I think you should get on to building it. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thanks, David. Alex, what do you think? Board Member Lew: I think I agree with most of David’s comments. When I visited the site, I think I was most struck by the fact that I think that the project can fit into the neighborhood really well, and I didn’t feel that way before. I think you’ve made major progress on the project. I would support David’s comment about looking at the larger windows facing the street side on Unit C. I think Board Member Thompson, if she were here, she would object to the black roof on House B. I think she would look for something lighter, and something that absorbs less solar heat gain. I think that’s all that I have. I think I agree with all the other comments. And I would say also, just on the landscape, I think you guys did a great job on the native plantings, and I think also the blue stone, stone walkways, are really beautiful, and a handsome addition to the project. I can recommend approval, if we get there today. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. Grace? Welcome to this project. Board Member Lee: Thank you for presenting. I understand that I’ve missed a couple meetings, but I see that there has been a lot of work, and I appreciate your efforts in collaborating with the Board and really responding to their comments. I don’t have too many comments here, but I did want to revisit the operable window discussion, as well as just make some small comments on the landscape and exterior lighting. I am a big fan of operable windows. The only one that really sticks out to me is the… And I understand the higher sill, and perhaps why you might move in that direction. I think it’s Home A, though, that still has a bathroom up high. It’s window 9 that does not have an operable window. That, to me, is just a small change that you might want to revisit. I think in some of these… In homes, we also like cross-ventilation, so, although you do have the rear windows that are operable in the master bedrooms, sometimes on the side, you just want to have that diagonal air movement. I just want to bring it up. I don’t know if this Board feels very strongly about that, but I would revisit that one bathroom that doesn’t have an operable window in Home A. On the landscape, it’s just a terrific opportunity, that common open space that’s on the corner, you know, over 1,000 square feet, and I appreciate, you know, how do you plant underneath those redwoods in a way that is really, gives them ways to celebrate, and also, you think about the water. Sometimes, there is a feeling of community and a desire to sit along the corner. I’ve been to the site, I understand that it’s single-family around there, but sometimes it’s nice to acknowledge that it is a common open corner. I can think of spaces I’ve lived in where there is a sense that it is inviting and not closed off, like the rear open spaces. I just thought I’d mention that, that if there’s an opportunity to celebrate, that that is the one piece that could create community, or that could be actually habitable, beyond decorative or just admiring from across the street. The other piece that I have is exterior lighting. Just on your board – and I think you worked with the Board on the color palette and the textures – I support the comment on the roof that Osma might bring up. A small one, but the exterior lighting, you know, it’s A, B and C, and A just seems a little bit different from B and C. Very minor, but it’s something that stuck out to me, so I’ll bring that up. Other than that, I don’t know how you all feel about the operable window. I thought since it was something that’s come up previously, if we did want to talk about it as a group, that would be great. Thank you. Chair Baltay: I think we’re all acting on Osma’s behalf. She feels very strongly about this. Board Member Lee: Yes, yes. Chair Baltay: And at least for me, I’m trying to preserve everybody’s interests. Board Member Lee: Okay, thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Baltay: Anything else, Grace? Board Member Lee: No. I think that will be all. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Okay. On the operable windows, I wonder if we could understand, where is it specified which are operable and which are not? I’m sure it’s in here someplace but I don’t see it on a quick pass. Board Member Lee: I’m sorry, if I may jump in, I just want to make sure the garages, you said upper story are fixed, and I can’t tell from the drawings if the garage side windows are operable or not. Mr. Fernandez: The garage are fixed. They are fixed. Board Member Lee: May I just make a plug for potentially, in a garage, you may wish to have airflow. Chair Baltay: Again, to the applicant, I guess. Where does it specify which windows operate and which don’t? Mr. Fernandez: Actually, it is not on the plans, no. Chair Baltay: Okay, it seems like that’s something that we may want to… Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Chair Baltay: … see revised. I do feel that operable windows on houses like this are really a benefit, even if it’s just a simple awning window that only kicks out a few inches. The benefits for ventilation on a hot day are huge. Those kind of windows are very good for security and stuff. It’s really tough to see that it’s a privacy or security impact, and yet, the benefits to the residents are huge. I would encourage you strongly to consider adding more operable windows wherever you can on buildings like this. Nonetheless, I’m not sure we have review board findings to insist on it, but I think the consensus on the Board is that we would like to see that. I would like to address a few other things, but in general, I think this project is ready to be recommended for approval. I am concerned on a few items on the floor plans, and I want to bring them to the attention of my colleagues because I’d like to give you some latitude to consider addressing them. If you look at the floor plan for Unit C… Which page is that? A.10, yes, I’m sorry. The entrance, floor plan to Unit C, if you notice where the front door is coming in, it makes your living room awfully difficult to furnish. I just imagine putting a sofa or a TV set in there. It’s really tough. And then, it seems to me it would be better to switch the door around to the other site, to more facing the side street. And I don’t think that’s an Architectural Review Board kind of change, but I want to put it out there, at least by my opinion, I’d be all for having you consider revising that. And maybe even some other shifting around of windows down there. As David was mentioning, you have an opportunity to be looking out at the redwoods, and little tweaks like that might really increase the benefit of that residence. But I don’t want to see that hold you up. The same thing I’ve noticed, you have, in many of these units, the bathroom layout is such that you have a single, very small vanity for a bathroom serving two bedrooms. That’s typically a very tight arrangement, and I’d encourage you to just consider tweaking your floor plan a little bit more. And I’d like to see, you have the latitude, and if that means you shift a window a little bit, I think that would be okay, with concurrence of the Board, and that would make for a better project. On Unit C, again, I noticed the master closet. It’s a very large room, and it’s not even accessed off of the bedroom. It’s very odd to go out into the hallway to get to your closet. Again, I think that… I don’t know why that is that way, but you could reconfigure that stuff. And I’d like to see you have a chance to do that without having to come back to the review board. I notice on Unit A, when you walk in, the living room and dining room are really tight together. It’s not a realistic place for the dining room to be. And again, shifting the kitchen slightly to make more space, one way or the other, is something I think you’d want to think about. And I want to see that you have the latitude to work that out. I think those are mostly layout issues, which I’m just pointing out, but they are things I think you’d be wise to consider. With that, what I’ve heard from the Board is that we’re concerned about the windows. We’d like to see perhaps more operable windows, and possibly on Unit C, more openness to the side yard there. I’ve heard us say that, at least one board member expressed concern City of Palo Alto Page 10 that the roof is too dark. I’ll share that, what Alex mentioned, that the shingles… I think they look lovely, but I don’t think they’ll pass the current CALGreen standards. You’re going to have to revise that anyway. I think the redder shingled one also may end up looking too bright orange, the orange and black one. There are some more muted tones that you can pick that will blend in better. And then, Grace brought up the question of the exterior lights, whether the light on Unit A was appropriate relative to the rest of the houses. And it is a bit disunite in its modern styling. The question to the board is, are we ready to put this forward completely, or do we want to have it come back on a subcommittee with those items? Does anybody have an opinion? Or would anybody like to make a motion? Unidentified: [inaudible] Chair Baltay: Yes, and if we make a motion, let’s get it… Where did Jodie go? We were going to… I’d like us to record what our motion is, so it’s written so we can see it. This is a simple one, so it’s not as important. Jodie Gerhardt will go the computer screen. Alex, are you going to take a stab at this? Board Member Lew: Well, can we do a quick poll of the Board? Chair Baltay: Sure. Okay. Board Member Lew: Is it subcommittee? Or do you want staff to review these items? Chair Baltay: What do we think about that? Board Member Hirsch: I think it’s subcommittee issues. Board Member Lee: I’d be fine with subcommittee. Chair Baltay: I actually believe it could be handled at the staff level, but I’m happy to go along with the subcommittee. What do you think, Alex? Board Member Lew: I was thinking staff level as well, but… Board Member Lee: Should we weigh in for Osma, who has been involved in the past two? Do you have a feeling if she would…? Board Member Lew: I think it’s fine [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: We need to get this done. Board Member Lee: Okay. And to be frank, I’m on the border, subcommittee or staff. I haven’t been involved in the last two. Board Member Hirsch: I’m on the border, too. Chair Baltay: Okay. Let’s take a stab at putting this to the staff level review, Alex. See if you can… Board Member Lew: Okay. Chair Baltay: … make a motion of approval, then, with that in it. MOTION Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we recommend approval of the project to the Planning Director, with the following items to return to staff for review: One is to consider operable windows in the upper floor bathrooms. Reconsider the light fixtures on Unit A, exterior light fixtures on Unit A. And, reconsider the colors of the roofs on Unit A and B. For A, it would be, maybe something more brown as City of Palo Alto Page 11 opposed to reddish-tan. I can’t really tell here. And then, for Unit B, something less black, with less solar heat gain. Chair Baltay: Do you want to second that? Board Member Hirsch: No, no, I’d like to amend it. Chair Baltay: Let’s wait. I’ll second that motion. David would like to make a friendly amendment. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Board Member Hirsch: Friendly amendment. I’d like to see some changes in Building C, the windows facing the side yard on both the bedroom level and the living room level, on the first floor. Chair Baltay: Let’s be more specific. When you say “changes,” what are we after? Because staff is going to be looking at this. More openness to the side yard? Board Member Hirsch: Larger windows in the side yard, especially on the first floor where it’s being used as a living room. And there are no windows in the kitchen area facing the back yard at all. So, significantly larger windows on that elevation, on the ground floor and the proportionately larger windows in the bedroom above. Chair Baltay: What she has written up there is: Provide larger windows on side yard. Is that too vague, David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Baltay: That’s okay? Board Member Hirsch: Uh-huh. Chair Baltay: Alex, how do you feel about that? Board Member Lew: I will accept that. I think I would just clarify street side. Board Member Hirsch: Street side. Okay. Board Member Lew: But I will accept the amendment. Chair Baltay: Okay, I’ll also go along with that. Any comments? Does anybody want to address that? Board Member Hirsch: No, just the window, description of the smaller windows facing the inner court, inner space between the buildings, more generally could be stated in some way that it’s, where feasible, create more cross-ventilation by making those operable windows. Chair Baltay: I think what we said is “consider operable windows,” so they have some latitude. Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible]. And in side yards. Chair Baltay: Everybody see that motion? Are we all set with that? Okay, so we’re ready to vote. All those in favor? Opposed? Okay, the motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road [19PLN-00291]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Address Specific Issues Raised by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for a Previously Approved Project that Includes Two Automobile Dealerships. The Prior Approval Through Conditions of Approval Required the Project to Come Back to the ARB to Address Issues Related to Color, Landscaping, Parapets, Lighting, Transportation Demand Management Plan, County Airport Land Use Commission Review; and Floor Area Ratio. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Adopted for the Project on June 24, 2019. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Chair Baltay: Okay. We’re going to move on to item number 3. It’s a public hearing, quasi-judicial, 1700 and 1730 Embarcadero Road. A recommendation on applicant's request for approval of a major architectural review to address specific issues raised by the Architectural Review Board for a previously approved project that includes two automobile dealerships. The prior approval through conditions of approval required the project to come back to the ARB to address issues related to color, landscaping, parapets, lighting, Transportation Demand Management Plan, County Airport Land Use Commission review; and floor area ratio. With that, I'd like to ask if anyone has any disclosures to make. Alex? Board Member Lew: No disclosures. Chair Baltay: I have visited the site recently. David? Board Member Hirsch: No disclosures. Chair Baltay: And Grace? Board Member Lee: I also visited the site. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Do we have a staff report on this project, please? Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Thank you. Sheldon Ah Sing, contract planner, here with a presentation. The applicant is also here with their presentation. They also have some larger material samples that they can share, as well. Just an overview. It’s an approximately five-acre site. It does include two separate parcels, one that has an existing former restaurant at 1700 Embarcadero. The other site is the existing Audi dealership, and that’s at 1730 Embarcadero. This request does include an architectural review. It’s a little bit unique because this project was seen before through a separate process, the site and architectural design, as well as a zoning amendment. That went through the Board, went through the Planning Commission, and also ultimately through the City Council this past June. At that time, the Council did adopt the CEQA document, and they approved the zone change. They approved a site design review with conditions of approval. Part of those conditions was to come back and file a separate architectural review application to be heard by this body. Those conditions, in general, are listed in the bullet points on the slide. The ones in bold are the ones that started off with the Board, at their last meeting, I believe it was in June. Or May. Those had to do with colors. The GL-2 parapet is a glass parapet that was inset into the top of the garage. We’ll go into more details about that. Trees, street trees, as well as trees on the property. There was a curb ramp at the corner that has to do with the convergence of the multiuse path with that intersection. The green screens on the building, trying to be more compatible with the Baylands, as well as the perimeter landscaping. The focus on that was at the carwash. The Council did add some additional conditions. Those are on the right side, and that has to do with the floor area ratio. There was some inconsistencies that were brought up. Wanted to make sure that those were fleshed out. And then, there was actually more details of lighting that they wanted to see the Board look at. The submittal of a Transportation Demand Management Plan. They wanted to have in the records the County Airport Land Use Commission documentation. And then, some additional context drawings added to the plans. Just a little bit of a site context here so we understand where we are. This is in the Baylands area. The most adjacent property actually touches the Baylands proper, would be the Audi site, so you can see the site City of Palo Alto Page 13 from the rear. It is near the freeway, US 101. It’s also near the golf course. It’s near the airport, and that’s what caused it to go to the Airport Commission. There are a number of offices in the area, as well as there is another car dealership, the Honda dealership that’s adjacent to Audi. And, of course, Embarcadero and Bayshore, the two kind of major roadways in that area. From the rear of the property, from the Baylands, you can see a little bit of the Audi site. This is just kind of in the context of what you’re seeing from the trail. I do want to start off a little bit about the context, just because I think sometimes we can get into the weeds of this project. It has been through many meetings in the past. But, typically for a car dealership, you see a smaller building that’s kind of the showroom, then they have a service building, and sometimes those roll-up doors are open, so noise can come out. You have a large surface lot with the merchandise on site. Sometimes you have a carwash that’s on the site; sometimes they have to go outside for it. I think this applicant has put together a project that internalizes those negative externalities. They have a 300-car stacker system for their merchandise. They use a parking garage as, kind of couples as also the service. So, all those things are kind of internalized, a lot of their traffic is internalized on-site instead of going off- site. The trade-off of that is we have a larger building that we have to contend with. It is in a different zoning district, so that’s something to consider. I just want to throw that out there, the context as we’re looking at the project. With the colors specifically – and I think the applicant will go into more detail on this – the comment was to adhere to the Baylands design guidelines, and more muted colors; use charcoal or rich brown. The applicant’s colors have been revised to include a more charcoal base, so you do you have the materials board there. I’ll let the applicant go more into that detail. The GL-2 parapet, the material should match the transparent quality shown in the plans and not be as opaque as the sample that was shown in the prior ARB meeting. What’s proposed is to have the parapet be a frosted glass panel that will be inset into the wall. I think the renderings do show that detail. The light fixtures are located on the solid parapet segments. They’re not located within the same segments as the glass parapets, so there would be some minimal light transmission through the frosted glass, and those are depicted in the photometric plans in the back of the packet. There are some down lights. They are located on the exterior, so when you look at the photometrics, you might notice that there is a light that kind of comes out, but that is actually the down light on the exterior of the building, not coming from the roof deck. Regarding the trees, there was comments to add more trees at the base of the building, to soften the Baylands roadside. Consider an alternative to the western redbuds. Along that side, there is a pretty big constraint. There is the PG&E transmission towers, so there are limitations on the vegetation that you can put in there. The limitation is 15 feet in height. That’s a good 80-foot easement there, and includes underground utilities as well. What we did get was that three ornamental trees at the base of the building was changed to shade trees. On the graphic there, you can see where that’s bubbled in. Those were actually smaller type of trees; now they are larger trees. The western redbuds are still shown underneath utilities. There are some alternatives that can be considered by the Board, and those are shown within the plans, and I can direct you to those if we get to that part. Also, the applicant is also proposing some off-site trees within the Baylands, adjacent to the Audi property. With the curb wrap at the corner, the comment was to work with Transportation staff regarding the transition at the intersection. The multiuse path, which is a new amenity, would confer to that intersection. There are some constraints there. This photograph shows a little bit of what’s going on. There’s utility poles, a manhole, other utility boxes, and some grade changes. The response from the applicant was they did identify some grading constraints. Our staff did review that and felt there could be a solution, not in time for this meeting, but we did put a condition of approval for the consideration that we would get this addressed later on. With respect to the green screen, the comment was to look at other solutions for the green screens. As you’ll remember, there was more, like louvers. It was maybe something that didn’t look as high-quality, or it would be hard to maintain, so what the applicant came up with for these green screens and… They’re modified to be more simple panels over larger areas. In the plans themselves, they do identify maintenance plans. We can pull those into conditions of approval to make it very clear, but those are in the plans as well. With respect to the perimeter landscaping, the comment was to provide a 10-foot setback along this carwash building, and the carwash building is detached in the rear of the Audi. And I think part of the concern there was with noise, part of it was maybe just the buffer between the building and the property line. There is a five-foot setback that’s there now. The applicant is proposing to add more vertical landscaping there. With respect to noise, that issue was addressed through mitigation and design. There are wing walls at either end of the carwash, as well as there will be automatic doors, so that when a car goes into the machine, doors come down, and the transmission noise is significantly reduced, to the point where it’s below the thresholds for significance. Some of these things, if the five foot is maintained, then they could maintain the circulation between the carwash and the building, City of Palo Alto Page 14 and that would allow for keeping the traffic off the street, for one thing. Keeping drop-offs and loading on site. Other than that, you would have to modify the main building to make that work, and that could be something, I guess, that could be brought up. With respect to lighting, it was to provide details, specifications of lighting, including security levels. Full photometric drawings are provided. And a lot of times, we see these photometric plans, they just show it as, kind of one-dimensional, and [inaudible] does show it at multiple levels, as well as, as mentioned previously, the lighting does show what would be shown from the roof deck, the parking on there, as well as off of the exterior of the building. And at the peak, when the business is in operation, the thresholds are met. And what’s proposed at nighttime security is that there will be a 50 percent drop-off in power. Therefore, it would still be compliant with the City’s codes. The condition from the Council was to include and submit a TDM plan that was… There was submitted a [inaudible] report. It was not an approved document. However, just within the last day, it was approved by the Office of Transportation. That’s something that’s not really dealt by the ARB’s purview, but something that we can follow up with staff as this project progresses. Since the project is within the influence of the Palo Alto airport, they did go to the County’s Airport Land Use Commission. They did receive their approval there, and we did get the documentation, so that has been satisfied. And then, there was a condition to provide more context drawings, and I think the applicant did provide more of those. Hopefully that is more clear, about the area and how the project is compatible and complements the surroundings. With respect to the floor area ratio, there was significant comment at the start of the Council hearing about the project’s floor area. As I mentioned, there is a unique component to this project. There is a 300-car automatic stacking system, and that’s kind of been a point of discussion from staff from the beginning, of how to address building floor area for this portion of the project. What we kind of concluded is that this is no different than, say, like a grocery store, or a Costco. The merchandise for them is cars. It’s just a larger type of merchandise than, say, a toothbrush, or something. So, you do have a high pile storage net area. We’re only counting the first floor of that space. The issue is that there is a cantilevered portion, and there’s about 2,000 square feet that was over the showroom space, so we had to count that portion. That’s the portion that was inconsistent. The applicant came back and provided… Well, if we counted that, then where were we with the floor area? And they were approximately 887 square feet over. At the time of writing the report, they didn’t have a solution. However, at this point, they do have a solution in their presentation, so they will show that to you. With respect to CEQA, the initial study, as I mentioned was adopted in June, and for its related project, it is consistent with that. There’s nothing more significant. There’s no new significance that would come about from this project. With that, we do recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Development Services, based on the findings and conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sheldon. Any questions of staff? Okay, then I do. Sheldon, could you explain, please, where are the larger trees being planted? There was quite a bit of discussion at the City Council level regarding removing the trees along Embarcadero, and then, ultimately replacing them with larger trees. Could you just walk us through, for the record, what large trees are being incorporated in this project now? Thank you. Mr. Sing: On the graphic that’s showing on the screen, there’s a bubbled area that shows the trees that are in front of the building. Those are the ones that have been added to the project, and that’s on sheet, in the plans, L-2. Board Member Lew: They are olive trees. Chair Baltay: Those are three olive trees. And how big are they expected to become when they reach maturity? Mr. Sing: We can have the landscape architect come up and describe it. Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Board Member Lew says 25 to 30 feet. Okay. Just wanted to get an answer on that. Any other questions of staff? Okay, if not, to the applicant, would you care to make a presentation? You will have 10 minutes to speak. If you could state and spell your name for the record, we’d really appreciate it. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Lyle Hutson, Architect: Good morning, Chairman, Board Members. My name is Lyle Hutson. [spells name] I am the architect for this project. Just a moment while we… Okay. Again, thank you very much for having us here. I see a new face, and some old faces. Welcome. Chair Baltay: We’re all smiling. Mr. Hutson: This project is coming to you again. We did, from the last time we met, I believe it was in May, we did go to the City Council, who… We had some very spirited discussions, and some outcomes. The fact that we’re here is attributed to the City Council wanting to make sure we do the best project we can with all the means available to us. And there are items that I think the City Council felt like they would be much better handled by your Board. Regardless, we’ll go through those, but I wanted to reintroduce you to the project just briefly. This is a combination. There is an existing Audi building on the corner… Excuse me, not on the corner, but next to this, that is existing. This proposed project is for Mercedes-Benz. The two are totally separate facilities. They are joined in the back, but they are owned by the same ownership group, yet they are two separate dealerships and will be treated as two separate addresses. To give a description of the site, I think Sheldon adequately indicated where this is. We don’t need to belabor where that is. The Audi building is really the one that is addressed right next to the Baylands area in the rear of that. Other than that, we are fronted on Embarcadero and on Bayshore. This slide basically shows the project as it’s designed, fitting into that site. There’s been a lot of discussion about the relationship between the neighboring buildings and where we are. We feel like we’re set back quite a ways from not only the Baylands, and from the adjacent buildings. And again, we have the 80-foot-plus easement on Bayshore that creates some other limitations, architecturally as well as from our site design, which have, for the most part, been worked through. We took very careful consideration in this with our design sensitivity. We looked at the floor area ratios as required, which we feel like we are now in compliance with the desires of city staff. The building mass, the height, is under what’s allowable for the area. We’re under 50 feet, which is the allowable for that zoning. Our landscape has been carefully crafted to accommodate the easement and the location. We do have a carwash that is part of this. We’ve been very sensitive to that, of keeping it in an area where it would not impact the Baylands. We’ve considered the noise requirements and the noise for adjacent neighbors with a screening wall and closing the doors, as has been described. Traffic and circulation is something that, we’re keeping cars off the street and circulating around the back. We have a circulation all around the building for fire and life safety access as well. Finally, the two things that we really delved into and utilized, not only staff but the community, is our Baylands transition, and how we approach adjusting our building, four-sided, five-sided architecture, in order to accommodate our green screens in relationship to the Baylands and the wildlife as it’s presented there. And, being able to begin community collaboratives, not only with the Audubon Society, as well as Parks & Recreation, regarding bicycles, bicycle rentals, paths, and things of that nature. The floor area ratio is something that we have been discussing from the very beginning of this project with staff, and we feel like we’re now at an area where we’re all comfortable with what we’re doing. The final proposal, as Sheldon indicated, was we were about 887 square feet short of hitting our goal. There was a request by staff to provide alternative floor area, even though it’s already been counted, but as an alternative to our stacking system that elevates itself over the second floor. So, our solution as proposed, and what was presented to staff, was this green area. You don’t have that in your package, but we are effectively eliminating two service stalls on the end of the building to reduce the square footage of, um, very close to 1,000 square feet of floor area on that building. The upper deck would maintain, the parking, the second level, maintains its area, but effectively reduces the floor area of our building by almost 1,000 square feet. I’ll let Sheldon go into the numbers if that’s needed, but we feel like we’ve addressed that to staff. The final slide here is another one that you do not have in your package, but it just shows our elevation of what that would look like from a massing standpoint if we were to do this. It wouldn’t change the elevation at all. It would just be recessed. The door would stay in the same location, the walls would stay just pushed back underneath the overhang of the building on the second level. Again, building mass. We’re stepping back. I think we’ve talked about this a number of times previous with the Board, that we’re trying to step back from Embarcadero to… excuse me… to… So that we don’t have the big two-story right on the face, on Embarcadero. Steps back to the higher area, which is still under the 50-foot height limit. The next slide is basically indicating that 50-foot height limit and where we are at. We’re at 20 feet at the street on Embarcadero, the lowest one, and then, that steps up to 31 feet as you go back up in our display stacking area. Landscape, you know, we are increasing our tree count from 80 trees that are on site now, to over 141 total trees on site. That also complies with the shade City of Palo Alto Page 16 coverage requirement from the City, as well as providing a Baylands buffer. We have layers of trees, not just on the property line that was requested by staff, but we increased and put other layers. And if you look at the Audi, the back of the Audi building where we have layers of trees before you actually get to the building. This project, very happily, includes a combined effort between the City and the dealership, with a multiuse path to combine, take away the sidewalk and actually have a pedestrian and bicycle path on the site, which did necessitate the removal of street trees. But I think the end result is going to be something that PG&E is going to be happier with, the height of the trees and the ability to have a multiuse path to better, again, have us be more respectful of the Baylands and the people that use this area. The multiuse path. As you can see, we have a section of what that would be. We’ve worked with City staff to come up with acceptable dimensions and grades in order to achieve this. The carwash has been something that we wanted to make sure that we addressed early on, and as you can see, we have a sound noise study that was done. We extended wing walls the full height of the building in order to buffer that noise, as well as landscape and trees in those areas in that five-foot setback. The request for the 10-foot setback is a bit difficult, in and of the fact that we need to have circulation, we need to provide fire truck around there, and we are still within the City setback of five feet. So, we’ve increased the number of trees and the shrubs on the back side, and I think that should alleviate any issues of seeing the building and hearing any noise from that. The lighting, we have an extremely exhaustive, very comprehensive lighting study that you can see, that we are very proud of, and I think we’ve come up with the ability to adjust lighting levels at times when the dealership is not open, to respect the Baylands and respect the neighbors. Finally, I’ll go through the Baylands. You’ve seen some of these slides previously. One thing, I don’t think… Chair Baltay: If you could take less than a minute to wrap up. Mr. Hutson: Yeah, I would like to go through our graphic images. I don’t know, these should be in your package, but we’ll walk through. This is the Audi building from Embarcadero. The Mercedes building, as you move down the street. This is with the trees in place. You’ll see that some of these have the trees shown, removed, or ghosted in, so that you can see the extent of what the building is without seeing the foliage in front of it. And you can see, there’s a perfect example of that. The corner, which we’ve shown with the trees ghosted, and with the permanent landscape as proposed. Our building as it’s proposed now. The trees. The Bayshore elevation with the green screens to the right, with the trees in place. The rear of the building, in the back next to the carwash, with the green screen and the glass parapet areas. This is finishing up. That’s our final context drawing with the building… Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Mr. Hutson: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Do we have any questions of the applicant? Very well. I’d like to open this meeting to public comments. Do we have anyone from the public who wishes to address this project? If you could please give a speaker card to the staff. Thank you. You will have three minutes. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Gemma Lim: Yes. My name is Gemma Lim [spells name]. I’m with Embarcadero Corporate Center. We’re a neighbor of 1700. And just a concern about the carwash currently. They are doing the car washing near our fence, so our tenant’s vehicles are always covered with dust. So, just wanted to, you know, make everybody aware. And, of course, the noise level of putting a carwash on their site. That’s it. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Do we have any other public comments? Seeing none, and having no more speaker cards, I’ll close the meeting from public comment. I’d like to get the applicant to come up and explain, if you could, more carefully, what is the proposed change to comply with the FAR regulations? If we could look at, maybe the ground floor plan for the Mercedes dealer. That’s Sheet ZA102, is what I’m looking at. My understanding is that you’d like to take the service bay projection of the building closest to Embarcadero and pull that back a little bit. Is that correct? Mr. Hutson: Bayshore. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Baltay: I’m sorry. Mr. Hutson: That elevation is on Bayshore. Chair Baltay: Yes, you’re not. Not Embarcadero. Bayshore. Mr. Hutson: Yeah. There are the last two stalls as, um, in your plan, would be removed, and the subsequent square footage removed from the overall calculation. Chair Baltay: What I really want to understand then is, just to the right of that entire service area is this staircase, and that forms that dark vertical element that goes quite tall with the Mercedes logo on it. Is that right? That’s what we’re seeing in this elevation on the right here, and this one in the center. Mr. Hutson: Yeah, the area that we’re removing is far to the right of that. Chair Baltay: And currently, the area projects beyond that and wraps onto it a little bit, and you’re proposing to push it behind that. Is that correct? Mr. Hutson: I guess I’m not understanding the question. Chair Baltay: I’m just trying to understand the relation of the… Mr. Sing: Maybe I could jump in a little bit. You’re speaking to the ground floor. So, the top part would actually cantilever over. On the screen here, that might help you a little bit. We don’t have the revised drawings, but it’s just the ground floor, which is the service that would actually [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: Oh, it’s just the ground level you’re going to pull back. Mr. Hutson: Just the ground level at those last two service bays would be removed. Chair Baltay: I see. Okay. All right. That answers the question, certainly. Mr. Hutson: I’m sorry. Chair Baltay: You don’t have any plans or drawings of that to show us at all? Mr. Hutson: That was given to staff as an alternative for them to review as a part of our ongoing communications with staff regarding this. Chair Baltay: Staff, do you have this drawing? Mr. Sing: What was presented in their presentation is what we have. There is no revised elevation. It’s just a… It was just, like, a green box over the area. That was it. Chair Baltay: When did you get that? Was that recent, or…? Mr. Sing: It was within the last couple of days. Chair Baltay: Okay. And for the record, I understand that you’ve mentioned this issue about the floor area to the applicant some time ago. Mr. Sing: Once the Council did adopt the record land use action, we were in conversations about how to address these issues, including floor area ratio. The applicant’s architect did fly up to meet us in our offices, and we did talk about this issue. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of the applicant or staff? City of Palo Alto Page 18 Mr. Hutson: Can I add to that just briefly, that we have been working with staff on that, and there was some additional areas that they requested us to add, which put us… We were underneath our allowable for the City Council submittal and the previous ARB submittals, but staff imposed some additional area that they wanted us to count in the floor area, so we had to propose solutions to accommodate that and bring us back in compliance. Chair Baltay: Okay, well, let’s see what the rest of the Board feels about that issue. Thank you very much. Alex, why don’t you start us off? Board Member Lew: Thank you for the revision. I’ve got a couple comments. One is on the screening for the carwash, you know, like, the coffee berry used as a native shrub. They are, like 10 by 10. I was thinking that we maybe should consider a substitute. On a lot of our other projects in town, the landscape architects have been specifying, like, a non-native version of that, which is the Italian buckthorn, which is a Rhamnus alaterns. That’s like five feet wide and maybe 15 feet high, and it seems to me that might be more appropriate for that space since you only have five or six feet. Also, you have a slope, you’re sloping down to the neighboring property and trying to screen the carwash, so that would give you a little bit more height, provide a little bit more screening to the neighbors. I did review the alternate trees that you proposed along east Bayshore, and some of them I’m not really familiar with because they’re, sort of like desert trees, and they’re not really native to our area. So, I can’t really say one way or the other if they are appropriate. Yeah, sure. Thank you. Ken Pucerelli: This is the… Board Member Lew: You need to use the microphone. Okay, so… Mr. Pucerelli: The olive tree is the one that is evergreen, and it is adjacent to the base of the building where we said we would add. One of the comments that ARB had in the past, particularly the past chair, was increasing the number of evergreen along there, and given the PG&E easement and some of the other constraints that I know you’re all well aware of, we had elected to put that non-fruit bearing olive adjacent to the base of the building as a layering effect, and having a larger tree at the base of the building. And then, the chaste tree, which you see, that has the purple flowers, that is, I call that almost like an umbrella type of a tree. Similar form to the redbud, but we’ve interspersed those in amongst the redbud so we would have a little plant diversity. And then, speaking with the City forester, who is also a landscape architect by happenstance, she really liked the redbud trees, but understood ARB’s desire to have diversity. So, she had no issue with that. Board Member Lew: I do support the olive tree addition to the project, and I do think you do need to have the fruitless ones because all of the olive trees here are infected with the fruit fly. Mr. Pucerelli: Right. Board Member Lew: It’s pretty awful, actually. Mr. Pucerelli: Yes. That’s why we selected the fruitless. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Thank you for that. And then, I do support, I think you’re specifying fairly large trees, like 36-inch box shiso. Mr. Pucerelli: That’s correct. Board Member Lew: So, even the [inaudible]. The western redbud is really small. That’s probably the largest size you can get for that. I would only propose one other additional option for those accent, those small trees, the [inaudible] trees, which is local. It’s a hybrid of a native plant that is local to the site, or at least to the peninsula. There’s a Ceanothus Ray Hartman, which is a utility-friendly tree, and it’s native to our costal foothills. I think the only downside of that is the ceanothus aren’t really that long-lived. I mean, it’s not a 100-year tree. It’s more like a 25-year tree. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Mr. Pucerelli: Is your suggestion to substitute, or just [crosstalk]? Board Member Lew: …add all of those into your alternates. Mr. Pucerelli: Okay. Board Member Lew: Because the reality is, like, you’ve got a lot of this… I forgot the quantity, but it’s a lot of [crosstalk]. Mr. Pucerelli: Sure. Board Member Lew: And you may not be able to get all of those for your project in time for occupancy. So, I’m giving you flexibility to mix and match as you need to, to get the building open. Mr. Pucerelli: We appreciate that. Board Member Lew: Because I’ve been shopping. They’re not all, especially with native plants, they may not be available at the time that you need them. Mr. Pucerelli: That’s true. And can you tell me the name of that again? Board Member Lew: Yeah. There’s Ceanothus Ray Hartman, and that’s widely available in our native plant nurseries in the Bay area. Mr. Pucerelli: Great. Board Member Lew: It’s local, unlike… So, on your alternate list, you’ve got the Texas mountain laurel, a thornless cascalote tree, a Mexican bush [inaudible] tree. I’ve never seen those, so I don’t know if they would do well here. I don’t have that level of experience. Mr. Pucerelli: Okay. Board Member Lew: I do support the change from green screen to the sage green life planted wall. Mr. Pucerelli: It’s actually a pretty cool technology. They integrate the drip irrigation system into the panels, and then they are fastened to the wall. It’s actually quite cool. I would have brought the sample with me, but it wouldn’t fit in my suitcase. Board Member Lew: Okay. I’m not familiar with that particular one, but we do have green planted facades in the Bay area, and in Silicon Valley, too. Okay, that’s all I have on the landscape. I think that’s fine. Then, just on the building, on the stucco, I think I would recommend stucco color 3. I would recommend something lighter than the jet black. I did attend the Council meeting for this, and there was something that was a little confusing, which was, there seems to be the question that, there was a question put to me as: Did the ARB review the lighting? And we had reviewed the lighting several times. And it may have been that the Council didn’t get the lighting in their package…? I’m not sure what that was about, but I just wanted to say that the lighting, I think it was very sophisticated photometrics and light renderings, and I do see that the drawings have been updated to remove the bollard lights that were originally along the path, I think before, they were in the renderings, but they were taken out of the plans. I know it’s something that Karen Holman [phonetic] had mentioned to me. But we did review the lighting previously, and I looked at the updated plans, and it looks good to me. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Grace, do you want to take us through? Board Member Lee: Thank you for the presentation. It’s quite a set. And I apologize, I missed the other hearings, and I appreciate the care in the summary report, and just how clear that presentation was on a pretty complex project. I want to thank the applicant for working so closely with council members who City of Palo Alto Page 20 have moved on, and new council members, and new ARB members, and old ARB members. This is a site that actually came back in, between somewhere in 2006-2011 as a hotel, as a different typology, a different site, and I just want to make a few remarks about the site. I appreciate the thought behind scale, and massing, and contrast, and texture, and thoughts in terms of how the landscape and the building begin to complement one another. The scale of the site is quite large. The setbacks are significant. I don’t really see any issues here in terms of some of these revisions that have been made. I do have a question regarding the floor area ratio, just because it’s a little bit unclear given there wasn’t a drawing in terms of this proposal, on the elevation. But like Alex, my colleague here, I do feel that the choices are all positive. I think that these are two trees on a very large horizontal plane. I appreciate the olive choice for just the wide spread. I’m a fan of the redbud. I’m not sure what that discussion was all about. I mean, I understand you want diversity, but I appreciate the chaste tree. I think that the carwash is… The program of the carwash, you know, I believe there was a community member that talked about, you know, just the neighbor. I did want to address that. It is challenging. There will be noise. The applicant here has made some efforts to mitigate. I don’t see an issue with the five feet. It seems to work I think as well as you can, given the site. To go back to just this floor area ratio issue, what I understand… And there wasn’t a slide, right? I did see a diagram that… Is there a chance that we could just take a look at that? And I would be interested to hear your comments. It seems that there’s an effort to remove, just to address this. I wasn’t sure if…? I mean, if we were going to move forward, how we might refer to this proposal. I just wanted to hear from the other Board members along those lines. Let’s see. Coffee berry, to me, seems fine. Alex, you had a comment on the, I wasn’t sure, when you said the choice of a shrub for that growth, you were open to the selection that has been presented here? Board Member Lew: I think my… Yeah. This is the plant that’s proposed, and it’s a very desirable native plant. It’s like 10 feet by 10 feet, and we’re trying to squeeze it in, in between a carwash and a fence, and there’s only, like, five or six feet. So, I was suggesting that they could go non-native. Board Member Lee: Oh, I see. Okay. Well… Board Member Lew: It’s a related species that also has berries, and it’s wildlife-friendly. Board Member Lee: I see. And for me, the height is important, and, you know, I think I’d be open to what is presented, or, you know, the comments already made by Board Member Lew. Lighting plan seems also to be, the study is full, and I am comfortable on that. And green screen, which was discussed also, don’t have comments. When there’s a mention of the colors, I was comfortable with the board that is presented here. Happy to discuss further if other Board members have comments. I can stop there. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. David? Board Member Hirsch: Thanks for the presentation. First, I want to just say that the building from the Mercedes symbol wall, elevator – whatever it is – that separates sort of one side of the building from the other, from that point over, everything seems just right for me. The scale steps down towards Embarcadero. The idea of the glass wall around all that mechanical car-moving thing is exciting. Will we see inside, to see actually cars moving from…? That should be really an exciting piece of work there. I wish there were some video that you could have shown us because it really will be quite the excitement of this building. And of course, the Mercedes is a beautifully designed car, so the way it’s shown in the showroom I think is going to be quite an exciting corner piece. Mr. Hutson: I’d just like to offer that there was a video – I don’t know if you have that – of the stacking system. We can certainly provide that, to view that. We did for the City Council, and we did for a previous ARB meeting, for how that works. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, okay. Mr. Hutson: I’ll see if I can do that. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Hirsch: Anyhow, I think all of the pieces from that corner forward, that Mercedes black wall with the symbol up above, and I really like the landscaping, and leave it up to my cohorts here, to their comments, because I’m not as strong as they are about landscaping. But I think it looks visually, to me, like it’s going to be quite beautiful at the corner. It softens the entire building appropriately. And, of course, getting all those cars inside like that is just an incredible, good thing here. It’s a very, very big facility, and the one part that really kind of worries me most is really the extension beyond the staircase. I would wish somehow that the back of the building was more a back of a building. My feeling is that, one way or another, the vertical element should make a distinction, and does make a distinction, except that the part beyond it with the cantilever now set back on the first floor, it just continues to mass around the corner. And I think that if it were possible to just bring that front wall forward somehow so it was a freestanding element without adding square footage and causing problems like that, you would make a distinction between those two parts of the building. Formally, I think that would be a good idea. I can’t get my hands around this, from that point on. It’s just such a big building, looking at it from this frontage street, you know? I don’t know if this is a bit late in the process to bring up something like that. Mr. Sing: If I can, just to speak to that point, to the Chair. With their proposed FAR change, if you look at the screen there, that represents the ground floor. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I understand. Mr. Sing: That would be moved inward. So, you would now have, the upper floor would be out. Board Member Hirsch: Right. Mr. Sing: I don’t know if that helps. [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: It’s the upper floor that’s also a problem. For me, anyhow. For me, that’s a problem. The only other area where I really find a problem formally with the building is just the kind of materials on the Baylands-facing side of the building. I think you’ve turned to a concrete panel up at the top of the building there. Is that correct? What am I looking at here? We’re not… Yeah, but that’s the other building. That’s not the back side. Let’s see if I can find the elevation we need to look at. Well, it’s part of ZA406. You know, what’s happened with the planting is terrific there. You know, you’ve simplified that. You haven’t made a special design out of it as you had previously, and I think it really works well to kind of keep that module moving like that. Every other bay is a planting bay, and it continues, and in between, and the railing up at the top works. But the panels that you’re showing there are vertical concrete panels, right above the black…? Mr. Hutson: The structure is concrete, but they are… [crosstalk] Mr. Hutson: … surface to match the other parts of the building. And then, again, as you can tell, the base of the building is darker. We’ve made it darker to bring the eye level of the building down. And then, of course, the integration of the translucent panels. And I did have a full-size sample of the glass here for you… Not a full size, but a larger size sample of the glass and the material panel, so you can really see what those materials are. I don’t have a larger sample of the EFIS plaster finish, but it’s a very tight sand textured finish. And then, of course, to lighten up the vertical aspect of the parapet is now full glass. That is translucent and not covered. I think that’s the biggest change that we made, is that previously to the Board, we had a wall panel that was really a… You know, provides a similar look, but this actually is open to the parking deck. It’s not intended to be able to see cars, or to see people, or anything like that, but there would be some movement, maybe some shadows, and certainly a bit of light transmission. That is the bird glass that we’ve proposed for the balance of the façade. Which, again, smaller samples are on that board, but we felt like… City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Hirsch: Right. Mr. Hutson: … previously, you asked for larger samples, so hopefully that maybe gives a little better indication. And the proposed metal panels, we changed from the glossy black and the white to a matte finish, which will be more respectful of, certainly, like the plaster finishes, and not as reflective as you might consider for, or might think of as a metal panel. Board Member Hirsch: I mean, I have a question for you. Why couldn’t you simply use the, in the horizontal areas there on that side that faces the Baylands, why couldn’t you use the ribbed metal panel? And tone down the whole look of that thing, that side? Mr. Hutson: I think we’ve had… This is our fourth time in front of the Board, and I, respectfully, we’ve had conflicting comments in previous… Which is fine, which is our interpretation of what the Board really wants to do without participating anymore. That necessitated the darker band. Originally, we didn’t have a dark band at the bottom, and we wanted… We tried not to accentuate the height of the building and bring the base down. That’s kind of a standard way of doing that. And we do have utilitary [phonetic] functions back there, as well. Not that the metal panel would be an inappropriate use, but from our standpoint, it feels like we would be applying something that wasn’t off… Not many people see that. We’re making gestures to the Baylands with the colors and the finishes, but not trying to embellish it for the purpose of just embellishing that. Not that it wouldn’t be something maybe we, is an option, but I can certainly appreciate, you know, the beautiful description of… You’ve described it very well, what your concern is. It’s just that maybe we’ve attempted to achieve the same thing in a different way. Board Member Hirsch: Huh. How to respond to you on that? I mean, I simply… I think it’s a significant piece of this building because the building is just so huge. Mr. Hutson: Can I ask a question, then? Chair Baltay: If you could please, let David finish. Why don’t you take a seat? Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: No, that’s… Okay. Chair Baltay: I want to hear what you think. Board Member Hirsch: I really feel that from the staircase, around the corner there, the mass of the building should be played down. I’m sorry that it couldn’t just be that the staircase would stay and that the rest of the building was moved back at that point, to make the turn around the corner formally and set it back. Because I think that, as I said before, I think from the staircase, forward, the building is really nicely scaled. And the stepping is excellent, and the openness, and the big glass corner, is really going to be the excitement of the building, both functionally inside, and outside. But I find a problem with a back corner, where the drive turns around that corner. And if the stair tower were pulled forward, even with a false wall, I think it would make a better relationship between the front of the building and the service area of the building. A distinction. And then, I think that minimizing the number of materials on the back wall, again, turning, because you have, facing Bayshore, I think you have a metal panel up above. Is that correct? Yeah, I think it is. In your elevation. Facing Bayshore, the upstairs portion that we were just discussing. Partially metal panel. Is it not? Chair Baltay: Okay, please answer the question. Mr. Hutson: Just to be clear, to the forward of the stair, or to the back of the stair? Because, yes, there is a metal panel forward of the stair towards Embarcadero on Bayshore. Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Mr. Hutson: That is correct. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Hirsch: But that doesn’t turn the corner and go back around the corner…? Mr. Hutson: From the stair, correct? Board Member Hirsch: Around the corner, in the back where the drive is. Mr. Hutson: No, it does not. Board Member Hirsch: That’s where I think there ought to be something that carries around that corner, and it ought to be somehow recessed, or whatever. Formally, I just find a problem with that. That’s my major objection, because everything else I think has been well thought out, including the materials selection board, you know, I think is a good one. And the contrast of materials is good, especially on the front of the staircase towards Embarcadero. With that comment, I’ll [crosstalk]. Mr. Sing: I’d like to interject, just to that point. On Sheet ZA203, I think that clarifies the materials that are used. To the point where they have the Mercedes symbol… Board Member Hirsch: Hold on. Mr. Sing: On that, yeah, on that lower drawing, it gets cut off, but then, the upper part shows what’s beyond that staircase. There you see the metal panels that are used on that section. That completes the entire Bayshore elevation. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Okay. Mr. Sing: They do wrap around, and that’s where you lose that metal material. Board Member Hirsch: Wrap around? I don’t see a wrap around. Chair Baltay: Okay, if we could… Let me chime in here, David. What I think you’re saying is correct, that the building could be better on that corner. We’re tasked by the City Council to address the issues on the motion they passed about this building, and in my opinion, that’s just not something they asked us to keep looking at. The building is large. It could be made smaller still in appearance. The Council was satisfied with it at this mass and appearance, and I think we need to honor that. I don’t think we can keep going around on that, as much as we want to, and that was our expectation. When I’m looking at the staff report on pages 113 and 114, there’s A through L of items that the Council has directed us to review. And not even us; some of these are staff things. But I think we really should be checking through that list and making sure that we’re satisfied with what’s been done here. I’d like to address my comments then along those lines, because as I come down, the first item was D – Direct staff and the ARB to better incorporate the Baylands Master Plan guidance, etc., and I think they have done that. The colors and textures are more muted, they’re not as shiny as before, and I think they look pretty good, actually. I think it’s a handsome building, and it does somehow, just the muting of the materials makes a difference. More than I thought it would. I support the use of the darker black color, actually. I think it’s handsome, and I think you could support that being in the Baylands. There’s nothing about it all having to be a light or a single hue. The next item that I’d like to address is E., about the trees. I have significant reservations, still. I also was at the Council meeting and listened pretty hard to what Council was saying, and I think they were looking for us to keep some sort of large street trees, or some trees with a presence, and I’m afraid that I just don’t see three olive trees up against the building on the far side really meeting that standard. I’m not sure what to go about it. I think a 36 box tree is big, but an olive tree somehow doesn’t ever, in my mind, doesn’t look like a big tree. It looks like a small tree, a garden tree, a tree along the fence kind of thing. So, I’m afraid I don’t think you’ve met that standard with this selection of trees. I’ve felt all along that we should be finding a way to keep those trees under the power lines. To remove those trees is a real shame, and we’re doing it just because we can’t find a way to get the pathway to work as well. I understand it’s complex, but in my opinion, we’ve never really explored that as hard as we could, to reach both. I think you have supplied the context drawings. I think the lighting is excellently done now. You’ve addressed our concerns about light spill-off. You’ve come up with a very sophisticated plan. You’ve documented and City of Palo Alto Page 24 shown it very well, and I really appreciate the effort you’ve taken to create lighting that functions for your business, but also respects the need to avoid light pollution into the Baylands. I commend you on that. Then, my biggest concern is regarding the FAR. I think that the FAR is how we measure the bulk of the building, and the Council, I believe, was clear, that yes, we’ll go along with this idea that these car stackers are merchandising devices and don’t count towards FAR, even though they, in this case, dramatically increase the appearance of bulk on the building. But nonetheless, I think the rational way the staff has come up to measure this is appropriate. And you’re over on it. What I’m seeing is that at the very last minute, a change being thrown at us that affects the way the building looks, in my mind. Kind of a big issue. And certainly one other Board member is concerned about this area of the building, feeling that it looks too bulky. The FAR is how we assess whether the building is bulky or not, and it may be that the solution you’re proposing to us is the right one. But without any more evidence or documentation of it… And it’s something that’s been so critical to this building. It’s all about the size of it. To throw this in at what I see as the very last minute just seems too much. I don’t see how we can support approval of that without a little bit more documentation, at least, and some thought. So, I don’t think you’ve met that standard of addressing the FAR discrepancies. It’s been an outstanding issue since the Council approved it, if not sooner. I just don’t see that being met right now. With that said, I guess I cannot support recommending approval of this project right now because, primarily, I’d like to see the FAR issues addressed. However, I’m not sure I’m in the majority on the Board here, so I’d like to see what everybody else thinks. Board Member Lee: Peter, just to ask the question, is there a way that we can, you know, explore how to move this application forward, given that, you know, the proposal, which we don’t have documentation for, sounds very promising, and might have great potential. Unfortunately, there wasn’t a drawing that was presented to the Board in our packet illustrating that proposal. I’m not sure if other Board members feel like it’s just simply not having that drawing in our packet to review as a hard copy is, is the issue. And then, to go back to the trees, I just wanted to see if Board members felt like, you know, the choice of those two trees, I wonder if it’s due to the slow growth and nature of that tree, knowing its full potential would go to, you know, 30, 35 feet with a spread of the same. Is it simply not having the drawing that would show that, that is compelling? It is a shade tree, it is evergreen, and I just wanted to get thoughts from the Board members, and discussion. Chair Baltay: Okay, those are fair points. So, regarding the requirement for documentation on the FAR, and then, how the shade trees look. Alex, do you want to chime in? Well, I can throw it to you, that to me, the issue on the trees, it’s more perceptual. Somehow, an olive tree is multi trunked, and it looks like a large shrub. It just doesn’t somehow look like a substantial tree. And I believe a number of council members were asking for that. That’s why I’m standing on that issue. It’s not really a matter of it being a 24, 36 inch box, or anything like that. I don’t know if that’s a deal breaker for me. I’m just trying hard to respect what the Council has asked us to do. Board Member Lee: Absolutely. Chair Baltay: I’ve had bigger issues with this building all along. I think it’s very large. But that’s been decided. Board Member Lee: Okay. I just, in my comments, I did refer to the multi stem actually as a positive in terms of, you know, mass and scale along the building. Also providing shade. It does take time for the tree to grow, but I did want to offer that the multi stem and the large tree canopy that essentially becomes very generous, and matches the height of the mature trees, is a plus in my mind. I don’t know if others have thoughts. Board Member Hirsch: I’d like to talk to that a little bit here. Chair Baltay: David, go ahead. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Hirsch: Just, regarding the tree, having looked at the photograph now, you’re sort of between Cilla [phonetic] and Teribdus [phonetic] here, right? You have a problem of the height of the wires. You have to do something below the wires, and it has to stay below the wires… Mr. Pucerelli: And you have utilities be next to me, running… Board Member Hirsch: Right. So, from what I see in the photograph here, there’s a mass to the tree. It spreads nicely. I’m not the expert, but I believe you’ve made a good selection here, and I don’t find it to be a significant problem. That it will sort of close up some of the lower area, and you can still look under it. There’s a thinness to the bottom, which in this case I think is kind of nice, because I like the building. I’m okay with that, just as a personal comment. Chair Baltay: Alex, what’s your take on the trees? Board Member Lew: Well, I think there are a couple things going on, right? Let me restate it. Wynne had an issue with the western redbuds lining East Bayshore, and it’s a very small tree, it can be a very slow- growing tree, and it looks like… They look like little twigs. They’re very pretty, and they are native to this area. They’re very attractive. I think her comment – and maybe from Councilmember DuBois – I think they were looking for something, some evergreen component, which I think you’ve tried to address. And then, I gave you another suggestion which is also evergreen, and that maybe that could help address the issue of the redbuds. With regard to the olive tree, I think that was also Wynne’s comment, was that she wanted something substantial against the building. And I think the olive tree does that. It’s evergreen. It can be pruned as needed to fit the site. I have a 100-year-old one in front of my house, and it doesn’t look like an accent tree at all. And I’ve seen them at the San Francisco garden show. One of the vendors comes in with a… You can buy, like, ancient, ancient ones. You can have instant landscaping of a full-size tree if you have enough money. I don’t know what else we would do. Right? You want a large evergreen tree. They’re typically big. They’re [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible]. Board Member Lew: We have a lot of magnolia grandifloras in town. You have more choices with deciduous trees than evergreen trees. And I think what would probably happen on the site, though, is that you would want the evergreen tree. You want more canopy space, typically, I would think, for a big shade tree. You might have a choice… You could have a… What is it? I’m trying to think of the name. There is an evergreen tree that we use here downtown. I’ll think of the name in a minute. Mr. Pucerelli: Okay. One thing I might point out to the Board is, from a pedestrian scale along Bayshore, is that tree is effectively a bit taller than me, and then, underneath that is ornamental grasses. So, effectively, from the pedestrian realm, you are screening that facility pretty heavily, particularly if you look at how closely spaced either the chaste tree or the redbud trees are shown on the drawings. Chair Baltay: Thank you. I really want to keep the conversation to the Board, please. Mr. Pucerelli: Sorry. Chair Baltay: You’ve had your chance to speak already. I’ll grant you guys that the trees are going to be okay. What Alex said makes sense. I believe we’ve given enough thoughts. To me, at least, the issue is really this FAR discrepancy and how we go forward on that. I would like to throw out that the last time we looked at this project, we came to the conclusion that we wanted to see it once more. The applicant was happy, and it didn’t come back to us. I’m not quite sure why, and that’s the way the process works, but I’m not sure I’m too sanguine about doing that again. I’d like to see a real concrete answer that we can vote on with confidence and give it a real stamp of approval. I don’t see that here. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, sorry. I changed locations on you. As far as coming back to a hearing, I think what happened last time is that we had had the three hearings, so we were asking for a fourth hearing, and that’s where the Director has the ability to step in and decide whether to have that fourth hearing, or not. City of Palo Alto Page 26 And that’s where the Director decided that the massing really was more of the Council’s purview, and that’s why it went forward to Council. As far as this new application, we’re on our first hearing, so we do have two additional hearings. And I do, on the screen here, I’ve typed up the different topics. I don’t know if we want to go through those, or how you’d like to move forward. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. I feel that the FAR issue needs to be addressed concretely and absolutely for us to really look at. I’d like to see what this looks like, this change to the building, stepping it back this much. And I think given Board Member Hirsch’s concerns about that corner of the building, these are quite legitimate concerns. I cannot support recommending approval right now for the project as it’s proposed. Rather than make a motion to that, though, I really want to see if we have consensus here. David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, that’s my concern, the corner of the building. The FAR, I suppose if you satisfied City Planning, that would satisfy me. But I’m concerned about the formal aspects of the corner and the return on the back wall. Chair Baltay: Grace, what’s your take on this issue? Board Member Lee: I do not have significant concerns regarding what the applicant has presented. I do see the issue of the FAR. Just simply having that drawing would be appropriate to be able to approve the applicant’s proposal. Chair Baltay: Alex, we’re doing sort of a straw poll here. I’m just trying to get your take on the FAR issue. Board Member Lew: Well, it seems to me something has to come back regarding that, to the Board. I don’t necessarily need to see a full set. I think that piece has to come back, somehow. Chair Baltay: Okay. Sounds like we’re all in agreement on that. Before we move forward on that issue, can I just be sure that we’re all okay with the carwash? There was a request for a 10-foot setback. As best I can tell, that came from the Architectural Review Board and not the City Council. And I believe that we’re satisfying the objective of the increased setback with the mechanics of the carwash, and if we can get the landscaping to really function, as Alex mentioned. Are we all in agreement on that? Board Member Lee: I agree. Chair Baltay: David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I think the DB level is the real issue here for the neighbors, and the plantings are sufficient. Chair Baltay: Alex, are you okay with a five-foot setback on this? Board Member Lew: I’m okay with the five-foot setback. And I think the issue with the neighbors is really, I think, addressed with the doors on the carwash. Chair Baltay: That’s right. Board Member Lew: For noise. And then, aesthetics, I think is the hedge. Chair Baltay: The landscaping. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Baltay: And you had proposed a different plant, or proposed having that taken [crosstalk]. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Board Member Lew: Just a related plant. Like, they’re proposing a coffee berry, Rhamnus Californica, and I was just proposing a different version of that plant, which is the Italian version of that same plant, which is a Rhamnus alaterns, which is narrower and taller. Chair Baltay: Okay. Board Member Lew: It will fit the space. MOTION Chair Baltay: I think we’re ready for a motion to continue. Why don’t I make the motion, Jodie, if we could? We’d like to continue this to a date uncertain, requesting that the design issues regarding bringing the building into compliance with the FAR regulations be addressed and presented to us. That’s item number J. on the City Council list of things. And then, we’d like to see the landscaping adjusted as comments made by Board Member Lew. Alex, can you give a more clear list of what those would be? Board Member Lew: Yeah, well, I think I’ve given those previously to the landscape architect, and those are only suggestions. I’m not telling you to specify those plants. You can specify alternates as well. I would just say, on principle, the carwash. I think that the plants should fit the space, because if you plant something that’s bigger, then it requires pruning, constant pruning, and that creates green waste, and we’re trying to reduce that. That’s with regards to the carwash. And then, I think my only… I guess to clarify on the, like, say, on the East Bayshore road, I do support the alternates. And then, I think maybe what could address some of the concerns of the trees is that there’s some evergreens and some of the western redbuds mixed together. I think at the moment, you’ve got all redbuds at the corner, and it may be too open for previous, based on previous councilmember, and also Board Member Furth’s comments on the redbuds. So, maybe consider an evergreen component in there. Chair Baltay: Okay, Alex, look on the screen there. Is that about what we’re looking at? Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, under the carwash, it’s taller, it’s narrower and taller. It’s like a supermodel. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, that’s my motion. Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Baltay: Okay, the motion is made and seconded. Do we have any discussion of that? No? Okay then, let’s take a vote on it. All those in favor, aye? Opposed? Okay, the motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Let’s take a five-minute break, and then we’ll be onto our third item. And I believe Grace is going to…? Board Member Lee: Yes, I will recuse myself due to my employment. Chair Baltay: Okay, well, thank you for your presence, Grace. [The Board took a short break.] 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [19PLN-00220]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Architectural Review Approval of Three New Bus Stops in the Public Rights- of-Way Located at 3380 Coyote Hill Road, 3223 Hanover Street and 1501 Page Mill Road and Surrounding Hardscape Improvements. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. City of Palo Alto Page 28 [Board Member Lee recused herself from this item.] Chair Baltay: We’re back in session. Thank you very much. We’d like to move on to item number 4, a public hearing, quasi-judicial, 250 Hamilton Avenue. It’s a recommendation on applicant’s request for architectural review approval of three new bus stops in the public rights-of-way located at 3380 Coyote Hill Road, 3223 Hanover Street and 1501 Page Mill Road and surrounding hardscape improvements. Do we have any disclosures to make? Board Member Lew: I visited the site on Tuesday. Chair Baltay: I’ll disclose I also visited the site and took a bunch of photos of existing bus stops, and went around quite a bit. David? Board Member Hirsch: I visited one of the sites today, early in the morning, and I thought I would never make it here in time if I visited all three. Chair Baltay: Okay, that’s great. Thanks, David. Do we have a staff report, please? Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner: Good morning, Chairman Baltay. My name is Garrett, I’m an associate planner with the City. This application is brought to us by Stanford. They are proposing to do a bus shelter design for the Stanford Research Park. What they are ideally proposing in this application is to create a standard that can be replicated at bus shelters within the Stanford Research Park. As part of that, some of the improvements that they would be doing would be: Bringing each of the sites of the bus shelter up to ADA standards. They would be also providing for photovoltaic panels on top of the roof to provide for the lighting that is going to be the under-lit lighting under the roof for the shelter, as well as providing waste containers to collect any trash or any sort of other debris that comes to the sites. There are quite a number of sites in this area, which is kind of the reason why this application is coming to you now. It’s comparable almost to a master sign program in the idea and concept, and if we are able to reach an approval for design, we can implement that at a staff level and not have to come back to any sort of board meeting for further sites, potentially even doing those applications as ones that are part of our new, over-the-counter architectural review process. The three sites, as were mentioned before, are at 3380 Coyote Hill Road, near 3323 Hanover Street, and near the Hanover side, the HP side, of 1501 Page Mill Road. These, as you can see in the presentation, are a couple photos of the existing sites, which have a mix of shelters or bus stops. Again, the proposal would effectively replace these stops to have full shelters that are meeting ADA and VTA standards. Again, with this new design, we have something that would possibly be, you know, providing for more consistency within at least the Stanford Research Park, and could provide guidance to help staff with making consistent designs for shelters throughout the city. The ADA and PV photovoltaic panel upgrades are something that are important, and definitely something that are needed for these sites where they don’t currently have those. The materials that they provided are a steel beam for the structure. The roof is also partially made of steel. They have roof wood soffits and an IPE treated wood that they’re using. They have a clear glass panel that you will also see in the drawings. All of these, staff considers as being of high quality in nature, and certainly ones that the City is supportive of towards the design. The issues that unfortunately we have are more so just the choice of color. When we look at this and look at the application, it presents to us a concern that this may be something that… This effectively brands the bus shelter towards a color that would be more recognizable to something of a Stanford color. It’s been indicated to staff by the City Manager that this is something that leads to what we commonly call a slippery slope, of branding something in the public right-of-way for a private entity. It could produce other possibilities for other applications where other organizations come in and do something similar, which currently City staff is not supportive of. Outside of that, the shelter design and everything that you see in the plans is something that the City is supportive of. We definitely want to have a bus shelter in these areas where they don’t currently exist, and have upgrades to these sites to make them compliant with ADA standards, and everything else. Our recommendation is to approve the project with a proposal to come back to subcommittee and discuss more in depth the color choice, or to make a recommendation to staff to approve the project with some other color choice, or leave it to staff to make that decision. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Chair Baltay: Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff? No? Okay, then we have 10 minutes for the applicant to make a presentation. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Jamie Jarvis: My name is Jamie Jarvis [spells name]. Thank you for having us here today. I’m the sustainable transportation director for Stanford Research Park. I’ve developed and managed the commuter transportation program for the Research Park for the past four years, and would like to spend a few minutes providing context for the project you’re going to see today. Stanford Research Park program is known as SRPGO, and provides comprehensive commuter services to 140 companies and approximately 29,000 employees in the Research Park. Core programs such as Guaranteed Ride Home and Points Rewards serve all commute modes and provides the framework for our program. Mode specific programs support bicycling, carpooling, van pooling, and transit. To support transit, SRP and our tenant companies purchase VTA smart passes that provide free fare on all VTA and Dumbarton express buses. We also provide free shuttles from the Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain stations, and we fill gaps in public transit service with SRPGO long-distance commuter buses. Our efforts have reduced solo driving by 10 percentage points over three years, and nearly doubled transit use from six percent to 11 percent. We’re very proud of these accomplishments and are committed to further increasing the use of commute alternatives. However, we feel the current state of the bus shelters throughout the Research Park limit our ability to increase transit use. We currently have a mishmash of aging and unattractive shelters, and some of our most well-used transit stops have no shelter. Our transit riders bake in the summer, get wet and windblown in the winter, and generally feel unprotected and unvalued throughout the year. On a more positive note, the Research Park is relatively well served by transit with four express routes from the South Bay and three local routes, all provided by VTA: The Dumbarton express bus from Union City/Barton/Freemont; two SRPGO long distance commuter buses, one from the Santana Row area of San Jose and the other from the west side of San Francisco; two Stanford Marguerite shuttles; two SRPGO Caltrain routes to California Avenue/Caltrain; and a lunchtime shuttle to California Avenue. Over 3,000 Research Park employees currently ride public transit, and we have good potential to further increase transit use. We believe attractive, functional bus shelters are key to attracting new transit riders. For this reason, we propose to install new, high-quality bus shelters at three locations along interior roads in the Research Park. These locations are along the primary transit route through the Research Park and within walking distance to work sites with thousands of potential riders. We believe the SRP bus shelter will support and encourage transit use, improve transit rider safety and comfort, provide a visual cue to promote SRPGO transportation programs, and become the preferred option for future shelter replacements and additions in Stanford Research Park. One of the biggest challenges we face in building participation in the SRPGO transportation program is that many employees don’t know they’re located in Stanford Research Park, and don’t realize that the buses and shuttles that they see going through the Research Park are actually available to them. Attractive, distinct and functional bus shelters will convey that the Research Park is well served by transit, and that transit riders are valued and supported. I appreciate you allowing me to provide this context for our project. At this time, I’d like to introduce Tyler Pew, who is founding principle at LMNOP Design. Tyler and his team specialize in creating eye-catching spaces that welcome users, and create a sense of place. They are the perfect partner for this project, and I’m excited to have Tyler present the site context and the design. Chair Baltay: Welcome, Tyler. If you could please state and spell your name. Tyler Pew: My name is Tyler Pew [spells name]. I’m the founding principle of LMNOP Design, a San Francisco-based design-build firm that focuses on a blend of public and private spaces. We are extremely excited to be a part of this project because of its lasting impact on the riders, as well as the community as a whole. Our unique experience with place-making parklets and San Francisco pavement-to-parks program made us well suited for this project. With core principles of supporting transit use, improving rider safety, providing visual codes to promote SRPGO programs, and becoming the preferred option, we have identified three initial sites. Each of these sites gives us a better understanding of the variations of existing conditions and future implementations. Site #1 is proposed to be located at Hillview Avenue, near Coyote Hill Road. This will replace an obsolete and unappealing shelter adjacent to the office building. The office building, you all reviewed last year. Site #2 is proposed to be located at Hanover Street near the Bol Park path entrance. At this site, the new shelter will replace an existing bus stop bench. It is adjacent to The Office, and The Office is a project you guys reviewed in 2017. Site #3 is proposed to be at Hanover Street, adjacent City of Palo Alto Page 30 to the HP entrance and across from Lockheed Martin’s advanced technology center. With the new shelter, this will replace an existing bus stop bench, again. With each of these sites, we hope to improve safety by increased visibility, lighting, and providing shelter for weather conditions. Overall, improving the rider experience, increasing ridership, and having a positive impact on environment. Both the design and the color palette of the bus shelter were inspired by Butler buildings. Butler buildings are both attractive and functional in industrial, agricultural and community settings. Weathered steel and strong form give the sense of shelter and gathering. Inspiration has been drawn from spaces such as Palo Alto’s own Junior Museum, which is currently under construction. With a glass footing, we sought to elicit the feeling of movement. The rolling mountains of Silicon Valley and the technology developed at Stanford Research Park. Through all of our conversations and precedent studies and site conditions, we sought to design a shelter that had a sense of place within the valley and the landscape. The Stanford Research Park bus shelter has been thoughtfully designed to look at homes in the three proposed locations, as well as future locations throughout the Research Park. Materials, scale and colors have been carefully selected to be appropriate within the natural, unbuilt environment. Steel structure, a key design feature, was selected to convey strength and simplicity. Wood on the ceiling as well as on the benches provide warmth and connection to nature around each of the sites. The back view highlights the glass panels, placed to provide protection from the wind and rain, and maintaining visibility for safety. The glass pattern was designed with inspiration from technology developed by Hewlett Packard, which mimics the rolling hills, yet another nod to the rich history and natural beauty of the sites. We’re especially excited about the linear LED lighting which will be placed in the ceiling, aligning them with the movement of the bus, increasing safety, and supporting the visual cues. Design intention is to create a shelter that is beautiful in both day and the evening, and protecting the rider from the weather. Power for the lighting will be provided by a four-panel PV array and enclosed battery bank, and intended to work for site locations that have partial shade. The shelter has been designed to be attractive from all sides, and highly functional for the users. The design also meets the VTA bus stops and passenger facility standards. The steel beams will be [inaudible], galvanized, and finished in a copper. The smaller supports finished in an off-white that complements the Ipe selected. The wood ceiling and bench will be of Ipe, with a natural finish. Glass treatment is created by two quarter-inch tempered glass panels with three layers of footing, each ensuring longevity of the panels. Thank you for this opportunity to present the Stanford Research Park bus shelter. We look forward to your questions and comments. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Do we have any questions of the applicant? Alex, a question? Board Member Lew: How is the structure attached to the foundation or sidewalk? And what happens on the slope site? I saw some of the other sites in the Research Park have, like, retaining walls around the bus shelters? Mr. Pew: That’s a great question. The site actually connects below grade with leveling concrete, basically, and gets bolted into place with plates on the steel. Steel gets put into the place, and then the ceiling and the benches, things like that, get attached. There is a concrete pad that gets put over it. Board Member Lew: The sidewalk is after…? Mr. Pew: Yeah, the sidewalk, we can accommodate for the elevation changes based on attaching below grade. And then, the concrete gets poured in afterwards. Board Member Lew: Afterwards. Mr. Pew: Yeah. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you. And then, on the Ipe, you said that you want a natural coat. Are you suggesting that it’s maintained at this color, or you think it’s going to weather to…? It naturally weathers to gray, right? Mr. Pew: Yeah, most certainly. We’ll put a coat on it to begin with, but eventually it will gray out. That’s an inevitability, unless we do a very heavy coat on it, which we’re not doing, basically. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Lew: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay. Board Member Lew: One other disclosure. I couldn’t read the lighting fixtures, so I actually downloaded them from the manufacturer, and I looked at the specs. I think they were proposing a 3,000 K temperature color for the LEDs. Chair Baltay: Okay, you’re just stating that for the record, then. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I did additional research because I couldn’t read the drawings. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. David, you have a question? Board Member Hirsch: The paving, sidewalk paving once you’ve completed your structural work, what is the intention there to distinguish it in some way at the bus stop? Or it will be just the same kind of paving as the sidewalk? Mr. Pew: We assumed it would be the same as the rest of the sidewalk. We haven’t looked at distinguishing that. Chair Baltay: If that’s all the questions, I’d like to open the meeting up to public comments. We have three speaker cards here. You’ll have three minutes to speak. The first one is Kailor Gordy, to be followed by Elizabeth Hughes. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Kailor Gordy: Hello. I am Kailor Gordy. I am a transportation manager at VMware. I manage employee mobility and commute programs there at VMware. As you may know, VMware is the largest employer in Stanford Research Park, with just below 5,000 employees located at the Palo Alto site. They are at the corner of Hillview and Foothill. VMware for years has offered a comprehensive commute alternatives program that supports the uptick of transit use and getting people out of single occupant vehicles. In addition, as mentioned earlier, VMware partners with Stanford Research Park on an array of items, but specifically on a couple gaps that exist in public transit by partnering on two long-distance commuter buses right now. And then, we know that one-third of VMware solo drivers have an interest in making the switch to public transit. It’s just something that we work on on a daily basis there at VMware. But, unfortunately, over half of the bus stops near the VMware campus don’t have a shelter, and the three that exist are different designs, which can be confusing to potential transit riders. So, we support the update and the maintenance of bright, attractive shelters, so that we can best encourage more transit riders because we know there is the desire there for those riders. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Elizabeth Hughes, to be followed by Herb Borock. Elizabeth Hughes: Thank you. I’m Elizabeth Hughes [spells name], and I’m the commute coordinator for Rubrik. Rubrik has moved into the Stanford Research Park in 2017 and now has two locations within the Stanford Research Park, and about 600 employees. Our commuter program is also quite robust, and we promote transit heavily as a sustainability initiative. Rubrik works diligently with SRPGO to help implement our commuter programs because it creates a value to our employees, and in the community as well. One of those key elements of our transportation program is the available transit resources and shuttle resources that SRPGO offers. Rubrik participates in the CalTrain Go Pass program and the VTA Smart Pass program, which enables our employees to ride transit services for free. In order to have a robust transit ridership, we have to have robust shuttle programs, and SRPGO provides those shuttles for our employees. Transit is actually one of the most well-used alternatives in our commuter program, with nearly 14 percent of our population on any given day who are transit riders. Our solo riders who drive alone are our candidate pool. We’ve got about 30 percent of those folks who say they are interested in transit, and we’re working with them on a daily basis to change behaviors and become transit riders. The shuttles that Stanford Research Park provides are a vital part of our transportation program, and having shuttle stops with shelters and those visual cues become defining elements for our transit riders and help us promote the program. It’s City of Palo Alto Page 32 really challenging to get people out of their cars, especially when it’s hot or when it’s cold and rainy and dark. Having a shelter is going to make a big difference, especially if the shelter has that visual cue with the bus and shuttle vehicles, so that they can be synergistic with the entire transit structure in Stanford Research Park. We definitely want to see this opportunity to be considered and really support it. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Herb Borock, to be followed by Evan Wakefield. Herb Borock: My name is spelled the same as it is on the card I just submitted. [spells name]. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Borock: In the past, we had staffs that were capable of getting that card to whoever is preparing the minutes. I arrived here because I recognized the address of the previous item, and I was interested in it. I notice that the address on this one is 250 Hamilton Avenue. And I don’t know how someone could figure out that something for 250 Hamilton Avenue has to do with the Stanford Research Park. It’s not just the color that’s important. It’s essentially that a private entity is appropriating part of the public right-of-way. If, you know, a contract of someone who wants the park in the public street for itself, where there is no parking normally, or there are parking hour limits, they’re supposed to pay a fee for the use of the street. But we’ve had the same problem with company buses as we’ve had with, you know, these internet- connected bicycles or scooters. People just appropriate the public way for themselves without paying for it. I think that’s an important thing. And yes, it’s nice to have bus shelters. I do ride the bus, other buses, and those of you who have the opportunity to ride the public buses know that while there are some bus shelters, for the most part, there are not shelters. That’s my concern of, what’s the real reason? Is it essentially saying that the park itself owns the right-of-way and it’s not dedicated for public use and just to themselves? And I agree with the comments that have been implied, which is it’s not believable that the employees don’t know that they have this option, and it’s not believable that the landowner and the companies that are leasing the space are not capable of telling the employees that this option exists. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Evan Wakefield. That’s the last speaker card we have here. Evan Wakefield: Hello. Evan Wakefield, [spells name]. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Wakefield: I am the environmental health and safety manager for HP. We’ve been there about 80 years, so we are the oldest company on the SRP lot. What is unfortunate is that the bus stop also looks like it’s 80 years old. It’s hard to get excited, I would say, about bus shelters, and lighting, and stuff like that, especially with my employees. We have about 2,000 there on campus. But this does excite me, and we are… I speak for the whole entire company of HP that we are in direct support of this bus shelter. We have a bench right now. I cannot convince my employees to use alternative commute methods by sitting on a bench when it’s raining. It’s winter season. It kind of gets warm here in the summer. But we are in direct support of this shelter. Currently, we partner with SRPGO to do free VTA passes, which is a struggle. I’m a one-man team there. I leverage SRPGO to help me with programs, with anything I can to offset cars coming into the lot. It’s a great benefit to have this partnership, to have this synergy, and just to have an option to have a shelter like this, we are in great support. And not only will it benefit my company, HP, which is the direct bus stop in, I believe, proposal number three, but also Lockheed Martin is across the street, that would also benefit from it. Again, we are in direct support for this. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Okay. With that, we’ll close the public hearing. To the applicant, you have an opportunity, but not a requirement, to address or to rebut anything that’s been said right now. Do you have any wish to address those comments? Okay, nodding your head no. We’ll bring it back to the board. Do we have any further questions? I’d like to have the staff, I guess, just fill me in a little bit on, are these just three one-off bus stops, or is this the beginning of a larger program of bus stops being done? That’s one question. The second is, who’s really paying for and maintaining these? What’s the backstory on that? If you could address those two issues. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Mr. Sauls: Okay. Yeah, these three sites that you see are individual as part of this application, but it would be, again, like I said before that, it would create a standard that we could apply to other shelters, to answer your first question. To your second question, it is worth pointing out that Stanford is working with VTA to build the shelters and maintain them. There is a third-party agreement that Stanford has with VTA Real Estate to maintain those shelters. The design of them is intended that they would be for, the lifespan for the structures would be roughly about 20 years or so. Chair Baltay: Who…? I missed it. Who is paying for these? Mr. Sauls: Stanford. Chair Baltay: Stanford University is the landowner, and they are the ones paying for these bus stops? Mr. Sauls: Correct. Yes. Chair Baltay: And there is some sort of maintenance agreement. They are also maintaining these bus stops. Mr. Sauls: Correct. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Is that the end of the questions? Thoughts? Okay, let’s bring it back to the Board. Who wants to take a first stab? Alex, are you able to go ahead? Board Member Lew: I think this is a great opportunity. When I look at a lot of the sites at the Research Park for other ARB projects, I have noticed lots of employees waiting out on the sidewalk, and it’s really not very hospitable. Especially VMware, and also on, I think it’s Hillview or Hanover – I forgot exactly which street it is. I think there’s also more work that we need to do, like, on some of the streets that don’t have sidewalks. I think we still need to keep on working on that as projects go through. There are definitely missing sidewalks in the Research Park. We’ve been filling them in as projects come through. On the shelter design, I think it’s generally very handsome. I think I have concern, which is, with the Ipe, I think you’re going to get different kinds of weathering on the trash can versus the soffit, versus the bench. And I think my thought is maybe that the soffit is probably fine, the bench may be okay. The trash I think is going to get really dirty and filthy, and I think that may be a maintenance issue, so I’m wondering if there’s another option for that. The clear, like, having some sort of clear seal or oil on wood looks great initially, and it fades pretty dramatically and has a very short life span. The more clear finish that you use, the less UV resistant it is, so that’s a major concern that I have with a natural finish. And that’s come up before on previous ARB projects that have wanted to use a natural color wood. The staff has concerns about the color and the branding and color and stuff, and I’m not sure I agree. I think if it were, if this copper color were bright red, I guess I would agree. I’m not sure that I see it at this point. And I think, in a way, I think, from what I understand for, like, bus rapid transit, when they build a bus rapid transit station, and people know it’s there, that’s the station, they actually get higher usage because people understand it. And when you just put a bench out there and there’s a bus stop sign, people don’t really see it. I think having an identity is an important component of this. I’m okay if it’s a little bit different than the existing shelters. And I think the other issue is that the existing shelters are such an eclectic mix of things. There are so many of them that I think it’s okay to have something distinctive, and then, to ultimately get rid of all the existing other shelters. That’s all that I have. I think my main concern will be, from looking at the other sites, is the retaining, the really sloped sites and the retaining walls, and I think the design you have, I guess I’m concerned that it may not be able to work on really steep, sloped sites. If you’ve already figured that out and it works, then it’s okay, but I guess that’s my main concern, is how, if the Board isn’t going to look at this, then who is going to look at the retaining walls. I learned the hard way, working on very steep, sloped sites in Seattle, not to trust civil engineers when they do their retaining walls. Usually it’s just on a little chart, it’s a graphic table, and it’s not done aesthetically whatsoever. That would be my main concern going forward. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. David. City of Palo Alto Page 34 Board Member Hirsch: Well, I certainly don’t have any questions about the idea here, is to provide shelter to a system that’s hopefully going to be working better, and be able to service people who don’t need to use their car. It can get them out of the car and get around without the cars. Good idea to attract them to a shelter like this. But the actual, physical shelter bothers me quite a lot. You look at your color photo here and it’s a pretty dark scene of a solid roof and heavy steel members, and contrasting elements between the steel members and the whiteness of it. To me, it’s not an attractive structure. This morning, I took a look at the one I could get close to, and it required me, because I got on the street the wrong way and ended up turning right, I think, on Hanover, and going into the Varian parking lot there on my way around, and I found a beautifully-shaped shelter next to the Varian building, and thought, well, why isn’t that possible here? This is an area where we have fantastic engineering and capability to do things with steel in other ways. If you look at your sample that you showed us of a Butler building, the nice part of it was that it was a Butler frame, and it was all open at the top. But this doesn’t give you that feeling at all. I think there’s a conflict here also because you really want to provide lighting, but you then have to make a solid roof because you have a solar collector on the top of it. If you built some kind of structure, your imagination that cantilevered, so, let’s say, the solar collectors in another direction, and left the roof more glassy, I think you’d have a much more beautiful structure here. I think there’s an opportunity for transparency and light that you’re missing in the shelter. It’s just way too solid feeling. I would like to see something that you could say, “Well, this really could work all over, and it will be exciting.” You know, the Stanford Park is really pretty amazing. They’re building unusual buildings there that are really beautifully designed, with a lot of really incredible detailing and proportions and materials. I think that you’ve got a bigger opportunity here to do something that could really be extended throughout a system, and that we would all be proud of in some way. I’d like to see it different than what you’re showing here. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Well, I will echo David’s comments. Unfortunately, I think the design is not there yet. But, let me start by saying, I think we all support the concept of having bus stops and them being functional, and protective, and all this stuff is really important. But I’d like to suggest that, I’m concerned. These are three new bus stops going into a mélange of different styles of bus stops in the area, and it seems to me that without some sense that you really are going through a program of replacing all of them, we’re just making the situation dramatically worse by having a few knockoffs that are different, and then, to be debating whether the color of these few should matter. I think we really should have a program for all the bus stops, some sort of firm… Like we would do a sign program. Just one design. This is the standard, and then, how you detail with the deviations, like the retaining wall at the back, or a slope. And not try to come to us with specific locations and say, “This is what we want to do,” but rather let the architecture board help define what the overall look is, what the design is, and then make it an over-the- counter type approval so you don’t have to go through the trouble of coming to a review board for each one. Right now, what I’m really afraid is that we see three, and this may be the end of this project. Unfortunately, we see that kind of thing happen a lot. And then, we’ve actually made the situation a lot worse because what we’ve heard from the public speaking is that branding and image and identity is important. And I believe that’s the case. Driving around the Research Park, it’s really hard to know which one is a bus stop that I’m welcome at, and having a consistent design and style is important. I can go with a variation of the color. It doesn’t have to be bus stop blue. It probably shouldn’t be cardinal red. But I could see it being something consistent to the Research Park being appropriate. And I could see that being a decision that’s ultimately a politically level thing, perhaps made by a planning director, not by the review board. We can tell you which colors are good for the designs, and there’s quite a variety of colors. I would like to see this as an application with a single design that can be used in many places, that we’ve now established as the standard throughout the Research Park. So, that said, I think your basic design idea is just not quite right. The concept of a Butler building just doesn’t feel right to me. It doesn’t look sheltering somehow, and the heavy metal frame doesn’t feel right. And I think your design in particular is lacking some of the detailing of how, for example, the white vertical post meets the angled metal frame there is probably some sort of metal bracket with a few bolts. But you’re in an area with exceptionally high-quality architecture. Everywhere you go, the new buildings are really beautifully done by very good architects, and a lot of effort put into them. And I find it a real lost opportunity not to make a dramatic, wonderful, new kind of bus stop. Maybe David’s right; if you had a photovoltaic panel that was also transparent on the roof. A few architects have come in with designs like that, so it’s not just another technical thing on top, but it’s integrated into the design interestingly. That’s just an idea I throw out. But I’m afraid I just see this design as a mix of little pieces, that maybe the footed glass with the hills is a nice idea, but somehow, City of Palo Alto Page 35 they’re just panels bolted to a piece of steel with another aluminum or steel channel. It’s not doing it for me. The design just really isn’t there yet. I can see where you took a concept and wanted to run with it, and I guess I feel that the concept just isn’t quite appropriate for a bus stop. I don’t know. It doesn’t… I guess I just don’t like the look of those steel frames. Most of the bus stops out there have some sense that they’re offering shelter, and I’m not sure I see that with this one. I guess what I feel is that we should be fussy on getting the design right once, and then, back out of the process. That’s how I feel we should go with this. I think that the design just needs more work. Let me echo Alex’s comments about the Ipe, too. I think that’s really going to be a poor choice. Over time, the Ipe will turn silver, but it also, when you put your hands on it, it can splinter a little bit. It’s probably not the best thing for a bench that’s not being maintained. I would think you could find some modern composite product that’s really bulletproof on the maintenance, that also gives you the look you’re after. But as beautiful as the sample is here, which is one of the nicest materials out there like this, it won’t be like this six weeks after you finish it. That’s how fast the finishes fade, especially on something like a trash can. There’s lots of other ideas. Just look around at what the architects have done on some of the buildings nearby and pick up those cues. I’m afraid I just don’t see the design being of a high aesthetic quality, which is what we have to find. Any other comments from the Board? Board Member Lew: I think you have to clarify what you’re looking… What are you looking for if you don’t like the proposed concept? I think it has to be more clear than just a translucent roof. Chair Baltay: Fair enough. You want to take a stab at that, David? Board Member Hirsch: No, I just want to say that I think you’ve stated it pretty well, and you added some elements to it that I didn’t address. I agree about the comment about wood. I’ve used Ipe, and it isn’t the same. It won’t really last properly, and I don’t think… Most areas where you will have extensive use of a material like that, you’d really turn to some other alternative that could be maintained permanently. And the idea of sort of a transparent voltaic, if there were something like that out there, would certainly be wonderful. I’m not sure you can technically find something like that. And I think systemwide, if you have an opportunity here, this is a chance for you to design something that really is going to be throughout the whole Research Park. And I think that could be a terrific opportunity to do more. I would think it would be an exciting challenge for you to come up with other alternatives, and shape metal differently. You know, you’re living with the idea of a Butler building frame, but you have all kinds of opportunities to work with metal that you can bend and weld and make a shape out of that would be more appropriate here. These are pretty heavy structures, looking, you know? And they look like they could hold up much more than what you’re really holding up here. And the contrast is really not attractive to me, between the white and the metal color here. It would be nice to do something that, color-wise, etc., graphic-wise, you can say is useful everywhere. But there are many different ways of doing this. For example, what if you were more free with the elements so you didn’t have to put the sign right there on the, as part of the bus stop itself? You know, it was a free-floating element, just like the garbage container is. So that you had different elements you worked within the landscape. These are mostly on open roads next to landscaped background, so you really have an open palette to work with here. I think you really deserve it, to do something more out of this as a shape, as an element, as a transparent, solid combination. You know, you go to Google and see what else is happening out there. It seemed to me there were other opportunities that you could take advantage of here. Maybe they aren’t quite as heavy in structure, but would function just fine in the environment you’re living with. You know, I notice that you have some very good illustrations in the book of some of the neighboring areas and buildings that you’re going to be near with these particular bus shelters. Each of those drawings shows buildings which themselves have canopies and elements on top of them that are lighter weight, and very attractive. I think those are something you could guide by in some way, that that would be more appropriate to the neighboring structures in the Research Park. Chair Baltay: I share David’s sentiments. What he’s saying, I support. I’m struggling to find ways to put to words some of these concepts. I want to give you clear direction where to go, and I’m not sure if we’re doing that. Maybe you can tell me what you’ve heard. Please come to the microphone, yes. Mr. Pew: I deeply appreciate the comments, especially in a public setting in which there’s going to be multiple context. How do you derive an architecture or a form that actually gives a sense of place and gives City of Palo Alto Page 36 a moment, right? That actually identifies it separate from the building, right? Our struggle really was a struggle between deep constraints around us, which is part of the design process itself. And constraints being around technological constraints, maintenance and future constraints. An example of that is all of the glass ceiling ones that are light, really light-feeling shelters that exist with glass or a transparent ceiling, but actually really hard to maintain, including San Francisco with the semi-translucent. They’re actually really maintenance-heavy, so, working with our client to identify, okay, how do we create low-maintenance that kind of stands alone, on its own? That speaks a little bit to the translucent, the transparency. To the form itself, there is, when we researched and developed it from forms, we were looking at something that actually had, almost a nostalgic. Like, it stuck in people’s head, and they knew the form of the building itself. The structure is heavy. It is. Absolutely. I agree with you 100 percent. And it’s also engineered, so, this is what it would take to build it, is basically what we’re saying, with the roof line, the PV’s that are attached to it. With regards to darkness, I think our windows definitely show a dark, harsh line underneath of it. I think with the grain out of the material over time, that will help with lightening the space as a whole. And then, with regards to the signage, placing the sign, or different configurations of that, what we did, we looked at a configuration that had the signage completely out. And what it actually felt like, it was disjointed. It actually didn’t feel like a moment, so to speak. It felt like two separate responses. Ipe, definitely interested and intrigued in other materiality with that. Ipe is something we’ve used and very comfortable with it. Kevanee [phonetic] is another interest. I know there’s a lot of questions around sustainability, too, with Ipe, so I’m open to those options. I think materiality is making sure that it feels wood and natural, is going to be really important. There’s a lot of composite products out there that feel like a composite product, so we have to feel like it stays within that natural feeling. Chair Baltay: Let me try to throw out a couple of thoughts. I don’t want to belabor this too much, but if you look at, page 1.6 has a recent building we worked on. I think of it as the butterfly building. There’s a real lightness to the way those roofs are treated, even the ones that are solid material. Across on Hanover is another building, we don’t have an image of it here, but what I’m saying is, I think if you look to the surrounding architecture in that area, I think what you’ll find is your concept of a Butler building is the wrong inspiration. It’s not really what’s going on there. And I would encourage you instead to think of some sort of high-tech architecture more, and try to look that way for inspiration. Then I think your design skills will take you the rest of the way. I think this is not a failure of design. What we’re looking at is just a concept that, it’s just too heavy, and perhaps too simple at the same time. If you just drive around for half an hour, look at the other buildings, and see if something turns you on, I bet you’ll… Mr. Pew: Can I ask you a question? Chair Baltay: Sure, please. Mr. Pew: In response to this building on 1.6, it’s a stunning building that is very high tech. The Research Park also consists of buildings that are not this, that have been here for a very long time. So, balancing, I definitely hear you. It’s an interesting challenge that we’ve chosen to endeavor on, that everyone has an opinion on, that’s for sure. So, yeah. And placing it in context of a beautiful, high-tech building, it makes sense to be high-tech and pulling inspiration from there, and placing it from some of the other buildings built in the 60’s, and even 70’s, throughout there. There’s a diversity of architecture in there, so how diverse architecture and landscape, that’s been the challenge that we’ve faced. Chair Baltay: What I’ve heard today is how important it is to attract, encourage, to make these exciting, new. What I think that is, is, for a lot of people, this high-tech, new stuff, you kind of want to go into these buildings. I don’t really want to go into the old HP buildings. No offense to whoever is here from HP, but I really want to go into this new building. I just want to see what it’s like. If you make the bus stop with that attraction, you’re taking us into the next century of stuff. And that’s sort of… I’m trying to put a finger on it. That’s sort of what I see going on. Mr. Pew: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: I kind of second that feeling, you know, the high-tech feeling I think would be more appropriate. After all, most of these buildings now are being built this way. Yes, you can look back and City of Palo Alto Page 37 think about wonderful things that happened in the 30’s, you know, and so on, but I don’t think you need to go there. This is a forward-thinking program here for this. They don’t build solid buses anymore, either. More glassy. I think you should look to the future here, a bit more than you are. Accommodating the past. Chair Baltay: Alex, do you have anything to add? Board Member Lew: No, I just want to comment, I do support the proposed design, but I don’t disagree with any of David’s comments. That was in the back of my head, too, when I was looking at it. You know, the steel is heavy, the colors are contrast, you know, they’re very high contrast. Anyway, if you guys come up with a motion, I very well may support it. Chair Baltay: Let’s be clear then, that the staff had concerns – and one member of the public did – about the color, whether it should match the bus stop, or if it could be closer to a Stanford color. I think I’ve heard that the Board is ambivalent, or if not in favor, of allowing you to choose what color you think is best. Is that a fair statement? I want to put it out there clearly, so we have that issue to rest. David, are you okay with the color? Board Member Hirsch: With this color? Chair Baltay: A color that’s not the color of the rest of the bus stops in the community. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I mean, I think whatever it is, it should look like it belongs on every busy stop, then. Chair Baltay: And how close to Stanford’s colors are you comfortable with? Does that matter to you, even? If it were cardinal red. The color of a football helmet of a Stanford player. Board Member Hirsch: You know, if Stanford feels strongly about that, they’re paying for it… I’m not so strong about that. I think it should be a color that looks like it belongs with what you’re putting there. If it turns out to be more of a high-tech kind of buildings that we’re looking at, that have those kind of floating roof lines, are not that color, they’re… To look at the one on page 1.6, they’re all metallic-looking. I don’t think that’s a bad idea, to have it consistently a metallic color. A reference color to Stanford’s color? Nice on a football jersey, not important here. Chair Baltay: Alex, what’s your take on that? Board Member Lew: My main concern is if it were, like, red and white, it may look like it’s exclusively for the Marguerite shuttle and not for all other options that are out there. I think also, I was looking at some of the sites, are very much in the landscape, and I think that the colors should be, should go with the landscape as well. I think the inspiration is more [inaudible], then I would support that. I realize it’s a copper, like Duranar finish, and not Corten. I guess in my mind, the issue really is the contrast of the two colors. It’s the copper and the off-white. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, we’re in support that the color, the color should complement and integrate with the design, and the color should support the overall goal of encouraging ridership. I think that’s the position of the architectural board on the colors. MOTION Chair Baltay: Shall I make a motion that we continue this project to a date uncertain? With revisions to the design style, per the comments we’ve made? I don’t see how we’d write that down. Considering… What do we have? Board Member Hirsch: You know, I just wanted to reiterate what I was saying before. You have a series of elements here – garbage collection, the shelter itself, the seating within it – and you’ve tried to kind of put them all together with a roof and a solar collector. I just feel that you can pull it apart as well, you City of Palo Alto Page 38 know, because it could be more free-floating, mural like. If you want to use an analogy to a, kind of an artist whose work is out there, and exciting, within the landscape. I think that it’s not always a good idea to put all these things together. I think there are some very beautiful-looking, simple containers for the graphics that aren’t really tied right to the shelter itself. You have the space on the sidewalk to do these things. The same is true of a garbage collection. It could be an element free-floating within the landscape. That would make it more interesting, in my opinion. And it doesn’t have to be all incorporated within itself like this. Chair Baltay: If we could add to the motion here, a change to the second one that says, “transparent roof.” Can we make that less absolute, David, and say, “consider lighter roof elements?” How do you feel about that? Board Member Hirsch: [off microphone, inaudible] Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s say consider lighter or transparent roof. How’s that? That seems to meet the point. Okay. And then, I think, Jodie, if we could remove the statement, “details are important.” That doesn’t need to be in a motion. Lastly, can I add…? This is to staff. Can we request that this be made into some kind of a sign program type thing, where we just have a single design, and not have it be site-specific? Is that possible? Ms. Gerhardt: I think the application as it stands right now is for these three locations, but we are proposing in the conditions of approval that as new locations come in, that staff would look at those and use the same design. Whatever is approved. Chair Baltay: Okay, well, I guess it’s up to you, how you see you need to treat and process that. Okay, with that, that’s my motion. Is there a second? Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Any discussion of that? If not, all those in favor, aye. Opposed? Okay, the motion carries 3- 0. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Let’s take a five minute break and Board Member Lee back here. [The Board took a short break.] [Board Member Lee returned to the chamber.] Chair Baltay: Okay, moving right along, we’re back in session. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2019. Chair Baltay: Next item is approval of minutes from October 17th. Do we have any comments or feedback? I can thank the staff for including a report on the two subcommittee items. I’m happy with those. Board Member Lew: Yes, thank you. Chair Baltay: Any other input, feedback, comments? If not, can I collect a motion? David, are you following us? Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible, off-microphone] City of Palo Alto Page 39 Chair Baltay: Tab number 5. Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we approve minutes for October 17th and November 7th, 2019. Chair Baltay: Oh, you’re jumping ahead of me, Alex. Board Member Lew: Okay, I’ll just do one. October 17th. Chair Baltay: One please, thank you. Okay. Motion is made. Anybody want to second? Board Member Lee: I can second. Chair Baltay: Okay. David, any comments on that? All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Okay, the motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 2019. Chair Baltay: Next one is minutes from November 7th. Any comments? Board Member Lee: I have just one comment. First page, it says, “Board Member Lee: I will not be here on the 19th.” I checked with Osma; it was Board Member Thompson who said, “I will not be here on the 19th.” Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s get that corrected. I’ll note that we have the subcommittee review report that we asked for, and again, that looks good. Any other comments? A motion, please? Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we approve the minutes for November 7, 2019. Board Member Lee: I can second. Chair Baltay: Moved and seconded. All those in favor, aye? Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 7. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Chair Baltay: Our next item is board member questions, comments or announcements, and Board Member Lew is going to give us a report on the North of Ventura Coordinated Area policy, working group update. Alex. Board Member Lew: Two things have happened recently. One was the City Council voted against approving additional services for the project. That had delayed the project for about five months last year. The additional services were to do an additional option, additional alternative that would be studied under the environmental review process, and also historic, doing the historic report, which was actually already done. There are going to be some modifications to the process that have not been decided yet. There’s going to be some cutbacks to the consultants. The staff may do some more of the work. The creek naturalization study I think is, my understanding is it’s funded separately. The City is also working on the Boulware Park Master Plan, and that’s separate but connected, tied into the North Ventura plan. That’s the Council’s action. The committee met on Thursday, December 5th, to review three options that would be studied in the future. The first was to retain the building. The second option would be to just retain two or three pieces of the building, but then build around all the other parts of the site. The third option was removing all of the City of Palo Alto Page 40 building, and also looking at more of the sites in the neighborhood that aren’t on the Fry’s property. We did group exercises around those three, and those three studies are being refined and will be continued at the next meeting, which is Tuesday, January 21st. There was a lot of input on the three, they were all over the place. But that’s the basic idea for the three schemes. We’ll see if we have to cut down to two schemes, or not. Board Member Hirsch: Just a question on the properties that they’re talking about looking at, that are other properties there. Are they additional properties on Lambert and Ash, at the corner? There are two or three buildings on Ash as it turns the corner there, which were not part of the original property. Is that going to be…? Board Member Lew: Well, okay, City Council set a boundary for the area, so Ash is included. On Lambert the City Council has only included one side of the street. Board Member Hirsch: On Lambert, yeah. Board Member Lew: On Lambert. Only one side. Board Member Hirsch: The other side is the AT&T building. Board Member Lew: Right. Board Member Hirsch: And the guitar place at the other end, yeah. Board Member Lew: Yeah, right. That would not be included. Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: And really, maybe you would do a little more… Alex, you’re so good at the research piece here. I thought that there were several buildings along Ash, at the west end of the property, that are not part of the original. Go take a look and see. Board Member Lew: You’re saying ownership? They’re always part of the study area, but they’re not part of… [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: There’s study area, and then there’s ownership, and those are different. Board Member Hirsch: Correct. Okay, thank you. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Any other comments, thoughts, questions of Alex? Grace, any thoughts on this? Board Member Lee: Thanks for the update. Chair Baltay: Yeah, thank you, Alex. Board Member Lew: I think we’ll have to pay attention to the schedule because the schedule will change for this project. The Planning staff has been setting up the meetings going forward, but it looks like it’s going to be changing. Board Member Hirsch: Does it go back to the consultant at some point, to start working up the scheme? What is the plan for the future? Board Member Lew: Consultants are working on the schemes now. They’ve started, they’ve restarted, yes. City of Palo Alto Page 41 Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I have another question. Does it, you know… I wrote up something, right? Did they actually present it? Board Member Lew: They printed up your letter, so that was all part of the… It was not part of the packet, but it was all printed for all the community members. But there was actually low turnout at the last meeting, so I’m not sure everybody… I’m not sure that the whole committee read your letter. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, so, it seems to me, generally thinking about projects like this, that it’s going to have to be some kind of a mix between retail or office building of some sort. Was that included? In other words, does the program involve…? Board Member Lew: There was a lot of discussion about how much office to include and where to put it. That was a hot topic. Board Member Hirsch: Hot topic? Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: In a positive way, or…? Board Member Lew: Good and bad, yes. I would encourage you to attend the next meeting so you can chime in on mixed use. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Okay. Will do. Chair Baltay: Anybody else? Okay, with that, we’re done with that item, and I think our meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Happy holidays. Adjournment Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10963) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 1/16/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Market Plaza Subcommittee Title: 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00129]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project that was Conditioned to Return with Project Changes Related to the Landscape Plan, Corner Markers for Outdoor Market/Seating Areas, Site-Plan Circulation Shown to Maintain 8 Foot Clearances, Facade Wooden Slats Details, Bicycle Rack Specifications, and Bollard Details. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). 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) Subcommittee confirm the project revisions satisfy the six items of the Planning and Development Services (PDS) Director’s Project Approval Condition #6. Background On September 12, 2019 the PDS Director conditionally approved the subject project. At the ARB’s recommendation, the PDS Director imposed Condition of Approval #6, requiring certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee. A video recording of the ARB’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://bit.ly/180ECRmpv. The ARB is encouraged to confirm that the proposed project changes satisfy Approval Condition #6. Below are the six items of Condition of Approval #6 requiring ARB Subcommittee review: a. The landscape plan for the project area. b. Corner markers for the outdoor market/seating areas that are artfully installed within the Market Plaza. City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 c. The site-plan circulation shown to maintain an eight-foot clearance is maintained within the Market Plaza area walkways. d. The wooden slats details for the facades. e. Bicycle rack specifications and details. f. Bollard details and photometrics if illuminated. The Applicant’s responses to the above six items are provided in the same order below: Item a, landscape plan: • Sheet A103 & A400 – The planting variety is reflected on the Hardscape/Landscape plan, with four intended planting types. The specified plants are a mix of Hakonechloa grass – all gold, purple heuchera, succulents, and purple sage. Plant Type Native/Non- Native Suitable Habitat Water Usage Hakonechloa Grass Non-Native No Medium Huechera Native No Medium Succulents Mixture No Low to Medium Purple Sage Mixture Yes Low to Medium • Note that the Succulents and Purple Sage selections must be native species; staff directed the applicant to provide updated sheets for the ARB Subcommittee review. Item b, corner markers: • Sheet A103 - Brass corner markers are indicated at the outer extremities of Sigona’s patio area and are to be embedded in the concrete Item c, site plan circulation: • Sheet A102 - An eight-foot-wide clear path indicated as the extents of the blue arrow graphic and noted accordingly on the plan Item d, wooden slat details: • Sheet A600 – Wooden slat details are provided in a revised detail indicating “Knotwood” is utilized to create a wood slat look with the use of lightweight aluminum product Item e, bike rack specifications: • Sheet A103 & A800 - Three bike racks have been added for a total of six bike spaces. Item f, bollard details and photometrics: • Sheet A102, A800, & ES100 - A note has been added to indicate all bollards are existing to remain, all internally illuminated. Specifications are added on Sheet A800 as City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 reference only. The illumination from the bollards is accommodated in the photometric study. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Applicant Response Letter (PDF) • Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org www.ghadesign.com | 409 East Jefferson Avenue  6th Floor  Detroit, Michigan  48226 | 248.374.2360 November 18, 2019 Dear ARB Subcommittee: Below is a response to the subcommittee comments received for the renovation work at the Market District at Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, California. These are in response to the approved ARB package dated 09/05/2019. SHEET A102 1. Provide 8 foot clear path circulation a. An eight foot wide clear path indicated as the extents of the blue arrow graphic and noted accordingly on the plan 2. Bollard details – photometrics if needed a. A note has been added to indicate all bollards are existing to remain, all internally illuminated. Specifications are added on Sheet A800 as reference only. The illumination from the bollards is accommodated in the photometric study. SHEET A103 1. Corner markers for the outdoor market/seating areas that are artfully installed within the Market Plaza. a. Brass corner markers are indicated at the outer extremities of Sigona’s patio area and are to be embedded in the concrete 2. Show new bicycle racks over near Schaub’s (lower left corner). Plan may need to be expanded slightly to capture add five racks. a. Three bike racks have been added for a total of six bike spaces. Any additional need to address potential non-compliance issues concerning the number and/or location of bike racks within the Shopping Center are currently being reviewed as part of the Macy's Men's Redevelopment Project. If changes and/or additions are required to said bike racks, then they are to be addressed/coordinated via that project directly. 3. Show existing aluminum bench seating near Schaub’s a. Aluminum bench has been added and noted as existing. 4. Add note pointing to PLT-02 plants shown for reference only. Do we know what will be planted in the specific planters? If so reference. If a mix of the proposed species, please reference on the plan and in the formal response letter. a. Note has been added to PLT-02 as reference only. The specified plants are a mix of hakonechloa grass – all gold, purple heuchera, succulents, and purple sage. 5. Under each proposed species, indicate if it is or is not native, also indicate it is low water use. a. Planting variety has been included on the Hardscape/Landscape plan to include the four intended planting types: i. Hakonechloa Grass - All Gold • Medium water usage and is native to Japan ii. Huechera Market District, Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto Response Letter Simon Property Group Page 2 of 2 __________ GH+A Design JG • Medium water usage and is native to Southeastern USA iii. Succulents • Low to medium water usage and includes native and non-native species iv. Purple Sage • Low to medium water usage and includes native and non-native species 6. Update bollards call-outs to indicate which are illuminated or which are simply a post. a. All bollards are existing to remain, all internally illuminated. Specifications are added on Sheet A800 as reference only. The illumination from the bollards is accommodated in the photometric study. 7. Note tree grate lighting to be adjusted to provide smooth transition where provided (typ.). a. Note has been added, all tree grates are ADA and high-heel compliant including location of light wells. SHEET A400 1. Update various elevations to show location of planters w/ plant material. a. Elevations have been updated to indicate free standing planters with specified plant material graphically. SHEET A600 1. Wood slat details a. A revised detail and product (Knotwood) is utilized to create a wood slat look with the use of a lightweight aluminum product. See additional product information in supplied booklet. SHEET A800 1. Note tree grate lighting to be adjusted to provide smooth transition where provided. a. Note has been added, all tree grates are ADA and high-heel compliant including location of light wells. 2. Add illuminated bollard detail (existing). a. All bollards are existing to remain, all internally illuminated. Specifications are added as reference only. The illumination from the bollards is accommodated in the photometric study. 3. Bicycle rack specifications and details a. Three bike racks have been added for a total of six bike spaces. All other bike racks are existing to remain, specifications are added as reference only. Any additional need to address potential non-compliance issues concerning the number and/or location of bike racks within the Shopping Center are currently being reviewed as part of the Macy's Men's Redevelopment Project. If changes and/or additions are required to said bike racks, then they are to be addressed/coordinated via that project directly. SHEET ES100 1. Photometric plan to include bollards if illuminated a. The photometric plan has been updated to include the existing integrated illuminated bollards Attachment B Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Subcommittee members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “180 El Camino Real (Market Plaza)” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4675&Targetid=319